The Historical Writings of Joseph of Rosheim: Leader of Jewry in Early Modern Germany (Studies in European Judaism)

The Historical Writings of Joseph of Rosheim Studies in European Judaism Editor GIUSEPPE VELTRI University of Halle-W...

Author: Chava Fraenke-Goldschmidt | Adam Shear | Naomi Schendowich

397 downloads 1000 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

The Historical Writings of Joseph of Rosheim

Studies in European Judaism Editor GIUSEPPE VELTRI University of Halle-Wittenberg Leopold Zunz Centre for the Study of European Judaism

Advisory Board Bruno Chiesa (University of Turin) Rachel Elior (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Alessandro Guetta (INALCO, Paris) Eleazar Gutwirth (Tel Aviv University) Moshe Idel (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Hanna Liss (Hochschule für Jüdische Studien, Heidelberg) Paul Mendes-Flohr (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Reinier Munk (Universiteit Leiden) David Ruderman (University of Pennsylvania) Peter Schäfer (Princeton University and Free University of Berlin) Stefan Schreiner (University of Tübingen) Jonathan Webber (University of Birmingham) Israel Yuval (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Moshe Zuckermann (Tel Aviv University)

VOLUME 12

The Historical Writings of Joseph of Rosheim Leader of Jewry in Early Modern Germany

Edited with an Introduction, Commentary, and Translations by

Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt Translated from the Hebrew by

Naomi Schendowich English Edition Edited and an Afterword by

Adam Shear

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2006

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Joseph ben Gershon, of Rosheim, ca. 1478–1554. [Selections. English. 2006] The historical writings of Joseph of Rosheim : leader of Jewry in early modern Germany / edited with an introduction, commentary, and translations by Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt; translated from the Hebrew by Naomi Schendowich; English edition edited and an afterword by Adam Shear. p. cm. — (Studies in European Judaism, ISSN 1568-5004; v. 12) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN-13: 978-90-04-15349-3 ISBN-10: 90-04-15349-7 1. Jews—Germany—History—16th century. 2. Joseph ben Gershon, of Rosheim, ca. 1478–1554. 3. Christianity and other religions—Judaism. 4. Judaism— Relations—Christianity. I. Fraenkel-Goldschmidt, Chava, d. 1995. II. Shear, Adam. III. Title. DS135.G31J6713 2006 943'.004924—dc22 2006049125

ISSN 1568-5004 ISBN-10 90 04 15349 7 ISBN-13 978 90 04 15349 3 © Copyright 2006 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers, Martinus Nijhoﬀ Publishers, and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS

Preface by Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt .................................. Translator’s Note by Naomi Schendowich .............................. Abbreviations and Short Titles .................................................. General Introduction R. Joseph of Rosheim—His Life .......................................... R. Joseph’s Era ...................................................................... The Legal Status of the Jews in Germany in the Sixteenth Century .............................................................. R. Joseph’s Defence of Jewish Interests in Governmental Circles ........................................................ R. Joseph’s Chronicle and Historiographical Approach .... R. Joseph’s Other Historical Writings .................................. Introduction to Speciﬁc Sections of the Chronicle [1] 5231 (1470/71)—The Endingen Aﬀair ........................ [2] 5236–5237 (1475–1477)—The Burgundy War and the Incursion of the Swiss Army .......................... [3] 5263–5265 (1503–1505)—The War of the Bavarian Succession ...................................................... [4, 7, 10] 5266–5267, 5275, 5282 (1505–1507, 1514/15, 1521/22)—The Oberehnheim Aﬀair ............................ [5] 5270 (1509/10): R. Joseph’s Oﬃce .............................. The Brandenburg Aﬀair .................. The Pfeﬀerkorn Aﬀair ...................... [6] 5274 (1513/14)—The Mittelbergheim Aﬀair .............. [7] 5275 (1514/15)—The Threat of Expulsion from the Bishopric of Strasbourg and the Region of Andlau ............................................................................ [8] 5279 (1518/19)—The Expulsion from Regensburg and Dangolsheim .......................................................... [9] 5280 (1519/20)—The New Emperor .......................... [10] 5282 (1521/22)—The Diet of Nuremberg .................. [11] 5285 (1524/25)—The Peasants War ............................

ix xi xiii

1 3 10 14 39 56

57 67 76 81 91 103 113 118

119 121 127 130 137

vi

contents [12] 5288 (1527/28)—The Events in the Hagenau Region ............................................................................ [13] 5289 (1528/29)—The Pösing Martyrs ........................ [14] 5290 (1529/30)—The Jews and the Turks .................. [15] 5290 (1529/30)—The Diet of Augsburg ...................... [16] 5291 (1530/31)—The Brabant Aﬀair .......................... [17] 5292 (1531/32)—The Regensburg Diet of 1532 and the Solomon Molcho Aﬀair .................................. [18] 5293 (1532/33)—The Silesia Libel .............................. [19] 5293–5295 (1532–1535)—The North African War .... [20] 5294 (1533/34)—The Prague Aﬀair ............................ [21] 5296 (1535/36)—“Talebearing and Bad Men” .......... [22] 5297 (1536/37)—The Expulsion from Saxony .......... [23] 5301 (1540/41)—The 1541 Diet and the Expulsion from Naples .................................................................... [24] 5301 (1540/41)—The Tittingen Libel .......................... [25] 5302 (1541/42)—The Expulsion from Prague ............ [26] 5304 (1543/44)—The Würzburg Libel ........................ [27] 5305 (1544/45): The Diet of Worms .......................... The Expulsion from Esslingen ........ The Expulsion from Landau ............ The Territories of the Archbishop of Mainz ........................................ [28–29] 5306–5307 (1545–1547)—The 1546 Diet and the Schmalkaldic War ..........................................................

151 154 172 176 184 187 199 213 219 231 232 239 244 249 256 264 272 278 281 284

The Chronicle ............................................................................ 303 The Letter of Consolation Historical Background ............................................................ R. Joseph and the Letter of Consolation ............................ The Letter of Consolation: Text .......................................... The Letter of Consolation: Translation ................................

340 350 357 363

Appendices Appendix 1a The 1530 Economic Document: Text ............ 377 An Abridged Translation .................................................. 383

contents Appendix 1b The 1536 Economic Document: Introduction ............................................................................ Text ...................................................................................... An Abridged Translation .................................................. Appendix 2 Letter to the Strasbourg City Council, July 1543: Introduction .......................................................... Text ...................................................................................... Translation .......................................................................... Appendix 3 A Hebrew Fragment About the Events of 1551–1552: Introduction ........................................................ Translation ..........................................................................

vii

388 390 394 398 400 408 418 420

Afterword by Adam Shear ........................................................ 424 Index of Persons ........................................................................ 431 Index of Places .......................................................................... 436 Index of Subjects ........................................................................ 440

PREFACE

The preparation of this book began in 1974, and the late Professor Haim-Hillel Ben Sasson guided the project in its early stages. The research was conducted under the auspices of the Ben-Zion Dinur Institute for Research in Jewish History, and the book was intended for inclusion in its ﬁrst series of publications. However, the work took longer than expected, as most of the sources and a large portion of the critical literature were located in archives and libraries outside Israel. To overcome this problem, I was awarded a grant by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), which enabled me to spend three months in Germany visiting archives and libraries. However, this period did not suﬃce, and I took advantage of every private visit abroad to assemble the necessary material. I was also assisted by a modest grant from The Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture. In order to continue the research here in Israel, it was necessary to obtain microﬁlms from foreign archives, and for this I received the greatest possible help from the Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People.* Of particular assistance were its director, the late Dr. Daniel J. Cohen, who ordered photocopies and microﬁlms for me from the Government Archives in Vienna, and Professor Simon Schwarzfuchs, who used his connections with the archives in Strasbourg and other Alsatian cities to enable me to obtain material from them. The Central Archives also bore the costs of all these copies. However, during the course of the research it became clear that the documents, ordered according to lists that were insuﬃciently detailed, were inadequate and lacked the requisite information, and again it was necessary to visit the archives and examine the ﬁles themselves. All this delayed the work considerably, and the research also had to be updated in accordance with the latest publications that had meanwhile appeared on various subjects. However the general plan of the book did not change substantially. * {Microﬁlms and copies of documents as well as other material consulted by Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt during the preparation of this book are now preserved in these Archives in Jerusalem. Translator}

x

preface

With the conclusion of this study, I would like to thank Ms. Ruth Toeg and Ms. Liora Herzig who style-edited the book and made valuable comments. Mr. Yaacov Guggenheim kindly read the entire manuscript and contributed from his abundant knowledge to clarify various problems and iron out mistakes. My husband and all my children in an act of true kindness assisted me in the completion of the book and the preparation of the indexes. My son Moshe Fraenkel prepared the entire book on the computer and designed the format to give the work an attractive appearance. To all my family I would like to express my deepest gratitude. Finally, I would like to thank the Ben-Zion Dinur Institute for patiently and sympathetically following the progress of this work and the Magnes Press for graciously agreeing to publish it under its auspices. This book is dedicated to the researchers of R. Joseph of Rosheim who preceded me, to whom I owe so much, whose “bread I have eaten and water I have drunk”, and, above all, to Dr. Ludwig Feilchenfeld, who broke new ground in his research on this subject, but did not live to see the fruit of his labours.* Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt

With God’s help, Adar I 5755 (February 1995) The author died on 10 Adar II 5755 (12 March 1995), about a month after completing the preface to this book. Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt of blessed memory was a dedicated scholar who pioneered a new path of research with great ability and expertise. The originality of her research, her familiarity with the historical sources and proﬁciency in several languages was of great beneﬁt to us also in her work for the project Germania Judaica of the Dinur Institute. But above all we miss her modesty, her humility, and her extremely pleasant personality. The Dinur Institute * The author is referring to words (in German) printed on the last page of Feilchenfeld’s book, Rabbi Josel von Rosheim, Strasbourg 1898, “The learned author was taken suddenly from his family, his profession and the world of historical research while reading the ﬁnal proofs. May his memory be honoured”.

TRANSLATOR’S NOTE

I became acquainted with Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt because of the friendship between two remarkable men—my paternal grandfather, Hermann Schwab, and her father, Ernst Daniel Goldschmidt. It is hardly surprising that these two highly intelligent and charming personalities were drawn to each other. Hermann Schwab was a journalist and distinguished historical writer, whose books on the history of German Jewry are still basic to research on the subject. Dr. Daniel Goldschmidt was a classical philologist and one of the greatest scholars of Jewish liturgy. From her father, and, among others, from the distinguished historian, Yitzhak F. Baer, whose student she was, Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt acquired specialized scholarly skills, and, as we see here, she put them to excellent use to decipher and interpret Joseph of Rosheim’s writings. Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt was a gifted and dedicated scholar and educator, and a specialist in the ﬁeld of early modern German Jewish history, but above all else she was a ﬁne person. After her untimely passing, I decided to translate into English this book, her last, feeling it was the best way I could perpetuate her memory. Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt chose as the subject of her research the great sixteenth-century leader and spokesman of the Jews in German lands, Joseph of Rosheim. And it is possible that quite unconsciously she admired also those qualities in him that most resembled her own. R. Joseph’s modesty and humility shine through his writings, as indeed they did in her own personality. I have tried my utmost to do justice to her work. I would like to express my gratitude in the ﬁrst place to Professor Yona Fraenkel and the family of the late Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt. I am extremely grateful to my husband Bezalel and my sons, Moshe, Daniel and Chaim, for their patience and assistance at all times. My friend Soraya Tirosh gave me valuable advice for which she has my warmest thanks. I am particularly indebted to Adam Shear, who edited the text and gave many helpful suggestions. Any deﬁciencies that remain are my own. Dr. Shear has updated the bibliography with references to scholarly work that has appeared since 1995. His afterword is a stimulating contribution to the ongoing discussion concerning

xii

translator’s note

R. Joseph and his writings. Finally, I would like to thank Magnes Press for granting permission to publish the English translation, and Brill Academic Publishers, and especially the editor of their series Studies in European Judaism, Professor Guiseppe Veltri, for kindly agreeing to publish the translation under their auspices. In the text that follows, Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt’s comments or clariﬁcations are in parentheses or in square brackets; my own are in cursive brackets. Notes and comments by Adam Shear are found in cursive brackets as well and signed “AS”. For the translation into English of the Chronicle, I was guided by Ms. FraenkelGoldschmidt’s commentary on the text. I have also consulted, with caution, the English edition of Selma Stern’s Josel of Rosheim (translated by Gertrude Hirschler), which contains extracts from the Chronicle, and am indebted to this source for certain phrases and expressions. Naomi Schendowich

January 2006 (Tevet 5766)

ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT TITLES

ArchDep = Archives Départementales ArchMun = Archives Municipales BD = G. Bondy and F. Dworsky, Zur Geschichte der Juden in Böhmen, Mähren und Schlesien von 906 bis 1620, Prague 1906. B.L. = Brandenburger Literalien GJ = Germania Judaica GJ II = Germania Judaica, vol. II, 1238–1350, Tübingen 1958 GJ III/1 = Germania Judaica, vol. III, 1350–1519, part 1, Tübingen 1987 GJ III/2 = Germania Judaica, vol. III, 1350–1519, part 2, Tübingen 1995 DW = Grimm, Deutsches Wörterbuch HHSta = Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv HStA = Hauptstaatsarchiv JJLG = Jahrbuch der Jüdisch-Literarischen Gesellschaft LRegArch = Landesregierungsarchiv MGWJ = Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums MHJ = Monumenta Hungariae Judaica N.F. = Neue Folge N.S. = New Series PAAJR = Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research REJ = Revue des études juives StA = Staatsarchiv StaA = Stadtarchiv WA = D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Weimar 1883 ZGJD = Zeitschrift für die Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

R. Joseph of Rosheim—His Life R. Joseph { Josel} bar Gershon of the Loans family, of Rosheim (1478?–1554),1 was almost certainly born in Hagenau in Lower Alsace. In his adult life he lived in Mittelbergheim, and later in the imperial city of Rosheim. In 1510 he was appointed by the Jews of the Lower Alsace region to serve in an oﬃcial position, evidently to represent them before the governing authorities, and from that time onwards until his death he was active on behalf of the Jews, both in Alsace and elsewhere. At some point he began to be referred to as Befehlshaber der gemeinen Judenschaft im heiligen Römischen Reich deutscher Nation (Commander of the Jews in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation). He died in Alsace (almost certainly in Rosheim) shortly before Passover 1554.* R. Joseph’s activities were extensive and wide-ranging. He served as dayan {judge} at the rabbinical court of the region,2 and dealt

1 For R. Joseph of Rosheim, see in particular: L. Feilchenfeld, Rabbi Josel von Rosheim, Strasbourg 1898 [hereafter: Feilchenfeld]; Selma Stern, Josel von Rosheim, Befehlshaber der Judenschaft im heiligen Römischen Reich deutscher Nation, Stuttgart 1959, and the English translation, Josel of Rosheim, Commander of Jewry in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, Philadelphia 1965 [hereafter: S. Stern]. {For the reader’s convenience, the page references here are to the English edition. However, the German edition has more detailed references and bibliography.} For the dates of his birth and death, see Feilchenfeld, p. 7; S. Stern, p. 285, and also M. Ginsburger, Josel von Rosheim und seine Zeit, Gebweiler 1913, pp. 6,17. {I have generally left untranslated the words ben, “son of ”, and bar (as in “Joseph bar Gershon”), “son of R.” Translator} * {In 1554, the Passover festival began on March 18.} 2 R. Joseph was one of the signatories on an ordinance approved by several rabbis who convened at Worms in the year 1542. He wrote as follows: “I too {aﬃx my signature} as a representative of the rabbinical court of the residents of Alsace, may God protect and preserve them, signed Joseph bar Gershon of the Loans family”. See M. Horovitz, Rabanei Frankfurt (The Rabbis of Frankfurt), Jerusalem 1972, p. 20, and appendix 5, p. 314. On R. Joseph as dayan, see also R. Yosef Ish Rosheim, Sefer ha-Miknah (The Book of Acquisitions), (ed.) Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt, Jerusalem 1970, p. 17, line 5. An additional example of R. Joseph’s activities as a member of the rabbinical court in Alsace can be found in a fragment relating to a certiﬁcate granted to the shochet {ritual slaughterer} Moses bar Samuel, authorizing him to serve as a bodek {ritual meat inspector}. This fragment is contained

2

r. joseph of rosheim—his life

with internal Jewish disputes in Alsace itself and also beyond its borders and the oﬃcial limits of his authority. In the course of his public duties he was present at assemblies of the Estates and cities at the Imperial Diets, and secured the renewal of the charters of rights (privileges) of Alsatian Jewry and of German Jewry as a whole; he also obtained additional privileges when necessary. He went to the aid of Jewish communities threatened with expulsion, and interceded, sometimes desperately, with the various authorities—city, territorial and imperial alike—to secure the annulment of anti-Jewish decrees. He debated vigorously with Jew-baiters and slanderers, and did all that was in his power to save Jews who were victims of blood libels and other libels; in addition, he endeavoured to regulate the economic relations between Jews and Christians, in order to safeguard the physical existence of the Jews in Alsace. R. Joseph’s petitions to the authorities, as well as other oﬃcial letters by him, all written in German, are preserved in various archives. They constitute an important source for the study of the history of the Jews in his day and milieu, and for the assessment of his own life and activities. Regrettably, there is still no complete collection of R. Joseph’s works, despite their historical value. R. Joseph engaged in literary activity whenever he had the time, but only a portion of his writings has been preserved: 1. Sefer ha-Miknah (The Book of Acquisitions),3 included in a collection of his writings that also contains copies of various letters and some other notes penned by him. 2. The short chronicle known in the historical literature as “Memoirs” or “Diary”; the translation is printed below (pp. 303–339). 3. “Letter of Consolation to the Jews of Hesse” (Trostschrift), printed below with a translation (pp. 357–374). Only the German translation made under the author’s supervision is still extant.

in Sefer Maharil, MS Paris-Séminaire israélite de France 43, fol. 15a. I would like to thank Dr. Abraham David for drawing my attention to this source. 3 Sefer ha-Miknah, ed. Fraenkel-Goldschmidt.

general introduction

3

R. Joseph’s Era4 To a great extent, the period of R. Joseph’s public activities spanned the reign of Emperor Charles V (1519–1556).5 During those years, the Holy Roman Empire was engaged in a long struggle with the Ottoman Turks, who invaded and captured large areas in Eastern Europe and actually reached the Austrian border. In Germany itself, the activities of Martin Luther and the other Reformers initiated a period of vigorous disputations and debates in pursuit of a solution that would enable the various religious streams in Germany to coexist. Germany in the sixteenth century was divided into numerous principalities, duchies, and other semi-autonomous units. In theory, the Holy Roman Emperor was the feudal overlord, but in practice the princes and noblemen enjoyed almost unrestricted jurisdiction over their territories (Territorialherren). The Emperor only intervened in times of crisis, when inheritance problems arose that aﬀected his exclusive authority as feudal overlord, and there were even instances when he deposed one or other of the territorial rulers.6 The conﬂict of interest between the emperors and the princes, and also the cities, created a state of continual tension. As early as the end of the ﬁfteenth century, there were demands on the part of the various Estates* (Stände) for the implementation of reforms in the central government, but no concrete action was taken. The Emperor

4 This is not an exhaustive study of the period, but a selective survey, designed to clarify those matters essential to an understanding of R. Joseph of Rosheim’s work and the events he describes. 5 For Charles V, see A. Kohler, in: Neue Deutsche Biographie, 11, Berlin 1977, pp. 191–211. This is the most up-to-date assessment of the Emperor; Kohler examines the diﬀerent approaches towards an analysis of Charles’s personality. See also, K. Brandi, Kaiser Karl V.—Werden und Schicksal einer Persönlichkeit und eines Weltreiches, Munich 1937, and the English translation, The Emperor Charles V.—The Growth and Destiny of a Man and of a World Empire, London 1939. Additional bibliographical literature is referred to in the appropriate places. 6 This happened, for example, in the case of Duke Ulrich of Württemberg, who forfeited his land for having infringed upon the Emperor’s prerogatives as feudal overlord. Similarly, the Electors Palatine were ousted from the rulership of Alsace as a consequence of the War of the Bavarian Succession. See below, introduction to section 3 of the Chronicle, p. 76 ﬀ. * {“Estates”—representatives of the privileged classes, that is, the princes and nobility, the clergy, and the commons, at the imperial and the territorial diets. Here, the reference is to the Imperial Estates. Can also refer to the various classes or corporate groups in early modern society, and then I have not capitalized the word. Translator}

4

r. joseph’s era

was dependent on the Estates for the approval of various tax payments, without which he was unable to administer his court, and certainly unable to go to war. However, he did not invariably get the desired support, nor was there always agreement regarding the justiﬁcation for wars. Apart from reigning as Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Charles V united in himself the hereditary possessions of the House of Habsburg as well as the lands belonging to the Spanish crown. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that his territorial aspirations did not coincide with the interests of the German princes. The wars of Charles V were waged on three main fronts: (1) In Italy, where he competed with the French king for inﬂuence and dominion. (2) In France itself, against the French ruler, who vied with Charles for the hegemony in Europe. The French monarch supported the German nobles in their rebellion against the Emperor, and for a time even extended aid to the Turks during their steady advance in Europe. (3) On the Eastern front against the Turks, on land and at sea. The war against the Turks resembled a crusade, and there was a clear consensus in Germany respecting the need to repel the Turkish threat, after, in 1530, they conquered large parts of Hungary and reached the very gates of Vienna. However, even in this perilous situation, the Emperor was still obliged to go begging and satisfy various claims and demands in order to obtain the approval of the Empire’s Estates for the necessary funding. Some of these demands related to reforms in the administration of the Empire, some to the private interests of the princes, and even to concessions in the religious sphere. The focal point of activity on the national level was the Imperial Diet (Reichstag), the assembly of the German Imperial Estates, in which all matters of state were raised, at meetings of the full assembly or in subcommittees.7 In theory, the Imperial Diet convened every year, but in fact there were years when it did not meet, and 7 For the Imperial Diet and its procedures, see H. Neuhaus, Reichstag und Supplikationsausschuß—Ein Beitrag zur Reichsverfassungsgeschichte der ersten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts (Schriften zur Verfassungsgeschichte, 24), Berlin 1977, p. 22 ﬀ.; R. Aulinger, Das Bild des Reichstages im 16. Jahrhundert—Beiträge zu einer typologischen Analyse schriftlicher und bildlicher Quellen (Schriftenreihe der Historischen Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 18), Göttingen 1980, especially the chapter on the 1530 Augsburg Diet, p. 328 ﬀ.

general introduction

5

there were also occasions when it convened in the Emperor’s absence. At the conclusion of each session, the Diet’s decisions were drawn up and published. Legislation in matters relating to internal administration was called Reichspolizeiordnung or Gute Polizeiordnung (imperial police regulations). These regulations often aﬀected the status of imperial Jewry, and this was one of the reasons why the meetings of the Diet were of considerable importance for the Jews. Charles V, who spent most of his time outside the Empire—in Spain or other lands belonging to the Spanish crown—generally returned to Germany for meetings of the Diet. It was then that he dealt with all the problems that had accumulated during his prolonged absence. The imperial cities (Reichsstädte) were a special body. Although they too were invited to send their delegates to meetings of the Diet, since also they were obliged to contribute their share towards the requirements of the central government, they were accorded no more than observer status at the Diet sessions.8 During this entire period, they waged an unceasing campaign for the right to participate actively in the debates and decision-making, on many occasions refusing to make their contributions on the plea that they were not full participants in the decision-making process and, therefore, should not be burdened with the same obligations as the other Estates.9 The Jews not infrequently served as a bargaining chip during negotiations on subsidies for the Emperor; princes and cities would promise to supply him with the necessary money in return for his agreement to expulsions of Jews. Even when not actually threatened with expulsion, the Jews were a permanent address for special monetary demands, and whenever an extraordinary levy was imposed on the general public, they were forced to consent to payments that were immeasurably higher than those required of other sections of the population. On many occasions they were ordered to send their representatives to the meeting place of the Diet to settle the special payments.

8 Strasbourg had a special status at the Imperial Diet; Jacob Sturm headed the city during the years 1526–1552; he was a leading campaigner for the rights of the cities in Diet institutions. See O. Winckelmann, “Straßburgs Verfassung und Verwaltung im 16. Jahrhundert”, Zeitschrift f.d. Geschichte des Oberrheins, 57 (1903), p. 503; and also Winckelmann’s article on Sturm in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, 37, Leipzig 1894, pp. 5–20. 9 See the study by Neuhaus, Reichstag und Supplikationsausschuß (above, note 7), e.g., p. 151 onwards.

r. joseph’s era

6

During the period under consideration the Diet also served as a forum for debates on the religious question, which during the reign of Charles V overshadowed all other problems. Following the Diet of Worms in 1521, at which Luther appeared and presented his new doctrine, meetings of the Diet became the arena for disputations between the Catholic and Protestant representatives and between theologians in both camps. The document drawn up by the Protestants at the Augsburg Diet of 1530, the Augsburg Confession (Confessio Augustana), became the basic article of faith for the Protestant Estates, and in the course of the ensuing years there were perpetual debates over the question of its ratiﬁcation. The Protestants asked for recognition of their religious doctrine or, at the very least, for the freedom to act according to their conscience—a demand to which the Catholic Emperor could not consent. The Protestant Estates’ agreement to the Emperor’s monetary requirements was made conditional upon such recognition. The imperial cities had a particularly important role to play in religious matters as in many of them the Protestants had gained a powerful ascendancy.10 In 1547, the religious unrest and dissension in Germany reached their climax with the war between the Catholic territories, under the leadership of the Emperor, and the Protestant states of the Schmalkaldic League. In this war, the Emperor and his supporters emerged as the victors. The Alsace region,11 the main ﬁeld of R. Joseph’s activity, enjoyed the status of a Reichslandvogtei, an administrative province ruled by the imperial government, headed by the Oberlandvogt, the provincial governor, and, under him, the Unterlandvogt, a functionary appointed by and responsible to him. It was the Unterlandvogt who administered the province and presided over the regional judicial system. Both the imperial cities and villages (Reichsdörfer) in the province came under his authority. His seat of residence was in Hagenau. Joseph of Rosheim calls him the “superintendent Hagenau” and terms his

10

See B. Möller, Reichstadt und Reformation (Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte, 180, Jg. 69), Gütersloh 1962, pp. 19–34. 11 For the status of Alsace during this period, see J. Becker, Geschichte der Reichslandvogtei im Elsaß, Strasbourg 1905. This work also contains two other monographs by the author—one on the imperial villages and the other on the mortgaging of Alsace to diﬀerent members of the nobility.

general introduction

7

administration “superintendence” or the “Hagenau authority”. The Unterlandvogt was assisted by the Zinsmeister (revenue collector), who was responsible for collecting the taxes for the imperial government, including the revenue from the Jews. During almost the entire period under discussion Alsace was mortgaged to the Counts Palatine (Pfalzgrafs), and the Count Palatine held the position of Oberlandvogt. In 1505, due to a dispute, the Emperor Maximilian I (who reigned from 1493–1519) refused to reconﬁrm the appointment of the Count Palatine as Oberlandvogt, and between 1505–1530, Maximilian, and subsequently Charles V, ruled Alsace directly. It was only in 1530 that the government of Alsace reverted to the Counts Palatine, and from that year onwards they exercised authority also over the Jews. However, it was the Emperor who remained the supreme overlord, and this explains why R. Joseph appealed directly to the Emperor in many cases where the interests of Alsatian Jews were adversely aﬀected for any reason. From the above it is clear too why R. Joseph had recourse on some occasions to the authorities in Hagenau, and on others approached those in Heidelberg, the capital of the Palatinate. Sometimes he also turned for assistance to the authorities in Ensisheim in Upper Alsace, the seat of government of the Habsburg House and the centre of the imperial government in the province. This was what R. Joseph called the “Ensheim authority”. Emperor Charles V was the supreme overlord of the imperial cities, and it should be remembered that in Joseph of Rosheim’s day many of the Jews in Alsace still dwelt in the cities, most of which were imperial cities. However, in addition to this, at diﬀerent times the Emperor repeatedly referred to the special relationship between the Holy Roman Emperors and the Jews. In accordance with the well-known tradition that had developed in the Middle Ages, he demanded his “due” by virtue of the fact that the Jews “appertained to the Emperor”; the term “serfs of the imperial treasury”, which was applied to the Jews, is still found in documents of that period.* The emperors claimed that they alone had the right to judge the Jews and make fateful decisions concerning them. Therefore, since the Emperor was the supreme overlord of Alsace, the overlord of

* {On this, see p. 11, note 19, where the evidence for and against this proposition is discussed. AS}

8

r. joseph’s era

the imperial cities, and, in addition, regarded himself as the direct ruler of the Jews and personally responsible for them, the Imperial Chancellory was the natural address for R. Joseph’s petitions in all matters concerning the status of the Jews. Occasionally, R. Joseph himself would use the same argument that the Emperor employed vis-à-vis the Jews, and would maintain that because of the special relationship between the Imperial crown and the Jews, the Emperor had particular obligations towards them, and no other authority should be permitted to determine their fate without his knowledge.12 The city of Strasbourg enjoyed a special status in Lower Alsace and among the other German cities, and also in the eyes of R. Joseph— many of his petitions to the authorities were addressed to that city. They are preserved to this day in the Strasbourg City Archives.13 Strasbourg was not formally an imperial city (Reichsstadt), for it had acquired independence after a struggle with the local bishop, the lord of the city during the Middle Ages. The city was therefore also not a member of the Decapolis—the League of the Ten Alsatian Cities. However, it possessed a privileged status due to its wealth, democratic constitution14 and vigorous intellectual life. In R. Joseph’s day, Strasbourg was not only the centre of humanism in Alsace but in Germany as a whole. Many printing presses operated within its walls. It was also a centre of Protestantism, being the city of residence of leading Reformers such as Martin Bucer (1491–1551), Wolfgang Capito (1478–1541), Matthias Zell (1477–1548) and also, for a time, John Calvin (1509–1564). It was one of the ﬁrst cities to institute the Reformed worship, and served too as a haven for Reformers and members of Protestant sects who had been expelled from other lands or cities. At one time Melchior Hoﬀmann,

12 He used this argument, for example, in connection with the Pösing libel case, and in 1530, when he received a privilege in Innsbruck from Emperor Charles V. See below, introduction to section 13 of the Chronicle, pp. 157–158, and section 14, p. 174. 13 For the importance of Strasbourg in the sixteenth century, see O. Winckelmann, “Straßburgs Verfassung und Verwaltung im 16. Jahrhundert”, pp. 493–537, 600–42. {For a recent study of Jewish-Christian relations in Strasbourg that pays close attention to the role of Joseph of Rosheim, see Debra Kaplan, “Negotiating Boundaries: Jewish-Christian Interactions in Strasbourg, 1530–1648, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 2003. AS} 14 Erasmus of Rotterdam was among those who praised Strasbourg’s constitution. He composed a laudatory poem in its honour. See Winckelmann, ibid., p. 493.

general introduction

9

who was connected with the Anabaptist sect in Münster, found refuge within its walls, as did the historian Sebastian Franck, who professed unorthodox views {though both eventually were disowned by the city}, and a few other Anabaptist leaders lived there. However, Strasbourg still endeavoured to maintain good relations with the Emperor. The city possessed a strong army, which at times it placed at the Emperor’s disposal. Strasbourg’s privileged status was particularly evident during the Peasants War. While some of its citizens did join the peasants’ camp, the city remained oﬃcially neutral, though it attempted to mediate between the camps and to encourage the peasants to disperse, and thereby avert the disaster that awaited them. During the Schmalkaldic War Strasbourg fought on the side of the Protestants, and after their defeat the city had to endure very heavy penalties in order to secure the Emperor’s pardon. No Jews had resided in Strasbourg since their expulsion from the city in 1391.15 From that time onwards, entry of Jews into the city was permitted solely for the purpose of visiting the local market; Jews were only allowed to remain in the city during the day; they were not permitted to lodge there overnight. Every visiting Jew was obliged to hire a municipal servant to be his escort—his “safe conduct” (Geleit). Joseph of Rosheim appears to have regarded Strasbourg as an important centre of inﬂuence because of its proximity to his own hometown of Rosheim. He corresponded frequently with its Magistrate and council, and whenever he required an oﬃcial document he requested it from the functionaries of that city. He complained to the Strasbourg authorities when he believed they were not according the Jews fair treatment. On the other hand, he was aware that certain Jews were contravening the regulations they had pledged to observe in their transactions with Strasbourg citizens, and he endeavoured, insofar as was in his power, to prevent such occurrences. It was to the city of Strasbourg that he addressed his sharp criticism of Luther’s 1543 writings, and he demanded that the city not permit the reprinting of these tracts within its boundaries. 15 The expulsion of the Jews has traditionally been assigned to the year 1388. In fact, although the expulsion edict was issued in that year, the last Jews only left the city in mid-1391. See Germania Judaica III/2, s.v. Straßburg, p. 1423. {See now Kaplan, “Negotiating Boundaries”. AS}

10

the legal status of the jews

Strasbourg served also as a refuge for the Jews in times of need— for example, during the Peasants War. During the Schmalkaldic War, R. Joseph appealed to the city to use its inﬂuence with its allies to prevent them from harming the Jews.

The Legal Status of the Jews in Germany in the Sixteenth Century The legal status of German Jewry changed for the worse after the Black Death, in comparison to the previous period.16 In most places the communities were not restored to their previous status. Individual Jews were received into the cities, generally on the basis of personal letters of protection (Schutzbriefe), for a limited period. The rest of the Jews settled on the estates of various territorial lords, and received from them letters of protection specifying the conditions of their residence. Conditions of acceptance were not as lenient as in the past, and various restrictions were laid upon their residence. Moreover, residence permits could only be extended upon special request and in return for fresh payments. The position of German Jewry was therefore both unstable and insecure, although scholars do emphasize that during that period there were no pogroms of the kind that occurred at the time of the Black Death. The enforcement of the Landfrieden, the {imperial law} upholding the public peace and prohibiting violence in the German territories served to deter unbridled assaults on the Jews. It is true also that the territorial lords under whom the Jews resided (Schutzherren) promised them protection, regarding them as a valuable source of income. On more than one occasion, a nobleman would intervene on behalf of “his” Jew when the latter was harmed by some other authority, for he considered this to be an attack on his jurisdictional authority, and, moreover, detrimental to his revenue from the Jews.

16 For the legal status of the Jews in Germany in the late Middle Ages, see F. Battenberg, “Zur Rechtstellung der Juden am Mittelrhein im Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit”, Zeitschrift für historische Forschung, 6 (1979), pp. 129–83; idem, “Des Kaisers Kammerknechte—Gedanken zur rechtlichsozialen Situation der Juden in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit”, Historische Zeitschrift, 245 (1987) Heft 3, pp. 545–99; W. Güde, “Zur rechtlichen Stellung der Juden in der früheren Neuzeit”, Festgabe zum Schweizerischen Juristentag 1973, Basel University Law Faculty, Basel 1973; idem, Die rechtliche Stellung der Juden in den Schriften deutscher Juristen des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts, Sigmaringen 1981.

general introduction

11

In their capacity as overlords, the territorial rulers also possessed judicial rights over the Jews in their lands. In several principalities, the rulers published special “laws” ( Judenordnungen) deﬁning the legal status, rights and obligations of the Jews; particularly well known are the laws of Hesse,17 and those of the Habsburg dynasty,18 as well as several others. The emperors had no coherent policy towards the Jews; they still insisted on their prerogative rights (regalia), arguing that they were the supreme overlords of the Jews since the latter “appertained to the monarch”.19 Therefore, apart from the taxes the Jews were obliged to pay their protectors—the noblemen and cities—they also had to make substantial contributions to the imperial coﬀers. In fact,

17 See F. Battenberg, “Judenordnungen der frühen Neuzeit in Hessen”, Neunhundert Jahre Geschichte der Juden in Hessen, Wiesbaden 1983, pp. 83–122; idem, “Verordnungen zur Geschichte der Juden in Hessen-Darmstadt—Das Judenrecht eines Reichsfürstentums bis zum Ende des Alten Reiches”, Schriften der Kommission für die Geschichte der Juden in Hessen, 7, Wiesbaden 1987; see also below, introduction to the “Letter of Consolation”, p. 340 and note 1 there. 18 See, for example, the 1536 ordinance, printed in A. F. Pribram, Urkunden und Akten zur Geschichte der Juden in Wien, 1, Vienna-Leipzig 1918, pp. 1–5. 19 Battenberg, (see above, note 16) believes that in the sixteenth century, the concept of “servi camarae” (Kammerknechte) in practice still existed exactly as in the Middle Ages, even when the term itself is not speciﬁcally used. However, he determines that, contrary to the situation in the Middle Ages, during the period under discussion, control over the Jews eﬀectively passed to the cities and into the hands of various princes. In contrast, Güde notes in his book (Die rechtliche Stellung der Juden in den Schriften deutscher Juristen, pp. 44–45) that there is no mention of “servi camarae” in sixteenth-century law books, nor any reference to it in the privileges issued by Charles V, and that in the sixteenth century this concept was generally replaced by such terms as “appertaining to ourselves”. While his point is well made, it should be emphasized that there are still references to “servi camerae” during this period, though these generally appear in the context of arguments in favour of the Jews: for example, in King Ferdinand’s letter in defence of the Jews of Tyrnau and Marchegg, after the Pösing libel, see introduction to section 13 of the Chronicle, p. 156. K. Deppermann, who reviews the status of German Jewry in the sixteenth century, maintains that the Emperors Maximilian I and Charles V both strove to exercise jurisdiction over all of imperial Jewry as an integral part of their struggle to reclaim imperial authority from the territorial governments. See Deppermann, “Judenhaß und Judenfreundschaft im frühen Protestantismus”, in: B. Martin and E. Schulin (eds.), Die Juden als Minderheit in der Geschichte, Munich 1982, p. 112. The complex situation of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Jewry, caught between the Empire on the one hand and the territorial lords on the other, with the cities as a third factor, is well portrayed by V. Press in his “Kaiser Rudolf II und der Zusammenschluß der deutschen Judenheit—Die sogenannte Frankfurter Rabbinerverschwörung von 1603 und ihre Folgen”, in: A. Haverkamp (ed.), Zur Geschichte der Juden im Deutschland des späten Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit (Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, 24), Stuttgart 1981, pp. 243–93, especially pp. 246–47.

12

the legal status of the jews

the taxation of the Jews often proved to be a bone of contention between the diﬀerent protectors. The emperors did not always provide the “protection” they were supposed to give the Jews; some defended them, others persecuted them. The debt cancellations issued by the emperors during the ﬁfteenth century—whenever they felt they could proﬁt by them—impoverished the Jews and severely diminished their capacity to make the large-scale loans they had been accustomed to provide. During Charles’s reign there were no debt cancellations, but his policy with regard to the expulsion of Jews was inconsistent; he would prohibit their expulsion from one city while at the same time permitting their expulsion from another. It is true to say that when disputes involving Jews came before the courts the Jews were generally given fair treatment. In cases of claims by Jews against their defaulting debtors, the imperial courts, and, in most instances, the city courts too, endeavoured to be impartial, at least in terms of the times. Indeed, on several occasions, Jewish moneylenders were able to obtain a court order permitting them to seize the property of their defaulting debtors. This apparent equality that the courts aﬀorded the Jews has led many scholars to contend that they were treated according to the rules of justice and the laws of the land.20 They forget that the status of the Jews was inferior to that of the rest of the population and that anti-Jewish prejudice undoubtedly inﬂuenced the judicial proceedings in many cases.21 Whenever a Jew wished to journey outside his place of domicile, he was obliged, as were the other residents of the land, to furnish himself with a safe-conduct from the authorities in his place of residence and with one from the authorities in the place or places to which he was travelling. Jews who travelled frequently for business reasons were required to pay exceptionally high fees for these documents. As a rule, Jews were also denied the right to lodge guests in their houses. In several localities, they were forbidden to stay for more than a few hours and were required to hire an escort, a municipal servant who would accompany them wherever they went.

20

This is more or less the view of Güde (see above, note 16) in his studies. A striking example of this is the trial of R. Joseph himself, in which the prosecutor argued that as the accused was a member of the Jewish nation, it must be presumed that he had evil intentions. See below, introduction to section 5 of the Chronicle, pp. 100–101. 21

general introduction

13

Some cities barred Jews from their limits even for business purposes or for the purpose of litigation in one of the courts, and they were compelled to hire an attorney to represent their interests in those places.22 There are scholars who claim that the legal status of the Jews in the sixteenth century was based on Roman law, which had been applied to the Jews, at least in theory, since the time of the Roman Empire. It is true that in the period under consideration here, Roman law was steadily being incorporated into the German jurisprudence (Rezeption). The scholars in question believe that the attitude of contemporary humanists and theologians towards the Jews was derived from Roman law or inﬂuenced by it. Thus, the relatively conciliatory pronouncements of Johannes Reuchlin (1455–1522), the uncompromising attitude of Martin Bucer, and, of course, the extreme anti-Jewish position of Ulrich Zasius (1461–1535), a jurist by profession, who wrote that it was permissible to baptize Jewish children against the will of their parents—all oﬀered interpretations of their positions as stemming from Roman law.23 Whatever the source of the various attitudes towards the Jews and their status, there is no doubt that the latter lived in conditions of manifest inequality.24 Even a person of the standing of Joseph of 22 The city of Nuremberg employed every possible means to bar the entrance of Jews for any purpose. See A. Müller, Geschichte der Juden in Nürnberg, 1146–1945, Nuremberg 1968, p. 99. Regensburg, likewise, took every precaution to prevent the return of the Jews to the city. See R. Straus, Urkunden und Aktenstücke zur Geschichte der Juden in Regensburg 1453–1738, Munich 1960, no. 1120, pp. 435–36. Even during meetings of the Diet Jews had diﬃculty in securing admission permits to these cities: In 1521–1522, Nuremberg complains that the presence of the imperial institutions (Reichsregiment) draws many Jews into the city (see StaA Nürnberg, Briefbücher Nr. 83, p. 121), and in 1544–1545, that city supplies Regensburg with information regarding its conduct towards the Jews during Diet sessions (ibid., Nr. 133, p. 11b). R. Joseph himself complains about the restrictions placed by Regensburg on the admission of Jews to the city for the meeting of the Diet there in 1546. See HHStA Wien, Reichskanzlei, RTA 20, p. 88. 23 For Reuchlin and Bucer, see in particular the following studies: W. Maurer, “Reuchlin und das Judentum”, Kirche und Geschichte, Gesammelte Aufsätze, II, Göttingen 1970, pp. 339–41; idem, “Martin Butzer und die Judenfrage in Hessen, ibid., p. 347 ﬀ. For Zasius: G. Kisch, Zasius und Reuchlin—Eine rechtsgeschichtlich-vergleichende Studie zum Toleranzproblem im 16. Jahrhundert (Pforzheimer Reuchlinschriften, 1), KonstanzStuttgart 1961. (This monograph shows that from one Roman law diﬀerent people could sometimes deduce opposite conclusions.) There are also a number of studies in a more recent collection: Reuchlin und die Juden (Pforzheimer Reuchlingschriften, 3), Sigmaringen 1993. {Reuchlin’s discussion is now available in English translation, Recommendation whether to conﬁscate, destroy, and burn all Jewish books, trans. Peter Wortsman, New York 2000. AS} 24 For the inferior and peripheral social status of the Jews during this period, see

14

r. joseph’s defence of jewish interests

Rosheim, who possessed a charter according him the right of unrestricted freedom of movement on community business,25 was obliged to request travel permits and entrance permits to many places, and his requests were not always granted.26

R. Joseph’s Defence of Jewish Interests in Governmental Circles Within the context of the situation just described, R. Joseph’s activities were concentrated on six speciﬁc areas. 1. Acquiring or conﬁrming Jewish charters of rights. 2. Preventing expulsions of Jews from countries, cities and villages. 3. Preventing decisions by the authorities to prohibit interest loans by Jews. 4. Combating false accusations—particularly blood libels. 5. Combating attacks on the Jews by Reformation leaders. 6. Assisting Jews in times of war. The Acquisition or Conﬁrmation of Jewish Charters of Rights As previously remarked, Emperor Charles V spent a large part of his time outside Germany. Whenever he returned there for a meeting of the Diet, he was besieged by petitioners requesting the conﬁrmation of privileges or charters of rights. Among them was R. Joseph of Rosheim as the authorized representative of the Jews. On more than one occasion, R. Joseph would discover upon reaching the meeting place of the Diet that other interested parties had anticipated him, and had received imperial promises injurious to the Jews which he then had to try to have rescinded. Such was the case, for example, at the Diet of Worms in 1521: R. Joseph secured the conﬁrmation of a charter that the previous Emperor, Maximilian, had given Alsatian Jewry, and its extension to include all the Jews

also F. Graus, “Randgruppen der städtischen Gesellschaft im Spätmittelalter”, Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung, 8 (1981), p. 398 ﬀ. 25 As is evidenced from the occasion when he lost his letter of safe conduct and requested that it be renewed. See HHStA Wien, Reichshofrat, Schutzbriefe, Fasz. 7, Juden: Josel Jud Schutz und Schirmbrief, 28. Febr. 1548. 26 For example in 1530, when he wished to travel to Württemberg, or in 1543, to Hesse.

general introduction

15

of the Empire.* This charter appeared to grant the Jews residence rights in all the imperial cities. However, at the same time, several imperial cities obtained charters that gave them the right to bar Jews from entering their bounds. In the context of that period such inconsistencies were not considered at all strange.27 R. Joseph’s strenuous activities at Diet meetings in connection with the Jews’ privileges are an indication of the extreme importance he attached to them. In various sections of his Chronicle the author gives expression to his joy at securing new charters (1520/21), or at the renewal of earlier ones (1530, 1541), and all the more so when he received charters that granted imperial Jewry improved conditions (1544, 1546). In that period, general privileges were not usually granted to the Jews; instead, as remarked above, individual Jews—speciﬁed by name—were accorded personal charters stipulating the conditions of admission in various localities. Despite the fact that R. Joseph witnessed with his own eyes how the princes, the margraves, and the imperial cities ignored these charters; nevertheless, he spared no eﬀort to obtain them, and was convinced that in that way he was consolidating the status of German Jewry. These charters of rights did contain at least the basic elements for safeguarding the Jews’ minimal living conditions: residence rights, rights of passage from one place to another, permission to work— namely the right to trade in the markets and to make interest loans— and a promise of protection against libels and irregular judicial proceedings. Indeed, whenever R. Joseph attempted to prevent an expulsion or have rescinded an expulsion order already eﬀected, he invoked the plea that the Jews’ privileges had been violated—as though he believed that with this claim he could convince those responsible for driving out the Jews to reverse their decision. The Emperor, who personally signed the charters to the Jews, was nevertheless quite prepared to approve the expulsion of Jews from various * {However, there does not appear to be any documentary evidence that R. Joseph was present at that particular Diet. As C. Fraenkel-Goldschmidt writes below, he probably received this charter from Charles V in Cologne in November 1520. See introduction to section 9, which concerns the years 1520–21, pp. 127–129, and see my note there, p. 129. Translator} 27 Such inconsistencies were not conﬁned only to cases involving Jews. For example, in 1501 Emperor Maximilian granted a charter to Strasbourg, and at the same time accorded nobles in the city’s vicinity a charter the contents of which were incompatible with the ﬁrst charter. See Winckelmann, “Straßburgs Verfassung und Verwaltung im 16. Jahrhundert”, p. 511.

16

r. joseph’s defence of jewish interests

localities—even from imperial cities under his direct sovereignty— when the conditions seemed appropriate. Yet this plea does appear to have been eﬀective in certain cases. When the Emperor forbade the expulsion of Jews, one explanation he gave was that such acts were in violation of the Jews’ privileges. And it stands to reason that this particular argument was taken from R. Joseph’s letters of complaint to the Emperor in those speciﬁc cases, or from the petitions of other Jewish representatives. In other instances, when the Emperor prevented the expulsion of Jews, or was highly incensed when an expulsion was carried out without his permission, the rationale was diﬀerent: the Jews were “the possession of the Emperor”, they belonged to “the Emperor’s Chamber” and only he was authorized to expel or approve their expulsion. A powerful monetary factor aﬀected his calculations too: when those forces pushing for expulsion satisﬁed his demands, they had a greater chance of obtaining his agreement. Therefore, when cities called for the expulsion of the Jews, they generally undertook to pay the Emperor all the monies he would have received from the Jews had they remained. In the light of all this, the fact that R. Joseph was able to impress upon the Emperor his views concerning the validity of Jewish privileges must be regarded as quite a remarkable achievement. Actions to Prevent the Expulsion of Jews The threat of expulsion hung over the Jews in Alsace throughout R. Joseph’s lifetime—from the time when he commenced his public activities, by endeavouring to obtain permission for Jews to return to towns from which they had been expelled during the Burgundy War of 1476–1477, and up to the time of writing of his Chronicle, when the fate of the Jews, for example in his own city of residence, Rosheim, still hung in the balance.28 He devoted a considerable portion of his large work, Sefer ha-Miknah, to a description of the expulsion of the Jews from cities and territories in Germany—testimony to the fact that this troubled him greatly—and he pondered on the motives behind these actions. In many sections of his Chronicle he mentions his eﬀorts to thwart various schemes for driving the Jews out of villages, towns, provinces and entire lands. There were even

28

See below, introduction to section 9 of the Chronicle, p. 130.

general introduction

17

proposals for a general expulsion of the Jews from the whole of Germany, which R. Joseph attempted to avert. At times his eﬀorts were successful and at other times they proved fruitless. Even his successes were sometimes short-lived. The wave of expulsions of Jews from their places of residence began in the ﬁfteenth century (in some places even earlier) and continued until the end of the sixteenth century. In the mid-ﬁfteenth century most German Jews resided in the cities, but by R. Joseph’s day the movement of Jews from the cities to the rural regions, to the estates of noblemen who consented to accept them after their banishment from the cities, was already well underway. In R. Joseph’s day the Jews had already been driven out of most of the imperial cities, as well as from ecclesiastical cities, bishoprics, and entire principalities. Generally, the oﬃcial reason given on the expulsion orders was the interest taken by the Jews, which, it was claimed, was ruining the Christian population, and also the Jews’ “corrupt way of life”, which was said to be detrimental to the other residents. Scholars are divided in their opinions as to the causes of the expulsions.29 Some found economic reasons to explain them: the cities no longer required Jewish credit as the new large Christian merchant banks were able to satisfy their needs; or: the Jews who traded in the markets were the chief competitors of the urban middle-class; or again: the thought of all that Jewish property—and, in particular, the real estate—that would fall into their hands if the Jews were expelled proved an irresistible temptation for city leaders, who were faced with general housing problems of congestion and overcrowding. Other scholars emphasized social and religious factors: during this period, sermons by fanatical preachers inﬂamed the common people against the Jews. Among the Christian populace the Jews had

29 For the causes of the expulsions see, e.g.: M. Wenniger, Man bedarf keiner Juden mehr. Ursachen und Hintergründe ihrer Vertreibung aus den deutschen Reichstädten im 15. Jahrhundert, Vienna-Cologne-Graz 1981; R. Straus, Die Judengemeinde Regensburg im ausgehenden Mittelalter, Heidelberg 1932. Straus lays particular stress on the economic factor, and there was a lively debate on the subject when his book was published. See Y. Baer’s critique in Kiryat Sefer, 12 (1936), pp. 461–67, and H. H. Ben-Sasson’s review of Straus, Urkunden und Aktenstücke zur Geschichte der Juden in Regensburg: “Sefer ve-Naftulei Mazalo—Tiud Goralo shel Regensburg be-Shilhei Yemei ha-Beinayim” (A Documentary Record of Regensburg at the end of the Middle Ages by Raphael Straus—The Trials and Tribulations of a Book), Tarbiz, 34 (1964), pp. 99–105. Both Baer and Ben-Sasson emphasize the religious factor in the expulsions of the Jews.

18

r. joseph’s defence of jewish interests

a satanic image, which was nurtured by scurrilous anti-Jewish literature and ugly caricatures, as well as by tales of crimes purportedly committed by Jews. In this atmosphere of incitement, both the preachers and the townspeople demanded that the Jews be expelled.30 On the question of whether the Jews should be tolerated or expelled, there was no fundamental diﬀerence between the Catholics or Protestants: clearly, the imperial cities who expelled their Jews in the late ﬁfteenth or early sixteenth centuries did not do so under the inﬂuence of Lutheran doctrine. All the same, R. Joseph felt that there were elements in Luther’s dogma, and particularly his ideas concerning the duties of a Christian ruler, that impelled towards expulsion.31 And it is true that the cities which during his lifetime did all that was in their power to have the Jews expelled or prevent their admittance were almost all Protestant. At that time, the Protestants, whose theology was still in a state of ﬂux, frequently debated the question of whether to tolerate the Jews in their territories. The rulers of Protestant lands had a particular problem; according to Luther’s doctrine, the ruler was also the supreme religious authority over his subjects, and the presence of unbelievers was a stain on their religious enterprise. In the same way as the Catholic monarchs of Spain believed it their duty to purify their land of unbelievers, the Protestant rulers in R. Joseph’s day debated whether their religious obligations did not require them to expel the Jews totally from their territories.32 Scholars emphasize that the Lutherans were less tolerant than the Catholics towards members of other religions too.33 All the same, it is most signiﬁcant that the two documents

30 This is stressed by B. Degany in his study “Da"at ha-Kahal ha-Anti Yehudit ke-Gorem le-Geirusham shel ha-Yehudim mei-Arei Germania be-Shilhei Yemei haBeinayim” (Anti-Jewish Public Opinion as a Factor towards the Expulsion of the Jews from German Towns at the End of the Middle Ages), Ph.D. Thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1982. 31 For the Protestant attitude towards the toleration and the expulsion of the Jews, compare R. Riess, “Zum Zusammenhang von Reformation und Judenvertreibung—Das Beispiel Braunschweig”, Civitatum Communitas: Studien zum europäischen Städtewesen, Festschrift Heinz Stoob zum 65. Geburstag, 2, Cologne 1984, p. 640 ﬀ.; H. Hörburger, Judenvertreibungen im Spätmittelalter am Beispiel Esslingen und Konstanz, Frankfurt on Main-New York 1981. 32 See, in particular, W. Holsten, Christentum und nichtchristliche Religion nach der Auﬀassung Luthers (Allgemeine Missions-Studien, 13), Gütersloh 1932; idem, “Christentum und nichtchristliche Religion nach der Auﬀassung Butzers”, Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 107 (1936), pp. 105–54. 33 For this, see the aforementioned two studies by Holsten, and also Nikolaus

general introduction

19

signed by R. Joseph in the name of German Jewry in 1551 have essentially the same content. Both were agreements contracted by German Jewry, one with the Catholic state of Bavaria and the other with the Protestant state of Württemberg. In both the Jews undertook not to remain in those states for even one night, and in return they would be permitted to pass through their lands. The fact that R. Joseph had to be content with this “concession” shows how seriously the situation of German Jewry had deteriorated at that time. R. Joseph therefore had to make a resolute stand against the tendency on the part of both Catholics and Protestants to expel their Jews. To counter such activity on the part of the Catholics or the imperial cities or villages, he appealed to the Emperor and apparently also to the Pope;34 with Protestant rulers he attempted to exert inﬂuence in various ways—directly and indirectly—without much success. In his letters to the authorities he states his case against the expulsions: the Jews possess charters aﬃrming that they will not be expelled from their domiciles; it is their natural right to live on earth alongside the Christians. Occasionally, he also emphasizes that the Christian religion requires the kings and great rulers to act mercifully, and therefore they should not drive out the Jews. He may have relied too on the concept propounded by Catholic theologians during the Middle Ages, in accordance with which the Jews were not to be expelled.35

Paulus, Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrhundert, Freiburg im Breisgau 1911, who describes the intolerance displayed by all the Protestant sects. See, in addition, the somewhat apologetic article by H. Hermelink, “Der Toleranzgedanke im Reformationszeitalter”, Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte, 96 ( Jg. 26), Leipzig 1908, pp. 39–70. 34 See below, introduction to section 27 of the Chronicle, pp. 268–271, on German Jewry’s appeal to the papal legate Alessandro Farnese in order to secure the cancellation of the planned expulsion. 35 This is the Christian belief that the Jews are not to be killed, for their miserable existence testiﬁes to the truth of Christianity. Farnese’s case against the expulsion of the Jews, presented at the 1545 Diet of Worms, is based on this belief, and it can almost certainly be assumed that this argument, possibly without the theological reasoning, was suggested to him by the Jews themselves, in all probability by R. Joseph. See below, introduction to section 27 of the Chronicle, pp. 270–271, and ibid., note 601, p. 268.

20

r. joseph’s defence of jewish interests

Combating Decisions to Prohibit Interest Loans by Jews An additional area that concerned R. Joseph over a long period of time was the economic situation and livelihood of the Jews in the territories of the Holy Roman Empire. The charters granted to the Jews generally accorded them the right to travel freely on the roads and also to earn their living through moneylending, as was customary in those days. However, R. Joseph was often obliged to intercede to defend these privileges since, as we have seen above, the Jews were barred from entering various territories, and even denied right of passage through these lands. At the same time, several cities expelled the Jews, and, in addition, forbade Jews to trade in their markets. In his numerous petitions to the authorities, R. Joseph reiterated time and again his demand that the Jews be granted the right to travel freely and trade in the markets. In his words, these were rights conferred on the Jews by natural law, as human beings, and by virtue of their privileges. The question whether the Jews would be able to continue their ﬁnancial activities hung in the balance at that time. Throughout the Middle Ages, the Church did not actively dispute the right of the Jews to lend money at interest, although in principle it was opposed to usury. However, towards the end of the ﬁfteenth century, the economic situation began to change, and the voices condemning usury grew more strident. Economic developments in the German cities facilitated the rise of large ﬁnancial concerns, such as those of the Fugger and Welser families in Augsburg, who carried on commercial activities on an international scale. They bought a monopoly on various types of imported goods, gained control over the local market and ﬁxed the price of merchandise. The petty merchants and artisans, still bound by the restrictions imposed upon them by the guilds, were unable to endure the competition. A number of other factors—the splitting-up of small peasant holdings between numerous inheritors, the high cost of living, natural disasters, and the burden of taxes and services to the nobility—forced down the standard of living of the peasants to its lowest ebb, and generated social unrest, which reached its peak in the great Peasants War of 1525. The artisans, petty merchants, and peasants alike had diﬃculty in maintaining themselves and their families and were often obliged to take loans, which were aﬀorded them only at high interest rates. When they were unable to repay the loans on time, these became inﬂated

general introduction

21

with the mounting interest, and in many cases they were reduced to penury. This state of aﬀairs further aroused Christian public opinion on the subject of usury, and the question of the legitimacy of monetary transactions per se, as conducted by the large commercial concerns employing the customary methods to circumvent medieval usury prohibitions, was the subject of debate at the time in the circles of Christian thinkers and theologians, and in their writings. In the late ﬁfteenth century, the Church had declared its opposition to usury, and a similar viewpoint was adopted in the ﬁrst half of the sixteenth century by most Protestant theologians. At that time, only a minority in both Christian camps understood the need for credit in the changing economic conditions in Germany. Luther’s great opponent, Dr. Johannes Eck, was one of the few to comprehend that the acceptance of credit as an integral part of economic activity did not at all resemble the taking of usury in the sense prohibited by the Church.36 In Protestant circles too, there were those who made a distinction between a loan to the needy and a loan to a business enterprise.37 Luther, on the other hand, was one of the most powerful critics of all ﬁscal transactions and of the taking of interest in any form or for any purpose.38 In his condemnation of usurers he naturally also included the Jews. Thus, in Protestant lands, antagonism to Jewish usury intensiﬁed and there were proposals to forbid all interest loans.39 The economic developments described above had additional adverse consequences for the Jews. As remarked, Christian commercial concerns amassed abundant capital and were in a position to extend the credit required by kings and noblemen. On the other hand, the Jews,

36 In an essay written in 1514 entitled Tractatus bipartitus de decimis, he advocated a 5% interest charge on commercial transactions. See Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, Leipzig 1898, s.v. Eck. With the encouragement of Jacob Fugger, Eck also participated in a public debate in Bologna in which he supported a limited interest rate. Compare G. Freiherr von Pölnitz, Die Fugger, third edition, Tübingen 1970, p. 21. 37 For example, Philip Melanchthon, who, despite his opposition in principle to usury, distinguished between diﬀerent types of monetary transactions. Compare C. Bauer, “Melanchthons Wirtschaftsethik”, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 49–50 (1958–1959), p. 154 ﬀ. 38 See E. Ramp, Das Zinsproblem bei Luther, Zwingli und Calvin, Zurich 1949, pp. 21–59; E. Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen, Berlin 1912, p. 573. 39 For example, in Hesse this was the proposal of the Reformer Bucer.

22

r. joseph’s defence of jewish interests

who suﬀered greatly from debt cancellations, ﬁscal demands on the part of the authorities, and other forms of oppression, were often unable to provide the large loans they had been accustomed to advance in the past. Consequently, they lost their clients from among the ranks of the nobles (who henceforth were dependent for credit on the Christian ﬁnance houses) and were left with no choice but to loan their money to the artisans and poverty-stricken peasants.40 However, these were just the people who generally found it diﬃcult to pay their debts, and in order to insure themselves against the loss of their money, Jewish moneylenders would exact very high interest rates. Moreover, the pledges that the Jews received were not redeemed, and, on many occasions, they sold them after a time, to the acute annoyance of the debtors. The combined eﬀect of the antipathy against usury and the general climate of anti-Jewish feeling that we remarked upon earlier is manifest in drawings and caricatures found in chronicles, belles lettres and scurrilous pamphlets against the Jews, which issued from the printing presses starting from the late ﬁfteenth century. These illustrations, which depicted the Jew with all the familiar identifying marks, generally also represented him as an avaricious usurer with his moneybag on his shoulder, and they had an increasing impact on public opinion. It is not surprising, therefore, that the cities generally, and indeed chieﬂy, justiﬁed their expulsion of Jews during that period by reference to Jewish usury and the excessive interest rates Jewish moneylenders were extracting from the common people and the poor. Thus it is understandable that the outcry against the large trading houses concerning the steep interest rates—Wucher, in the language of the period41—was directed also against the Jews. A decision of the Imperial Diet of 1500 already forbade the practice

40 See M. Toch’s article: “Der jüdische Geldhandel in der Wirtschaft des deutschen Spätmittelalters: Nürnberg 1350–1499”, Blätter für deutsche Landesgeschichte, 117 (1981), pp. 283–310. {Reprinted in idem, Peasants and Jews in Medieval Germany: Studies in Cultural, Social, and Economic History, Aldershot, England 2003. AS} Using the example of Nuremberg, he adduces proof of the economic decline of the Jews in the late ﬁfteenth century, from the status of creditors to the higher nobility to that of moneylenders to the lower classes. See, in particular, his comments from p. 299 onwards. 41 In modern German the expression Wucher is used exclusively to denote excessive interest; in the ﬁfteenth and sixteenth centuries it applied to all types of interest. Therefore, in documents of that period it is hard to discern whether the reference is to interest per se or solely to excessive interest.

general introduction

23

of usury within the Holy Roman Empire. This prohibition applied also to the Jews, and was renewed in subsequent years.42 However, there was no concrete threat to the Jews’ livelihood until the 1530 Augsburg Diet, where the campaign against usury was combined with demands for a total prohibition throughout the Empire on interest loans by Jews.43 R. Joseph did all in his power to prevent such a prohibition from being implemented. The Christians had two principal complaints that they made time and again: ﬁrstly, they accused the Jewish usurers of sueing defaulting debtors in the Imperial Courts of Justice, and, in particular, at the Hofgericht (Imperial Court Tribune) at Rottweil,44 thereby entailing heavy losses for the debtors.45 Their second grievance referred to the question of the Stolen Goods Law (Hehler-recht) or “Robbers’ Law”, as it is customary to designate it in the critical literature.46 This was a special right enjoyed throughout the Middle Ages only by Jews and Lombards, and it was granted to the Jews in all their charters. According to this law, if a Jew bought an article or received one as a pledge and it afterwards transpired that the article was stolen property, he was not obliged to return it unless he was refunded the sum he had paid for it, or the total amount of the loan he had 42 “Von Wucherlichen Contracten, uﬀ ein Reichstag zu Augspurg anno 1500 aufgericht und verabschidet” (Policeiordnung of 1500). Similar decisions were passed at the 1548 and 1551 Diets. 43 Decisions promulgated at the 1530 diet, Article CCXXXII: “Von Juden und Irem Wucher, wird in der Reformation guter Policey zu Augspurg Anno 30 auﬀgerichtet, disponirt wie folgt . . .”. 44 This was a court of law dealing primarily with loans and debts. For its powers and the opposition to it on the part of the territorial judicial authorities, see G. Grube, Die Verfassung des Rottweiler Hofgerichts, Stuttgart 1969, p. 39 ﬀ., and see below, introduction to section 15 of the Chronicle, p. 180. 45 The cities also questioned the integrity of the imperial justices. Evidence of the suspicion with which they viewed the Rottweil Court of Justice can be found in a document written by the Augsburg City Clerk in 1542, concerning a suit brought by a Jew against a resident of that city. The City Clerk considers the Rottweil Hofgericht a calamity for the German nation (als der Deutschen Nation Verderb), and fears that the case in question will have undesirable consequences, since, according to him, the Rottweil judicial authority is more concerned about the welfare of the Jews than the welfare of the Empire (“. . . denn die Rottweiler Instanz lasse sich die Sache der Juden mehr angelegen sein als die Sachen des Reichs”; StaA Augsburg, Personen-Selekt 1535–1561, Georg Fröhlich Stadt-Schreiber). Even assuming these words to be an exaggeration, it can be said that because it was an imperial institution, the Jews undoubtedly regarded the Rottweil Court of Justice as a more impartial body, and preferred to bring their lawsuits before it. 46 For a discussion of this subject, see below in the introduction to section 15 of the Chronicle, p. 180 and note 363 there.

24

r. joseph’s defence of jewish interests

made. This was contrary to the regular law of the land, which in such a case required the return of the article without any compensation. This dispensation was apparently accorded to Jews and Lombards because they made their living by trading and moneylending. Had it not been for this privilege, they would have been hard pressed to pursue their livelihood in the lawless climate of those times. R. Joseph dealt with these two complaints. While the 1530 Diet was still in session, he called representatives of all the German Jewish communities to Augsburg and together they drew up a long document consisting of 10 articles47 designed to regulate the monetary transactions and economic relations between the Jews and their Christian debtors.48 In this document, the Jews undertook to take interest only after agreement had been reached in this regard with the borrower, and that the interest should not exceed the standard rate; in addition, they promised not to sue their debtors in courts outside their places of residence until they had attempted to seek justice in the local court, and not to accept articles from people who had been found to be untrustworthy or had sold stolen goods in the past. All of the Jews did not always honour their obligations, and as a result the city of Strasbourg decided to forbid its citizens to engage in any business transactions with Jews. In 1536, R. Joseph convened another meeting with representatives of Jewish communities of the Hagenau region, and together they drew up a second economic document.49 In it the Jews pledged that, insofar as was possible, they would not institute proceedings against their debtors outside the places of residence of the latter, and that they would return to the owner any article found to be stolen, without any compensation. This last clause constituted a waiver on Jewish rights under the “Robbers’ Law”, which the document of 1530 had still attempted to safeguard. The Jewish representatives present at the meeting signed the new document, and in subsequent years additional community leaders added their signatures too. Thus, R. Joseph hoped to obtain an annulment of the prohibition imposed by several cities, including 47

This document is printed below in Appendix 1a (p. 377 onwards). For R. Joseph’s basic approach to the question of usury, see the discussion below in the introduction to the “Letter of Consolation”, pp. 352–353. 49 See below, Appendix 1b, p. 388 onwards. 48

general introduction

25

Strasbourg, on any ﬁnancial transaction with Jews without the prior approval of the city council, and on the taking of interest loans from Jews. However, all his exertions merely succeeded in dousing local conﬂagrations; these problems recurred time and again, partly because some Jews did not keep their obligations. R. Joseph made strenuous eﬀorts to convince his brethren to adhere to the said agreements and to punish those who violated them—even by excommunication. Even in places where there was no total prohibition, many cities forbade their citizens to take loans from Jews, or, at the very least, placed obstacles in their way. Among them were cities where Jews resided and others within whose limits they were forbidden to settle, such as Strasbourg and Nuremberg. These cities issued orders forbidding all dealings with Jews save in the presence and with the permission of a city representative. Any person contravening these orders was liable to severe penalties.50 However, the repeated reiteration of directives and prohibitions of this kind appears to indicate that they were frequently disregarded. R. Joseph expressed his basic attitude towards usury in his “Letter of Consolation” to the Jews of Hesse (1541). In this document, he does not attempt to grapple with the question of the morality of usury itself.51 This occupation of the Jews was a fact of life, which he saw no necessity or possibility of changing. In his words, the Bible expressly permits Jews to take interest from “the stranger”, and it is the heavy yoke laid upon the Jews that has caused them to regard the Christians as “strangers”. If the Christians were only to lighten the burden of taxes and payments on the Jews, the latter could desist from their usury transactions with greater ease than could any other people. However, R. Joseph opines, while usury is permissible, it is forbidden to take more than the customary rate of interest. The moneylender should not make proﬁts beyond what he needs for his livelihood. Whoever takes higher interest, out of fear that he will lose his money, or will not make a proﬁt tomorrow, shows a lack of faith in God, 50 For example, in Nuremberg, mandate dated 30 July 1539, preserved in StaA Nürnberg, and a similar directive in Strasbourg, in the years 1530, 1539: ArchMun Strasbourg, III 174, 21, and also in other cities. 51 In this respect he does not diﬀer from the majority of Jewish scholars and sages throughout the generations. Compare, H. Soloveitchik, Halakha, Kalkala veDimui Atsmi—ha-Mashkonaot bi-Yemei ha-Beinayim ( Jewish Law, Economics and SelfImage—Mortgages in the Middle Ages), Jerusalem 1985, preface, pp. 17–23.

26

r. joseph’s defence of jewish interests

who will make suﬃcient provision for his needs also for the morrow. R. Joseph regards the exaction of excessive interest and other illegal practices by Jews who lend money to Christians as symptoms of avarice and a contaminating plague, and he calls upon his brethren to be content with little and not to abuse the intrinsic right granted to them in the Bible. R. Joseph’s personal philosophy on the subject of usury was articulated in his “Letter of Consolation”, but not in his economic documents, which were drawn up to counter the attack on usury itself. In my humble opinion, R. Joseph’s economic documents were not designed to reform the economic life of the Jews; indeed, such a thought clearly never crossed his mind. He was not a social reformer, as S. Stern attempts to portray him.52 His attitude was pragmatic and of course moral, as was his moral-didactic approach to every subject. He understood that in order to earn their living the Jews had to make concessions, even when these ran counter to the promises accorded them in their charters. However, he had great diﬃculty in convincing his brethren to surrender some of their privileges.53 In eﬀect, R. Joseph had to do battle on two fronts—with the gentile authorities and with his own coreligionists—and he did not always achieve his desired aims on either front. Combating False Accusations, Particularly Blood Libels R. Joseph was very actively involved in defending the Jews against false accusations. Although the Jews possessed imperial charters guaranteeing them protection against the ritual murder charges, which the authorities had already recognized to be baseless fabrications, time and again all manner of accusations were hurled at them. The environment was saturated with superstition and popular religious sentiment, and the Jews were perceived as demonic beings capable of committing every type of iniquity: if it happened that a Christian child was found injured for any reason, or there was an unsolved murder, or, it goes without saying, if Christian sacred items in churches were desecrated, suspicion would immediately settle on the 52

S. Stern, p. 119. On the back of the 1536 document in R. Joseph’s handwriting are the following words: “. . . and with great diﬃculty I secured the agreement {of the Jews}”. 53

general introduction

27

Jews. In addition, they were suspected of supporting the Turkish Sultan and constituting an internal enemy in the countries at war with the Turks. In Catholic eyes they were even considered responsible for the emergence of Luther and his doctrine, while in Protestant circles they were blamed for the growth of radical dogmas and sects such as the Sabbatarians, and even the Anabaptists, who rebaptized themselves (Wiedertäufer). In his Chronicle, R. Joseph describes several cases of false accusations, including seven that were investigated by the judicial authorities. In four of these cases he intervened personally, and worked tirelessly to salvage the situation. On one occasion he himself was apparently the victim of some such libel.54 R. Joseph undoubtedly was quite successful in this area. Whenever he petitioned the Emperor in order to save Jews who had fallen victim to some libel or other, Charles reacted swiftly and sent warning letters to those who were persecuting the Jews. The condemned persons could not always be saved from death at the stake, but on several occasions judicial proceedings were halted against other Jews who had been implicated in the aﬀair by confessions extracted from the original suspects. Thus, for example, in the 1529 blood libel case in Pösing, Hungary, further judicial proceedings were stopped owing to the intervention of King Ferdinand in his capacity as King of Hungary. After the Silesia aﬀair (1535), proceedings were halted against Jews of Tyrnau who had been implicated in the slander. Sometimes R. Joseph even succeeded, with the aid of the Emperor, in freeing the accused themselves, as in the case of the blood libel in Tittingen (1541), and the blood libel in Würzburg (1544).55 The blood libel trials at that time were a kind of prelude to the witchcraft trials, which proliferated in Germany and the rest of Europe in the second half of the sixteenth century, in the seventeenth century, and even later. However, there were trials against witches and sorcerers also in earlier times. Therefore, even if it is not possible to point to a direct link between the witchcraft and blood libel trials, they can be seen as parallel phenomena: both were proceedings of the Inquisitional courts,56 and both terminated in the 54

Below, section 6 of the Chronicle, pp. 118 and 312–313. Below, section 24 of the Chronicle, pp. 248 and 332, and section 26, pp. 262 and 334–335. 56 For this unique judicial process, see A. Schoetensack, Der Strafprozeß der Carolina, 55

28

r. joseph’s defence of jewish interests

same manner as Inquisition trials—in death at the stake. The connection is not simply technical; in the popular consciousness of those days there was a close aﬃnity between the use of blood for ritual purposes, as the Jews were often accused of doing, and acts of witchcraft. The slander regarding the desecration of the Host likewise was linked to witchcraft. Christians too were accused at that time of practicing witchcraft with the aid of Hosts. In one of the libel cases (Silesia, 1535) a Jew was even explicitly charged with witchcraft and burnt at the stake. There is a surprising similarity between the judicial proceedings against “witches” and those in the ritual murder trials. In the ﬁrst place, in this type of trial the judiciary seem to have turned a blind eye to certain stipulations in the criminal penal code (such as the Carolina, the criminal code instituted in Germany during Charles’s reign) concerning their duty to investigate the reliability and integrity of witnesses or suspects. Because of the gravity of the crime, the testimony of known criminals and of prostitutes and vagrants, whose words would not have been relied upon under ordinary circumstances, was regarded as acceptable.57 Secondly, in both types of trials, people who knew themselves to be completely innocent were forced to confess to deeds falsely imputed to them. Without such a confession, there was no possibility, neither according to German criminal law nor Inquisitional law, of continuing the proceedings and handing down sentence. In most cases, a person accused of a crime

III B—Der Inquisitionsprozeß, Leipzig 1904, pp. 94–102. On the whole phenomena of witchcraft trials, see H. R. Trevor-Roper, The Crisis of the Seventeenth Century— Religion, The Reformation and Social Change, New York-Evanston 1968, ch. 3: The European Witch-Craze of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, pp. 90–192; and the fundamental work in this ﬁeld: W. G. Soldan and H. Heppe, Geschichte der Hexenprozesse, (ed.) M. Bauer, Munich 1912. K. Baschwitz, Hexen und Hexenprozesse, Munich 1963, lays particular stress on the psychological inﬂuence of the masses in the persecution of witches. For a general account of the phenomenon and an extensive bibliography, see M. Hammes, Hexenwahn und Hexenprozesse, Frankfurt on Main 1977. For Germany, see H. C. Erik Midelfort, Witch Hunting in Southwestern Germany 1562–1684, Stanford 1972; T. S. Riezler, Geschichte der Hexenprozesse in Bayern, im Lichte der allgemeinen Entwicklung dargestellt, Stuttgart 1896. Riezler emphasizes the link between witchcraft and heresy trials in the late Middle Ages. 57 On more than one occasion, disreputable characters and common criminals among the Christians brought false accusations against Jews; however, by so doing they also implicated themselves in the same crimes. See the recent study by W. Treue, “Schlechte und gute Christen. Zur Rolle von Christen in antijüdischen Ritualmord- und Hostienschändungslegenden”, Aschkenas, Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kultur der Juden, 2 (1992), pp. 95–116.

general introduction

29

of this kind had no way of retreat: if he confessed to the deed, he was undoubtedly guilty; if he denied it, his denial was attributed to the evil within him and—in the case of witchcraft—to the power of Satan, to whom the accused had sold his (or her) soul, and who was strengthening him in his obduracy.58 This was where the use of torture came into play; it was applied in order to break the spirit of the accused and bring him to confess to the crime. If he was resolute and did not confess, this was attributed to the power of Satan, which possessed and sustained him. According to the Church Fathers who drew up the ecclesiastical judicial code, only the crushing of this satanic power could help the accused, and therefore intensive torture was necessary.59 When the victim would not admit to his alleged crimes, he was tortured incessantly until he broke down and confessed. Such proceedings were also taken against the Jews in the various libel cases. Extant are documents of the period which detail the victims’ confessions. These are judicial records or pamphlets that circulated among the general public after the event, and together they present a generally uniform picture. At ﬁrst the Jews would indignantly and categorically deny the accusations, but the process was inexorable, and eventually they would confess, and even reiterate their admissions of guilt, apparently realizing that failure to do so would merely bring in its wake further judicial proceedings and renewed torture. An additional feature of Inquisition trials was the pressure placed on the accused to disclose the identity of their accomplices. During the tortures, the victims were required to name names, and, as a result, additional people were dragged into the aﬀair and put on trial on similar charges. The bill of indictment generally stated that the crime was committed on an occasion when a large number of Jews had congregated, for example for a wedding or a study session. After the crime had been perpetrated, the blood of the murdered child or the parts of the desecrated Host were said to have been transferred to 58

For the spiritual climate and popular superstitions prevalent in Germany during those years, see W. E. Peuckert, Die Große Wende, I: Das Apokalyptische Saeculum und Luther, Darmstadt 1966, p. 103 ﬀ.; R. Po-chia Hsia, The Myth of Ritual Murder— Jews and Magic in Reformation Germany, New Haven-London 1988. 59 For this, see H. Fehr, “Gottesurteil und Folter”, Festgabe für Rudolf Stammler, Berlin-Leipzig 1926, pp. 231–54, and in particular, pp. 240–42.

30

r. joseph’s defence of jewish interests

additional communities by the people cited in the confessions. In this manner an entire web of calumnies was spun, into which more and more Jews became entangled. On many occasions the accused were presented with a list of names, generally those of wealthy members of their communities, and under torture the victims were forced to admit that these were their accomplices or even the initiators of the crime. Although to us these proceedings seem quite horrifying in their brutality and in the shocking travesty of justice they entailed, it is not always clear whether the judges presiding over these trials acted out of pure malice, or were conscious that they were perverting the law. Apparently both the judges and those who carried out their instructions, all of them integral members of that society with its beliefs, attitudes and superstitions, were genuinely convinced that the Jews were guilty. Similarly, the territorial rulers, and perhaps also the city councils and burghers, who as a result of some such libel would expel the Jews from their territory, were convinced of the Jews’ guilt. The entire society believed in the wickedness of the Jews and that they were the children or tools of Satan, just as they believed in the evil and satanity of witches. They doubtless congratulated themselves that they were doing their duty by Christian society and preserving it from the iniquitous designs of the Jews and the devil. How did the judiciary not perceive that it was precisely the wealthy Jews who were the victims of these libels, their debtors being only too delighted to be rid of them in this way and to see their property conﬁscated following successful prosecution? The approximate sequence of events probably was as follows: The testimony of a single person—be it a count (as in the Pösing case) or an archbishop (as in the Brandenburg aﬀair) or one of the city leaders (as in the Silesia case)—who publicly cast suspicion on Jews he wished to harm, would suﬃce to incriminate them. Once the machinery had been put into action it developed an overwhelming momentum of its own, and the outcome was almost inevitable.60 Only when a case could be halted at the outset, before the indictment was presented, was 60

The inevitable outcome is vividly depicted by M. Kunze in Straße ins Feuer— Vom Leben und Sterben in der Zeit des Hexenwahns, Munich 1982. (Also in English translation: Highroad to the Stake—A Tale of Witchcraft, Chicago 1987.) This is an historical novel based on the author’s research into the records of the judicial proceedings against one particular family: Der Prozeß Pappenheimer (Münchner Universitätsschriften, Abhandlungen zur Rechtswissenschaftlichen Grundlagenforschung, 48), Ebelsbach 1981.

general introduction

31

there a minute chance that the libel accusation would not evolve into a full Inquisition trial; possibly this is what occurred in the case of R. Joseph himself in Mittelbergheim. Therefore, R. Joseph is worthy of the greatest respect for his success in having the proceedings against certain Jews in Würzburg stopped61 after they had been initiated, and after the suspects had already been imprisoned for many months. In the conditions prevailing at the time, this was certainly an astonishing achievement. Combating Attacks on the Jews by Reformation Leaders The hatred towards the Jews on the part of Christian theologians cut across the divide: there were Catholics who were the greatest enemies of the Jews, although there were also others who were prepared to defend them. The same was true for the Protestant camp. The prominent Catholic theologian Doctor Johannes Eck, Luther’s opponent at the Diet of Worms in 1521, was one of the Jews’ most implacable foes. R. Joseph does not mention his name, but it is hard to believe that he had not heard of him, and may even have met him personally. It is unlikely that R. Joseph did not know about Eck’s vicious tract in which he attacked Andreas Osiander—the Lutheran theologian and Protestant leader from Nuremberg who published a pamphlet refuting the ritual murder accusation against the Jews.62 In his works R. Joseph also omits any reference to the satirist Thomas Murner from Alsace, who was active at the time and wrote calumnies against the Jews.63 In the Protestant camp, while Martin Luther and Martin Bucer were consolidating their negative views about the Jews, their colleague Osiander spoke out, as remarked, in defence of Jews who were victims of blood libel accusations.64 It seems that also the humanist and Protestant theologian Philip Melanchthon objected to Luther’s

61

See below, section 26 of the Chronicle, pp. 334–35. See introduction to section 13 of the Chronicle, note 284, p. 159. {However, see below, p. 248, where C. Fraenkel-Goldschmidt suggests that R. Joseph was not acquainted with Osiander’s and Eck’s tracts. Translator} 63 On Murner, see B. Degany, “Da"at ha-Kahal ha-Anti Yehudit”, pp. 211–13. 64 For Osiander’s religious philosophy, see G. Seebas, Das reformatorische Werk des Andreas Osiander, Nuremberg 1967. The extent to which Judaism inﬂuenced his beliefs is examined by E. Hirsch, Die Theologie des Andreas Osiander und ihre geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen, Göttingen 1919, pp. 129, 136 f., 166. 62

32

r. joseph’s defence of jewish interests

virulent words against the Jews.65 It was Melanchthon who publicly exposed the spuriousness of the 1510 Brandenburg libel,66 and R Joseph presumably met him at assemblies of the Diet or conventions of the Protestant princes. Another member of this circle was Wolfgang Capito,67 formerly of Hagenau and later a resident of Strasbourg, who knew R. Joseph personally and gave him a letter of introduction to Luther. In his youth R. Joseph had attended Capito’s lectures and sermons, and he calls him, and also Melanchthon, “one of the sages of the nations” and “a most learned man” (hochgelert)— terms specially reserved by him for the humanists. Also attached to this circle to some extent was Johannes Draconites, “the baptizer of the Jews”.68 He had no love for Jews, but in his writings attacked those who were prejudiced against them and who were not prepared to accept the sincerity of Jewish converts to Christianity.69 Clearly all the Protestant leaders were anxious to see the conversion of the Jews, while some were more determined in that respect than others. However, Osiander’s and Capito’s pursuit of this ambition did not take the form of a harsh persecution, as was the case with Luther and his colleague Bucer.70 65 Melanchthon received a letter from Osiander in which the latter vehemently denounced Luther’s virulent writings against the Jews. Theological circles in Wittenberg got word of the letter and Melanchthon endeavoured to conceal knowledge of it from Luther, eventually going so far as to destroy it, at Osiander’s request. See K.H. Rengstorf and S. von Kortzﬂeisch (eds.), Kirche und Synagoge, I, Stuttgart 1968, p. 430. In a similar letter to Elijah Bachur, known as Levita, Osiander sharply criticized Luther’s harsh tracts. Compare, G. Bossert, “Judaeus Dulcius”, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 7 (1909), p. 440. 66 See introduction to section 5 of the Chronicle, below, p. 108 onwards, and “Letter of Consolation”, below, pp. 358 and 365–366. 67 For a short biography of him, see H. Grimm, in: Neue Deutsche Biographie, 3, pp. 132–33. 68 For Draconites, see Sefer ha-Miknah, introduction, p. 31, note 2; and G. Th. Strobel, D. Johann Draconites, nach seinem Leben und nach seinen Schriften beschrieben, Nuremberg-Altdorf 1793. {For a recent treatment, see Elisheva Carlebach, Divided Souls: Converts from Judaism in Germany, 1500–1750, New Haven 2001, pp. 163–64. AS} 69 See Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt, “Be-Shulei ha-Óevra ha-Yehudit—Mumarim Yehudim be-Germaniyah Bitkufat ha-Reformatsiyah” (On the Periphery of Jewish Society—Jewish Converts to Christianity in Germany during the Reformation),” in: Tarbut ve-Óevra be-Toldot Yisrael bi-Yemei ha-Beinayim (Culture and Society in Medieval Jewry; Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson), Jerusalem 1989, pp. 637–38, and note 66 there. 70 There is a letter by Osiander to the Nuremberg City Council, in which he requests permission for a Jew, who had approached him in order to convert to Christianity, to stay in the city: The letter is in the Nuremberg City Archives, StaA Nürnberg, Bestand D Akten Nr. 212a; for Capito and his attitude to the conver-

general introduction

33

The question of Luther’s71 attitude towards the Jews has engaged the attention of scholars and churchmen ever since Reinhold Lewin’s fundamental study and up to the present day.72 In 1523 Luther wrote a tract entitled: Das Jhesus Christus eyn geborner Jude sey (That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew).73 In this work Luther severely criticized the attitude of the Catholic Church towards the Jews and maintained that in order to reach the ﬁnal objective, namely their conversion, they must be treated with kindness, and not persecuted as had been the case up till then. However, some years later, in a tract he wrote against the Sabbatarians, Ein Brief wider die Sabbather an einen guten Freund (A Letter Concerning the Sabbatarians to a Good Friend) (1538),74 he changed his tone, and he accused the Jews of proselytizing among the Christians and of inﬂuencing Christian sects that dissented from his doctrines. This trend in Luther’s writings reached its peak in 1543 when he published three tracts against the Jews: Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and their Lies);75 Vom Schem Hamphorasch und vom Geschlecht Christi (On the Shem Hamephoras and the Image of Christ)76 and Von den Lezten Worten Davids (Concerning David’s Last Words).77 In these works Luther vented all his fury and hate on the Jews. He accused them of stubborness and of denying the truth of Christianity. He rehearsed all the calumnies that Jewhaters had levelled against them; he warned the rulers and the Christian population of the great danger presented by Jewish beliefs and by the very presence of the Jews in the land; he demanded that the rabbis be forbidden to teach the principles of their faith; he recommended that Jewish books and property be conﬁscated and synagogues burnt, that the Jews be forbidden to practice usury and that all the heavy and degrading work be allotted to them. However, the best solution of all, he maintained, would be their total expulsion from all Christian countries. sion of the Jews, see J. Kleiner, The Attitude of the Strasbourg Reformers Towards Jews and Judaism, Ph.D. Thesis, Temple University, 1978, p. 99. 71 For a detailed analysis of Luther’s writings and the current state of research into his works, see the article by G. Müller, Neue Deutsche Biographie, 15, pp. 549–61. 72 R. Lewin, Luthers Stellung zu den Juden, Berlin 1911. 73 Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Weimar 1883 [= WA], XI, pp. 309–36. 74 WA L, pp. 312–37. 75 WA LIII, pp. 417–552. 76 WA ibid., pp. 579–648. 77 WA LIV, pp. 28–200.

34

r. joseph’s defence of jewish interests

Lewin opines that Luther’s radical change of attitude towards the Jews can be attributed to his disappointment at their refusal to accept his Protestant doctrine, in spite of his positive approach to them. Unlike Lewin, Wilhelm Maurer argues in a series of studies,78 that despite diﬀerences of emphasis between the works of the young and old Luther, there was no concrete change in his theological position. In Maurer’s opinion, Luther was consistent all his life in his basic beliefs, namely, that the Jews were subject to God’s wrath because of their refusal to accept Jesus as the Messiah, and that the ﬁnal goal of Christianity would only be fully reached when the Jews became converted. Maurer maintains that, despite Luther’s harsh utterances, he never abandoned hope that the elect of Jewry would eventually ﬁnd their way to Christianity. These conﬂicting positions have been debated in recent years, some scholars inclining one way and some the other. Heiko Oberman shares Maurer’s view that Luther’s theological attitude towards the Jews did not change. However, he emphasizes other aspects of Luther’s teachings, and establishes that already in his early writings and commentaries the Protestant leader expounded his basic belief, according to which, Jews, heretics and papists together constituted an alignment of satanic forces that was denying and waging war against the religious truth of his doctrine. This explained his harsh words against the Jews in his last years.79

78 W. Maurer, Kirche und Synagoge, Motive und Formen der Auseinandersetzung, Stuttgart 1953, pp. 39–51; 88–104; idem, “Die Zeit der Reformation”, in: Rengstorf and Kortzﬂeisch, Kirche und Synagoge, 1, pp. 375–429. The debate surrounding Luther’s attitude to the Jews acquired additional relevance after the Holocaust, as the Nazis had explicitly espoused Luther’s anti-Jewish writings. The question naturally arose to what extent Luther can be regarded as a forerunner of modern antisemitism. Luther’s utterances pose a particularly serious problem for contemporary Protestant scholars. Hence, the sincere eﬀort by scholars such as Maurer to comprehend Luther’s words in purely theological terms, and not as a practical political programme. The year 1983, which marked the 500th anniversary of Luther’s birth, saw the appearance of a large number of new publications about him, including some on the subject of Luther and the Jews. Among these is a collection of essays edited by H. Kremers, Die Juden und Martin Luther—Martin Luther und die Juden, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1985. 79 H. A. Oberman, “Die Juden in Luthers Sicht”, in H. Kremers (ed.), Die Juden und Martin Luther, pp. 136–62. {Oberman’s views on Luther and the Jews are available in English in his Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, New York 1992, especially pp. 292–97; and in his “Three Sixteeenth-Century Attitudes Toward Judaism: Reuchlin, Erasmus, and Luther,” in B. Cooperman (ed.), Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth Century, Cambridge, MA 1983, pp. 326–64. See as well note 80. AS}

general introduction

35

Scholars are divided in their opinions as to the centrality of the Jewish question to Luther’s theology. Some like Maurer believe— and here too Oberman concurs with him—that the Jewish question occupied a central place in his thought,80 while others maintain that it was peripheral, and that its importance in his doctrine as a whole should not be exaggerated.81 There are two stages in R. Joseph’s involvement with the Lutherans: In 1537 R. Joseph attempted to have a meeting with Luther, to request him to use his good services with Protestant Elector John Frederick of Saxony and dissuade the latter from expelling the Jews from his land. He assumed that Luther, as John Frederick’s spiritual mentor, would be able to inﬂuence the Saxonian ruler in this matter, and he was conﬁdent that in a face-to-face meeting he could successfully persuade Luther of the injustice of expelling the Jews. Apparently, he was not yet aware that the Elector’s decision itself was almost certainly prompted by Luther’s negative attitude towards the Jews. In any event, Luther refused to see R. Joseph, and no discussion took place between these two personalities. Indeed, it may be possible to see in this meeting that did not take place a fateful omen for the future. In 1543, after the publication of Luther’s vitriolic tracts, R. Joseph wrote two letters to the Strasbourg city council,82 asking that the city not permit the printing of Luther’s writings within its boundaries. His request was granted, perhaps not so much out of love for him but more because the city authorities were apparently convinced by his warnings and feared that Luther’s intemperate utterances would stir up unrest among the population. In his letters, R. Joseph contended that Luther’s harsh words against the Jews were motivated by hatred and rage that did not beﬁt a man of learning. He rejected Luther’s accusations and once again oﬀered to meet him to correct his erroneous ideas about the Jews, emphasizing that he did not intend to argue with him on 80 See H. A. Oberman, Wurzeln des Antisemitismus, Berlin 1981, pp. 125–43: {English translation: The Roots of Antisemitism in the Age of Renaissance and Reformation, Philadelphia 1984. AS} 81 For this point of view, see J. Brosseder, “Luther und der Leidensweg der Juden”, in H. Kremers, Die Juden, p. 119, note 36, and pp. 147–48. 82 ArchMun Strasbourg, III, 174, 22–23. One of these letters is printed below, in Appendix 2, p. 398 ﬀ.

36

r. joseph’s defence of jewish interests

matters of faith. As on other occasions, R. Joseph stressed that the religious struggle in Germany was none of the business of the Jews. However, he remarked that also many Christians who did not accept Luther’s theology might be oﬀended by his words. Two years later, in his Chronicle and in Sefer ha-Miknah, R. Joseph described Luther as having professed new doctrines and as one who had written heretical books (!)—this, in eﬀect, is the Catholic point of view.83 In the discussion of R. Joseph’s defence of the Jews against Protestant attacks, his intervention on behalf of Hessian Jewry occupies a special place.84 In 1541, in response to Martin Bucer’s Advice to Landgrave Philip of Hesse of 1538, and after an appeal to him by Hessian Jewry, R. Joseph wrote his “Letter of Consolation to Hessian Jewry” (printed below), in which he refuted Bucer’s arguments and accusations. In a letter that same year to the Strasbourg city council, he explained his activities on behalf of Hessian Jewry and enclosed a German translation of the “Letter of Consolation”, which he had prepared for the occasion. In his letter, R. Joseph emphasized that he had not written anything that might oﬀend anyone, and that he only wished to “apologize”, namely, to defend the Jews against Luther’s and Bucer’s attacks. He stressed that he had no intention of engaging in a religious disputation for its own sake, he had no desire to convince anyone of the truth of the Jewish religion but merely begged that the Jews be permitted the undisturbed practice of their religion. However, in the “Letter of Consolation” itself, while warning Hessian Jewry not to allow themselves to be drawn into any religious debate, he did deal with questions central to the religious dispute—if there was one—between Protestants and Jews. He explained to Hessian Jewry how best to respond to Bucer’s charges against the Jewish religion, and thus, albeit unwittingly, he did participate in the religious and theological debate, although his words were clearly not intended for Christian eyes, but were meant to encourage and strengthen Hessian Jewry.

83 See Sefer ha-Miknah, pp. 73–74, and below, section 22 of the Chronicle, p. 329, and note 315 there. 84 The Hesse episode is discussed in detail in the introduction to the “Letter of Consolation”, below, p. 340 onwards.

general introduction

37

Assistance to Jews in Times of War Two wars were fought on German soil during R. Joseph’s lifetime and both might have had perilous consequences for the Jews. The ﬁrst was the Peasants War of 1525, which was a violent discharge of fury and frustration on the part of the lower classes in both urban and rural areas, caused by a combination of social, economic and, above all, religious factors. As on any occasion of uncontrolled mass agitation, the Jews were liable to suﬀer, and in fact R. Joseph wrote that according to his information Jews had been attacked by the peasants in various locations. R. Joseph took action in two directions: ﬁrstly, he ensured that Jews were able to take refuge in Strasbourg,85 this at a time when the peasants were moving rapidly from city to city. Many years later, he praised Strasbourg for granting the Jews unconditional sanctuary within its walls during this war. However, he also had to convince the peasants not to harm the Jews. In the peasants’ view, the Jews belonged to the enemy camp, in which were all the oppressors of the common people. Many of the peasants’ manifestos in diﬀerent localities included the demand that the Jews be expelled. Yet R. Joseph relates in his Chronicle that he received an undertaking from leaders of the Alsatian peasants at their camp in Altdorf near Rosheim, that they would not harm the Jews. How did he succeed in obtaining this? S. Stern points to the aﬃnity between the views expressed by R. Joseph in his petitions to the authorities, concerning the equality of human beings and the natural rights pertaining to all mankind including the Jews, and similar ideas and slogans extolled by the peasants.86 She suggests that this was the reason why R. Joseph’s words found a responsive chord with the peasant leaders. Possibly R. Joseph also managed to convince the peasants that the Jews were more lenient towards debtors than were Christian usurers. And the peasants doubtless understood that the Jews did not identify with the

85

In the source material there is no evidence that R. Joseph was involved in this matter; however, his great exertions on behalf of the Jews during the Peasants War, and the fact that he was able to give details of the conditions for the admission of the Jews at that time to Strasbourg, strengthens the hypothesis that it was he who took the initiative here. 86 S. Stern, pp. 70–71.

38

r. joseph’s defence of jewish interests

nobility, against whom they were battling, but that, like them, the Jews were frequently victims of their tyranny. The second war was the Schmalkaldic War (1546–1547), in which R. Joseph was active in both the Protestant and Catholic camps: he wrote to Strasbourg, entreating that city to intercede with the Protestant princes, and with their army leaders and allies, so that they should not harm the Jews, who were not a party to the conﬂict. At the Diet of Worms in 1545, he submitted to the Catholic Estates complaints about the treatment of the Jews, emphasizing in particular the manner in which they were being persecuted by the Protestants— notably in Saxony and Hesse, those two large principalities that headed the Schmalkaldic League against the Emperor and the Catholics. R. Joseph had no diﬃculty in proving that the situation of the Jews in Protestant lands was extremely diﬃcult, what with the expulsion of the Jews from Saxony in 1536, and the persecution of Jews in Hesse in 1541 following Bucer’s actions, and again in 1543 after the publication of Luther’s vicious writings. Moreover, R. Joseph emphasized to the Catholics that the Spanish forces the Emperor had brought to Germany were ill-treating the Jews, and that, in eﬀect, the Jews were being victimized by both sides. His words convinced the Catholic princes and the Emperor, and Charles issued a proclamation to the Spanish soldiers that anyone injuring a Jew would be severely punished. Indeed, at the conclusion of the war R. Joseph was able to note with satisfaction, “we did not lose a single person in this great war”.87 In both these wars, R. Joseph knew full well where he stood and with whom he identiﬁed himself. He did not feel the slightest solidarity with the peasants in their struggle; his entire sympathy rested with the establishment, with the imperial government, which must keep order in the land. The same held good for the Schmalkaldic War. Despite his claim that the Jews were maintaining a policy of neutrality, he relates that they assisted the Emperor’s forces with supplies and gifts, and at the end of the war he openly rejoiced in Charles’s triumph. Undoubtedly, he feared that victory for the Protestant principalities would be extremely dangerous for the Jews. There is also a direct relationship between R. Joseph’s instinctive support for Charles and his reliance upon the charters the Jews

87

See section 28 of the Chronicle, below, p. 339, line 1.

general introduction

39

received from the emperors, which, he was convinced, guaranteed their security. However, as remarked, he still attempted to protect the Jews by arguing that they were not a party to the religious dispute in the land, and that therefore neither side should attack them. The Jews’ social detachment and the fact that they were outside the religious framework could avail them at times of national crisis, and R. Joseph, in his concern for the fate of his people, was well aware of this.

R. Joseph’s Chronicle and Historiographical Approach The Chronicle’s Structure, Character, and Objectives R. Joseph of Rosheim’s Chronicle is preserved in a manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford (MS Opp. 715). Its existence came to light with its publication by Isadore Kracauer in 1888.88 Kracauer called it a “journal”, namely “diary”, under the mistaken impression that it consisted of notes written by R. Joseph over a period of many years. This error has already been rectiﬁed by Harry Bresslau,89 who established that these were not notes made at the time of the events, but the fruit of a single literary eﬀort in about the year 1547, and that therefore the term Memoiren—“memoirs”—was appropriate. Since then this has become the accepted name for the work in the literature. S. Stern uses it in her biography of R. Joseph. Although Bresslau’s rationale is still valid, we have preferred to depart from the accepted usage and to call this work by the name “Chronicle”, for the following reasons: 1. The sections are in the form of a chronicle. Each paragraph opens with the year—“And in the year . . .”; there is no relevant connection between one section and the next; each year, or occasionally a number of years, is allotted one section; each such section closes in exalted tones, generally in the language of prayer or supplication to Heaven. It appears that the author modelled his Chronicle on the Hebrew chronicles of the Crusades, which were widely circulated among

88 89

I. Kracauer, “Le Journal de Joselman de Rosheim,” REJ, 16 (1888), pp. 84–105. See H. Bresslau, “Aus Straßburger Judenakten”, ZGJD, 5 (1892), p. 309.

40

r. joseph’s chronicle

Ashkenazi Jews. We know that R. Joseph was particularly interested in those chronicles, and even copied extracts from them in his own hand.90 It seems that since he identiﬁed with the sentiments in these chronicles, he too wished to compose a work of this kind, in its traditional garb. 2. The historical writings of R. Joseph generally have a clear root concept in accordance with which the events are described. In the historical part of Sefer ha-Miknah,91 which R. Joseph wrote at about the same time as his Chronicle, the diﬀerent sections likewise have an almost uniform structure. Most of them begin in the same manner: “See what happened”, “See and understand . . . what transpired”, or—in the paragraphs dealing with the expulsions—simply with the words: “The Augsburg expulsion occurred on account of . . .”, “The Ulm expulsion . . . was on account of . . .”, and so forth. They generally close with words of imprecation against the apostates or informers, such as: “And the informers . . . woe to their lives, woe to their souls and they are cursed, and all the people answered Amen” (the Strasbourg Aﬀair); “Woe to their lives, woe to their souls” (Bavaria, Augsburg, and Ulm); “At the destruction of the wicked, there was rejoicing and gladness for the Jews” (the Pfeﬀerkorn Aﬀair); “Assuredly {their} guilt will not be extinguished nor their canker expunged” (Nuremberg); “. . . May his soul suﬀer in hell together with the other informers and heretics . . .” (Samuel Ensheim). The author’s objective in Sefer ha-Miknah was to describe the tragedies that befell the Jewish people due to the informers and the apostates. Similarly, in his Chronicle every section commences in an identical manner: “And in the year . . .”, and concludes with words such as: “May God do so and more also” (using the Hebrew word yosif, hinting at a pun on the author’s name), or “Blessed be God who did not fail {us} in His mercy”, or “Until God witnessed our suﬀerings and saved us . . .”, or “Blessed be God who took vengeance for us on our enemies and saved us from their hands and from their evil

90 MS Oxford-Bodleian Opp. 712, which includes Sefer ha-Miknah, also contains a compilation by R. Joseph of extracts from a number of books, among them some passages from a collection which was, in his words: “From a manuscript written by the man of God, ha-Roke"a˙, in the year 4957 (1197)”, (fol. 292v) in which are descriptions from Hebrew chronicles of the massacres of 1096, as well as words of lament by R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms {Ba"al ha-Roke"a˙} for his wife and two daughters, murdered by Crusaders during the Third Crusade. 91 Sefer ha-Miknah, pp. 7–24.

general introduction

41

devices”. In sections dealing with cases of religious martyrdom (Kiddush Hashem*), he generally concludes with words such as: “May God, blessed be He, grant us favour by virtue of the merit of those exalted martyrs . . .”. This, therefore, is the general framework of the Chronicle, and from the closing words of the sections we can arrive at an understanding of the basic purpose of the work: it was very important for the author to relate incidents in which his people were preserved from evil decrees or designs, or from the tragedies that overtook them. An excellent example of this is the story of the rescue of his parents at the time of the Burgundy War. The writer vividly describes the cruel manner of their persecution, as though to emphasize graphically the magnitude of their deliverance. He is ﬁlled with the recognition that even in the midst of his people’s suﬀerings and persecution the providence and miraculous salvation of the Almighty are manifest. R. Joseph wrote his Chronicle in order to demonstrate time and again that God does not only punish His people but also saves them in times of distress. All the sections, with the exception of the ﬁrst two—which deal with his family—describe events in which R. Joseph himself was involved in one way or another. This undoubtedly is one of the striking features of the Chronicle, and therefore perhaps the title “Memoirs” is a ﬁtting one, for the term “memoirs” denotes those particular events in the life of an individual which he remembers and feels the need to record for future generations from his own personal perspective. This is the case here. The author has a deﬁnite goal in mind; he wishes to provide a faithful account of the events for the beneﬁt of later generations.92 On the other hand, the overall concept of the work lifts it out of the narrow framework of memoirs and gives it

* {Kiddush Hashem—literally “sanctiﬁcation of God’s Name”. In the Middle Ages, this term denoted religious martyrdom, the willingness of a Jew to sacriﬁce his life for his faith. Endurance under severe torture to avoid making a false confession was also considered to be Kiddush Hashem. See below, section 26 of the Chronicle, pp. 334–335 and footnote 400 there. Translator} 92 In the aforementioned MS Opp 712, on fol. 157 he explains the purpose of his writings, “. . . I have faithfully written down exactly what I found. I have not hesitated to write the truth, so that {these words} will be preserved for a long time”.

42

r. joseph’s chronicle

a wider dimension that justiﬁes the name “Chronicle”. It is not a consecutive chronicle, neither is it consecutive memoirs. R. Joseph selected a number of events from the history of his people in the days of his parents and during his own lifetime and wrote down some details of them that he thought were important. The author himself discloses how he reached the decision to write down his record. He copied down words that a Jew from Nuremberg had written inside a prayer book, concerning the history of Alsatian Jewry at the time of the 1476–1477 Burgundy War,93 and then a decision crystallized in his mind: “I said in my heart, it is ﬁtting that I should write down as a memorial what I have heard from my father, my teacher of blessed memory . . .”94—and he proceeds to describe the experiences of his parents during the persecutions that took place at that time. Since he had decided to start writing, what could be more ﬁtting than to commence with the story of the martyrdom (Kiddush Hashem) of his three great-uncles in Endingen? Here we reach the second pivot upon which his narrative hinges: the acts of religious martyrdom. These episodes are the ones that are worthy of being recorded and transmitted to future generations. Therefore the author writes about not only the martyrs of Endingen and Pforzheim (1470), who were after all his relatives, but also the martyrs of Brandenburg (1510), the martyrs of Pösing (1529), and also Solomon Molcho (1532). These are not tales of salvation and miracles, but of acts that his people should preserve in their memory as holy, and this in the spirit of his words: “For a memorial until the last generation so that thereby they should attain wisdom”.95 The Contents of the Chronicle The following is a brief survey of the subjects in the Chronicle. The Chronicle opens with the Endingen blood libel case of 1470 and continues in the second section with a description of the suﬀerings of Alsatian Jewry at the hands of the Swiss forces during the Burgundy War of 1476–1477. The third section is devoted to the War of the

93 94 95

Below, section 2 of the Chronicle, p. 304, lines 1–17 and p. 305, lines 1–4. Ibid., p. 305, line 11 onwards. Sefer ha-Miknah, p. 75, line 6.

general introduction

43

Bavarian Succession, 1503–1505, which led to suﬀering for the Jews of Alsace, and for R. Joseph personally. The following section, which deals with the year 1507, discusses the problem of the status of the Jews in Oberehnheim (today Obernai), which had expelled its Jews during the Burgundy War, and in 1507 received a charter from the Emperor conﬁrming the expulsion. There is further reference to this subject in the sections relating to 1515 and to 1522, in which year negotiations started which concluded in an agreement between the Jews and Oberehnheim. In the section dealing with the year 1510, the author discusses three events: his appointment to a position of leadership, the case of the martyrs of Brandenburg, and the Johannes Pfeﬀerkorn Aﬀair. Following this, in the section for 1514, the author intimates that he himself and the other Jews of Mittelbergheim were the victims of a libel. The section for 1514/15 discusses expulsion threats facing the Jews in a number of places in Alsace at that time, and R. Joseph’s actions in this regard. The year 1519 was crowded with events that are mentioned in the Chronicle: the death of Emperor Maximilian; the expulsion of the Jews from Regensburg; proposals for the expulsion of the Jews from several places in Alsace, including Rosheim, where R. Joseph had meanwhile taken up residence. The section for 1520/21 mentions the accession to the throne of Emperor Charles V, and describes R. Joseph’s activities at the Emperor’s court to obtain privileges for German Jewry, and his eﬀorts to thwart plans to drive the Jews out of various places in Alsace. The following section, covering 1522, deals with the Nuremberg Diet, to which R. Joseph was summoned, and concludes the account of his involvement in the Oberehnheim aﬀair. The section on 1525 is devoted to the Peasants War, and the following one describes how R. Joseph frustrated an expulsion attempt in the Hagenau region. The subsequent section concerns the Pösing martyrs of 1529. The following two sections deal with the events of 1529 and 1530: the Augsburg Diet and R. Joseph’s actions to prevent a total expulsion of the Jews from the German Empire; his disputation with the apostate Antonius Margaritha, his struggle against the proposal to prohibit the Jews from practising usury, and his eﬀorts to obtain a conﬁrmation of Alsatian Jewry’s privileges. In the section for 1531, mention is made of R. Joseph’s journey on community business to Brabant. The section for 1532 is devoted to the Regensburg Diet and Solomon Molcho’s appearance there. The following section

44

r. joseph’s chronicle

describes the 1535 Silesia libel case.* The subsequent section deals with the fate of the Jews in Coron and Patras, and in Tunis, in the wake of the Mediterranean wars waged by Charles V in 1532 and 1535. The section for 1533/34 discusses R. Joseph’s intervention in the conﬂicts within the Prague community; this is followed by a brief mention of the false accusation brought against him in 1535 or 1536. The section for 1536/37 discusses the expulsion of the Jews from Saxony and the attempts on the part of the author to prevent this action. In this section the author also polemicizes with the two Reformers Luther and Bucer. The following section gives some information about the expulsion of the Jews from Naples in 1541, and an additional section for that year describes the blood libel against Tittingen Jewry. This is followed by a description of the expulsion from Prague in 1542, and the author’s eﬀorts to avert this. The following section, for 1543/44, discusses the blood libel in the Würzburg region; the section for 1545 deals with the Diet of Worms, and with renewed designs to expel the Jews from the whole of Germany, successfully thwarted by R. Joseph. The section for 1546 describes the Regensburg Diet, R Joseph’s receipt of a comprehensive charter for all of German Jewry, the commencement of the Schmalkaldic War, and R. Joseph’s concern for the fate of the Jews during that war. The ﬁnal section, for 1547, is likewise devoted to the Schmalkaldic War. The Chronicle contains 29 sections. The series of events that unfold before our eyes begins in 1470 and concludes in 1547. Some of the events concerned R. Joseph personally, others aﬀected single communities in Alsace, or the Hagenau region, or the whole of Alsace. There are sections dealing with the Jewish communities in one or other of the German principalities, such as Brandenburg or Saxony, and others relating to the fate of the Jews in all of the German territories. A few sections are concerned with Jews in areas outside Germany, such as North Africa, Silesia and Bohemia. The common factor in all these cases was the active participation of R. Joseph in the events in one way or another, in order to save Jews, prevent expulsions, obtain conﬁrmation of privileges, combat false accusations

* {On R. Joseph’s incorrect date for the Silesia libel, see introduction to that section, p. 212. AS}

general introduction

45

and ensure Jewish economic survival. The Chronicle reﬂects R. Joseph’s activities in many diﬀerent arenas: he defended Jewish interests before assemblies of the Imperial Diets, at the Emperor’s court wherever the Emperor happened to be staying, at the Imperial Chancellory, before the Unterlandvogt at Hagenau, and before city councils, and he attempted to exert his inﬂuence in all matters directly aﬀecting the fate of the Jews in Germany and elsewhere in his day. He was not deterred by the personal dangers he often encountered, nor did he hesitate to undertake arduous journeys to distant lands; he even journeyed to places where entry to Jews was prohibited. It is worth pointing out some of R. Joseph’s many activities on behalf of his coreligionists that are not mentioned in his Chronicle. Omitted from the Chronicle is any mention of his lengthy negotiations with the Colmar authorities respecting the right of Jews to reside in that city or at least trade there on market days. This episode, which culminated in a court action by R. Joseph against Colmar in the years 1548–1551, is not substantially diﬀerent from the Oberehnheim case. Similarly, the protracted negotiations he conducted during those years with the city of Türkheim, concerning the right of Jews to reside there, are passed over in silence. His intercession with the authorities in his own city of Rosheim to prevent the expulsion from there of the Jews is only hinted at in the section of the Chronicle for 1519/20. In addition, he does not tell us about some of his main actions in the sphere of internal Jewish aﬀairs, such as, for example, the 1536 economic agreement, which he himself drafted and on which were aﬃxed the signatures of delegates of all the Alsatian Jewish communities.96 Similarly, he does not mention his strenuous eﬀorts to ensure that this agreement was complied with: his numerous letters of complaint to Jews who had disobeyed its provisions, on the one hand, and, on the other, his repeated appeals to the Strasbourg Magistrates to overlook those lapses and uphold the right of the Jews to engage in business transactions with residents of that city. Further on, we shall endeavour to understand what factors guided the author in his choice of subjects in the Chronicle.

96

This document is printed below in Appendix 1b, p. 390 onwards.

46

r. joseph’s chronicle

R. Joseph’s Historical Writing in his Chronicle R. Joseph’s Chronicle is written with extreme economy of language; at times his words are so laconic that it is not possible to understand the subject matter. The nature of the blood libels and other false accusations is only hinted at; therefore, in the absence of parallel sources, it is sometimes exceedingly diﬃcult to reconstruct the events in the Chronicle. Apparently, the author believed that the details of these libels, which were known to be completely baseless, were not worthy of being transmitted to future generations. However, in contrast to the brevity with which the author describes the actual events, he does not spare words when discussing the ethical lessons that can be drawn from the deeds of Kiddush Hashem or from the deliverance of his people, or from the hope for future redemption. As previously remarked, R. Joseph’s writing ranges around two pivots: (1) God’s special providence over the Jewish people, manifested in the deliverance of the Jews from their enemies; (2) The fortitude of the Jews in the face of painful trials, and their sanctiﬁcation of God’s Name during their lives and through their deaths. These two themes appear to me to be the common denominator in all the episodes mentioned in the Chronicle. R. Joseph was not a “historian”, neither in the modern nor in the sixteenth-century sense of the word. He was a leader and educator, and he wrote down for his readers those matters that, in his opinion, were worthy of being remembered. This accounts for the exalted language he employs at times, for, in spite of his truncated and abridged style of writing, his words are written with genuine religious pathos. As we have noted, in the historical sections of Sefer ha-Miknah R. Joseph lays emphasis on the calamities that befell the Jews due to (in his opinion) the slanders of iniquitous Jewish informers. He is convinced that these wicked men, who have delivered their own brethren into the hands of their enemies, will eventually become apostates, and he brings several examples to prove this. In contrast, in the Chronicle he stresses the miracles and acts of deliverance that the Holy One, blessed be He, performs for his people at all times, and he underscores the deeds of righteous Jews, including acts of Kiddush Hashem. These two works, which were both written at about the same time, complement each other: to oﬀset the tragedies we have the miracles and the acts of salvation, to counter the talebearing, the deeds sanctifying God’s Name. Likewise the “Letter of

general introduction

47

Consolation” which he sent to Hessian Jewry has a kind of central theme by which he interprets the historical events mentioned in it: God has endowed the rulers and governors with wisdom and kindness so that they govern wisely and deal mercifully with the Jews. Certain of the events mentioned in the Chronicle, or in both the Chronicle and in Sefer ha-Miknah, were also the subject of one or other of R. Joseph’s many letters and petitions, most of which were addressed to the authorities. Since each such document was written for a particular reason, his treatment of an event might be diﬀerent there than in the Chronicle, and diﬀerent again in Sefer ha-Miknah. In the introduction to each section of the Chronicle we shall attempt to examine the themes the author was trying to emphasize there, and to investigate the reasons why he chose to omit certain details and to discuss others at length. As remarked, R. Joseph did not write history for its own sake, but to impart moral lessons,97 and with this aim in mind, he would decide when to give a lengthy account and when to be brief. R. Joseph’s narrative of the events in his Chronicle is generally reliable, and it is usually possible to corroborate the details with the aid of parallel sources. However, there are instances when the year he gives for a particular event is incorrect,98 or when he is mistaken about the place he names in connection with some incident,99 and we have remarked on this in the appropriate place. Errors of this kind are less frequent the closer the event under discussion is to the time of writing. It is apparent that R. Joseph did not edit his Chronicle and, seemingly, did not systematically check the accuracy of his account. He appears to have written the Chronicle in a single burst of creativity, without the aid of previous notes on the events.

97

See Sefer ha-Miknah, introduction, p. 69. For example his date for the Endingen Aﬀair is incorrect. See below, introduction to section 1 of the Chronicle, p. 64. On his incorrect date for the Silesia blood libel, see below, section 18 of the Chronicle, p. 324, note 260, and the introduction to this section, p. 212. See also introduction to section 27 of the Chronicle, p. 266 concerning the date he gives for the Emperor’s war with France. 99 In section 2 of the Chronicle (on the Burgundy War), he writes Nassau instead of Nancy (p. 304, see note 10 there), and in his account of the Solomon Molcho aﬀair he erroneously makes Bologna the city where Molcho was burnt at the stake— it was actually Mantua (p. 324, line 4, and see note 257 there). 98

48

r. joseph’s chronicle

A reader of the Chronicle might gain the impression that R. Joseph was often extremely successful in the achievement of his goals. Indeed, R. Joseph possessed a not inconsiderable amount of charisma, and on many occasions knew how to convince his hearers by his logical arguments and the intrinsic truth of his words. However, we have to remember that his successes were quite modest, and even when they were considerable at the time, they were short-lived. It seems that at the end of his life R. Joseph had not achieved even one of the objectives he had set for himself. Expulsions that he had succeeded in preventing or delaying soon came up on the agenda once again, and the struggle to protect the Jews’ means of livelihood continued endlessly. The paucity of his concrete achievements belies the enormous sense of success and thankfulness that ﬁlls him as he writes his Chronicle. This is a tragic aspect of his personality that we, who are aware how little he actually achieved in the long term, cannot but sense. Perhaps he too felt a certain measure of disappointment, and this may explain why he never completed his Chronicle, and did not wish to take a look back in his old age, close to his death. Thus for the years 1547–1554, which were the last years of his life, we have no Hebrew documentation. And perhaps for that reason, subsequent generations almost did not remember R. Joseph. Only a few Memorial (Yizkor) books mention him among the great men of German Jewry. The entry about him in the Memorial book of the Jewish community of Deutz (near Cologne) aptly reﬂects R. Joseph’s many-faceted activities: May God remember the soul of the Aluf *, the venerable Rabbi Joseph bar Gershon, community leader, who was called by the name of Joselmann, together with the souls . . . because he did not spare his money {or: property} and also risked his life on several occasions to intercede for the good of the community and for individuals. For more than forty years, he visited the courts of kings and princes, and on a number of occasions succeeded in lifting all manner of evil persecutions and decrees from the Israelite nation. He also procured privileges at the Emperor’s court for all of German Jewry. For all this, he asked for no money or reward but acted solely in the name of Heaven. May he have his portion with the other shepherds and leaders of Israel who throughout the generations devoted themselves to the service {of the community}. . . .100 * {For an explanation of this term, see introduction to section 5 of the Chronicle, p. 99, note 113.} 100 MS Amsterdam-Biblioteca Rosenthaliana 333 (catalogue no. 507 in: L. Fuks

general introduction

49

The entry in the memorial book of the Öttingen community near Augsburg is more general: “May the Almighty remember the soul of Rabbi Joseph ben R. Gershon . . . who for over 40 years laboured on behalf of the communities of Germany and worked devotedly for the common good . . .”.101 R. Joseph’s Description of General Historical Events R. Joseph’s primary concern is with the history and fate of his own people. He remarks upon events aﬀecting the wider world only insofar as they are connected with or relevant to the episodes he is describing. In various sections of the Chronicle he does mention historical details or even gives descriptions of historical events, and he also refers to such events in his other writings. He mentions a number of details about the Burgundy War, the War of the Bavarian Succession, the death of Emperor Maximilian, the accession to the throne of Emperor Charles V, the Peasants War and its conclusion, the Hochfelden ministers, the 1530 Imperial Diet, the North African War, the battles of the Emperor in France, and the preparations for the Schmalkaldic War and its consequences. Naturally, all this information is given from a Jewish perspective only. It is essential background information to the events that befell the Jews, or is intended to prove R. Joseph’s general philosophy, namely that also the events occurring in the history of other nations are divinely inspired, and take place because of God’s special providence over His people. Thus the crushing defeat of the peasants is a punishment for their breach of promise to the Jews, and the rout of the Protestant princes is the retribution for their harsh treatment of the Jews; in contrast,

and R. Fuks-Mansfeld, Hebrew and Judaic Manuscripts in Amsterdam Public Collections, I, Leiden 1973), and, in a similar vein, in the Memorbuch of the Hanau Jewish community; compare L. Löwenstein, “Das Rabbinat in Hanau nebst Beiträgen zur Geschichte der dortigen Juden”, JJLG, 11 (1921), p. 60 ﬀ., and also M. Lehmann, Rabbi Joselmann von Rosheim—Eine historische Erzählung aus der Zeit der Reformation, Frankfurt on Main 1879, p. 326. The Hebrew text has been printed by S. P. Rabinovitz: Rabbi Yosef Ish Rosheim, Warsaw 1902, p. 149. R. Joseph’s grandson, R. Elijah Loans, served in the rabbinate in Hanau during the years 1609–1615, and presumably it was he who arranged that his grandfather’s name would be mentioned in the community’s memorial book. On our subject, Feilchenfeld (p. 26 of his book) refers to an additional source, the Eschwege Memorbuch, which apparently is no longer extant. 101 M. Stern, Kuntresei Hazkarat Neshamot (Memorial Books), Jerusalem 1941, p. 31.

50

r. joseph’s chronicle

the Emperor’s successful wars too are divinely inspired, for his victory ensures the Jews’ security. R. Joseph only once wrote a complete passage (not included in the Chronicle), which appears to have been composed purely out of interest in history for its own sake. In this passage, a translation of which is printed below in Appendix 3,102 he surveys some of the wars of Emperor Charles V: his repeated victories against the King of France, and his war against a group of rebellious nobles and the French in 1552. There is a reappearance of the motif already familiar to the reader from the Chronicle: the Emperor’s victories are miracles and wonders that God performed for the Israelite nation. At the end of the passage he mentions Jews who successfully withstood trials and ordeals and Jews who were saved—on this occasion by the King of France (!). However, such a profusion of detail on foreign aﬀairs is quite uncommon in his Chronicle. R. Joseph’s Place in Jewish and General Historiography In his article on medieval Jewish chronography103 Haim Hillel BenSasson distinguishes three periods when Jews recorded the history of their people in the Middle Ages: the tenth century, which saw the composition of Josippon and Megillat A˙ima"aΩ, the period of the Crusades, which produced the chronicles on the massacres of 1096 and the other persecutions that came in their wake; and the sixteenth century, during which several chronicles were written, mainly by Spanish exiles. They include Shevet Yehudah (The Staﬀ/Tribe of Judah); the books by Joseph Ha-Kohen; Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah (The Chain of Tradition) by Gedaliah ibn Ya˙ya; and, in Bohemia, Tsema˙ David (Oﬀspring of David) by David Gans. Ben-Sasson does not mention R. Joseph of Rosheim in his article. There is also no reference to him in Y. Yerushalmi’s book Zakhor,104 or in S. W. Baron’s study on Jewish historiography.105 Perhaps their omission of his name was 102

See pp. 420–23. H. H. Ben-Sasson, “Li-Megamot ha-Kronograﬁya ha-Yehudit shel Yemei haBeinayim u-Ve"ayoteha” (Trends and Problems in Medieval Jewish Chronology), in: Historionim ve-Askolot Historiyot (Historians and Historical Schools), Jerusalem 1963, pp. 29–49, and idem, “Retsef u-Temura” (Continuity and Variety), Tel Aviv 1984, pp. 379–401. 104 Y. H. Yerushalmi, Zakhor—Jewish History and Jewish Memory, New York 1982, and in Hebrew translation: Zakhor, Tel Aviv 1988. 105 S. W. Baron, History and Jewish Historians, Philadelphia 1964. 103

general introduction

51

justiﬁed, as R. Joseph was not a member of that group of sixteenthcentury Jewish historiographers who lived in other parts of the Jewish diaspora and wrote complete books about the history of their people, and frequently also about the history of other nations. Altogether, it is diﬃcult to classify him, as we know of hardly any other works by chroniclers from R. Joseph’s own milieu. Moreover, his Chronicle is short and incomplete—no more than a fragment. It undoubtedly has a beginning, and possibly also a foreword in the second paragraph, but no conclusion. Moreover, unlike Sefer ha-Miknah—to which the author sought to accord the format of a book, with a preface and an epilogue—this short chronicle is unedited, and remains a collection of unconnected notes. Nevertheless, we have seen that this collection of notes has a “soul” of its own, a clear structure and a central theme, and all these warrant its consideration as a historiographical work. It is customary to think that there was a blank in German-Jewish historiography during this period. However, we do possess a number of short historical passages written at that time. One example is a description of the capture of Frankfurt on Main by Emperor Charles V in 1552, penned by a Jewish resident of that city,106 and, as we have already observed, R. Joseph himself wrote a passage on that subject. The writings on the Pfeﬀerkorn Aﬀair (printed in the appendix to volume nine of Graetz’s History) are in a similar style, as is the fragment quoted in section 2 of the Chronicle, penned by a “man of Nuremberg”. Also worthy of mention is the account by R. Moses Loans, son of R. Joseph, of the history of Alsatian Jewry in the years 1592–1594, in the wake of the riots that erupted there during a dispute over the bishopric of Strasbourg.107 Presumably, additional writings exist that are still to be discovered. Although these were sporadic eﬀorts, they testify to the fact that there were German Jews in R. Joseph’s time who felt the need to record events that had strongly impressed them. 106 In MS Amsterdam-Biblioteca Rosenthaliana 388. It is entitled: “The Eight (Akht) Miracles that The Holy One, blessed be He, Performed for us in 5312 (1552)”. 107 This was published by I. Tishby, “Teudot mi-Ketav Yado shel R. Moshe Loanz, Beno shel R. Yoselman mi-Rosheim” (Documents Written by R. Moses Loans, Son of R. Joselmann of Rosheim), in Sefer Assaf, (ed.) M. Cassuto et al., Jerusalem 1953, p. 521 onwards. While the general spirit of the work is somewhat reminiscent of the Chronicle and R. Moses uses certain expressions also found in R. Joseph’s writings, there is no resemblance whatsoever between R. Joseph’s extremely terse style of writing and the very detailed account provided by R. Moses.

52

r. joseph’s chronicle

In the vicinity of our author, in Lotharingia (Lorraine) near Alsace, R. Asher ben Eliezer Halevi of the Reichshofen Jewish community wrote his Sefer Zikhronot (Book of Memoirs), dealing with the years 1598–1635.108 The author was a melamed (teacher) and cantor in various Jewish communities, and he describes his life history and gives information about his family and about contemporary rabbis. In particular, he describes various events that occurred during the Thirty Years War and their eﬀect on the Jews of Alsace. However, there is a striking diﬀerence between this composition and R. Joseph’s Chronicle. R. Asher introduces many details about weather conditions and the yield of the crops and vines, in the traditional style of medieval chronicles and, following them, the city chronicles (Städtechroniken) of the late Middle Ages. Moreover, his entire story revolves around himself and the events that befell him. This is in conspicuous contrast to our author, who barely permits the reader a glimpse, nary the briefest, into his private life, unless it is essential to the event he is describing or to his basic theme. Thus we are left completely in the dark with respect to R. Joseph’s place of birth, his place of study, his teachers and his family. Our Chronicle diﬀers in character also from the anonymous Hebrew chronicle from Prague (published by A. David),109 primarily because, as we have seen, it has central themes and a clear structure. In addition, the chronicle by the unknown author from Prague contains passages on the history of nations and information about various natural phenomena, subjects that are not found in the work under discussion. Indeed, despite its limitations, R. Joseph’s Chronicle is to a great extent an original and unique composition of its time, and therein too lies its importance. Furthermore, I do not see any connection between R. Joseph’s Chronicle and non-Jewish historiographical writings of the same period. R. Joseph’s age and milieu saw extensive activity in the ﬁeld of historical writing. Italian cities, followed by their German counterparts, produced a quantity of historical works. They were mainly 108 Sefer Zikhronot shel R. Asher bar Eliezer Halevi, z""l, mi-Kehillat Kodesh Reikhshofen (The German title: Die Memoiren des Ascher Levi aus Reichshofen im Elsaß (1598–1635 )), (ed. and trans.) M. Ginsburger, Berlin 1913. 109 A. David (ed.), Kronika Ivrit mi-Prag mi-Reshit ha-Me"ah ha-Yud Zayin (A Hebrew Chronicle from Prague from the Early Seventeenth Century), Jerusalem 1984. {English translation: A Hebrew Chronicle from Prague, c. 1615, (ed.) A. David, (trans.) L. J. Weinberger with D. Ordan, Alabama 1993.}

general introduction

53

panegyrical, written for the purpose of glorifying and extolling their cities or praising the ruling prince of the territory. Rulers such as Charles V and Ferdinand I employed their own court historians, notably when embarking on important military expeditions.110 During this period, too, prominent political and military ﬁgures wrote their autobiographies. One example of this genre is the autobiography of the military commander Schertlin von Burtenbach, a native of Augsburg, in which he described his actions during the Schmalkaldic War and its aftermath.111 The scholars who studied this type of historical literature pointed out various distinguishing features.112 Not a single one of these can be found in R. Joseph’s work.113 It does not have the distinctive style of a medieval chronicle, in which the chronicler gives a chronological account of the events as they occurred, interspersed with descriptions of weather conditions or all kinds of natural phenomena, nor is it written in the style of Renaissance chronicles. As remarked, R. Joseph frequently makes use of hints and of highly abbreviated language; he does not employ superﬂuous words for ornamental purposes, nor does he introduce secondary narratives lacking any historical signiﬁcance. His writing was not designed to laud a particular individual or place, and is devoid of any trace of boastfulness or self-advertisement. R. Joseph regards his work for the community as a mission which his brethren and the Almighty, blessed be He, have conferred upon him, and which he is accomplishing to the best of his ability. His successes he sees as testimony to the great miracles

110 For Charles V, K. Brandi makes an exhaustive survey of this court historiography, and notes the imprint of the Emperor himself on some of these works; see K. Brandi, Kaiser Karl der Fünfte, II, Quellen und Erörterungen, Munich 1941, p. 14 ﬀ. For the life of Landgrave Philip of Hesse, see the book by the court historian Wigand Lauze, Leben und Thaten des durchleuchtigsten Fürsten und Herren Philippi Magnamini Landgraﬀen zu Hessen, Kassel 1847. For this see below, introduction to sections 28–29 of the Chronicle, p. 292, note 664. 111 Leben und Thaten des . . . Seb. Schertlin von Burtenbach, ed. P. f. H. Schönhut, Heilbronn 1885. 112 For the historiography of the period and its characteristic features, see: F. Schnabel, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen und Darstellungen in der Neuzeit—Das Zeitalter der Reformation 1500–1550, Leipzig 1931, p. 72 ﬀ.; W. Andreas, Deutschland vor der Reformation, Stuttgart 1948, p. 555 ﬀ.; M. Lenz, Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsauﬀassung im Elsaß zur Zeit der Reformation, Halle 1895; E. Menke-Glückert, Die Geschichtsschreibung der Reformation und Gegenreformation, Leipzig 1912; E. Schwab, “Einiges über das Wesen der Städtechronistik”, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, 18 (1928), pp. 258–86. 113 See also my comments in the introduction to Sefer ha-Miknah, pp. 69 and 75.

54

r. joseph’s chronicle

that God performs for His people Israel; his failures he interprets as evidence that his generation is not worthy of redemption. This Edition of the Chronicle The ﬁrst to extract passages from the Chronicle in order to bolster his story about our author was Rabbi Dr. Marcus Lehmann, who received a copy of the manuscript from Adolph Neubauer, the librarian of the Bodleian Library.114 Although Lehmann’s historical novel contains much ﬁctitious material, he deserves credit for his pioneer work, which focused attention on the personality and activities of R. Joseph of Rosheim.115 After him came Isadore Kracauer, who stated that he had received the copy of the Chronicle from Dr. Lehmann. He asked Neubauer to compare the copy to the original in Oxford, and printed the Chronicle in 1888, thus making it available for the purpose of historical research.116 From that time onwards, it has been been a fundamental aid to the study of the period. However, since Kracauer printed the manuscript from a copy, there are quite a number of errors in his edition, and although he added a short summary in French, he did not give a precise interpretation of the text and also did not always succeed in identifying the subject matter owing to the author’s abbreviated and cryptic style. Subsequent scholars ﬁlled in the gaps. First and foremost was Ludwig Feilchenfeld, who broke new ground in utilizing the potential of the Chronicle, and whose book remains the basic work on R. Joseph;117 Harry Bresslau published several documents relating to R. Joseph;118 then there are Moritz Stern’s many studies;119 and, ﬁnally, Selma Stern’s major historical biography.120 Moritz Stern had apparently intended to publish a German translation of the Chronicle,121 and even did M. Lehmann, Rabbi Joselmann von Rosheim. See there, the note on the ﬁrst page. The history of research into the life and work of R. Joseph of Rosheim has been surveyed recently by Leonore Siegele-Wenschkewitz in her article, “Josel von Rosheim: Juden und Christen im Zeitalter der Reformation”, Kirche und Israel, Neukirchener Theologische Zeitschrift, 6 (1991), pp. 3–4. 116 See above, note 88. 117 See above, note 1. 118 See H. Bresslau, “Aus Strassburger Judenakten”. 119 See Joseph Stern (ed.), Moshe Stern, Bibliograﬁya shel Ketavav u-Ma"amarav (Moshe Stern, A Bibliography of his Writings and Articles), Jerusalem 1939. 120 See above, note 1. 121 See M. Stern, “Joselmann von Rosheim und seine Nachkommen”, ZGJD, 3 (1889), p. 66, note 1. 114

115

general introduction

55

preparatory work towards reprinting the Hebrew original;122 however, for reasons we do not know, nothing came of his plans. This new edition of the Chronicle aims at presenting the reader and researcher with as accurate a text as possible, with the aid of all the information unearthed to date concerning the events described in it. We are cognizant that to a great extent we are only reaping the fruits of the work of previous researchers, and, therefore, we regard ourselves as those who, in R. Joseph of Rosheim’s words: “glean ears of barley and also take from the standing corn”,123 with a clear awareness of our debt to the scholars who proceeded us. Kracauer would appear to be correct in his assessment that the manuscript of the Chronicle is in the author’s own handwriting.124 This is particularly important in view of the fact that none of the surviving copies of documents in languages other than Hebrew is in the author’s own hand and possibly not even in precisely his own words.125 In this edition, the original division of the sections in the Chronicle has been preserved, and so as not to complicate identiﬁcation of the diﬀerent passages, which have been much quoted in the scholarly literature, Kracauer’s numeration has been added at the head of each section. The original spelling and abbreviations of the author have been preserved, except in cases where a sign that appears to be an abbreviation comes at the end of a complete word.126 Every section has explanatory glosses and annotations,127 as well as an introduction 122 M. Stern’s literary bequest is preserved in the Central Archives of the History of the Jewish People (no. P 17). It contains copies and lists of R. Joseph of Rosheim’s writings, made apparently as preparatory work towards the publication of an edition of the Chronicle. 123 Sefer ha-Miknah, p. 109, line 5. 124 “Le Journal de Joselman de Rosheim”, p. 85. 125 The documents and letters that R. Joseph submitted to the authorities were all taken down by copyists or scribes. Their handwriting naturally diﬀered one from the other, as did their spelling in German; even R. Joseph’s name, as it appears at the end of the letters, is written diﬀerently in the various documents. R. Joseph’s authentic signature, it should be noted, is always in Hebrew, also on documents in other languages. 126 The manuscript is replete with signs. It is unclear whether these are punctuation marks or other graphic symbols, and they are generally not included in this transcription. 127 The author—as has been the age-old custom for Jewish men of letters—intersperses his words with passages from ancient Jewish literature. My son Avraham assisted in completing the references from the Talmudic literature. Well-known and

56

r. joseph’s other historical writings

designed to clarify the content and the author’s method of describing the events. In the search for sources and parallel historical descriptions to corroborate our author’s narrative, we have preferred to rely, insofar as is possible, on the earlier scholarly literature, which contains many historical details.

R. Joseph’s Other Historical Writings This Edition of the “Letter of Consolation” (Trostschrift) The second document printed in this book is diﬀerent in character from the Chronicle. It was apparently written originally in Hebrew or Judeo-German and translated into German at the author’s request. It is extant only in three German fragments, all of them preserved in the Strasbourg City Archives (Archives de la Ville [= ArchMun] de Strasbourg). The German text is printed below, together with a translation, notes and a preface.* The Appendices Appendix 1 (a–b) contains two documents in German drawn up on R. Joseph’s initiative. These documents were intended to regulate the economic life of the Jews. R. Joseph took great pains in formulating them. They are accompanied by abridged translations. Appendix 2 is a letter by R. Joseph to the Strasbourg city council. It may serve as an excellent example of those many letters of his that we were unable to print. This is an important and substantive document that accurately reﬂects the author’s opinions. The German text is printed below, together with a translation. Appendix 3 is the translation of a Hebrew passage written by our author at the end of the collection MS Opp. 712, describing certain events during the reign of Emperor Charles V, notably the Princes’ Rebellion of 1552. It is not part of the Chronicle. The appendices, too, have been supplemented with prefaces and notes. easily comprehensible biblical passages and rabbinical sayings have not been footnoted. * {The English translation of the Trostschrift and the other German documents was made from the Hebrew and is checked against the German. Translator}

The Chronicle of R. Joseph of Rosheim

Reproduced from MS Opp. 715

Courtesy of The Bodleian Library, University of Oxford

Plate 1: folio 1, recto

Plate 2: folio 1, verso

Plate 3: folio 2, recto

Plate 4: folio 2, verso

Plate 5: folio 3, recto

Plate 6: folio 3, verso

Plate 7: folio 4, recto

Plate 8: folio 4, verso

Plate 9: folio 5, recto

Plate 10: folio 5, verso

INTRODUCTION TO SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF THE CHRONICLE

[1] 5231 (1470/71)* The Endingen Aﬀair There is extant contemporary source material on the Endingen martyrs,1 and the aﬀair has been extensively debated in the historical literature.2 However, to the best of my knowledge, the only Hebrew

* {This form of the date with a slash represents the equivalent Gregorian calendar span to the Hebrew year. (The Hebrew calendar year begins with the month of Tishri, which falls in September/October.) In a few instances where the dates cover a number of years this format has been simpliﬁed to avoid confusion.} 1 For the contemporary Christian sources, see: (1) The record of the confessions, in (a) the Strasbourg City Archives (ArchMun Strasbourg, III, 174, 42), published by G. Wolfram (see below, note 2); (b) Freiburg State Archives (StA Freiburg, Fascikel Judensachen Nr. 56), published by H. Schreiber (see below, note 2). This is shorter than that in Strasbourg and contains only the brothers’ confessions—the wording too diﬀers slightly; (c) a copy of the latter in Frankfurt on Main City Archives, published by I. Kracauer in “L’aﬀaire des Juifs d’Endingen de 1470”, REJ, 16 (1888). (2) Two letters by Emperor Frederick III in favour of the Jews, deposited in the Innsbruck Archives (LRegArch Innsbruck, Schatzurkunde, Nr. 7757). They have been printed from contemporary copies in the Frankfurt Archives in Kracauer’s article, “L’aﬀaire des Juifs” (pp. 242–45), and again by K. Kurrus (see below, note 2). (3) A letter of 1470 from Charles, Margrave of Baden, to the city of Heilbronn, in Urkundenbuch der Stadt Heilbronn, I, Stuttgart 1904, p. 492. 2 For studies on this source material, see: G. Wolfram, “Prozeßakten eines angeblich durch die Juden verübten Christenmords zu Endingen, Aus Straßburger Stadtarchiv. GUP 174”, Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins, N.F. 2 (1887), pp. 313–21; H. Schreiber, Urkundenbuch der Stadt Freiburg, II, 1829, no. 699: “Verhörsprotokoll über den Christenmord durch die Juden zu Endingen”, pp. 510–25; K. von Amira, Das Endinger Judenspiel (Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke des XVI. und XVII. Jahrhunderts, 41), Halle 1883. For a detailed description and a discussion on the Judenspiel, see L. Geiger, Die Juden und die deutsche Literatur”, ZGJD, 2 (1888), pp. 358–59. W. Frey recently made a thorough analysis of the play. See “Das Endiger Judenspiel”, in R. Erb (ed.), Die Legenden vom Ritualmord—Zur Geschichte der Blutbeschuldigung gegen die Juden, Berlin 1993, pp. 201–2. Von Amira, who edited the Judenspiel, appended to it a poem in rhyme about the Endingen Aﬀair (Beilage III), and also reprinted the records from the Freiburg Copialbuch, previously published by Schreiber (Beilage I), as well as a document concerning judicial procedures in

58

[i]

5231 (1470⁄71)

documentation is this passage by R. Joseph, and we are indebted to him for enlightening us as to the identity of the martyrs who were, in his words, “three brothers, uncles of my father of blessed memory”. The story, taking all the sources together, is brieﬂy as follows: in 1470, in the small town of Endingen in the Breisgau region near the border with Alsace the bodies of four people, a man, a woman and two children, were discovered close to the cemetery. According to all the indications, they had been murdered; the children’s corpses were headless. The blame for the crime was promptly placed on the Jews. In Endingen it was related that eight years earlier an indigent family had passed through the town seeking a place to spend the night. Since no other resident was prepared to take them in, a prominent member of the Jewish community named Elias (or Helya—as the name appears in some of the sources) had agreed to accommodate them in a shearing shed next to his house. The neighbour of this same Elias, a butcher by profession, who owed this Jew and his brother a large sum of money,3 testiﬁed that on that night, eight years earlier (!), he had heard voices and strange noises emanating from the Jew’s house, sounds resembling the shrieks of children whose blood is being extracted. According to the sources, already then, eight years earlier, suspicion had fallen on the Jews (ein limott vﬀ dy selben juden gefallen);4 however, at the time when the deed was committed

Freiburg during the period under discussion (Beilage II). The Judenspiel has even been translated into Hebrew by Yom Tov Lewinski in his article, “500 Shanim leAlilat ha-Dam be-Endingen” (500th Anniversary of the Blood Libel at Endingen), in Yeda-Am, 16, nos. 39–40, (1972), pp. 3–13. For additional literature on the Endingen Aﬀair: I. Kracauer, “L’aﬀaire des Juifs d’Endingen de 1470,” REJ, 16 (1888), pp. 237–42; F. W. Beck, Geschichte und Gestalten aus Badens Vergangenheit, Der “Christenmord” in Endingen—Ein Sittenbild aus dem Mittelalter, Kehl am Rhein 1928, pp. 13–23; K. Baum “Das Endinger Judenspiel als Ausdruck mittelalterlicher Judenfeindschaft”, in P. Wilpert (ed.), Miscellanea Medievalia, Berlin 1966, pp. 337–49; K. Kurrus, “Die unschuldigen Kinder von Endingen, sogenannter Christenmord (1462) und Judenverbrennung (1470)”, Schau-ins-Land, 83, Jahresheft des Breisgauer Geschichtsvereins Schauinsland, Freiburg im Breisgau 1965; R. Po-chia Hsia, The Myth of Ritual Murder, pp. 14–41; Germania Judaica III/1, s.v. Endingen; III/2, s.v. Pforzheim; S. Stern, pp. 4–6; Feilchenfeld, p. 6. 3 According to Baum, “Das Endinger Judenspiel,” p. 341. 4 See introduction to the confessions record, Strasbourg City Archives, in Wolfram, “Prozeßakten eines angeblich durch die Juden verübten Christenmords zu Endingen”, p. 313. Kurrus is therefore incorrect in his claim (in “Die unschuldigen Kinder von Endingen,” p. 144) that there is no mention in the sources that already in 1462 suspicion had fallen on the Jews. It is true that there is no documentation whatsoever from the year 1462 to indicate that any suspicion had been cast on the Jews.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

59

(czu fryscher tate) justice had not been meted out against them. Among other matters subsequently raised during the investigation of the murders, it was said that the incident had occurred on one of the days of the Festival of Tabernacles (Sukkot), when many Jews were gathered in Elias’s house, among them two brothers—Eberlin and Merklin—as well as Jews from Pforzheim and Schlettstadt, apparently to participate in the religious study session of the night of Hoshana Rabbah {the last day of the Sukkot festival} (das die juden vﬀ dieselbe zit, do si den mort teten, ein loubertag miteinander zu Enndingen hetten). This information was perfectly suﬃcient for the construction of a web of lies and irrational conclusions that were quite acceptable in that day and age.5 The three brothers, Elias, Eberlin and Merklin, were arrested and accused of the murder of the four Christians. According to the preface to what is known as the “interrogation protocol”, the Jews underwent preliminary questioning by Ludwig, the lord (Herr) of Lichtenberg, and by a number of reputable persons in Endingen.6 At a later stage, Archduke Sigismund of Austria ordered Margrave Charles of Baden, who ruled on his behalf over the hereditary possessions of Anterior Austria (Vorderösterreich), to arrest the three Jews and extract from 5 In Schlettstadt City Archives, there is documentation (ArchMun Sélestat, Missive, BB 15a fol. 50r) to indicate that some time must have passed between the discovery of the corpses and the arrest of the Jews. This is a letter of response to the appeal by a nobleman named Diebolt von Gippich to the Schlettstadt city council, on behalf of “Elial” the Jew of Endingen, who complained that he was being persecuted for no just reason. In his letter the nobleman asked that the Jew be left in peace. It is possible that von Gippich was the protective lord (Schutzherr) of the Jew Elias. In its reply, the city council states that, in response to the letter from the aforesaid lord, discussions have been held on the matter; the council cannot conﬁrm that it has initiated legal proceedings against the aforesaid Jew, and therefore he has the right to travel and attend to his business undisturbed. The city council’s reply was apparently dispatched on 14 February 1470. According to the records, the interrogation of Elias took place on 24 March. It appears, therefore, that this letter was sent at exactly the time of the Endingen aﬀair, and there is no doubt that it refers to the same Elias. Indeed, in the Judenspiel (see above, note 2), the list of jurors includes the “lord of Schlettstadt”. Although the play is not a primary historical source, its particulars are derived from documents published at the time of the aﬀair (von Amira, Das Endinger Judenspiel, p. 9), and it appears that the city of Schlettstadt was indeed involved in the aﬀair. For the anti-Jewish climate in Breisgau, and in Endingen in particular, see Beck’s article (Geschichte und Gestalten aus Badens Vergangenheit, etc.). 6 At that very time Endingen was engaged in negotiations to buy back the right to administer justice in the city, which had been pawned to a nobleman of the von Staufen family. In November of that year its eﬀorts were crowned with success. See von Amira, Das Endinger Judenspiel, p. 10.

60

[i]

5231 (1470⁄71)

them the truth about the murder. According to that source, they were imprisoned in diﬀerent jails, and none of them were told whether the others had confessed, and if so to what. During their interrogation the three brothers, “confessed”, as the source puts it, “of their own free will and not under duress” ( fryen willens ungeczwungen), or as a diﬀerent source has it, “without any torture and pain” (one alle marter und wethun),7 and gave all the answers that their interrogators wished to hear: the poor beggar family had found shelter in Elias’s house,8 and the four family members had been murdered so that the children’s blood could be used for the purpose of healing. As was customary in libels of this kind, the perpetrators attempted to implicate as large a number of Jews and Jewish communities as possible.9 The accused were forced to admit that they had transferred

7 According to the nomenclature of that period, the term “ungezwungen” meant that the confession had not been obtained under torture. See Kurrus, p. 144, and B. Rosenthal, Heimatsgeschichte der badischen Juden, Bühl-Baden 1927, p. 15. He brings the example of the interrogation of Landvogt Peter von Hagenbach, who confessed to various charges after having been severely tortured. However, the recording clerk noted that Hagenbach’s confession had been made of his own free will and not under duress (ungezwungenes Geständnis). Beck (Geschichte und Gestalten, p. 19) suggests, in the name of previous researchers, that the word “one” in “one alle marter” (without any torture), does not mean “without”, but “ane”, which in medieval German means “nach” = after. Indeed, experts on the German criminal code of that period point out that the confessions were not meant to be made as a result of torture, and that is why interrogation records would stress that the confessions had been made, and generally also recorded, only after the tortures had been concluded, when the tortured suspect had expressed his willingness to confess. Compare Fehr, “Gottesurteil und Folter” Festgabe für Rudolf Stammler, etc. (see above, General Introduction, note 59), pp. 241–42. Therefore, it is inconceivable that the accused Jews immediately confessed to the charges, as would appear from the interrogation record; undoubtedly, they ﬁrst categorically denied the whole story, as was the case, for example, in the Silesia libel aﬀair (section 18 of the Chronicle), and in the Pösing libel aﬀair (section 13 of the Chronicle). However the oﬃcial “protocols” only recorded important details relating to the trial itself, and therefore there is no information in the ﬁles about the early stages of the investigation. Kurrus also notes that the judicial procedures in Endingen were known to be particularly stringent. 8 In my opinion, the lodging of the family by Elias is not necessarily historical fact, but a part of the confession to which the Jews were forced to admit. Here, I beg to diﬀer with S. Stern, who seems to think that some portion at least of the confessions was true. It is hard to believe that eight years later the neighbours still remembered the episode of the beggar family that found shelter with the Jew Elias, and the noises emanating from Elias’s house. It is impossible to know here where the border lies between truth and fantasy, and maybe the whole episode was no more than an invention or post facto conjecture. See also Kurrus, p. 137, and Frey, “Das Endiger Judenspiel”, in Erb (ed.), p. 206. 9 An example of this is the 1429 Ravensburg blood libel, concocted at the time of a wedding in the city, in which Jews participated from all the surrounding area.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

61

some of the blood of the children to the rich Jew Leo of Pforzheim and to the Jew Leoman in Schlettstadt,10 both of whom were purported to have been in Elias’s house on that night. In April 1470, the three brothers were sentenced to death, and after being dragged through the streets of the town to the execution site, were burnt at the stake. All the other Jews of the town were expelled for perpetuity, “because they were guilty of this abominable murder”, in the words of the expulsion decree.11 Next it was the turn of those Jews named in the confessions of the Endingen Jews. In Pforzheim, Leo was arrested, although subsequently the records make no mention of Leo, “the rich Jew”, but refer instead to a young tramp, or someone of that kind (ein junger schallatziud ).12 Also arrested were three men who were staying in Leo’s house at the time, and who, according to the protocols of the investigation, “happened to be those mentioned in Endingen”, although their names are in fact totally diﬀerent (!).13 During their cross-examination, on April 22nd and May 8th, they, too, broke down under torture and made whatever confessions were required of them, even implicating additional Jews from Nuremberg and Freiburg in the aﬀair. One of them also described other instances of the murder of Christian children, which, ostensibly, he had witnessed. The fate of the Pforzheim defendants is mentioned in a letter by Margrave Charles of Baden to the city of Heilbronn, written before See Rosenthal, Heimatsgeschichte, p. 14. An additional example is the Simon of Trent libel case, which occurred just ﬁve years after the episode under discussion, and in which were implicated the Jews of Regensburg. See M. Stern, “Der Regensburger Judenprozess 1476–1480”, JJLG, 18 (1927), pp. 363–83; see also A. Ackermann, Geschichte der Juden in Brandenburg, Berlin 1906, pp. 40–41. 10 This Jew had lent money to many Endingen residents, including a man named Hanz Metziger, who was the Schultheiss or mayor of the city. Compare G. Mentgen, “Geschichte der Juden in der Mittelalterlichen Reichsstadt Schlettstadt”, Annuaire des Amis de Bibliotheque Humaniste de Sélestat, 40 (1990), p. 69. 11 The original is in Endingen City Archives (no. 106) and a copy is in the Vienna Archives: HHStA Wien, XIX B. 12 On the term Schallanzjude, see Wolfram, p. 314, note 1; and Yaacov Guggenheim, “Ha-Ribud ha-Óevrati etsel Yehudei Ashkenaz be-Motsaei Yemei ha-Beinayim: HaAniyim le-Sugeihem” (Social Stratiﬁcation of Central European Jewry at the End of the Middle Ages: The Poor), Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division B, Vol. I, Jerusalem 1990, pp. 130–36, who interprets this term as referring to rootless and unemployed persons on the fringes of society. 13 The discrepancies between what was said in the interrogation of the Endingen Jews and the “confessions” of the Pforzheim suspects have already been pointed out by Wolfram. See his comments in the appendix to the documents he published, pp. 320–21.

62

[i]

5231 (1470⁄71)

the conclusion of their trial.14 In the letter, the Margrave refers to the crime of the Jews of Endingen and the burning at the stake of three of them. He writes that the latter had implicated additional Jews, who are now in his custody, and as they have confessed, they too will apparently be put to death. As the aﬀair directly concerns matters of Christian faith, the Margrave requests that the city of Heilbronn send two judges to Pforzheim by May 6th, in order to judge the case together with his advisers and representatives of other imperial cities on the morrow, May 7th, and to assist in pronouncing judgement. We can learn the conclusion of the trial from R. Joseph’s own words: “The martyrs of Pforzheim were burnt at the same time”. The aﬀair would undoubtedly have continued to escalate had it not been for the intervention of Emperor Frederick III. In a letter to Archduke Sigismund of Austria dated 5th May15 (namely at the height of the trial against the Jews of Pforzheim), the Emperor states that he has been notiﬁed of the arrest by Margrave Charles of Baden of certain Jews, on the pretext that they had harmed some Christians in Endingen and other places. Some of the Jews have been put to death and others are still under arrest. The Emperor demands forcefully from Sigismund that he release all the Jews and desist from harassing them in this matter, for no body save the Imperial High Court possesses the authority to judge them in matters of this kind. Any complaints against the Jews should be directed to the Emperor personally. It is possible that the Emperor’s letter did not arrive in time, or that it was simply ignored in the case of the Pforzheim Jews, who were deﬁnitely not put to death before the 7th of the month. However, it may safely be assumed that as a result of the Emperor’s ﬁrm words no new trials were initiated, and the other suspects implicated in the case were spared. The Emperor’s intervention was almost certainly prompted by a petition on the part of the Jews of the land, although no information has survived in the case under consideration.16 The Emperor

14 The text of this letter is preserved in Urkundenbuch der Stadt Heilbronn (See above, note 1). 15 LReg Arch Innsbruck, Schatzurkunde, Nr. 7757, Leibach, 5. Mai 1470. 16 Kracauer believes (“L’aﬀair des Juifs d’Endingen”, p. 237), that the Emperor’s intervention came as a result of appeals made to him by the Jews of Frankfurt on

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

63

appears to have been in no doubt that the Jews had been falsely imprisoned—a hint may be found in his words, “The Jews who dwell in the Holy Roman Empire are not to have a hand laid upon them without our express order, and it is our desire and also our obligation to defend them against unjust oppression” (sy vor unbillicher beswerung zu bewaren). In Endingen itself the libel case had long-lasting consequences. The bodies of the two children were brought to the local church, and stories immediately began to circulate about the miracles they had supposedly performed. The children were canonized, and the story of their murder is recounted in various literary productions, the most famous of them being the “Endinger Judenspiel”17—a quasi-religious, quasi-popular play, written apparently at the end of the sixteenth century and ﬁrst performed in the town in 1616.18 Paintings and woodcuts depicting the story were nailed up in the church. To this day, a glass coﬃn containing the remains of the two children is still ﬁxed above the side altar in the local church, and on a bell, hung in the church in 1714, is a drawing of two headless children, with the inscription “The Innocent Children”.19 The city scrupulously ensured that no Jew entered its limits, and time and again diligently renewed its charter from the emperors to that eﬀect. For example, in a charter granted in Hagenau on 29 December 1517, Emperor Maximilian conﬁrms Endingen’s right to prohibit Jews from entering the city or its jurisdictional area:

Main, who had been implicated in the libel by the Emperor’s functionary, in an endeavour to extract additional taxes from them. Kracauer holds that the false accusations against Frankfurt Jewry were intended to intimidate them and silence their objections to these taxes. The city’s Jews procured a copy of the Endingen interrogation record, and solicited the Emperor’s assistance. In return for a large sum of money they secured his intervention, which put an end to the interrogation of the Jews, who were still imprisoned in various places. 17 See above, note 2. In his foreword, von Amira notes (p. 15 onwards) that although the “Judenspiel” is based on historical sources, namely the interrogation records and the stories told by Christians at the time, the play is in the main a literary work, and therefore its contents must be treated with considerable caution. 18 Even if we accept Frey’s convincing arguments (Das Endiger Judenspiel, pp. 201–21), that the Judenspiel published by von Amira is a later production dating from the nineteenth century, it must be assumed that there was a play that was performed in 1616. 19 Compare Kurrus, p. 144; he points out that to this day the Catholic church has not oﬃcially abolished the adoration of the two children.

64

[i]

5231 (1470⁄71)

On account of what they did perpetrate in the city, their shedding of Christian blood . . . they were punished and expelled ( gestraﬀt gezicht und ausgetrieben), and from that time on until the present day no Jew has been permitted to reside in the city.20

In 1572 Endingen indicted two Jews who had set foot inside its territory. As late as 1782, the city still rejected appeals by protected Jews from the surrounding area to abolish the prohibition on the entry of Jews, invoking the aforesaid privilege.21 Furthermore, at the time of the Regensburg blood libel case, on 7 January 1477, the city of Regensburg requested information from Margrave Christoph of Baden and from the city councils of Baden and Pforzheim concerning the Jews burnt at the stake by the previous Margrave in 1470. In addition, it sent emissaries to Pforzheim to obtain from the Wirt (the Magistrate) or the city council the record of the victims’ confessions. Accordingly, on 20 January 1477, Margrave Christoph of Baden forwarded to Regensburg the bill of confession of the Jews, “who because of their abuse of Christian blood were put to death in the days of his father”.22 R. Joseph’s Treatment of the Endingen Aﬀair In the second section, which deals with the impact of the Burgundy War on the Jews, R. Joseph relates how he came to write his Chronicle, and on the face of it it would have been appropriate for him to begin the Chronicle with this section. Nevertheless, he decided to give precedence to the Endingen Aﬀair, since this episode was the earliest information he was able to provide concerning the history of his family, and he highlights his great-uncles’ acts of Kiddush Hashem. In the ﬁrst place, it is important to point out that the date given by the author for the Endingen Aﬀair is incorrect. The year 5231 (1470/71) is untenable by any calculation. All of the events occurred in the early part of 1470 (in the year 5230 of the Hebrew calendar). It is diﬃcult to explain the error, except if one assumes that

20 Endingen City Archives, document no. 106. An abstract is deposited in Vienna: HHStA Wien, Nachlaß Birk, Habsburgische Regesten 1500–1517, p. 109. 21 Compare Rosenthal, Heimatsgeschichte, p. 188. 22 See Urkunden und Aktenstücke zur Geschichte der Juden in Regensburg, 1453–1738, (ed.) R Straus, Munich 1960, pp. 128–29, nos. 374, 375, 376, 377.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

65

the family tradition passed down to him was not suﬃciently speciﬁc. Moreover, the events took place before he was born. Another striking characteristic of his narrative is his omission of any details about the blood libel itself. He merely hints at it in the words: “mamzer * discovered in their impure grave”. The impression given is that he is referring to a single Christian child, and maybe R. Joseph really knew no more than that about the libel. Certainly, he never visited Endingen; as remarked, the city strictly prohibited the entry of Jews. The “Judenspiel” had not yet been written in his day. Even the names of the accused, which he undoubtedly knew, do not appear in the Chronicle. For him, the victims of the libel are martyrs and no more. In a few choice words, he depicts the web of lies into which the three brothers were enmeshed: “They . . . cast their net over . . . they were all trapped together”. He also stresses that cruel tortures were inﬂicted, which were designed to extract the desired confessions: “And they aﬄicted their souls with all kinds of torture until they were compelled to make a false confession”. Not for one moment does he complain about the false information given by the accused Jews. He simply states a fact: “until they were compelled to make a false confession”. The memory of the martyrs is precious, and therefore he does not ask why they did not have the strength to endure the tortures, as did, for example, the victims of the Würzburg libel, whose freedom he had just secured at the time of writing. In the case of the latter, he writes as follows: “And they tortured the man, the women, and the virgin until they were at death’s door, but they refused to make a false confession”. In the case under discussion here the question is irrelevant, as he is referring to martyrs. The main piece of new information he provides is the identity of the victims, who were his great-uncles. Moreover, the fact that his father was present in Endingen at the time of the blood libel we could not have known from the Christian sources. Apparently, also Gershon, R. Joseph’s father, lived in Endingen. The whole family was implicated in the blood libel, and it is reasonable to suppose that Gershon would have suﬀered the same fate as his uncles had he not ﬂed from the town. From R. Joseph’s account it emerges * {For an explanation of this term, see the commentary on this section of the Chronicle, p. 303, note 2, where C. Fraenkel-Goldschmidt also discusses a diﬀerent interpretation of the text. Translator}

66

[i]

5231 (1470⁄71)

that his father ﬂed the town before the expulsion of the rest of Endingen Jewry. An additional piece of information that we learn only from R. Joseph is the fate of the Pforzheim victims of the libel—he simply informs us that they died for the sake of Kiddush Hashem. In his words, the martyrs of Pforzheim were burnt “at the same time”, namely, during that same period. It is hard to imagine that he was not aware of the connection between the Endingen and Pforzheim cases. Moreover, it is diﬃcult to account for the third incident he mentions: the death of another relative, this time on his wife’s side—his father-in-law’s brother, who was put to death in Hagenau, also “at the same time”. According to the available non-Jewish sources, no resident of Hagenau was implicated in the Endingen aﬀair. This diﬃculty can be solved if we assume that he did not mean that his father-in-law’s brother was necessarily a resident of Hagenau. Hagenau, an imperial city situated not far from Pforzheim, was the seat of the provincial administration, the Landvogtei, the “Hagenau authority”— as R. Joseph terms it. A Jew living in some small town in that vicinity might quite possibly have been tried before the regional court at Hagenau, and it is not inconceivable that the man in question was connected with the Endingen aﬀair. Another possibility is that, contrary to Feilchenfeld’s opinion,23 there is actually no connection between the Hagenau incident and that of Endingen, and one must assume that R. Joseph linked the two events because they occurred in close proximity of time, or because both were associated with his family. It is pertinent to add here that in the early sixteenth century a Jew resident in Frankfurt on Main composed a kinah (elegy) on various pogroms that had ravaged German Jewry.24 In the last stanza he writes:

23

See p. 6, note 1. This kinah (elegy) is listed in I. Davidson, Otsar ha-Shira ve-ha-Piyyut (The Thesaurus of Medieval Hebrew Poetry), p. 732. The author’s signature reads, Akiva ben Mori ha-Rav Rabi Eleazar Zatzal, ha-Katan Yigdal ba-Torah Amen Selah (Akiva, son of my teacher Rabbi R. Eleazar of blessed memory, [may I] the insigniﬁcant grow in Torah. Amen. Selah). It has been published a number of times, for example, in S. Bernfeld, Sefer ha-Demaot (The Book of Tears), Berlin 1926, 2, p. 143 onwards. L. Zunz, in his Literaturgeschichte der Synagogalen Poesie, p. 534, opines that the author was the grandfather of R. Akiva Frankfurter, known as Neuss (d. 1597). 24

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

67

They devised evil against us at every time and season The slain of Endingen and Hagina (= Hagenau) When I departed from Jerusalem . . . The landlord and the guests together they burnt with thistles The martyrs of the Pforzheim25 community When I departed from Jerusalem.

This kinah contains a detail that we did not previously know, that in Pforzheim an innkeeper—or he may simply have been a houseowner—was burnt to death together with his guests. Interestingly, in this kinah there is a connection between the events in Endingen, Pforzheim and Hagenau, a link otherwise found only in R. Joseph’s Chronicle. Could the Chronicle have been a source for the author of the kinah?

[2] 5236–5237 (1475–1477) The Burgundy War and the Incursion of the Swiss Army In the attacks against the Jews of Alsace that came in the wake of the Burgundy War of 1476, a clear connection can be found between the general historical events of the time and the fortunes of R. Joseph’s family and of Alsatian Jewry as a whole. This section of the Chronicle deals with the military campaign launched by the Duke of Lorraine (Lotharingia), with the aid of Swiss mercenaries, against Charles IV, the Bold, Duke of Burgundy. We shall brieﬂy review the background to this war.26 Charles the Bold of Burgundy aspired to build a great empire and unite his possessions in the principality of Burgundy in eastern France with lands he had inherited in Flanders. In order to further this goal, by various means, he bought and annexed territory in the Low 25 A. L. Landshuth reads the word “Porzochim”, because of the Hebrew rhyme. See his Amudei ha-Avodah (Pillars of the Liturgy), Berlin 1857, supplements, p. iii. (Similarly above, “Hagina” for Hagenau.) 26 This account is based on: J. v. Müller, Der Geschichte schweizerischer Eidgenossenschaft Neunter Teil (Sämtliche Werke, 16), Leipzig 1832, p. 89; H. Witte, “Zur Geschichte der burgundischen Herrschaft”, Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins, N.F. 1 (1886); H. Brauer-Gramm, Der Landvogt Peter von Hagenbach—Die burgundische Herrschaft am Oberrhein 1469–1474, Göttingen-Berlin-Frankfurt 1957.

68

[2]

5236‒5237 (1475‒1477)

Countries. He acquired Alsace in 1469 as a ﬁefdom from the House of Habsburg and in 1475 conquered and annexed Lorraine. At the same time, he engaged in negotiations with the German Emperor, Frederick III, to arrange a marriage alliance between their respective heirs and secure for himself the German Crown. The negotiations were protracted and the marriage eventually took place only after Charles’s death. Across the border King Louis XI of France viewed with alarm Burgundy’s growing power. For his part, he was anxious to bring about the marriage of the Burgundy heiress to the French Crown Prince, in order to restore Burgundy to his dominion. When he was unsuccessful in this aim, he provided the Duke of Lorraine with money and convinced him to hire Swiss mercenaries and wage war to recover his land. Charles the Bold also encountered opposition at home. He introduced a system of centralized government that was viewed with much disfavour by the nobility and, in particular, by the cities. The cities of Alsace were united in the League of Ten Cities and received the support of the Swiss city-states, who themselves felt threatened by the Duke of Burgundy’s actions. What particularly incensed the Alsatian cities was the conduct of the provincial governor (Landvogt) whom Charles had appointed—Peter von Hagenbach. His authority was perceived by them to be an infringement of their rights and time-honoured liberties. Therefore, they allied themselves with the Swiss forces led by the Duke of Lorraine. Charles the Bold suﬀered two crushing defeats, but was determined to recapture Nancy, the capital of Lorraine, which had fallen into the hands of his enemies. He besieged the city, but was killed in a battle with the Swiss forces that had rushed to its relief, and Nancy was liberated ( January 1477). This battle marked the end of Burgundian rule in Alsace and Lorraine. For the Jews, however, there was no rejoicing. The “liberating” Swiss forces, intoxicated with the spirit of freedom,27 brought catastrophe upon Alsatian Jewry. Wherever they encountered Jews, they attacked them, drove them from their homes and plundered their property. 27 Some scholars tend to regard the Swiss soldiers not only as mercenaries, but as ﬁghters for the ideal of freedom that was close to their hearts, see G. Kallen, Die Verteidigung von Freiheit und Recht in den Burgunderkriegen, 1467–1477, Cologne 1950.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

69

The Swiss chronicles provide details of the actions against the Jews. Basel was a free city (Freistadt) bordering on the Swiss citystates, and a member of the League of Ten Cities. According to the Basel Chronicle, when the commanders of the allied armies of the Swiss and the cities (the confederati ) stopped for a respite in the town of Ensisheim, their forces attacked the Jews there and plundered all their property. One of the Jewish leaders who witnessed the proceedings removed his property to the city fortress for safekeeping. When the troops got knowledge of this, they threatened the keeper of the fortress, warning him that if he refused to surrender the Jew’s possessions, they would attack the fortress and seize not only the Jew’s property but his as well, and everything else they found there. The terriﬁed keeper promptly handed over everything that the Jew had entrusted to him. The chronicler adds: They did likewise in Colmar {and} Schlettstadt, in which place they seized a large treasure in silver, gold, valuables (clenodii, i.e. Kleinodien) and clothing that served as pledges, and they burnt and tore to shreds all the books and writings that they found. And they behaved similarly in all of Alsace, in all the localities where there were Jews.28

In another place the chronicler writes: At the same time, when they were returning from their Burgundian expedition, and had already liberated the people of Nancy, and reached Mühlhausen, they fell upon all the Jews in that place, took all that they had and divided the spoil among themselves.29

He notes too that an enormous amount of loot which they had robbed from the Jews in Ensisheim, Colmar, Schlettstadt and other places in Alsace was brought to Bern, so that the heads of the forces (superiores confederati ) could divide it among themselves.30 We also learn about the persecution of the Jews from another contemporary source. In a ballad about the battle of Nancy, it is related that the Swiss journeyed to Alsace and on the way they assaulted the Jews.31 The chronicles do not enlighten us as to the exact fate of the Jews themselves, and there is also no mention of forced conversions to

28

See Basler Chroniken III, (ed.) W. Vischer, Leipzig 1887, anno 1476, pp. 87–88. Ibid., anno 1477, p. 104. 30 Ibid., anno 1477 ( Januar), p. 90. 31 See R. von Liliencron, Die historischen Volkslieder der Deutschen, II, Leipzig 1867, no. 146, p. 107, “Vom Strit von Nanse”. 29

70

[2]

5236‒5237 (1475‒1477)

Christianity, contrary to what transpires from the words of the Jew of Nuremberg, who wrote in a prayer-book: “they compelled to apostasy,” or from R. Joseph’s own words: “and they forcibly immersed them in the river to make them reek with apostasy . . .”. J. Gyss notes that the Swiss forces pitched their camps inside the towns of their allies, fell upon the Jews, looted their houses and forced them to ﬂee. And they behaved in a similar fashion, according to him, also on their journey back to Switzerland. Such was the case in Colmar, Schlettstadt, Mühlhausen, Kaysersberg, Oberehnheim and other places.32 He does not indicate what might have accounted for this outburst of hatred against the Jews on the part of the Swiss. The Swiss historian, Johannes Müller, attempts to excuse Swiss actions against the Jews by attributing them to the bitter cold and consequent lack of food from which the soldiers suﬀered.33 Following him, the editor of the historical poems, Liliencron, similarly contends that perhaps the freezing weather conditions during the Swiss campaign were the cause.34 One of the chronicles does indeed relate that when the Swiss soldiers reached Alsace in the bitterly cold weather, they had nothing to eat.35 It appears, however, that the Swiss assault on the Jews cannot be explained away by any immediate factor. Although the number of Jews in Switzerland was relatively insigniﬁcant, anti-Jewish feeling there was deeply rooted.36 A clear illustration of the Swiss attitude to the Jews is the blood libel in Endingen on the Swiss border, discussed in the ﬁrst section of the Chronicle. The same attitude can be found in folk songs composed in the latter half of the ﬁfteenth century. We ﬁnd in them a blind faith in all the despicable false accusations against the Jews, although between the lines the innocence of the victims is clearly discernible. One of the works of the Basel poet Peter von Gengenbach, entitled Fünf Juden, tells of a Jew

32 See J. Gyss, Histoire de la Ville d’Obernai, et de ses environs, Strasbourg 1866, p. 270. 33 See Müller, Der Geschichte schweizerischer Eidgenossenschaft, p. 89. 34 Liliencron, Die historischen Volkslieder, introduction to ballad no. 145, p. 104. 35 See Petermann Etterlin, Kronica von der loblichen Eydgnosschaft, (ed.) Eugen Gruber, Aarau 1965, pp. 261–62. 36 For the migration of the Jews to and from Switzerland, see T. Nordmann, “Über die Wanderungen und Siedlungsbeziehungen zwischen elsäßischem und schweizerischem Judentum”, Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für die Geschichte der Israeliten in Elsaß-Lothringen, 1917.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

71

who wantonly desecrated the picture of the Holy Mary in a church in the region of Hennegau.37 A blacksmith who witnessed his action denounced him and went to the highest authorities. Despite the tortures inﬂicted on him, the Jew steadfastly refused to confess to the deed, and therefore judgement had to be determined by divine justice—by a duel. The Jew was slain, and thus, ostensibly, his guilt was proved. In the poet’s description of the proceedings, particularly noteworthy are the words he puts into the mouth of the Jew, who tries to prove his innocence, but without success. In the spirit of this hate-infested climate, in 1478 the Basel chronicler warns the residents of the cities of Erfurt, Frankfurt, Nuremberg, Speyer, Heidelberg and Worms that they should safeguard their children, for, as he puts it, at this time of the year, after Lent, the Jews are avid to shed the blood of Christian children in their synagogues, as they have done not so long ago in the case of the infant Simon of Trent, about which the chronicler writes in a similar vein.38 He charges the pope and the clergy as a whole with being more interested in Jewish money than in divine justice, for which reason they have ordered the cessation of the trial against the Jews.39 It must be remembered that the Simon of Trent Aﬀair took place shortly before the Burgundy War, and the tone adopted by the chronicler was undoubtedly representative of wide circles in Switzerland at that time. Moreover, if the Swiss people were indeed inﬂuenced by freedom ﬁghters or social revolutionaries of various descriptions, it is hardly surprising that they vented their anger also on the Jews, for example during the Bundschuh uprisings and the Peasants War, regarding them as part of the establishment with which they were at war.40 There is no record that the Alsatian cities put up any opposition to the Swiss attacks on the Jews, and after the war, when the Emperor’s representative requested an explanation from them and demanded that they restore the Jews to their homes, they defended themselves with the argument that it was the Swiss who had compelled them to drive out the Jews. They further claimed that they had suﬀered greatly at the hands of the invaders on account of the Pamphilius Gengenbach, (ed.) Carl Goedeke, Hanover 1856, no. 5, p. 39 ﬀ. Basler Chroniken III, p. 176. 39 Ibid., anno 1475, p. 301. 40 For this, see below, the discussion in the introduction to section 11 of the Chronicle, p. 144 onwards. {For an explanation of the term “Bundschuh”, see introduction to section 8, pp. 125–126, especially note 186 there.} 37 38

72

[2]

5236‒5237 (1475‒1477)

Jews, and that they dared not permit them back lest the Swiss ﬁghters who were still in the land take reprisals against them.41 In 1477, representatives of the cities of Alsace met in Colmar and decided jointly not to restore the Jews to their cities.42 In a number of places, however, some Jews were received back into the cities, but generally only because of pressure from the Elector Palatine, who was the ruler of Alsace, or from the Emperor. Jewish settlement in the region in the ensuing period was undoubtedly very sparse. The gravity of the calamity that had struck the Jewish communities is testiﬁed to by a letter to the Elector Palatine from the tax collector (Zinsmeister) of Hagenau, who was required to collect 300 guilders from the Jews of that region. According to him, the Jews had responded that they were unable to provide this sum as most of their brethren had been expelled, the rich among them in particular having left for other domains, and that those Jews who remained were too poor to pay the tax.43 In subsequent years too, the Alsatian cities spared no eﬀort to prevent the renewed settlement of Jews within their walls. Oberehnheim and Colmar were even prepared to run the risk of legal action taken against them by R. Joseph of Rosheim on behalf of the Jews of the region.44 R. Joseph’s Portrayal of the Events R. Joseph’s narrative is divided into three parts: (1) The note in the prayer book by R. Jacob of Nuremberg; (2) A general description of the attacks on the Jews; (3) The incident near Türkheim connected with R. Judah Bamis. The reason why R. Joseph was so powerfully aﬀected by the words written in the prayer book he found in Würzburg in 1544 can be ascribed both to the stories he had heard from his father and the tradition concerning the events that was widespread among Alsatian Jewry. After reading the simple words in the prayer book, he conceived the idea that it would be appropriate if he too were to write down “what he had heard from his father . . . how God, blessed be 41

ArchDep Bas-Rhin, C 78 (70). Ibid., C 78 (72), and see Gyss, Histoire d’Obernai, p. 270. 43 ArchDep Bas-Rhin C 78 (46). 44 On the Oberehnheim Aﬀair, see introduction to section 7 of the Chronicle, pp. 119–121. 42

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

73

He, had dealt wonderfully kindly with those ﬂeeing from that harsh persecution . . .”. It is reasonable to suppose that it was the passage in the prayer book that gave him the incentive to write the entire Chronicle, and he placed the section on the year 1470/71 at the very beginning. The particulars of R. Joseph’s account are corroborated from other sources. The harsh weather conditions of the winter of 1476–1477 are emphasized in the non-Jewish accounts. The historian Müller writes about the bitter cold, observing that several hundred people and horses froze to death.45 A Nuremberg chronicler writes regarding that winter, that it was the hardest for ﬁfty years,46 and these are almost exactly R. Joseph’s words: “and it was colder at that time than it had been for many a year”. The fortresses referred to by R. Joseph can easily be identiﬁed: the fortress of Lützelstein lies on the border between Alsace and Lorraine.47 Bar is a fortress in the county of Bar, or, possibly, the city of Bar (Hohbarr) in Lower Alsace, not far from Strasbourg.48 R. Joseph’s account of the danger facing Jews who were tracked down by the Swiss forces is conﬁrmed by other contemporary sources. One of the chronicles relates that the Swiss forces discovered 200 people inside a forest and murdered them.49 There is also a parallel, albeit from a later period, for the manner in which the ransom of the Jews taken captive by the Swiss was arranged. During the Peasants War, six residents of Dossenheim were taken prisoner by Lorraine soldiers. The soldiers demanded a large sum of money in exchange for their release. Three of the captives were sent to bring the money and the other three were held hostage under threat of death if the ransom money did not arrive. The Magistrate (Amtmann) of the village wrote to the Strasbourg city council, requesting its assistance on behalf of the captives.50 45

Der Geschichte, p. 89. See Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte, 10 (Nürnberg IV), p. 350. 47 Some years later Franz von Sickingen attempted to seize this fortress from the Count Palatine, but was unsuccessful. See G. Th. Strobel, Alsatia illustrata, IV, Colmar 1751, p. 9. 48 See Germania Judaica, III/1, s.v. Barr. 49 Basler Chroniken I, p. 599. 50 See H. Virck, Politische Correspondenz der Stadt Straßburg im Zeitalter der Reformation, Strasbourg 1882, 1, no. 301. Yaacov Guggenheim points out that the taking of captives and their release in exchange for ransom money was customary practice in the period under discussion. 46

74

[2]

5236‒5237 (1475‒1477)

Additional Hebrew Sources We have an additional source on the events of the Burgundy War from an eyewitness who himself experienced the pogroms. In his book Meshivat Nefesh (A Restorative for the Soul), R. Johanan Luria relates how he was privileged to receive residence rights in a certain locality in the “province of Alzish” [Alsace] and to open a yeshiva {Talmudic seminary} for those thirsty for the words of the Torah, and to “bring together those who were apart”, as he puts it.51 He adds: And I maintained it [the yeshiva] for seven semesters until the bears {sic} came and wreaked death, destruction and depredation in all the provinces, and those upon whom God, blessed be He, had mercy, or whose merit or that of their fathers stood them in good stead, took ﬂight for their lives, and I, through the merit of my fathers, ﬂed with all my household; the Lord, blessed be He, carried me on eagle’s wings, and I hid in the clefts of the rocks between the hills. However, I was left naked, nearly destitute . . . and it was no longer in my power to gather the ﬂock or to bring the ﬂocks and lead them to draw water from the well of living water. . . .52

This account resembles that given by R. Joseph, concerning the ﬂight of the Jews “to the hills and the caves”. Moreover, R. Johanan’s experiences as a refugee are strongly reminiscent of those of R. Joseph’s parents and family. R. Johanan’s words vividly depict the spiritual wilderness the pogroms left in their wake. The second story narrated by R. Joseph, the incident in Türkheim, likewise has its parallel: the memorial book of the Niederehnheim Jewish community contains the identical story with slight variations. Unfortunately only the French translation by E. Scheid53 has survived, and the following is a translation of the relevant passage. The Jews of Colmar, Schlettstadt, Türkheim, Kaysersberg, Ammerschweiler*, and Bergheim were almost all slain and hanged. Twenty-six

51 See H.-H. Ben-Sasson, “Mishnato ha-Óevratit shel R. Yo˙anan Luria” (The Social Philosophy of R. Johanan Luria), Zion, 27 (1962), pp. 167–68. 52 Sefer Meshivat Nefesh (A Restorative for the Soul). The text which is translated here is according to the manuscript in the Ginzburg Collection, from a photocopy in the Institute of Microﬁlmed Hebrew Manuscripts, ﬁlm 16877, p. 10, and compare Ben-Sasson, ibid. 53 See REJ, 13 (1886), p. 63. * {Presumably a reference to the town of Ammerschweier near Colmar, and similarly below, section 2 of the Chronicle, p. 306, lines 1–2. Translator}

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

75

people were tortured until they consented to convert to Christianity. Twenty of them later returned to the true path; the others saw their children die on the road during the ﬂight. Eighty people, prominent men, esteemed rabbis, heads of families, women and girls were conveyed to a camp near Colmar, where they were called upon under threat of death to convert. The hangman was preparing to cut oﬀ their heads when the leader of the forces suddenly appeared and oﬀered to spare their lives in exchange for a ransom of 80 Reichstalers. But where could they ﬁnd such a sum? Most of the Jews had ﬂed to save their lives and there was no one at hand to ransom the unfortunate people. In their distress they turned to Rabbi Judah Pamsch of Mühlhausen, who possessed a charter of protection from the authorities of that city. Rabbi Judah hastened to gather all that he could in the way of gold, silver, valuables and jewellery, and speedily dispatched his servant Mordecai to ransom the eighty Jews threatened with death.

Here therefore is the same story; however, despite the resemblance between the two versions, one does not appear to be a copy of the other; each contains information that is missing in the other. It is unlikely that R. Joseph drew upon the account in the Niederehnheim memorial book, for his account has vivid details which he undoubtedly did not invent. His story has a solid basis in the history of his family, as R. Judah Bamis (or Pamsch, according to the memorial book) was a relative. Likewise, Raphael, who according to him died a Christian, had been a relative by marriage of his wife’s family. On the other hand, if the memorial book (whose date of writing is unknown) is actually an edited version of R. Joseph’s account, it appears that the editor was inaccurate in some of the details, or that he simply did not read the manuscript carefully. His ﬁgures for the number of forced converts and the number of those who returned to Judaism are diﬀerent from those given by R. Joseph. While R. Joseph speaks of six, the author of the passage in the memorial book makes reference to twenty-six. Moreover, the allusion in the memorial book to the children of the converts is not suﬃciently clear. Thus, it is more plausible to assume that this story was well known among Alsatian Jewry and what we have here are two diﬀerent versions of it. At all events, the account in the memorial book provides additional evidence of the fact, to which the Jew from Nuremberg and R. Joseph also attest, that religious coercion was used during the pogroms, a matter on which the Christian chronicles are silent. The two Hebrew sources both paint a graphic picture of the fate of two groups of Jews, one that accords well with the general accounts in the Christian sources.

76

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle [3] 5263–5265 (1503–1505)

The War of the Bavarian Succession The War of the Bavarian Succession (Bayerisch Pfälzischer Erbfolgekrieg) broke out because of a dynastic problem aﬀecting one particular noble house, but in eﬀect most of the German princes were involved in it, including even Maximilian I, King of Germany and subsequently (from 1508) Holy Roman Emperor.54 Duke George “the Rich” of the House of Bavaria-Landshut in Lower Bavaria had no sons, but only one daughter. According to the Bavarian Succession Law of 1392, daughters could not inherit. His lands were therefore destined to pass by inheritance to his kinsmen—the brothers Albert and Wolfgang of the House of BavariaMunich in Upper Bavaria. In order to bypass this law, in 1496, George signed a contract with Elector Palatine Philip, whereby one of Philip’s sons would wed George’s daughter and the young couple would inherit his land. In 1499, Rupert, the Elector Palatine’s third son, and George’s daughter, Elizabeth, were married in a magniﬁcent ceremony in Heidelberg, after having received the Pope’s dispensation, which was necessary owing to the consanguinity between the couple. George adopted his son-in-law with alacrity, and already during his lifetime transferred to him the command of a number of his fortresses. The inheritors from the House of Bavaria-Munich protested George’s actions. Furthermore, Maximilian refused to conﬁrm the marriage contract, and censured George for having transgressed not only the Bavarian Succession Law but also the feudal law (Lehnsrecht), according to which, where there were no inheritors, hereditary land reverted to the king, and he had the right to grant it to whomsoever he wished.

54 This brief account is based on the following works: H. Ullmann, Kaiser Maximilian I, II, [Stuttgart 1911] reprint, Vienna 1967; Harmann Wiesﬂecker, Kaiser Maximilian I, III, Munich 1977; M. Schaab, Geschichte der Kurpfalz, I, Stuttgart-Berlin-CologneMainz 1988, pp. 215–16; St. Ehser, Quellen und Literatur zur Geschichte des BayerischPfälzisch, oder Landshuter Erbfolgekrieg, 1504–1505, Würzburg 1880; W. Volkert, “Pfälzische Zersplitterung”, in: M. Spindler (ed.), Handbuch der Bayerischen Geschichte, III, pp. 1289–98, Munich 1967; L. v. Ranke, Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation, Vienna, Phaidon-Verlag, pp. 80–82.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

77

Maximilian proposed that all the parties involved should accept his judgement, and at an assembly of princes in Augsburg ( January– February, 1504) he put forward a territorial compromise. At the same time, in his capacity as king and as a prince of the Austrian dynasty, he pressed claims of his own (what he called his “interests”) to various territories in George’s possession. Some of these, among them Alsace, had formerly been in Austrian hands, and some were intended as compensation for losses Austria had sustained in the years 1469–70, because of the war with Elector Palatine Frederick I, the Victorious.55 The brothers from Upper Bavaria reluctantly accepted Maximilian’s proposals, but Rupert rejected them out of hand. Already prior to George the Rich’s death, he had taken over a number of fortresses, among them those of Landshut and Burghausen where his father-in-law kept most of his treasure. All the King’s eﬀorts to reach a compromise with him even at this late stage proved unavailing. At that point, the Royal Court of Justice decided unequivocally in favour of the brothers from Upper Bavaria, placed Rupert under a ban and called upon the German princes to join Maximilian in his war against him. All the traditional enemies of the Palatine State joined forces with Maximilian and Albert of Munich. Among them were Landgrave William of Hesse, Margrave Frederick of Brandenburg-Kulmbach— whose army included soldiers from Mecklenburg and Braunschweig— Albert’s son-in-law, Ulrich of Württemberg, as well as forces from Saxony that joined Albert’s camp, the Swabian League, and princes and various cities, including, for example, Nuremberg. All hoped to proﬁt by this war, since the King had hinted that every territory captured could be annexed by the conquerors. In the face of this broad alignment of princes and lords, Rupert took full advantage of his father’s wealth, with the assistance of which he hired Bohemian mercenaries, who were known for their cruelty, and, as compatriots of the Hussites, also branded as heretics. He relied too on the support of the Estates (Stände) in his land, and on

55

Frederick the Victorious had been on bad terms with Emperor Frederick III (1440–1493), who had refused to recognise his arrogation of the title of Elector, which he had assumed after his adoption of Philip, the infant son of his brother, Elector Palatine Ludwig IV. In subsequent years, he also on several occasions backed the Emperor’s enemies. See Volkert, “Pfälzische Zersplitterung”, in Spindler, p. 1292 onwards.

78

[3]

5263‒5265 (1503‒1505)

the abilities of a number of military commanders whom George placed at his disposal. The chroniclers describe this war as the cruelest ever waged on the backs of a civilian population.56 One of them, Abbot Rumpler von Kumbach, entitled his description of the war “Calamitas Bavariae”. The city chronicler of Ingolstadt, Andreas Zayner, described the war as: “Campaigns of pillage and depredation, arson and devastation”.57 Each side accused the other of shocking deeds of cruelty. In every location where ﬁghting took place, hundreds of villages, monasteries and fortresses were burnt down.58 While the scales were weighted to a large extent in Rupert’s favour, he died suddenly, and Elizabeth followed him soon afterwards. However, the war continued all the same. The allied forces now believed that in order to end the ﬁghting they would have to subdue Elector Palatine Philip. Philip, who had not taken an active part in the war, but had merely fortiﬁed his cities and supported his son ﬁnancially, was now prepared to capitulate. However, Maximilian wished to make additional gains. At the height of the war, the King penetrated Alsace, mortgaged for a long period to the counts of the Palatinate,59 and proclaimed that he was ousting Philip from the Reichsvogtei of Alsace, and that he, Maximilian, was taking over the reins of government as Oberlandvogt. He came to Strasbourg and demanded that the Alsatian cities swear an oath of allegiance to him (May 1504). Strasbourg immediately acquiesced to his authority, and even sent soldiers to his aid. Other cities—such as Mühlhausen60—hesitated to submit to his rule, since there was no 56 See Liliencron, Die historischen Volkslieder, III. The foreword to ballad no. 238 quotes comments by contemporaries, who compared the savage acts perpetrated during this war to Turkish barbarism (türkische Barberei). 57 “Raub- und Pfünderzüge, Brandstiftungen und Verwüstungen” (St. Ehser, Quellen und Literatur, p. 10). 58 See Liliencron, Die historischen Volkslieder, III, foreward to ballad no. 238, line 8: “Vil dorfer sein verprennt hert kirchen, kloster is nit geschont”, and also ballad no. 240, line 210: “. . . zu rauben, morden und prennen”. 59 See J. Becker, Die Verleihung und Verpfändung der Reichslandvogtei Elsaß, von 1408–1634. This study is also included in idem, Geschichte der Landvogtei im Elsaß, Strasbourg 1905. 60 For the negotiations between the King’s representatives and the city of Mühlhausen, see X. Mossmann, Cartulaire de Mulhouse, IV, Strasbourg 1883, p. 407 ﬀ. It is interesting that during the meeting between the King’s representative and the delegates of Strasbourg, the city stipulated, among other conditions, that it should have the right to admit Jews as citizens: “Das sy juden in burgerschaft wol uﬀnemen möchten, schirmen und handt haben”. This, in spite of the fact that Jews were not

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

79

clear indication as to how the war would end, and they feared that if Philip returned to Alsace they would be placed in an awkward position.61 The war continued until the end of 1504. In two decisive battles, one near Regensburg against Bohemian forces and the second against the fortress of Kufstein in the Bavarian Tyrol—one of the fortresses Maximilian wanted for himself—the war was resolved in the King’s favour. All the parties then agreed to end the ﬁghting. In the Cologne agreement of July 1505, the King ﬁxed the terms of the new settlement, which in its essentials diﬀered very little from his original proposals, save that his territorial demands had grown considerably. The greater part of the territory captured during the war, in particular that belonging to the Palatine, remained in the hands of the victors.62 All the territories south of the Danube that had originally formed part of George the Rich’s possessions were handed over to Upper Bavaria, save what the King reserved for himself—some ﬁfteen territories and fortresses, including the regions of Alsace and Ortenau. In the territories north of the Danube, a new principality named the Young Palatinate (die junge Pfalz), later known as the Upper Palatinate (Oberpfalz), was created and awarded to Rupert’s young sons.

permitted to reside permanently in Strasbourg at that time. The controversy erupted after a complaint was made by the city against a certain Jew. Maximilian’s representative chided the city delegates: What is your business with this Jew. He does not belong to anyone save the Emperor or the King! To this they responded: The city possesses a privilege from emperors and kings that accords them the right to have Jews within its limits. See Mossmann, IV, no. 1948 (1505), p. 424. 61 Maximilian’s letter to Mühlhausen informing them of his re-assumption of the Landvogtei is printed in Mossmann, ibid., IV, p. 416. In 1470 the Alsatian cities had faced a similar situation: Emperor Frederick III had deposed the Elector Palatine, Frederick the Victorious, from his position as governor of Alsace and had endeavoured to appoint Count Veldenz in his stead. Delegates of the Alsatian imperial cities had held an assembly and had resolved to persuade Frederick to restore the province to the jurisdiction of the Elector Palatine. See Becker, Die Verleihung und Verpfändung, pp. 120–21. On the occasion under discussion here too, the cities, at a meeting in Schlettstadt, asked for a period of grace, as Philip might still come to terms with Maximilian and would make them suﬀer for having sworn allegiance to the King. Maximilian’s representative responded sharply that Alsace would never be returned to the rule of the Elector Palatine. The cities eventually recognized the King’s supremacy, and the latter consolidated his rule in Alsace by empowering an Unterlandvogt to govern on his behalf at Hagenau ( July 1505). 62 According to Liliencron (no. 237), in the course of the war Ulrich of Württemberg captured from the Elector Palatine 11 localities and also “many villages”, three of which the King left under his jurisdiction.

80

[3]

5263‒5265 (1503‒1505)

They also received a large share in the shape of money and assets from what remained of their grandfather Ludwig’s legacy. Historians regard the outcome of this war as a great victory for Maximilian, one that considerably increased his stature. He emerged as the supreme overlord, with the princes submitting to his judgement. He had succeeded in weakening his great enemy the Count Palatine, whom he divested of the Electorship, while, at the same time, he prevented Upper Bavaria from building up its strength. In addition to all this, he had greatly augmented the dominions of the Habsburg House. He was portrayed as a hero, standing at the head of his troops and gaining the upper hand even in the ﬁercest of battles. R. Joseph’s Description of the Events From a reading of the very terse account R. Joseph gives of the war, the impression is gained that he may not have heard much about the circumstances surrounding the events. He knows that many princes participated in the war, “many peoples”, in his words, and that they fought for Maximilian. He appears to think that the entire war was waged against the Elector Palatine, whose seat of residence was in Heidelberg, and this was undoubtedly the case in the last stages of the war, but has nothing to do with the reasons why the war broke out in the ﬁrst place.63 Certainly the Elector in Heidelberg supported his son Rupert with funds and other resources, but he never left his place of residence and conﬁned himself to fortifying his cities. According to R. Joseph, he was the main loser in the war, and in this there is perhaps a morsel of truth. Between the lines, we sense a kind of identiﬁcation with the Elector Palatine in his miserable fate. There is a hint to this in the words “they drove him out in ignominy from several fortresses and other places”. It was natural that R. Joseph saw the war from this viewpoint, for the Elector Palatine had been the direct ruler of Alsace until that time. Interestingly, he does not mention that the government 63 There are those who believe that Elector Palatine Philip was behind George the Rich’s ill-fated compact, but this is purely speculation. See Ullmann, Kaiser Maximilian I, p. 179.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

81

of Alsace changed hands consequent to the war. There is also no reference in his account to the appalling destruction the war left in its wake. He relates that almost all his possessions in money and pledges from loans as well as household utensils were stolen from him, but when one considers the horrors of that war, it seems that R. Joseph fared quite well. One can perhaps conclude from this that Alsace did not suﬀer the same devastation as the war wreaked in the battle areas, and that the armies merely passed through on their way, admittedly harassing the civilian population, but no more than that. Our author is perfectly correct when he states that the war took place during the years 1503,1504 and 1505. The conﬂict did begin as early as 1503; Rupert had already seized a number of fortresses before the death of George the Rich at the end of 1503. The battles continued through 1504, and the settlement was only reached at the end of July 1505. R. Joseph does not mention where he was resident during those years. It is reasonable to assume that he lived in Bergheim or Mittelbergheim, since in 1514 we ﬁnd him there. On the other hand, we learn from this section that he already had a family of his own, and that he was making a living as a moneylender. It is possible that the relatively sparse information he gives here and his limited interest in the history of the war were due to the fact that at the time about which he was writing R. Joseph did not yet serve in a public capacity, and community aﬀairs may still have been far from his mind. Therefore, he described the developments from a personal point of view only.

[4,7,10] 5266–5267, 5275, 5282 (1505–1507, 1514/15, 1521/22) The Oberehnheim Aﬀair The struggle over the right of the Jews to reside in Oberehnheim continued for close on ﬁfty years. In the Chronicle, the author discusses this subject a number of times: in the sections dealing with

82

[4,7,10]

5266‒5267, 5275, 5282 (1505‒1507, 1514⁄15, 1521⁄22)

the years 1505–1507,1514/15 and 1521/22. The following is a review of all the material connected with this subject.64 The Alsatian cities vied with the other German imperial cities in their eﬀorts to obtain the Emperor’s permission to expel their Jews. They were aﬀorded an excellent pretext by the expulsions and ﬂight of Jews during the Burgundy War (1476–1477).65 Immediately upon conclusion of the ﬁghting, the oﬃcial (Unterlandvogt) who ruled Alsace on behalf of the Duke of Lorraine sent letters to the cities demanding that they readmit those Jews who had been residents before the war. The cities devised various excuses for refusing to take them back; as previously remarked, they claimed that they had been compelled by the Swiss invaders to expel their Jews and could not comply with the demand to restore them as the Swiss were still in the area.66 Oberehnheim participated in the meeting of all the Alsatian imperial cities at Colmar in 1477, where it was decided not to allow the Jews to return.67 Only a few individual cities agreed to admit a small number of Jews.68 In the 1490’s there was another exchange of letters between the Unterlandvogt and the said Alsatian imperial cities, apparently due to pressure on the part of the Jews.69 In a letter to all of the cities Colmar, Schlettstadt, Kaysersberg, Oberehnheim, Rosheim and Türkheim,70 the Unterlandvogt ordered them in no uncertain terms to take back the Jews who had been driven out, justifying his demand from the privileges that the Jews possessed and by reason of their being “serfs of the Imperial Chamber”. These arguments were of no avail. In 1497, Emperor Maximilian himself wrote to the cities on the same matter, and speciﬁcally addressed two strongly worded 64 This account is based on: J. Gyss, Histoire de la ville d’Obernai, et de ses environs, I, Strasbourg 1866, p. 270 ﬀ.; J. Rochette, Histoire des Juifs d’Alsace des origines à la Révolution, Paris 1938, p. 51 ﬀ.; Germania Judaica, III/2, s.v. Oberehenheim; Feilchenfeld, p. 95 ﬀ. The original documents relating to this aﬀair are in the Oberehnheim City Archives, ArchMun Obernai. I used the copies in the Vienna Government Archives (HHStA Wien) and Strasbourg Central Archives (ArchDep Bas-Rhin). The principal document has been published by Feilchenfeld, Beilage II, pp. 146–53. 65 See above, introduction to section 2 of the Chronicle, p. 68 onwards. 66 ArchDep Bas-Rhin, C 78 (70). 67 Ibid., C 78 (72); and Gyss, Histoire de la ville d’Obernai, p. 270. 68 Colmar accepted two families. See Germania Judaica, III/1, s.v. Kolmar, p. 657, and note 16 there. 69 From the reasons enumerated by the Unterlandvogt to justify the return of the Jews, it is clear that the Jews themselves were behind his demand, and see below. 70 ArchDep Bas-Rhin, C 78 (73).

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

83

letters to Oberehnheim, warning the city that persistence in its refusal to comply with his commands would entail the loss of all its rights as an imperial city.71 However, the city again succeeded in evading the issue, and remained adamant in its refusal even when the Oberlandvogt requested that Jews from the neighbouring area, and in particular from the villages of Bischofsheim and Dangolsheim, be permitted to take refuge within its walls during Maximilian’s war with the Swiss in 1499.72 Eventually it capitulated, and in 1500 admitted two Jews (!) from Bischofsheim and their families. Their conditions of acceptance were speciﬁed in minute detail, and apparently did not diﬀer greatly from what had been customary in that region in the period before the Burgundy War.73 Even this arrangement proved only temporary, and in 1507, while Maximilian was in Strasbourg, Oberehnheim sent its representatives there and they laid their grievances before him. They claimed that the Jews were causing city residents grievous suﬀering by their iniquitious conduct—their thievery, proﬁteering and other crimes. The city’s emissaries astutely succeeded in bringing the Royal Chancellory over to their side. Before the Unterlandvogt was even notiﬁed or the Jews given time to respond to the accusations against them, Oberehnheim had secured a privilege from the Emperor, aﬀording it the right to banish all its Jewish residents and not to accept Jews within its walls in the future.74 Oberehnheim construed this privilege to include a prohibition both on passage through the town and on visits to its annual and weekly markets, although there is nothing in the document to justify such an interpretation.75 The city stubbornly maintained its prohibition on 71

The letters are dated Innsbruck 6.8.1497 and Freiburg 22.10.1497. Gyss I, p. 272. 73 Gyss I, p. 273. 74 The document, which bears the date “Strassburg, 21 März, 1507”, is in Oberehnheim City Archives, ArchMun Obernai A A 25/26, and a copy is in ArchMun Strasbourg, Serie III, 174, 17, pag. 54: Copy K. M. Freyheit den von Oberehenheim der Juden halb gebn. The Emperor commands the Jews to leave the city with their movable property and not to reside there in the future: “sich mit irem beweglichenn Habenn unnd güttern ausser derselbigenn Statt O. zu ziehenn und ferrer daselbst nitt zu wonen”. It should be noted that the document does not specify by when the order had to be implemented. 75 The document stipulates that the Emperor grants the city the authority and the duty “. . . ferrer keynerley Juden noch Jüdin daselbs halten noch wonen lassen sollenn noch mögen . . .”. The debate apparently centred around the meaning of the expression “halten”, a word that might possibly be ambiguous, but clearly does 72

84

[4,7,10]

5266‒5267, 5275, 5282 (1505‒1507, 1514⁄15, 1521⁄22)

the entry of Jews, not relenting even when a Jew arrived bearing an imperial writ of protection, which granted him residence rights. The Jew was attacked, gravely injured, and nearly paid for this with his life.76 Another Jew, a former resident, who was travelling quite innocently near the city, was murdered by a resident of the place, who afterwards ﬂed inside the city.77 This state of aﬀairs seriously aﬀected the Jews of Rosheim, which is close to Oberehnheim, as well as the Jews of neighbouring villages. R. Joseph writes: “. . . until the community was unable to endure the {situation} any longer, and {we} were compelled to make wide detours around the city. And they oppressed us for a long time” (section 4 of the Chronicle). The Jews prepared to defend themselves. In 1515 they sent R. Joseph to the Emperor. R. Joseph relates that in that same year both the Bishop of Strasbourg and the Lords of Andlau sought to expel their Jews.78 He was confronted with a formidable alignment of adversaries. However, he presented his petition against the city of Oberehnheim, in which he argued that the order forbidding passage through the city on the roads and visits on market days was in clear contravention of the law, and he also appealed against the expulsion itself. The Emperor directed his Unterlandvogt to investigate the Jews’ complaints and reach a decision on the matter. Due to R. Joseph’s intervention, the expulsion threat against the Jews in the bishopric of Strasbourg and the Andlau region was removed. The Bishop and

not imply any prohibition on passage through the city. R. Joseph interprets the text of the privilege as follows: “that no Jew should enter their city or its limits . . .” (section 4 of the Chronicle, below, p. 311, lines 5–6); however, this interpretation appears to be from the city’s point of view, with the particular construction that it put on its privilege, this being the immediate cause of all the events recounted in this section. 76 R. Joseph describes this incident in the bill of complaint submitted by the Jews against the city in 1522. 77 See section 4 of the Chronicle, (p. 311) and in the bill of complaint. On the murdered Jew, see below. 78 Yaacov Guggenheim speculates that there is a possible connection between these expulsion plans and the initiative of the Archbishop of Mainz to expel the Jews from the Rhine-Main region. For this episode, see A. Maimon, “Der Judenvertreibungsversuch Albrechts II von Mainz und sein Mißerfolg 1515/1516”, Jahrbuch für westdeutsche Landesgeschichte, 4 (1978), pp. 191–220. I did not ﬁnd any evidence of this in the source material, but it is conceivable that there was such a connection.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

85

the Lords of Andlau withdrew their expulsion plans, “straightened matters out with us”, in R. Joseph’s words (section 7 of the Chronicle). Oberehnheim, however, refused to change its policy. After its representatives had twice failed to appear at the appointed time for a hearing of the claims of both sides, the Jews sent R. Joseph to the Emperor for the third time. Apparently as a result of this appeal, Emperor Maximilian issued a mandate in favour of Alsatian Jewry,79 instructing all the administrators and functionaries in Alsace to safeguard the rights of the Jews in Upper and Lower Alsace, in the cities, the market-places and the villages, and that they should not be expelled on account of accusations about which they knew nothing. However, at the same time, during his visit to Oberehnheim in 1516, the Emperor reaﬃrmed the city’s charter relating to the non-admittance of Jews. On this occasion too, the city’s delegates used shrewd tactics and achieved their aim, after they had lobbied in the Imperial Chancellory for two successive days and a night.80 Accordingly, the Emperor’s privilege in favour of the Jews had no eﬀect whatsoever with respect to Oberehnheim, and, as the author testiﬁes in section 7 of the Chronicle, the Jews had no alternative but to remain silent and wait for an opportune moment when they could raise the matter again. As R. Joseph writes: “And we had to collect the wages of silence”. The struggle was renewed with the accession to the throne of Charles V. After Charles’s coronation ceremony at Aachen in 1520, the representatives of Oberehnheim had an audience with him, as did R. Joseph on behalf of the Jews. R. Joseph relates with satisfaction that he succeeded in obtaining a conﬁrmation of the general privileges of German Jewry.81 However, for the Jews of Alsace these were diﬃcult days: the Oberehnheim emissaries not only secured the renewal of their own charter,82 but also interceded on behalf of Rosheim, which too received an imperial privilege granting it the

79 Hagenau, 4 December 1516. The original is in the Wetzlar archives and a copy is in ArchDep Bas-Rhin, C 78 (39). It has been published by Feilchenfeld, Beilage I, pp. 145–46. 80 Gyss I, p. 387. 81 Section 9 of the Chronicle, below, p. 315. 82 ArchMun 'Obernai, A A 27.

86

[4,7,10]

5266‒5267, 5275, 5282 (1505‒1507, 1514⁄15, 1521⁄22)

right to expel its Jews. Likewise Schlettstadt and Kaysersberg obtained the conﬁrmation of a similar charter they possessed.83 R. Joseph was obliged to work strenuously against the decision of these cities to expel their Jews, and, according to section 9 of the Chronicle, he succeeded in obtaining the cancellation of the Kaysersberg expulsion decree. As for Rosheim, where, it seems, he was already living at that time, he had to be content with a deferment of the expulsion from there. It was only at the Imperial Diet of Nuremberg of 1522 that R. Joseph was able to raise the matter anew,84 as he relates in the section of the Chronicle for that year, and as emerges from the bill of complaint he presented there in the name of the Jews.85 In this bill, he gives a detailed account of his correligionists’ complaints against the city of Oberehnheim, starting from the beginning of the dispute. The Jews’ grievances focused on three main points: their actual expulsion from the city; the prohibition on their right to visit on market days; and the physical attacks by city residents on Jews of the surrounding area. This time, it was decided, apparently at R. Joseph’s request,86 to appoint the Abbot of Weissenburg, Father Rüdiger, to head a commission of inquiry into the matter.87 The work of this commission, as well as the mediation of the Unterlandvogt, Jacob Freiherr zu Mörsperg, eventually led in 1524 to the signing of an agreement between R. Joseph and Oberehnheim.88 83 HHStA Wien, Buchstabe Sch Fasz. IV: Beder Stet Sletstat und keisersperg freyheit die Juden nyimer zehaben. 84 R. Joseph describes these events in the section dealing with this Diet; however M. Stern has established that the letter by the Chief Rabbi summoning Jewish delegates to Regensburg was only dispatched at the end of 1523. See M. Stern, Die israelitische Bevölkerung der deutschen Städte, Vol. VII—Worms. Part 1: Die Reichsrabbiner des 15. und 16. Jahrhundert—Der Wormser Reichsrabbiner Samuel, Berlin 1937, pp. 7–8. It was only in March 1524 that Abbot Rüdinger received his appointment as president of the commission (see below), and the agreement between R. Joseph and Oberehnheim was signed on 22 April of that year. Compare also Gyss I, p. 390. 85 The document is in Strasbourg Central Archives, and a copy is in Oberehnheim City Archives B B 10. Feilchenfeld used the Oberehnheim copy when he printed the document in his book; see Beilage II, pp. 146–53. 86 In section 10 of the Chronicle he writes: “ And I succeeded in securing the appointment . . .”. 87 Rüdiger was Abt of the monastery of St. Peter and St. Paul in Weissenburg from 1500, and in 1524 was appointed Probst. See A. W. Strobel, Vaterländische Geschichte des Elsasses, IV—Elsaß unter Kaiser Maximilian 1493–1519—Die Städte, Strasbourg 1843, p. 110. 88 ArchDep Bas-Rhin, 15 J 65. This may be a ﬁle of documents from R. Joseph’s private collection, as it also contains the 1536 agreement he signed with the Hagenau

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

87

According to its provisions, the Jews were granted the right to visit the city markets and free passage on the roads leading through or in the proximity of the city, but were not permitted to return and reside in the city. The conditions of entry into the city for Jews were set down in precise detail: they were required to pay admittance fees and were forbidden to lodge in the city overnight; passage through the city likewise was subject to a fee, albeit a lesser sum. They were forbidden to lend money at interest, but only in exchange for pledges on movable property, and were prohibited from entering the home of a city resident unless speciﬁcally invited to do so. They were also required to wear a distinctive badge on their clothing. This agreement appears to have been respected by the city, as R. Joseph testiﬁes: “they made a covenant with us . . . and dealt peaceably with us” (section 10 of the Chronicle). From that time on there is no evidence of tension between Oberehnheim and the Jews until 1542, when negotiations again took place between the city and R. Joseph. The city resented the fact that a Jew from the neighbouring area had brought an action against some of its citizens before the Imperial Court of Justice at Rottweil, and not in the city court. This episode too ended in an agreement.89 R. Joseph’s Account As remarked, R. Joseph devotes nearly three entire sections to the dispute with Oberehnheim, in the exact chronological order in which the events took place (sections 4, 7 and 10 of the Chronicle). We also have the bill of complaint, written in German, submitted by the Jews in 1522; R. Joseph undoubtedly wrote that too. Characteristically, R. Joseph’s account in the Chronicle is very brief, in contrast to the elaborate detail in the bill of complaint. However, he does divulge certain facts in the Chronicle that are not mentioned in the bill of complaint. For example, the name of the Jew severely injured by members of the Oberehnheim city council at some time after 1507 appears only in the bill of complaint; he was called Phal, and was

region on the subject of the Jews’ usury, with notes in his own handwriting. The document has been published by E. Scheid from a copy in the Oberehnheim Archives: REJ, 13 (1886), pp. 69–70. 89 Feilchenfeld, pp. 43–45.

88

[4,7,10]

5266‒5267, 5275, 5282 (1505‒1507, 1514⁄15, 1521⁄22)

a resident of Dambach.90 On the other hand, it is only in the Chronicle (the section for 1505–1507) that R. Joseph reveals the identity of the man murdered near the city. He was “an honest man, a Levite by the name of Jacob bar Judah of blessed memory.” For the commission of inquiry into the Jews’ complaints the name of the slain man has no signiﬁcance, but in his Chronicle R. Joseph wishes to perpetuate his memory. On the other hand, while it is not imperative that the name of the injured Jew be preserved for posterity, in the oﬃcial complaint to the authorities the name has relevance, as Phal possessed an imperial writ of protection, and the details of the incident could be investigated. In addition, in the bill of complaint there is no reference to the threat of expulsion from the bishopric of Strasbourg and the region of Andlau in 1515. In 1522, when R. Joseph attempts to straighten out relations with Oberehnheim, there is no point in recalling the earlier danger, all the more so since he succeeded at the time in preventing the expulsions. On the other hand, for the readers of his Chronicle there is great signiﬁcance in this earlier achievement of his, since this is one of a succession of miracles that God has perfomed for His people. In the Chronicle, R. Joseph does not mention that the danger of expulsion which threatened the Jews of Rosheim in 1520 and the privilege received by that city in this connection were a direct result of actions taken by Oberehnheim; however, in the bill of complaint he dwells on this at length. It is possible that in 1547, when he sat down to write his Chronicle, this fact was not of importance; whereas, in 1522 it carried great weight among his other claims against Oberehnheim. R. Joseph’s depiction of the events admirably reﬂects the extent of his personal involvement in the troubles of Oberehnheim Jewry. This is hardly surprising: his parents were members of the Oberehnheim community in the period before the Swiss pogroms. Moreover, it seems that a number of Jews from that city had taken up residence in Rosheim. At all events, because of the geographical proximity, Rosheim Jewry were among the chief suﬀerers from the closure of the road and the Oberehnheim market to Jews. His involvement

90 For information on him, see Germania Judaica, III/1, s.v. Hagenau, p. 488 (§13b), note 18; ibid., s.v. Dambach, p. 219. (Yaacov Guggenheim enlightened me on this).

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

89

in the events is also shown by his use of the ﬁrst person: “they oppressed us for a long time”, “and we had to collect the wages of silence”, “what had been done to us”, “dealt peaceably with us”. The sense of achievement that ﬁlled R. Joseph after he reached his settlement with the city seems somewhat strange to us, and his wording, “. . . opened the gates and dealt peaceably with us . . .” (section 10 of the Chronicle), has a somewhat exaggerated ring to it in view of the actual details of the agreement. However, we must remember that Jews had not resided in Oberehnheim since the 1470’s, apart from two families who lived there for a very short time, and thus the right accorded the Jews to pass through the city and visit its markets was deemed a veritable accomplishment. The problem of Oberehnheim occupied our author at a later period as well—to this attests a short paragraph that he wrote on the cover of a book that was in his possession. In Hamburg, there is a manuscript (Cod. hebr. 92) containing a collection of Hebrew writings, almost certainly from the ﬁfteenth century.91 On the back cover of this manuscript are two short passages in R. Joseph’s handwriting. The ﬁrst relates to the manner in which the book was purchased and reads as follows: I purchased this book from the worthy Rabbi (?)Eli92 {or Elya? or Elijah?} bar Nathan Einveld of blessed memory, and I gave him something to compensate him and a gift. May the following lines that I wrote be preserved for eternity. The undersigned, Joseph bar Gershon of blessed memory.

This is followed by a second passage further down the page: On the eleventh of the month of Shevat 5289 {21 January 1529}, was slain the youth[?] Samson bar Michael of blessed memory, may God avenge his blood, between Enhei[m]93 and the village of Bisty [?], by two murderers who set upon him and killed him. We do not know their names and place of residence. May God, blessed be He, send His angel and His succour before us to direct and mete out His vengeance at the hands of whomsoever He wishes. 91

See the description of the manuscript in the catalogue: M. Steinschneider, Katalog der hebräischen Handschriften in der Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek zu Hamburg, II, Hamburg 1878, Exegese, 53. 92 (p. 20). 92 There is an unclear mark before the name. 93 Ehenheim; he is referring to Oberehnheim. See section 4 of the Chronicle, p. 311, lines 1–2 and note 83 there, and elsewhere in the Chronicle.

90

[4,7,10]

5266‒5267, 5275, 5282 (1505‒1507, 1514⁄15, 1521⁄22)

Thus entreats Joseph bar Gershon of blessed memory, as is inscribed on his book.

Between the two passages by R. Joseph are some additional lines written by his son, R. Jacob: This book came into my inheritance and possession from the bequest of Father, my teacher the Óasid *, the memory of the righteous is blessed. The undersigned, Jacob, son of Rabbi Joseph, glory of the Torah, may he be remembered for everlasting life. I am his atonement.94 May his soul be bound up in the bond of everlasting life.

The contents of the book are listed on the front cover in R. Jacob’s handwriting: This volume contains: A Hebrew booklet that is a kind of lexicon to the Targum. A composition on the order of the Torah from a compilation of the Ramban’s** kabbalistic secrets, from his commentary on the Pentateuch. Otsar Ha-Kavod, a commentary by the Rashba*** of blessed memory on some of the Aggadot.**** Sefer Olam Ha-Katan [ The Microcosm] by the Óasid R. Joseph ben Tsaddik, may he rest in peace.

This is not the place to discuss what interest R. Joseph may have had in purchasing this particular manuscript.95 For us its importance lies in the contents of the passage he inscribed for perpetuity on the cover of the manuscript. It appears that even after the festive agreement between the city and the Jews, the day-to-day security problems of the Jews in the region were not resolved. By this inscription on the cover of the book, R. Joseph sought to perpetuate the memory of a Jew who was slain by evil men, and he prays that God will avenge the death of this murdered boy and punish the culprits.

* {Term for a righteous and pious man. Translator} 94 “I am his (her) atonement.” This is an expression used when mentioning the name of a father or mother during the year of mourning after their death. See B.T. Kedushin 31b; this is the halakhic rule. From here, it appears that R. Joseph’s books were distributed among his sons in the year after his death. ** {R. Moses ben Na˙man—Na˙manides.} *** {R. Solomon ben Abraham Adret.} **** {Homiletic passages from the Talmud.} 95 For R. Joseph’s philosophical convictions, see my discussion in the introduction to Sefer ha-Miknah, p. 57 onwards.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

91

[5] 5270 (1509/10) R. Joseph’s Oﬃce; the Brandenburg and Pfeﬀerkorn Aﬀairs The Chronicle for 1510 deals with three subjects, the common denominator between them being that they all occurred in the same year: (1) R. Joseph’s appointment to public oﬃce; (2) the martyrs of the Mark of Brandenburg; (3) the Pfeﬀerkorn Aﬀair. Each of these subjects will be addressed in turn. R. Joseph’s Oﬃce R. Joseph relates that in the year 5270 (1509/10) he was appointed “together with the Aluf Rabbi Zadok and others to keep watch over the community with particular care and to lead it”. We have here a formal assumption of public oﬃce. Elsewhere too in the Chronicle R. Joseph will mention that he was appointed by the Jewish communities to ﬁll a particular oﬃce, or that he received authorization from rabbis and sages before undertaking a particular mission on behalf of the Jews. Researchers have already dealt extensively with questions such as: who appointed R. Joseph, what was the extent of his authority— was it local, provincial or national—and was he at all appointed to any precisely deﬁned oﬃce.96 There were those who wished to ﬁnd a connection between the position to which R. Joseph was appointed and the oﬃce of Chief Rabbi (Reichsrabbiner), which was introduced in Germany in the ﬁfteenth century, and still existed in R. Joseph’s time.97 The Chief Rabbi was appointed by the Emperor to collect taxes for the imperial treasury and possibly also to maintain contact in other matters between the central government and the Jews.

96 Feilchenfeld discusses these questions in detail on pp. 11–27; see also S. Stern, pp. 50–54, and M. Stern in several of his studies; see following footnote. 97 M. Stern, “Der Wormser Reichsrabbiner Anselm”, ZGJD, N.F. 5 (1935), pp. 157–68; idem, “Die Reichsrabbiner des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts”, Die israelitische Bevölkerung der deutschen Städte—Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Städtegeschichte, Band 7: Worms, Berlin 1937. See also D. J. Cohen, “Irgunei Benei ha-Medina be-Ashkenaz bi-Meot ha-Yud Zayin, ve-ha-Yud-Óet” (The Organizations of the Landjudenschaften { Jewish Corporations} in Germany during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries), Ph.D. Thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1967, introduction, p. 16.

92

[5]

5270 (1509⁄10)

In the ﬁrst half of the sixteenth century, this oﬃce was held by Rabbi Samuel of Worms.98 We know of at least one occasion when R. Joseph handled the collection of money from the Jews and its transfer to the Emperor. This was at the time of the war of Charles V against the French in 1544, and R. Joseph himself reports on it in the section of the Chronicle for that year. On a diﬀerent occasion, he was asked by the authorities to arrange for a special payment by the Jews of Lower Alsace.99 However, there is no indication that his public duties originally included tax collection. Feilchenfeld establishes that there is also no proof that his oﬃce came from the imperial authorities. He bases this conclusion primarily on the protocol of the judicial proceedings against R. Joseph on the charge that he had signed oﬃcial documents using the title of Regierer (ruler or governor). We shall consider this case later in this chapter. In the defence plea submitted by R. Joseph’s attorney, it was stated that the title “Regierer” was no more than a translation of the Hebrew term parnas u-manhig (leader and community head), which designated R. Joseph’s oﬃce. Feilchenfeld maintains that had R. Joseph been appointed by the Emperor, it would have been possible to ascertain his oﬃcial title from the writ of appointment or from the records of the Royal Chancellory, and there would have been no necessity to debate whether the German translation of parnas u-manhig—itself a purely internal Jewish oﬃce—was indeed Regierer. Moreover, the wording used by R. Joseph himself in the section under consideration, “I was

98 See, M. Stern, Die Wormser Reichsrabbiner Samuel und Jakob, 1521–1574, Berlin 1937; idem, “Der Wormser Reichsrabbiner Jakob”, Festschrift Dr. Jakob Freimann, Berlin 1937, pp. 180–81, notes 2 and 3. 99 In the Departmental Archives in Strasbourg is a ﬁle on taxation dated 1551 (C 82, 92). According to one of the documents, Elector Palatine Frederick demanded from the Jews a special payment or new taxes. His oﬃcial, the Unterlandvogt Heinrich von Fleckenstein, summoned R. Joseph to Hagenau to discuss these taxes. In a letter of 21 July 1551, R. Joseph replies that he is at present attending the Augsburg Diet, and as he is unable to leave without permission it will not be possible for him to appear at the appointed time. Since the Jews of Hagenau are unable to respond to the demand without him, he requests a short deferment, and promises that he will come to Hagenau with his associates in about a month’s time. He attached a document certifying that the Imperial Chancellory in Augsburg had written this letter for him. The Unterlandvogt advised the Elector Palatine to accede to R. Joseph’s request and to postpone collection of the new tax for a short time. This is clear proof that at that time R. Joseph represented the Jews of the Hagenau region to the authorities in all cases of special monetary demands.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

93

appointed . . . to keep watch over the community with particular care, and to lead it,” lends added weight to Feilchenfeld’s conclusion that, at that stage, the appointment was an internal Jewish one. R. Joseph also refers to his oﬃce in another place in the Chronicle. In the section for 1527/28, he writes, in connection with the threat to expel the Jews from the entire region of Hagenau: “. . . Then all the [ Jews] resident in the region entreated me to go out and come in before them as in the past, and I consented to their request . . .”. The impression is given that the special oﬃce assigned to R. Joseph in 1510 had been forgotten for some reason or other, or did not function for a certain period of time. That period could not have been long, for we know of the following activities of his in the years 1510–1528: In 1515, he oﬃcially represented the Jewish community before the Emperor in connection with the Oberehnheim aﬀair and the plan to expel the Jews from Alsace; in 1519 he worked arduously to have the expulsion of Dangolsheim Jewry rescinded; in 1520 he received a privilege from the Emperor on behalf of the Jews; in 1522 he came to Nuremberg on community business, and he was also active in defence of Jewish interests in 1525 at the time of the Peasants War, although on that occasion it is not explicitly mentioned whether he was acting in a regional capacity or on behalf of all German Jewry. What is clear from the section for 1527/28 is that his position was originally an internal Jewish one, and was not imposed on him by the authorities. Feilchenfeld further notes that the title of R. Joseph’s oﬃce as given in the documentation—Befehlshaber {literally: commander}— was not exclusive to R. Joseph; other Jews from diﬀerent regions in Alsace had served in a similar capacity.100 It is true that they never bore the title of Befehlshaber der Juden im Deutschen Reich or any similar empire-wide title. Thus, Feilchenfeld believes, and his assumption is certainly plausible, that R. Joseph’s oﬃce too was limited to the area of Lower Alsace, and that whenever he undertook missions beyond the borders of that region (for example to represent the Jews at meetings of the Diet or on other special occasions), he was explicitly requested to do so, or received express authorization. On the other hand, S. Stern is of the opinion that at some point R. Joseph

100

Feilchenfeld, pp. 16–17.

94

[5]

5270 (1509⁄10)

was appointed leader of German Jewry. In her view, this occurred at an assembly at Günzburg in 1529 while he was occupied with the Pösing blood libel.101 With reference to R. Joseph’s oﬃce, there exists yet another document, one that does not seem to have attracted the attention of historians. In the Marburg Government Archives is a ﬁle of documents relating to the Landgraviate of Hanau in which is preserved a letter by R. Joseph dated 21 April 1539, concerning Jewish rights in that territory.102 The tone of the letter is quite sharp, and he protests against the intention to deny Jews the right to trade there. He threatens to bring an action in the Imperial Court of Justice, but emphasizes that he would prefer to negotiate in a spirit of goodwill. In the preface to the letter R. Joseph writes: For I, the most unfortunate of Jews [perhaps: For I, insigniﬁcant in Jewry], was appointed many years ago by [or: before?] emperors and kings, electors and princes, as head (vurgenger)103 and commander (befehlshaber), and I was elected to this position by all of Jewry. Therefore I was, and still am, duty-bound to act on their behalf at every imperial assembly and in all the royal and judicial courts of the emperors and the electors, whenever necessary, and this by virtue of the oath that I took.104

There may be a connection between his words in this letter and those in his letter to the Elector Palatine of 21 May 1553,105 in which he stresses that he has served the Jewish community for some ﬁfty 101 See pp. 81–85 of her book, and, in contrast, compare below, introduction to section 13 of the Chronicle, p. 158, note 280. 102 Bestand 86 Hanauer Nachtr. Nr. 26169, pp. 6–7; Quellen zur Geschichte der Juden im Hessischen Staatsarchiv Marburg, 1267–1600, (ed.) Uta Löwenstein, I, no. 1241, Wiesbaden 1989, pp. 392–93. 103 The literal meaning of the German expression is “one who goes before”, namely one who attends to or looks after {the interests of }; perhaps this is the meaning that the words in the Chronicle “to go out and come in before them” are attempting to express. 104 Due to its importance this passage is quoted here verbatim: “wie wol ich alß ein armer zu einem juden von keysern und königen, Churfursten und fursten, lange jar her, der gemeine judischeit allenthalben zu einem verornet furgenger und beuehlchaber gesetzt, darzu von der gemeine judischeit gewehlt, derenhalben ich nuhn auß gezwang auﬀ alle reichstag, auch fur alle kay[serliche] unnd Churfurstliche höﬀenn und gerichtszwang wo sich ire notturﬀt erfordert gehandlet und handlen muß bey meinem eyd der mir auﬀgelegt ist . . .”. 105 ArchDep Bas-Rhin C 78. Published by Feilchenfeld in appendix XXIX, p. 204 onwards.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

95

years (“Demnoch ich nun bei 50 jaren lang her in diser landvogtei Hagenau und auch an andern orten gemeiner judenscheit vorgesetzt und erwelt worden . . .”). He writes that in the capacity of his oﬃce he had to swear a solemn oath (“ein schweren hohen eid darüber hab miessen thun”). That oath, he emphasizes, requires him to stand guard at all times when the rights and privileges of the Jews are attacked, and to bring to the attention of the authorities every complaint reaching him. These two sources mention both an appointment and an election to oﬃce by the Jews, as well as an oath of oﬃce. It could be construed that the appointment came from the authorities but that the Jews made the election, and also administered the oath. Although the 1539 letter contains the words “von keysern und könign etc.”— that is, “by emperors and kings”—it is inconceivable that R. Joseph received his appointment from a whole gamut of governing powers. Thus, the word “von” should perhaps be translated as though it was “vor”, namely, that the appointment was to represent the Jews before all those same governing bodies.* As for the oath, it is unclear from the context to what oath he was referring. In some places, the Jews were accustomed to swear an oath of allegiance to the authorities, and there were also communal oﬃce holders who had to swear an oath upon being appointed to their posts.106 It should be noted that R. Joseph mentions this

* {It is also possible that the “von” is meant in a ﬁgurative sense (as a legal ﬁction), i.e. duly appointed oﬃcials of the Jewish community are considered as though the appointments had come from the full range of state authorities. AS} 106 S. Stern notes (p. 84) that the Chief Rabbi in the ﬁfteenth century was required to swear an oath to the authorities that he would execute his duties faithfully. With respect to oaths taken within the Jewish community, see S. W. Baron, The Jewish Community, Philadelphia, 1948, vol. 2, pp. 35–37. In the Jewish community of Friedberg, the parnasim {elected communal leaders} swore “an oath taken while holding an article”, that they would administer the community with full cooperation among themselves. See A. Kober, “Documents selected from the Pinkas of Friedberg, a former free city in Western Germany”, PAAJR, 17 (1947–48), for example p. 42. Similarly, in the Jewish community of Frankfurt on Main, the oﬃce holders took an oath. See Pinkas Kahal FFdM (Community Minute-Book, Frankfurt on Main) MS Jerusalem, National Library 4º 662 (microﬁlm B386), e.g. fol. 84b. The takanot {community regulations} of the Moravian communities make mention of an oath taken by tax assessors to the eﬀect that their assessments would be made with only the public interest in mind {literally: in the name of Heaven} (Takanot Medinat Mehrin, (ed.) I. Halpern, Jerusalem, 1951/52, para. 97, p. 31), and an oath was also taken when electing community oﬃcials. See also Feilchenfeld, p. 25, who discusses the oath and gives an example from the Posen Pinkas ha-Kesherim (The Selectmen

96

[5]

5270 (1509⁄10)

oath only in his correspondence with the authorities. If this was in fact an oath of allegiance that R. Joseph made to the authorities after his fellow Jews had elected him to his position, it symbolizes the authorities’ recognition of his oﬃce. There is no doubt that such recognition was forthcoming, for R. Joseph received travel permits (Geleit) and privileges by virtue of his community duties at the Imperial Diets. The authorities addressed him by his various titles and appellations, and, as we have seen, they also made use of his services to obtain the Jews’ consent to special taxes. On the other hand, the manner in which he emphasizes his commitment to defend Jewish interests before the authorities allows room for speculation that the oath was made to the Jews, but we cannot conﬁrm this. It is worth noting that while R. Joseph stresses his responsibility for the welfare of his people, he does not refer to himself in any place as a “shtadlan”. This oﬃce was instituted at a later period, and then the title of “shtadlan” was attached retrospectively to R. Joseph.107 The Date When R. Joseph Commenced his Public Duties We do not know whether R. Joseph performed public functions before the year 1510. It may be assumed that he did, for otherwise he would not have been nominated to serve in a council whose duty it was to supervise the community. S. Stern believes that R. Joseph was foremost among those who petitioned the authorities in 1507 over the Oberehnheim Aﬀair. This could be true but is only conjecture. In addition, it has to be borne in mind that at the time not only R. Joseph and R. Zadok were appointed but also additional people: “And other people”, as the Chronicle puts it. Thus, it appears that appointments were made simultaneously of representatives of various communities, or members of a larger body, a kind of regional council. An additional question is whether R. Joseph’s appointment was connected in any way with other events taking place in Germany in 1510—among them those referred to in this section, namely, the Brandenburg Aﬀair and the Pfeﬀerkorn Aﬀair. Minute-Book). Compare the Posen Pinkas ha-Kesherim shel Kehilat Pozna, (ed.) D. Avron, Jerusalem 1966, e.g. p. 11, para. 49 and additional examples there. 107 See D. J. Cohen, “Irgunei Benei ha-Medina be-Ashkenaz”, vol. 1, p. 128, note 7.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

97

R. Joseph’s emotional involvement in the Brandenburg Aﬀair is understandable, not merely because of the horror of the proceedings—they undoubtedly outraged all of German Jewry—but also in view of his later actions to foil a new plan to expel the Jews from Brandenburg, which he describes in section 22 of the Chronicle, which concerns the years 1536–1539. Since his Chronicle was written in 1547, it is hardly surprising that he mentions the Brandenburg Aﬀair in its appropriate chronological setting; however, there is no hint in his words that he was actively involved in it in any way. Brandenburg was quite a long distance from Alsace, we know that the events there unfolded very rapidly, and it is hard to believe that there was time for R. Joseph to intercede with the authorities respecting Brandenburg Jewry. We have found no evidence in any of the sources that he played any role in the aﬀair. The Pfeﬀerkorn Aﬀair is a diﬀerent case. It is quite possible that the appointment of R. Joseph to some form of public oﬃce was itself related in some way to the ferment among German Jewry provoked by Pfeﬀerkorn’s activities, or to the call by the Jewish community of Frankfurt on Main for a meeting of Jewish community representatives, in order to raise the large amount of money necessary to counter Pfeﬀerkorn’s actions. Here, R. Joseph’s use of the ﬁrst person, “And God, blessed be He, showed us a miracle within a miracle . . . until God saw our aﬄiction and saved us . . .” intimates that he was not detached from what was happening. Possibly his emphasis on the large sum mustered by the Frankfurt community suggests that fund-raising to further Jewish lobbying at the Emperor’s court was one of the activities in which he himself was engaged. Another quite plausible theory was oﬀered by M. Stern. He suggested that R. Joseph’s appointment was connected with an assembly that the German Jewish communities sought to convene in that year to discuss the assault on their privileges.108 Cognizant that such a meeting could not take place without the Emperor’s permission, they approached Maximilian. His oﬃcial letter of authorization, signed in Innsbruck on 8 August 1510, has survived, and in it the Emperor notes the Jews’ complaint that their rights have been prejudiced by all manner of burdens and innovations (beschwerde und 108 See M. Stern, “Die Versammlung zu Worms im Jahre 1510”, ZGJD, 3 (1889), pp. 248–51; and A. Maimon, “Tagungen von Judenschaften in Westdeutschland im frühen 16. Jahrhundert”, Jahrbuch für westdeutsche Landesgeschichte, 5 (1979), pp. 71–82.

98

[5]

5270 (1509⁄10)

neuwerung), and their request for permission to hold a meeting to discuss this matter.109 He writes that he is empowering ﬁve Jews from Upper Alsace, Colmar, Worms, Regensburg and Frankfurt to call a meeting in Worms, to take place one month subsequent to the date of dispatch of the invitation by the said ﬁve men. A ﬁne of ten gold marks is to be imposed on any person failing to attend the meeting. M. Stern assumes that the Jews feared attempts by various cities to obtain control over the Jews in their territory and deprive them of imperial protection.110 At all events, he believes that the election of R. Joseph and others to community oﬃce was connected with this summons to the Worms assembly. In contrast to M. Stern, H. Bresslau opines that the Pfeﬀerkorn Aﬀair was the occasion for the assembly that the Jews wished to convene.111 He does not make any reference to the question of R. Joseph’s appointment in this context. Clues that may help to pinpoint when precisely R. Joseph commenced his public work can be discovered from various remarks in his letters to the authorities. In the said letter to the Elector Palatine of 21 May 1553,112 he states that he was appointed and elected to his oﬃce {in the Jewish community} in the region of Hagenau, and also in other places, and [has held that oﬃce] for some ﬁfty years. This corresponds with his attorney’s words in his defence plea of 5 July 1536 during the court case concerning his title, that R. Joseph has served in his post for close to thirty years. There are similar statements in other documents.

109 This document was printed by M. Stern, “Die Versammlung zu Worms”, pp. 248–49, from a copy in the Frankfurt City Archives. 110 He reaches this conclusion by making a comparison to a document of a similar nature from the time of Emperor Frederick III, dated 1470, in which fears of this kind were speciﬁcally mentioned. 111 See H. Bresslau, “Zur Geschichte der Juden in Rothenburg an der Tauber”, ZGJD, 3 (1889), p. 315 ﬀ. The Pfeﬀerkorn Aﬀair is discussed below, p. 113 onwards. Here, we will simply mention Bresslau’s theory about the Worms meeting. He bases himself on a similar document, preserved in Rothenburg City Archives, although that was signed (at least according to the copy, which contains a number of errors) in Augsburg and not in Innsbruck. He notes that at the 1510 Augsburg Diet representatives of Frankfurt Jewish community secured the restoration of their books for the time being (and see also below, pp. 116–117). The Frankfurt community representatives at Augsburg endeavoured to force the Jews to attend the meeting at Worms by appealing to the Emperor, and it was their appeal that was directly responsible for Maximilian’s order of 8 August 1510. 112 ArchDep Bas-Rhin C 78. See above, note 105.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

99

The words, “some ﬁfty years” (“bei 50 Jahren”) are perhaps imprecise, their meaning being “close to” ﬁfty years. Indeed, in a letter to the Strasbourg city council of 8 June 1552, R. Joseph writes that he has been the parnas of the Jewish community for close to forty years or more (“. . . bei 40 joren oder mehr ich nun der gemeinen juden vorgenger gewesen”). All this evidence indicates that he took up his oﬃcial duties shortly before 1510. The Aluf R. Zadok Who is this R. Zadok, who was elected together with R. Joseph and shared his responsibilities? In the Chronicle (section 2), “Aluf Rabbi Zadok of blessed memory” is mentioned as one of the Jews who fell into mortal danger when he ﬂed from the rampaging Swiss forces near Türkheim in 1476. In the section under discussion here, R. Zadok does not have the words “of blessed memory” after his name, and therefore it is very possible that this is not the same R. Zadok. On the other hand, it is hard to believe that there were two people with exactly the same name and title of Aluf. If we assume that this is indeed the same R. Zadok, then he was a generation older than R. Joseph and was already an old man in 1510.113 In the Chronicle (section 9), R. Joseph mentions that he went to his meeting with Charles V in 1520 accompanied by a person he calls “the man who was with me”. This could have been an unknown

113 On the title Aluf, see Milon Ben-Yehuda, s.v. Aluf. According to the sources referred to there, it was only in the yeshivot of the Geonim that Aluf was a title for a rabbinical scholar {i.e. up to about the eleventh century}. In subsequent times, the title Aluf appears to have been used more to designate prominent members of the community, such as leaders and parnasim. In R. Joseph’s time and in seventeenth century Ashkenazi communities, however, this title was used speciﬁcally with reference to rabbinical scholars. Thus, in Pinkas Friedberg (see above, note 106), for example folio 32a: “The Aluf, our teacher and rabbi Azriel”, and on folio 60 there, the head of the religious court appointed by the community in the year 5335 (1574/75) was designated “the Gaon, the eminent personality, the outstanding Aluf, our teacher and rabbi from Todres {?}”. Similarly, in the Pfersee Memorbuch (transcribed by Moritz Stern), the title Aluf is used speciﬁcally for a rabbinic scholar, for example: “May God remember the soul of the Aluf, our teacher and rabbi Leva{?} Katz”, or “the Aluf in Torah, our teacher and rabbi El˙anan . . .”, and the title Katsin is used for the parnasim, e.g.: “the Aluf, the Katsin and the Nadiv . . .”. Similarly, in the book of responsa Óut ha-Shani (The Scarlet Thread), Frankfurt on Main 1678/79, which contains a collection of responsa by the grandfather and father of R. Yair Haim Bacharach, Aluf is a customary title of respect among rabbinical scholars. See, e.g., para. 22–23.

100

[5]

5270 (1509⁄10)

man, but it could also be that one of the community leaders went with him on his mission. Most likely it was not R. Zadok; otherwise R. Joseph would have mentioned him by name as he did on other occasions. It is entirely possible that in 1520 R. Zadok was no longer alive; or if he was, he was extremely old and did not embark on long journeys. The Judicial Proceedings Against R. Joseph Concerning His Title114 It is appropriate at this point to include a short discussion on the court case against R. Joseph in connection with his title for two reasons: (1) R. Joseph does not devote a separate section to this subject; in fact, he apparently does not mention it at all;115 (2) a discussion of this episode may serve to shed light on the section under discussion here. In 1535 R. Joseph presented a memorandum to the Imperial High Court of Justice (the Reichskammergericht) at Speyer and signed it, in what was his customary manner in those years, with the title of Regierer der deutschen Juden (governor of German Jewry). On 7 July 1535, he was cited before the Imperial High Court on the charge that he had used the title of Regierer, which was reserved exclusively for the Emperor, and that this constituted an attack on the Emperor’s authority and contempt of His Imperial Majesty. R. Joseph was ordered to appear before the Imperial Court at Speyer on 8 November, or to send a proxy.116 R. Joseph responded that he was unable to be present at the court sessions and was therefore authorizing an attorney, Dr. Christoﬀ Hoss, to represent him. In the bill of indictment, the imperial prosecutor, Dr. Wolfgang Weidener, ruled that by according himself the title of Regierer, R. Joseph had acted deliberately and with ill intent to injure the Emperor and trespass on his authority, and he demanded that he be convicted as charged and severely penalized in accordance with the gravity of his deed.

114 The judicial records of this trial are deposited in the Wetzlar City Archives under signature B 3 289, 1–16 (the former archival signature was F. 2615, 454, Nr. 1–16). The most important documents have been printed by Feilchenfeld, Beilagen XII, XIII. 115 See below. 116 The Imperial Court of Justice in Speyer (das kayserliche Kammergericht zu Speyer) dealt with disputes between the various authorities within the Empire, for example, between the Estates and the imperial cities. See Gyss, Histoire de la ville d’Obernai, p. 47.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

101

Attorney Hoss reponded to these charges in a written statement of 5 July 1536 in which he focused on three arguments: (1) No evil intention of harming the Emperor or his honour should be attributed to R. Joseph. If he signed the document with the aforesaid title, he was unaware that this constituted an aﬀront to the Emperor; moreover, the verb “regieren” had various connotations and did not refer only to an oﬃcial position. (2) Hoss submitted eight documents, and from them it emerges that governmental authorities were accustomed to address R. Joseph by the title of Regierer or a similar appellation, for example, “Josel Juden von Roßheim, der Judenschaft in teutschen Landen Oberster” ( Josel, Jew of Rosheim, leader of all Jewry in German lands), or, “gemeiner Judischait Regierer” (governor of the Jewish community). Thus R. Joseph could not have conceived it possible that he was committing an oﬀence by using this title. (3) The title Regierer was simply the German translation of the Hebrew title parnas u-manhig, which designated R. Joseph’s oﬃce. In a written reply of 4 November 1536 the prosecutor rejected the three arguments presented by R. Joseph’s attorney. With regard to the ﬁrst plea, he ruled that even if R. Joseph had had no evil intent when he used a title reserved exclusively for the Emperor, this did not exempt him from punishment. Moreover, since the defendant was a member of the Jewish nation, which was known to be corrupt and an enemy of Christianity ( feralis secte et nativus Christiani nominis hostis), and since he undoubtedly desired the destruction of all Christians (aller christen verderpnus), he was not to be believed when he protested that he had had no evil intentions(!). To the second plea, he responded that even if others addressed R. Joseph by this title, that did not entitle him to refer to himself in this way. As to the third plea, he averred that the particular document that had aroused the ire of the judicial authorities against R. Joseph was written in German and not in Hebrew, and therefore it made no diﬀerence to the case what the Hebrew name was of his oﬃce. Apart from that, his title of parnas u-manhig could have been translated diﬀerently; for example, as Befehlshaber (commander) or Anwalt (advocate). The trial dragged on until 1540 when eventually R. Joseph was found guilty. He was ﬁned the sum of two gold marks and made liable for court costs.* After that he stopped referring to himself as Regierer. * {This was a not insigniﬁcant sum, but compare it to the 10-mark ﬁne for failing to appear at the 1510 conference of German Jewry. See above, p. 98. AS}

102

[5]

5270 (1509⁄10)

Interestingly enough, R. Joseph’s trial found an echo in the legal literature of the seventeenth century.117 Legal experts debated the case and weighed the reasons for R. Joseph’s culpability; they explained that the Jews could not constitute an imperium or a jurisdictio (a sovereign or a judicial authority), as they were obliged to live under the yoke of the Christians, and thus a Jew could not refer to himself as Regierer. Another interpretation of the trial verdict, oﬀered by a contemporary jurist, reﬂects the general dread of the “depraved Jews”. He claimed that the Jews had evil designs on the Christians, and that they must be suppressed and denied any power and authority.118 Modern researchers, conversely, ﬁnd a link between this case and the danger that the authorities perceived in the emergence of a radical Anabaptist movement, particularly after its entrenchment in Münster. S. Stern remarks with justice that R. Joseph had used the same title for many years and yet the authorities did not make any move to proceed against him until eleven days after the fall of Münster,119 where Jan van Leiden had proclaimed himself “King of the New Zion”, or of “the New Israel”. There were suspicions anyway concerning the nature of the relationship between the Anabaptists and the Jews, and there were Anabaptists who claimed during their trial that they had received assistance from the Jews.120 117 With regard to the following, see W. Güde, Die rechtliche Stellung der Juden in den Schriften deutscher Juristen des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts, Sigmaringen 1981, p. 9. Johann Jacob Schudt apparently drew upon these legal sources in his Jüdische Merkwürdigkeiten, Frankfurt-Leipzig 1714 (reprint, Berlin 1922), II, book 6, chapter 9, p. 146. In a discussion of the titles of the parnasim in the German communities he mentions a Jew by the name of Jodocus Roschain, who was accused of having insulted the Emperor by using the title of Regierer, and was penalised for this: “Da aber vormahls ein Jud Jodocus von Roschain eigenmächtig sich einen Regierer der gemeinen Jüdischheit geschrieben, ist er deßwegen in eine Straﬀe von 2. Marck löthiges Goldes condemniret worden, wie aus Gylmanni T. 3 Praejudic. Cameral. Dieterich de Jure er Statu Judaeorum in Rep. Christ. c. 4, p. 66 berichtet.” 118 Güde rightly points to the connection between this form of reasoning and that used by the prosecution in R. Joseph’s trial; indeed, when giving his reasons for ﬁnding R. Joseph guilty, the judge restated the prosecution’s argument as follows: “The Jews dwelling in the German Empire are subject to Roman law, and by virtue of this law may not possess any authority. The title Regierer denotes public oﬃce; the Jews, being inferior persons, members of a low estate, and having a bad reputation, are not entitled to hold public oﬃce.” 119 S. Stern, p. 140. 120 In the testimony given by one of the Anabaptists at his trial in 1530, he confessed that he and his companions had been inﬂuenced by the Jews and aided by them (“. . . und sonderlich mit den Juden davon sie vil hilf und vertrostung gehabt haben”). A representative of Nuremberg reported this during a meeting of the Swabian League (Schwäbischer Bundestag) at Augsburg; see Reichstagsakten VIII f (2),

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

103

The Brandenburg Aﬀair In this section of the Chronicle our author devotes one line only to the martyrs of Brandenburg, but he returns to the subject in two other places: in the section of the Chronicle for 1536/37 and in the “Letter of Consolation” of 1541.121 We shall address the entire aﬀair here using all three sources. For the Brandenburg aﬀair, there are both Jewish and Christian sources. Most of the Jewish sources are memorial books of German Jewish communities. In some places the episode is mentioned without any details whatsoever and in others the martyrs’ names are listed, but their number is not identical in the various sources.122 The most detailed list is in the memorial book of the Münden community, which contains 36 names.123 p. 792. The allegation concerning collusion between Jews and Anabaptists was raised by both Protestants and Catholics. {For a recent discussion of this case, see Kaplan, “Negotiating Boundaries,” pp. 135–35. Kaplan cites the importance of the letters on his behalf that R. Joseph was able to obtain from Christian civic leaders in Bappenheim, Strasbourg, Rothenburg, and Schlettstadt, and the Landvogt of Upper Alsace, and suggests that the case should be seen in a broader context of the giveand-take of imperial versus local power. AS} 121 On this point, that the author treats the same event from diﬀerent angles in diﬀerent places in his writings, see above in the General Introduction, pp. 46–47. 122 L. Zunz, Synagogale Poesie, p. 54, lists 29 names; the Posen Memorbuch (not extant) lists 24 names; for these sources, see. D. Kaufmann, “Die Märtyrer des Berliner Autodafés von 1510”, in: A. Berliner and D. Hoﬀmann (eds.), Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, 18 (1891), p. 48 ﬀ. Kaufmann attempts to match the names appearing in the Hebrew sources with those listed in the German sources; however, since R. Joseph does not mention any names whatsoever, we shall not consider this question here. The names that Zunz brings are taken from a memorial book that is extant only in the German translation without any indication of the place where it was written. It was printed by a Christian scholar in the eighteenth century: J. Chr. Wibel, “Übersetzung eines alten Fragmenti von einem jüdischen Martyrolgio”, Fortgesetzte Sammlung von alten und neuen Theologischen Sachen, Leipzig 1740, p. 10. See also W. Heise, Die Juden in Brandenburg bis zum Jahre 1571, Berlin 1932, p. 221. However, it must be noted that in his main discussion Zunz writes of 38 Jews who were tortured and burnt, with the exception of two who were baptized and beheaded (pp. 53–54). A contemporary autobiographical source ( Jacob Waegner, “Zikhron Yamim”, in Otsar Tov, the Hebrew supplement of Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, 17 (1890), p. 43) makes reference to 36 martyrs (as in the Münden Memorbuch below). In contrast, the Christian sources (below, note 126) write of 38 people burnt at the stake, as does also R. Joseph. 123 “This is the memorial for departed souls, the Memorbuch of the holy community of Münden” (MS Merzbacher 62, now Frankfurt on Main, MS hebr. oct. 97). On fol. 12a is written: “May God remember the souls of the holy martyrs who were burnt {at the stake} in the territories of the Mark {of Brandenburg} . . .”. Here follows a list of 36 names. This list was copied by L. Löwenstein in his article, “Memorbücher”, ZGJD, 1 (1887), pp. 196–97.

104

[5]

5270 (1509⁄10)

None of the Jewish sources have any detailed information about the aﬀair. They merely state that because of a false accusation the Jews were burnt at the stake for the sake of Kiddush Hashem. Only one source describes the events from a personal perspective: one of the Jews who was imprisoned in connection with the aﬀair, albeit at some distance from the scene of the events, relates how he and his family were arrested and how eventually they were released.124 However, he, too, does not give any speciﬁc information about the libel. In contrast to the very brief descriptions in the Jewish sources, the Christian sources go meticulously into every particular of the aﬀair. Already in 1510, a number of versions of the story appeared in print.125 In 1511, a very detailed account of the aﬀair was published based on the ﬁles of the judicial proceedings against the Jews, which are no longer extant, and illustrated with 25 woodcuts.126 A poem in verse commemorating the aﬀair composed by one Jacob Winter was also printed that same year. All this material provided the basis for a detailed chronicle, written by the chronicler Andreas Angelus in 1598,127 which also includes Winter’s poem.128 124

Jacob Waegner, “Zikhron Yamim”. The text of the passage is given below. One of them is entitled: Ein wunderbarlich geschichte wye dye Merckischen Juden das hochwirdig Sacramant gekauﬀt und zu martern sich understanden. Anno Domini 1510. It has recently been reprinted by H. A. Oberman, Wurzeln des Antisemitismus, appendix, pp. 197–200. The 1510 publication apparently was drawn upon by Johannes Pfeﬀerkorn, who recounts the aﬀair in his book Handspiegel (fol. a4r), in order to warn against the Jews. And see below, note 152. 126 Diesz ist der wahrhaﬀtig Sumarius der gerichtshendel unnd proceß, der gehalten ist worden uﬀ manchfaldig Indicia, aussag unnd Bekenntnus eines Paul From genant, der das hochwirdig Sacramant sambt einer monstrantzien . . . auss der kirchen zu Knobloch gestolen, und auch der begangen hendell der Jüden die ir thetliche hennde an das aller heiligst hochwirdigst Sacrament unnd vil unschuldige christliche kinder torstiglich gelegt unnd im zehende Jar zu Berleinn gerechtfertigt sein worden. [This is a true summary of the judicial proceedings and trial that was held according to various proofs and the testimony and confession of one Paul Fromm, who stole the exalted sacrament together with a monstrance . . . from the church in Knobloch, and also concerning the deeds of the Jews, who stretched out their hands against the holy and sublime sacrament as well as against many innocent Christian children, and were duly punished in the 10th year in Berlin.] Frankfurt on Oder 1511. 127 Angelus (Engel) Andreas, Annales Marchiae Brandenburgicae, Frankfurt on Oder 1598, pp. 269–77: “historia von der Juden erschrecklichen üblthat, die sie in der Mark Brandenburg an einer consecrirten Hostien, und an etlichen christenkindern begangen auch was sie drüber haben leiden müssen”. For a detailed survey, see A. Ackermann, Geschichte der Juden in Brandenburg, Berlin 1906, p. 35, note 4. 128 According to Ackermann, ibid., all the later chronicles drew on that of Andreas Angelus. 125

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

105

R. Joseph does not elaborate on the proceedings, but he does tell us a number of details he considers important. In order to comprehend them, we begin with a short summary of the aﬀair based on the Christian sources.129 One day in February 1510 a gold-plated brass vessel containing sacred ecclesiastical items (Monstranz) and two consecrated Hosts was stolen from a church in the village of Knoblauch in the bishopric of Brandenburg. Suspicion fell on a Christian blacksmith named Paul Fromm, from the city of Bernau, who already in the past had been accused of criminal activities. The suspicion was enhanced by the fact that the blacksmith had ﬂed from his city, and that work tools found on the scene were identiﬁed as belonging to him. When he returned to his city after a number of months he was promptly arrested. During the trial held at the behest of Hieronymus, bishop of Brandenburg, Fromm immediately confessed to the deed and claimed that he had eaten one of the Hosts. However, the judge was not satisﬁed. He announced that it was unclear what had happened to the second Host and therefore he had decided to employ torture.130 Under torture, Fromm “confessed” to what his interrogators wished to hear: that he had sold the second Host to the Jew Solomon of Spandau. It was then resolved to refer the case to the Margrave, Elector Joachim I of Brandenburg. Until that time Joachim had ﬁrmly resisted the repeated demands by the clergy, the nobility, and the cities that he expel the Jews from his land. He had not consented to do so, for the Jews were valuable to him economically. As recently as 1509, he had admitted to Brandenburg 80 Jews with their families and dependents for a period of three years. In 1510, there were between 400–500 Jews in Brandenburg, and they supplied him with a handsome annual income. However, Joachim evidently feared that he would be accused of preferring economic to religious interests if he failed to proceed with the case, and he therefore transferred the investigation to Berlin. Fromm and the Jew Solomon of Spandau were put on trial. Under torture they confessed to the following story: Fromm had sold the 129

The account below is based on the following books: F. Holtze, Das Strafverfahren gegen die märkischen Juden im Jahre 1510, Berlin 1884; W. Heise, Die Juden in Brandenburg, and also Ackermann, ibid. 130 Holtze, Das Strafverfahren, notes that the judicial authorities in that period believed that testimony given without torture was invalid. For judicial procedure in trials of this kind, see above in the General Introduction, pp. 28–29.

106

[5]

5270 (1509⁄10)

Host to Solomon, who had cut it into pieces and abused it in sundry ways, and then transferred parts of it to various other Jews in diﬀerent regions of the land. All the prominent and wealthy Jews in the land were now embroiled in the aﬀair. The investigation extended far and wide and soon all the Jews in the Mark of Brandenburg were placed under arrest. About 120 of them were sent to Berlin, and 51 of them were put on trial. In the course of the trial, the Jews were also charged with the murder of seven Christian children during the previous ten years. It appears that despite the tortures, not all of them were prepared to confess,131 and so some of them died in prison.132 The Christian sources relate that the Elector repeatedly scrutinized the confessions of the accused, which were more or less identical, and that the Jews constantly repeated their aﬃrmations of guilt. Sentence was then pronounced: the robber Fromm was condemned to be burnt, and was dragged through the streets of Berlin to the stake while undergoing cruel tortures. A priest accompanied him, gave him solace on the way and heard his last confession. Forty-one Jews were sentenced to be burnt at the stake; three of them converted to Christianity, of the latter, two were beheaded the following day, the third—an eye doctor by profession—was pardoned and joined a monastery. Thirty-eight Jews were burnt at the stake that was hastily erected in the central square of Berlin with the active assistance of many Christian volunteers.* The Christian chroniclers

131 According to the rules of justice at that time a suspect could only be convicted if he confessed that he was guilty. 132 There is an entire literature on the judicial procedure employed during this trial. Holtze, Das Strafverfahren, believes that the trial was held in complete accordance with the Bambergensis—the standard criminal code in the land at the time. He even goes so far as to deduce from the trial, that during that period this criminal code was already in force in Brandenburg. This view is totally rejected by G. Sello in his “Der Hostienschändungs-Prozeß vom Jahre 1510 vor dem Berliner Schöﬀengericht” (Forschungen zur brandenburgischen und preußischen Geschichte, 4), Berlin 1891, p. 134, which states that the trial proceedings were the absolute antithesis of correct judicial procedure at that time. Sello also remarks on the hurried manner in which the trial was held: within a period of one month 42 sentences were pronounced on Jews from 14 diﬀerent localities; this could only be possible if the answers were actually put into the mouths of those interrogated. Moreover, the summary executions were highly irregular. * {According to the 1510 account, “Ein wunderbarlich geschichte”, sentence was pronounced on 19 July 1510 (see Oberman, Wurzeln des Antisemitismus, p. 200), and apparently on that same day the Jews were burnt at the stake. The date corresponds to the Hebrew date given in the Prague Chronicle for the burning of the

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

107

describe in amazement the courage of the condemned Jews, who went to their fate praying and singing, with smiles on their faces.133 The other Jews, who were imprisoned in various places in the state,134 were released after they had taken an oath (Urfehde) the form of which has survived.135 All their property was conﬁscated and they were expelled forever from the land. Researchers note that in this manner the Jews’ debtors were released from repaying their debts, which had encumbered them and had not infrequently occasioned claims against them on the part of the authorities.136 The Bishop of Brandenburg skillfully exploited the episode. Some of the sacred items, as well as furniture and utensils said to have been used by the Jews to commit the crime, were brought to Berlin and placed in that city’s cathedral (Dom). The story was inscribed on the walls of the cathedral accompanied by four paintings. The site itself of the burning was converted into a shrine. Some years later the items connected with the aﬀair were transferred to the cathedral in the city of Brandenburg.137 From that time until 1539 no Jews were admitted to the Mark of Brandenburg, with the exception of the eastern regions of Schwerin

Jews, 12 Av 5270 (Kronika Ivrit mi-Prag, [ed.] A. David, pp. 5 and 56, and the editor’s notes, p. 33). Translator} 133 For example, the 1510 account: “welche verstockten Juden (das frembdt zu horen, wo sollichs nit gesehen) mit lachendem mundt das Urteyl angehört, mit Irem lobgesang ausgefurt. Und auﬀ dem Rost nit allain gesungen und gelacht, sonnder auch zum tayl gesprungen gejugzkt . . . und also . . . mit grosser bestendigkeyt den tod gelyden, den pawvelligen Christen zu sunderm erschrecken” [And those obdurate Jews (one has to have seen it to believe it), they smiled when they heard the sentence and were led away singing hymns of praise. And at the stake they not only sang and laughed, but some also jumped (danced?) and exulted . . . and suﬀered their death unﬂinchingly, which greatly dismayed those Christians who are weak in their faith(!)], as quoted by Oberman, Wurzeln, p. 200. 134 The arrests are testiﬁed to also by Jacob Waegner in his Zikhron Yamim. 135 “Urfehde welche die Juden geschworen, als sie wegen misshandlung des Sacraments aus der Churmark verwiesen wurden, vom Jahre 1510”, A. F. Riedel, Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, Berlin 1838–1869, III, 3, no. 177, pp. 206–7. This is the generic form of the oath. The Jew confesses that he is guilty of the crime and undertakes not to make any claims—not even by virtue of any privilege {he might possess}—and to leave the land forthwith: “Wywol ich schwere Strafe verdienet und doch aus Gnaden erledigt . . . und will von stund stracks aus dem Lande Ziehen und nymmer wider derin kommen. Ich will auch alle Juden den ich zukomme warnen, dass sie sich der Lande bey Verlust Leibes und Guts meiden und entslahen”. 136 See Ackermann, Geschichte der Juden in Brandenburg, pp. 51–52. 137 Ibid., p. 53 and the sources speciﬁed there.

108

[5]

5270 (1509⁄10)

and Meseritz, where, in 1532, the Elector permitted the Jews to return and trade at the annual fairs.138 R. Joseph gives additional details about the libel in section 22 of the Chronicle (below, p. 330) and in the “Letter of Consolation” (below, pp. 358 and 365–366). At an assembly of Protestant princes that convened in Frankfurt in 1539, it became known that Elector Joachim II of Brandenburg, who had just instituted the Protestant faith in his state, was planning to banish the Jews from the land.139 In this he had been preceded by the Duke of Saxony, who, possibly under Luther’s inﬂuence, had expelled the Jews already in 1536.140 R. Joseph writes that at this assembly he debated with gentile scholars, in order to defend the Jews against Luther and Bucer’s accusations and to thwart the planned expulsion of the Jews from Protestant lands. He received support from an unexpected quarter: “One of the Christian sages” disclosed to the Elector of Brandenburg that the Jews burnt at the stake in the time of his father, Joachim I, were entirely innocent. How did this fact come to light? R. Joseph relates that the robber, namely Paul Fromm, in his confession to the priest before he was put to death, had recanted his testimony against the Jews. The priest had immediately brought this fact to the attention of Bishop Hieronymus in Berlin, but the Bishop had forbidden him to publicize it. In the “Letter of Consolation”, R. Joseph adds further details, the most important of them being that it was the Reformer Philip Melanchthon, who, at the Frankfurt assembly, had revealed the Bishop’s stratagem to the Elector. Apparently—this is Feilchenfeld’s theory—the priest, who was still alive in 1539, and according to R. Joseph was at that time in Württemberg (or Wittenberg), had meanwhile himself adopted the Protestant faith,141 and therefore considered himself absolved from the prohibition the Bishop had laid on him.

138

Ibid., p. 53 and Heise, Die Juden in Brandenburg, p. 203. A possible reference to areas outside Germany which had recently come under the jurisdiction of Brandenburg, such as Silesia, or to areas where Jews were permitted to trade. 140 See below, the discussion in the introduction to section 22 of the Chronicle (p. 232 onwards). 141 Feilchenfeld, p. 127. 139

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

109

It is not a coincidence that Melanchthon chose that particular occasion to divulge the information. It is quite possible that the Brandenburg Reformers wished to make capital out of a public condemnation of the Bishop’s duplicity as part of their struggle against the hegemony of the Catholic Church in their land. However, it appears that the facts were not made known to the general public, not even in Brandenburg, nor is there any reference to them in Melanchthon’s writings or in those of his disciples. Melanchthon’s closest disciple, Johannes Manlius, who left behind a large collection of notes from Melanchthon’s lectures to his students and anecdotes from his teacher’s life, tells us that in one of his lectures on the consecrated Host, Melanchthon related to his students the story of the burning of the Jews of Brandenburg on a charge of Host desecration. Although he wrote his book in 1563, Manlius was apparently quite unaware that the charge had been shown to be baseless.142 Similarly, the Brandenburg chronicles, which were composed in the latter half of the sixteenth century, including that of Angelus,143 still tell the story as though there was not a shred of doubt as to its veracity. Apparently there were those who wished to hush up the matter. It is also possible that those present at the Protestant assembly in Frankfurt were not particularly interested in the aﬀair and therefore did not report on it. Although there is no corroboration in the Christian sources of R. Joseph’s description of the events, there is no question that his account is reliable. He mentions Melanchthon’s name in the German version of the “Letter of Consolation”, and he was well aware that his words would reach a non-Jewish audience. Moreover, his account is conﬁrmed by the developments in Brandenburg itself. He writes that as a result of this new information about the Brandenburg

142 Locorum Communium Collectanea, A Johanne Manlio, tum ex lectionibus D. Philippi Melanchthonis . . . redacta . . ., Basileae 1563. The story of the Brandenburg martyrs is in the chapter entitled “De coena Domini”, p. 100 in the above edition. For an assessment of Manlius’s book, see W. Hammer, Die Melanchthonforschung im Wandel der Jahrhunderte, 1, Gütersloh 1967, pp. 220–21. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Heinz Scheible, Director of Melanchthon-Forschungsstelle in Heidelberg, for his substantial assistance on this subject. For Melanchthon’s attitude to the Jews, and on the Brandenburg aﬀair in particular, see H. Scheible’s article, “Reuchlins Einﬂuß auf Melanchthon”, in: A. Herzig and J. H. Schoeps (eds.), Reuchlin und die Juden (Pforzheimer Reuchlinschriften, 3), Sigmaringen 1993, pp. 135–39. 143 See above, note 127.

110

[5]

5270 (1509⁄10)

martyrs, he succeeded in persuading Elector Joachim II to abandon his negative plans against the Jews. He adds that he convinced the Elector to grant the Jews the right to traﬃc in his land (zu handeln und wandeln), which had been denied them for 30 years. Indeed, there is a document addressed by Joachim II to the city of Frankfurt on Oder, in which he informs the city that at an assembly held in Frankfurt on Main, the Jews had solicited him for the right to return and trade in his land and that he had granted their request. Heise assumes that similar letters were sent to the other Brandenburg cities, but that these are no longer extant.144 There are also indications from other sources of the renewed presence of Jews in the Mark of Brandenburg. From 1541 onwards there were growing complaints—notably on the part of the cities, but also from the nobility—that the Jews were once again inﬁltrating the land, and the Elector was requested to prevent their renewed settlement.145 Luther himself wrote to Joachim II and cautioned him against assisting them.146 However, the court preacher Johannes Agricola, another humanist, championed the Jews and publicly defended them in his sermons. In a letter dating from that time, Agricola was sharply censured for his support of them.147 The Protestant minister of Berlin, Buchholzer, also strongly criticized Agricola; his attempt to convince the Elector to abandon his benevolent policy towards the Jews was 144

StaArch Frankfurt a. O., Bardelebener Nachlaß I, XXIII, 2. For a summary of this document, see Heise, Die Juden, pp. 232–34. 145 See, W. Friedensburg, Kurmärkische Ständeakten aus der Regierungszeit Kurfürst Joachim II, Vol. I, Munich-Leipzig 1913–1916, p. 164, note 3, 1540: the cities complain in the Landtag (the territorial Diet) of the damage the Jews are causing, now that they are inﬁltrating into the land once again; and similarly in the debates in 1542, see document 64. In the debates in 1549 (see document 155), the nobles and cities stress the danger presented by the Jews in the land, for which reason they were expelled by Joachim II’s father; and now the present ruler is permitting them back again; see also document 101, in which the Estates ask the Elector to expel the Jews and to inform them of the expiry date of the Jews’ residence permit (Geleit). In 1550 (see document 198), they again demand that the Jews be expelled, claiming that the Elector has promised many times to do so. Interestingly enough, in an article published in 1937(!) on Joachim II’s monetary problems and his demands from the Estates, the Jews are not mentioned at all: see H. Hallmann, “Die kurmärkischen Stände zur Zeit Joachims II”, Forschungen zur brandenburgischen und preußischen Geschichte, 49 (1937), pp. 22–38. 146 In a letter dated 9 March 1545. See Enders-Kaweran, Dr. Martin Luthers Briefwechsel, XVI, Leipzig 1915, p. 192 ﬀ.; and in a letter of 1544 to one of his friends, Luther claims that the Jews control the Mark of Brandenburg through their money. See ibid., vol. 15, p. 336. 147 The author of the letter was Dr. Johann Forster (according to Heise, p. 235).

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

111

praised by Luther.148 Nevertheless, despite Luther’s importunings, Joachim did not alter his policy, and Jews continued to reside in Brandenburg until his death in 1571.149 Only in 1572, in the wake of the aﬀair of the Jew Lippold, were the Jews again banished from Brandenburg.150 Let us now return to R. Joseph’s account of the aﬀair. In this section, R. Joseph states no more than that the Brandenburg martyrs were burnt for the sake of Kiddush Hashem. To this he juxtaposes his remarks about the Pfeﬀerkorn Aﬀair, and not by coincidence: both events shocked all German Jewry.151 Our narrator does not elaborate, although at the time of writing (1547) he knows the subsequent developments in Brandenburg. Here, he is concerned only with the terrible proceedings in Berlin in 1510. Clearly, he does not need to emphasize that the accusation was false; for R. Joseph it is selfevident that the Jews in question were “38 righteous people”. He does not even mention the expulsion of the Jews from Brandenburg as a result of the libel, for this would take the edge of the harrowing impression created by the martyrdom. Moreover, the expulsion has already been rescinded by the time he writes his Chronicle, and therefore it is inappropriate to record it as a “memorial” for later generations.

148 In a letter to him of September 1543. See G. Kaweran, “Ein Brief Luthers an den Propst von Berlin Georg Buchholzer”, Schriften des Vereins für die Geschichte Berlins 50, Berlin 1917, p. 430 ﬀ.; and also in Luther’s letter to the Elector, cited above. 149 It appears that Joachim II was compelled to give in to demands from his Estates, and there were ﬂuctuations in his policy. In one of the documents he proclaims that he will abide by his earlier promise and cancel the Jews’ residence permit; however, it is doubtful that he kept this promise. See Friedensburg, Kurmärkische Ständeakten, no. 260; similarly, for Neumark, there is extant a mandate of 1543 that reiterates the prohibition on the entry of Jews for business purposes. However, here too we have no information as to the extent that this prohibition was implemented in practice (according to Heise, p. 237). 150 See Riedel, Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, IV, 1, p. 303. 151 The connection between the two events is not merely chronological; in the Brandspiegel (fol. a4r ), Pfeﬀerkorn already uses the Brandenburg libel as proof of the crimes of the Jews. See also the recent work by H. M. Kirn, Das Bild vom Juden im Deutschland des frühen 16. Jahrhunderts (Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism, 3), Tübingen 1989. The relevant passage is printed on p. 125, note 22; see also p. 52 there. In another place Pfeﬀerkorn explicitly links the Worms assembly of representatives of the Jews (see below) with the restoration of their books, and their alleged Host desecration; see Kirn, p. 266.

112

[5]

5270 (1509⁄10)

In section 22 of the Chronicle, which concerns the years 1536–1539, he writes of his eﬀorts to prevent the expulsion of the Jews from various lands. This gives him the opportunity to describe the subsequent developments in Brandenburg, for there then ensued, in his words “a miracle within a miracle”—the miracle of the actual success of his mission and the miracle that help came from such an unexpected quarter. Here too, notwithstanding the many details he gives, he still leaves out various points, and he does not mention the name of the man who revealed the truth to the Elector. Apparently, R. Joseph believed that the man’s name was quite immaterial as far as his readers were concerned. He intimates that he was a gentile, “one of the sages of the nations”, and he uses the same expression as he does in this section of the Chronicle with reference to Reuchlin. In the case of Reuchlin he writes, “and God, blessed be He, showed us a miracle within a miracle, in that [one of ] the sages of the nations stood up against him {Pfeﬀerkorn} . . .”. In the case of Melanchthon: And a miracle within a miracle was performed for us. It was revealed and made known to many, and to that same Margrave Joachim, that all those martyred persons who had been burnt at the stake in the days of his father in the year 5270 (1510)—38 Jewish souls—were burnt because of a lying, malicious, false accusation. Already at the time the robber had retracted his false testimony, but an evil enemy and adversary, the Bishop, had commanded the priest not to divulge to the Duke the robber’s last confession. . . .

In contrast, in his “Letter of Consolation” to Hessian Jewry, of 1541, written in response to the Reformer Bucer’s attack on the Jews, R. Joseph speciﬁcally mentions Melanchthon’s name. There, the term “a sage of the nations” appears in the German as “hochgelehrt”, an expression that R. Joseph generally employs to describe men of broad humanistic education. In the “Letter of Consolation”, which he presented to the authorities in a German translation, R. Joseph is interested in emphasizing a diﬀerent aspect of the aﬀair: the idea that God imbues the hearts of the princes with wisdom and good counsel so that they will not heed the words of instigators. Joachim I is depicted there as having been duped by cunning men. What befell him {in 1510 when the Brandenburg aﬀair occurred and he expelled the Jews} was a pure mishap, for he was simply not conversant with the true state of aﬀairs (“nit so lauter den ußatz gewisst”). However, when his son, the present ruler, became aware of the truth, he put right whatever he could rectify. With regard to Bucer’s connection

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

113

with the aﬀair, R. Joseph wishes to stress that although Bucer was at the Frankfurt Assembly and heard about Melanchthon’s disclosure, and although the two Reformers were very similar in their religious outlook, still Bucer did not draw the conclusions with regard to the Jews that, in R. Joseph’s view, he ought to have drawn. The Pfeﬀerkorn Aﬀair The third episode mentioned in this section is the Pfeﬀerkorn Aﬀair. It has been discussed at length in the critical literature, but very little about it is mentioned in the Hebrew sources. R. Joseph does not add anything new concerning the aﬀair itself so we shall conﬁne ourselves here to a brief summary of the events and refer the reader to additional bibliographical material.152 Johannes Pfeﬀerkorn was a Jewish apostate, but little is known about his life. His place of birth is unclear; however, he apparently converted to Christianity in around 1505 in Cologne. The Hebrew sources term him the “unclean butcher”, as he was a butcher by occupation.153 He is said to have been a criminal who sat in jail and who converted in order to obtain his release.154 According to R. Joseph

152

This account is based on the following literature: I. Kracauer, “Die Conﬁscation der hebräischen Schriften in Frankfurt a. M. in den Jahren 1509 und 1510”, ZGJD, 1 (1887), pp. 160–76, 230–48; idem, “Actenstücke zur Geschichte der Conﬁscation der hebräischen Schriften in Frankfurt a. M”, MGWJ, 44 (1900), pp. 114–26, 167–77, 220–34; idem, Geschichte der Juden in Frankfurt a. Main, I, Frankfurt on Main 1927, p. 238 ﬀ.; L. Geiger, Johannes Reuchlin—sein Leben und seine Werke, Leipzig 1871, p. 209 ﬀ.; idem, “Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Juden und zur Charakteristik des Reuchlin’schen Streites”, Geigers Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben, 7 (1869), pp. 293–309; idem, “Die Juden und die deutsche Literatur, 4: Die Juden und die Literatur des 16. Jahrhunderts”, ZGJD, 2 (1888), pp. 308–74; H. Graetz, “Aktenstücke zur Conﬁscation der jüdischen Schriften in Frankfurt a. M. unter Kaiser Maximilian durch Pfeﬀerkorns Angeberei”, MGWJ, 24 (1875), pp. 289 ﬀ., 337 ﬀ., 385 ﬀ.; idem, Geschichte der Juden, third edition, IX, Leipzig 1891, p. 66 ﬀ.; note 2, p. 497 ﬀ.; M. Freudenthal, “Dokumente zur Schriftenverfolgung durch Pfeﬀerkorn”, ZGJD, N.F. 3 (1931), p. 227 ﬀ.; Germania Judaica, III/1, s.v. Frankfurt a. M., pp. 359, 367, and also Feilchenfeld, pp. 22–23; and, recently, Kirn’s important study, Das Bild vom Juden im Deutschland, which analyses Pfeﬀerkorn’s theological views. 153 Thus R. Joseph terms him in Sefer ha-Miknah, p. 14, line 1, and the same expression appears in the account of the aﬀair written in Frankfurt on Main, see Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, third edition, vol. 9, Leipzig 1891, appendix 2, p. 505. 154 One tradition has it that he was jailed for theft and was released only upon payment of a large sum of money. However, the contemporary sources do not link his release from prison with his conversion to Christianity. Compare Kirn, Das Bild, pp. 11–12, who relies on Kracauer. Kirn (pp. 179–80) also prints a German ballad

114

[5]

5270 (1509⁄10)

in Sefer ha-Miknah, he was involved in many disputes with other Jews even before his conversion.155 In common with other apostates of his kind, he embarked on intensive literary activity against Judaism and the Jews. His books, 14 in number, were published between 1507–1521, the most wellknown of them being: Der Juden Spiegel (The Jewish Mirror), Nuremberg 1507; Handt Spiegel (Hand Mirror), Mainz 1511; and Brantspiegel (Burnt Mirror), Cologne 1512.156 The latter two works were composed chieﬂy for the purpose of his polemical disputation with Johannes Reuchlin. The dominant theme in his books was the alleged hatred of Jews for Christians, and he called upon the authorities, and in particular Emperor Maximilian, to prohibit the Jews from practising usury and force them to earn their livelihood through “honest labour”. He asked that everything be done to compel the Jews to convert. To this end, he demanded that they be required to attend Christian sermons and to forgo their Talmud, which he regarded as the root cause of their stubbornness. Pfeﬀerkorn did not conﬁne himself to literary activity. He sought the Emperor’s permission to conﬁscate the Jews’ books, believing this to be the only method whereby they could be inﬂuenced to convert. In 1509, the Emperor granted him a permit to temporarily conﬁscate the Jews’ books, and armed with this mandate Pfeﬀerkorn began his activities in Frankfurt on Main. The Jews convened and petitioned the city of Frankfurt and the Archbishop of Mainz— Frankfurt was under his religious jurisdiction—and eventually they also dispatched a delegation to the Emperor, who was at that time in Italy. The Frankfurt burghers at ﬁrst supported Pfeﬀerkorn and helped him to implement the Emperor’s order. The Jews, for their part, pleaded that they had sent a delegation to the Emperor and that the conﬁscation of their holy books constituted a violation of their privileges. Moreover, they averred that they could not agree to hand over their books, for this was a matter that aﬀected all the Jews in the land. At ﬁrst, the Jews succeeded in convincing Maximilian to revoke the conﬁscation order, but afterwards, under the inﬂuence of his written by a contemporary of Pfeﬀerkorn, in which the poet enumerates all of Pfeﬀerkorn’s deceitful stratagems. 155 See p. 14, lines 2–3. 156 For a complete list of his books and their editions, see Kirn, Das Bild, pp. 201–04.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

115

sister Kunigunde, a devout nun, he again altered his decision and the conﬁscation was carried out (September 1509).157 Among the ﬁrst books to be seized were all the commentaries on the Scriptures, the books of the Talmud and Halakha, the prayer books and books of religious customs (minhagim), and also the books of polemics and religious disputations. All these were taken from the synagogue.158 Later, despite the Jews’ protestations, all the books in the personal possession of community members were also removed. Only Bibles were not conﬁscated. In May 1510, the Emperor appointed a committee presided over by the Archbishop of Mainz, Uriel von Gemmingen, to deal with the whole question. Among its members was the head of the Dominican Order in Cologne, the Chief Inquisitor in Germany, Jakob von Hoogstraten; the humanist Johannes Reuchlin from Stuttgart; and the convert Victor von Carben from Cologne. They were asked only one question: should the Jews’ books be conﬁscated and destroyed? The Jews, meanwhile, were strenuously employed in trying to recover their books. Certain noblemen demanded that “their Jews”, who were Frankfurt residents, should have their books returned to them. The city changed its attitude and attempted to assist the Jews. And, indeed, there were those who, in exchange for large sums of money, managed to regain possession of their books. Most members of the committee favoured conﬁscating the Jews’ books. They alleged that the books contained anti-Christian invective—principally curses against Jesus—and also falsehoods. With their aid, the Jews were strengthened in their faith and refused to convert; anyone who did not take action to obviate such evil was himself guilty, and was worthy of being penalized in the same manner as the Jews. The most signiﬁcant opinion, however, was that of Johannes Reuchlin.159 He emphatically rejected Pfeﬀerkorn’s proposals and 157 Conﬁscations of Jewish books took place not only in Frankfurt but also in Worms, Mainz, Bingen, Deutz and in other Jewish settlements along the Rhine. See Graetz, vol. 9, p. 90, and Kirn, p. 103. 158 See I. Kracauer, “Verzeichnis der von Pfeﬀerkorn 1510 in Frankfurt a. M. conﬁscierten jüdischen Bücher”, MGWJ, 44 (1900), pp. 114–26, 167–77, 220–34, 455–60, and Kirn, p. 104. 159 For Reuchlin’s attitude to the Jews, see the studies by L. Geiger, Johannes Reuchlin (see above, note 152); W. Maurer, Kirche und Synagoge—Motive und Formen der Auseinandersetzung, Stuttgart 1953, pp. 36–39; idem, “Die Zeit des Humanismus”, in: K. H. Rengstorf and S. Kortzﬂeisch (eds.), Kirche und Synagoge, I, pp. 278–82; idem,

116

[5]

5270 (1509⁄10)

sharply criticized him and his writings. It was not out of sympathy for the Jews that Reuchlin opposed the destruction of their books: in his view the Jews’ books should not be burnt, as they were of great importance for Christians too, and some of them, particularly the Kabbalistic works, even conﬁrmed Christian beliefs. Moreover, the study of the Hebrew language was conditional upon their existence. Reuchlin’s most persuasive argument, however, was that without them Christian scholars could not study Judaism and know how to debate with the Jews and prevail upon them to convert. Only with the aid of the Jewish books, he stressed, was there any possibility of bringing the Jews amicably into the bosom of the true faith. Reuchlin’s Opinion was the opening signal for an intense polemical debate between the German humanists on the one hand, and the “obscurantists” (Dunkelmänner)—as contemporaries styled them— headed by the Dominicans of Cologne University, on the other. Pfeﬀerkorn lashed out in virulent polemical tracts against Reuchlin, who reponded in kind. However, this chapter of the aﬀair does not concern us here. The aﬀair sent reverberations through all the Jewish communities in Germany, both because of the actual threat to their books and also because of the eﬀorts of Frankfurt Jewry to create a united front of all the communities, in order to raise from them the necessary funds to combat Pfeﬀerkorn. After Jonathan Zion, who was representing the Frankfurt community in Italy, complained bitterly of lack of funds, which meant that his hands were tied, Frankfurt Jewry called for a meeting of all the German communities in its city in 1509, and even threatened to excommunicate those communities that did not heed this summons. Only a handful, however, sent their representatives to Frankfurt, and others promised to contribute money

“Reuchlin und das Judentum”, Kirche und Geschichte (Gesammelte Aufsätze, II), Göttingen 1970, pp. 333–46; H. A. Oberman, Wurzeln, p. 30 ﬀ.; idem, “Three Sixteenth Century Attitudes to Judaism: Reuchlin, Erasmus and Luther”, in: B. D. Cooperman (ed.), Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth Century, Cambridge 1983, pp. 326–64; and a recent collection of articles, A. Herzig and A. Schoeps (eds.), Reuchlin und die Juden (Pforzheimer Reuchlinschriften, 3), Sigmaringen 1993. See also my article “Be-Shulei haÓevra ha-Yehudit”, p. 654. {Reuchlin’s work is now available in English translation: Peter Wortsman (ed. and trans.), Recommendation whether to Conﬁscate, Destroy, and Burn all Jewish books: A Classic Treatise Against Anti-Semitism, New York 2000. Erika Rummel treats the ensuing controversy and includes English translations of many of the relevant texts in her The Case Against Johann Reuchlin: Religion and Social Controversy in Sixteenth-Century Germany, Toronto 2002. AS}

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

117

but in the end did not keep their word. Many communities did not respond at all to the invitation: some were opposed in principle to the summons, arguing that the Frankfurt community had suﬃcient means and could bear the weight of the expenses by itself. The sharp wording of the invitation, and the excommunication threat in particular, also appear to have provoked antagonism.160 The Jews did not comprehend that the Pfeﬀerkorn Aﬀair did indeed aﬀect all of German Jewry. In the heat of the great dispute between the humanists and the conservative Dominicans, the question of the Jewish books receded into the background, and Pfeﬀerkorn’s eﬀorts came to naught. It was Reuchlin’s attempt to reach an understanding with the Church while exchanging acrimonious polemical screeds with Pfeﬀerkorn, and the Pope’s excommunication of Reuchlin in response to the latter’s ﬁerce castigation of the Dominicans, which engrossed public opinion. R. Joseph’s Portrayal of the Events In this section R. Joseph devotes only a few lines to the Pfeﬀerkorn Aﬀair. He highlights the miracle of the deliverance of the Jews, which came from such an unexpected source. However, he does not neglect to emphasize the tremendous eﬀorts exerted by Frankfurt Jewry in order to combat Pfeﬀerkorn’s very dangerous activities, both by bringing pressure to bear upon the authorities and by mobilizing the enormous sums needed for this purpose. (It may be possible to sense, between the lines, his disapproval of those communities which did not extend a helping hand.) The great stress he lays on this point may perhaps conﬁrm the surmise that he was involved personally in raising funds in Alsace for this speciﬁc purpose.161 In Sefer ha-Miknah, R. Joseph devotes an entire short paragraph to the apostate Pfeﬀerkorn.162 He writes that Pfeﬀorkorn commenced his activities as an informer against the Jewish community even before his conversion; later, he quarrelled with “honest Jews” [?], and

160

On this assembly and its fate, see A. Maimon, “Tagungen von Judenschaften in Westdeutschland im frühen 16. Jahrhundert”, Jahrbuch für westdeutsche Landesgeschichte, 5 (1979), pp. 71–75. 161 Compare the remarks above (p. 97) relating to R. Joseph’s appointment to public oﬃce. 162 Sefer ha-Miknah, p. 14, lines 1–7.

118

[6]

5274 (1513⁄14)

eventually converted to Christianity. This episode bears out R. Joseph’s ﬁrm belief, stressed in Sefer ha-Miknah, that all talebearing ultimately leads to apostasy.163

[6] 5274 (1513/14) The Mittelbergheim Aﬀair To all appearances, this section deals with a Host desecration libel. R. Joseph relates that he was arrested together with seven other people from the village of Mittelbergheim, which was under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Strasbourg. They were held in prison in Oberehnheim for seven weeks. The accused Jews apparently refused to confess to the crime imputed to them and steadfastly maintained their innocence until ﬁnally the real culprit owned up to the deed. The term “robber” which the author applies to the criminal hints at the possibility that his crime was the theft of a Host. It appears from this passage that R. Joseph was at the time resident in Mittelbergheim. There is also evidence from another source that a Jew by the name of Joseph was living there in those years: in 1512 the Jew Joseph from Mittelbergheim was ﬁned in Strasbourg for having entered the city on a number of occasions, sometimes accompanied by his wife, without an oﬃcial permit.164 It is highly probable that the reference is to R. Joseph; he was then already serving in a public capacity, and it is quite possible that he had business to attend to in Strasbourg. 163

See Sefer ha-Miknah, introduction, p. 57 onwards. In a fragment from a chronicle taken from Dacheux, Fragmenti ancienne chroniques, p. 251, the following is recorded for 5 February 1512: “Jesel the Jew from Mittelbergheim, who was jailed after having been found in Strasbourg on a number of occasions—sometimes he had brought his wife with him—all this without the permission of the City Magistrate (ammeister) and without a safe-conduct (unvergleitet), was given a light ﬁne of 30 schilling pfennig. He has sworn an oath for release from prison (urphete siner gefangnüss), that he will not take revenge on Strasbourg, its citizens or persons connected with the city, and for this he asks the help of the true God (des bitt er den wahren Gott Adonai in solcher warheit zu helﬀen und bestäten).” The fragment has been printed in Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Erhaltung der geschichtlichen Denkmäler im Elsaß, 2. Folge 15, Strasbourg 1890, p. 231, note 3398; and see Feilchenfeld, p. 9, note 2. 164

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

119

From 1519 onwards we ﬁnd R. Joseph in Rosheim.165 Therefore he must have left Mittelbergheim sometime between 1514 and 1519. S. Stern presumes, following Feilchenfeld, that because of the aforesaid libel R. Joseph decided to leave Mittelbergheim and move to Rosheim. However, there is another reason why the residence of Jews in Mittelbergheim was precarious. At the close of 1515, William, bishop of Strasbourg, received a charter from the Emperor authorizing both him and the Lords of Andlau and their favourites to expel the Jews from a number of speciﬁed villages, including Mittelbergheim.166 This apparently is what R. Joseph was referring to in section 7 of the Chronicle (for 1514/15): “. . . and the Bishop was with them in their plan to drive us out of the land”. He states there that the Bishop and the Lords of Andlau cancelled their expulsion plan, and from the tenor of his words it seems that at that time there was no expulsion from his town. Nevertheless, it is possible that the expulsion threat was one of the reasons for R. Joseph’s change of abode.

[7] 5275 (1514/15) The Threat of Expulsion from the Bishopric of Strasbourg and the Region of Andlau In this section the author rightly refers to both the tension with Oberehnheim and the danger of expulsion that in the years 1514–1515 threatened the Jews in the bishopric of Strasbourg and the territory of Andlau,167 for he was active in connection with all three matters

165 Feilchenfeld (p. 8) suggests 1516 as the year when R. Joseph came to Rosheim, basing himself on R. Joseph’s letter of complaint to the Hagenau city council of 1554, in which he wrote that he had been a resident of Rosheim for close to 40 years. This date would also correspond to the time when there was an expulsion threat (see following note). 166 The charter bears the stamp Fuessen (Posen) 9 December 1515. ArchMun Strasbourg, III 174, 17; and see Germania Judaica, III/1, s.v. Blienschweiler, p. 132, note 3, and ibid., III/2, s.v. Mittelbergheim, pp. 876–77. 167 The connection between the Bishop of Strasbourg and the Lords of Andlau is not fortuitous; the latter held part of their territory as a ﬁef from the Bishop. See J. D. Schoepﬂin, Histoire des Dix Villes selon Schoepﬂin, vol. I, Colmar 1825, pp. 57, 190, 328.

120

[7]

5275 (1514⁄15)

jointly. The Oberehnheim Aﬀair has already been addressed in the chapter on the section for 1505–1507. The discussion below includes some additional information concerning the role played by the Bishop of Strasbourg. The Jews had already been expelled from the bishopric of Strasbourg as early as 1479.168 The exiles settled in the town of Niederehnheim, but the Bishop endeavoured to have them driven out of there as well. The expulsion threat discussed in this section seems to have applied to a number of villages, situated perhaps in the vicinity of the Bishop’s diocese, and not necessarily within the bishopric itself, from where, as remarked, the Jews had already been expelled. From the subsequent narrative it would appear that the town of “Enheim” to which R. Joseph refers was in fact Oberehnheim. It is possible that at that time, two previously separate towns, Oberehnheim and Niederehnheim were already connected as one place. The plan to expel the Jews is conﬁrmed from a document dated 1 December 1514, in which Emperor Maximilian authorizes William, bishop of Strasbourg and the Lords of Andlau and their favourites to expel the Jews from certain villages, which are mentioned by name.169 According to R. Joseph, he brought an action against Oberehnheim, the Lords of Andlau, and apparently also against the Bishop, in the Imperial High Court of Justice. When the Court demanded that the defendants respond to the charge, the Lords of Andlau and the Bishop withdrew their expulsion plans. Interestingly enough, although the Bishop possessed a permit authorizing him to expel the Jews, he dared not do so. According to R. Joseph, the defendants were genuinely dismayed by his litigation, and hastened to make their peace with the Jews.

168 ArchMun Strasbourg, III 174, 1. According to this document, the exiles were received into Niederehnheim. In a letter of 1480 to the city of Strasbourg, the Bishop writes that the Jews had been granted admission into Niederehnheim against the wishes of Jacob of Landsberg—who seems to have been the mayor of that town. The Bishop requests that Strasbourg intercede with Landsberg and prevail upon him to likewise rid himself of the Jews. In a letter of reply, dated 19.2.1480, apparently to Strasbourg, Landsberg writes that although Emerich Ritter—the Zinsmeister (the Imperial tax collector and Emperor’s representative)—had declared that he had no objection to the Jews being expelled, the Elector Palatine wished to retain them until Easter. 169 ArchMun Strasbourg, III 174, 17, and see above, introduction to section 6 of the Chronicle, p. 119.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

121

It is possible that the Bishop of Strasbourg again planned an expulsion in 1519. In the section of the Chronicle for that year, R. Joseph writes that after the village of Dangolsheim drove out the Jews that lived there, “evil neighbours” sought to follow suit and expel their Jews too. However, he succeeded in gaining the ear of the Bishop and the Unterlandvogt, and after much pleading on his part, they apparently cancelled their plans.

[8] 5279 (1518/19) The Expulsion from Regensburg and Dangolsheim This section deals with a chain of events that took place in 1519. The death of Emperor Maximilian created an interregnum in Germany, which was exploited by a number of cities and villages against the Jews. The Regensburg Expulsion The imperial city of Regensburg took advantage of the fact that there was no reigning emperor and expelled its Jewish community. Much has been written about this expulsion and scholars have listed various factors as being responsible for it. These have been debated at length by Raphael Straus, Yitzhak Baer, and Peter Herde.170

170 For the Regensburg expulsion, see R. Straus, Die Judengemeinde Regensburg im ausgehenden Mittelalter, Heidelberg 1932, and Y. Baer’s critique of Straus’s analysis of the factors governing the expulsion, in Kiryat Sefer, 12, p. 461 onwards. The documents relating to the history of Regensburg Jewry have been compiled by Straus: Urkunden und Aktenstücke zur Geschichte der Juden in Regensburg, no. 1038 ﬀ., and especially nos. 1049 and 1052. They were critically reviewed by H. H. Ben-Sasson, Tarbiz 34 (1963/64), pp. 99–105. I discussed the Regensburg expulsion in the introduction to Sefer ha-Miknah, p. 25 onwards; and see also P. Herde, “Gestaltung und Krisis des christlich-jüdischen Verhältnisses in Regensburg am Ende des Mittelalters”, Zeitschrift für bayerische Landesgeschichte, 23 (1959), Heft 3, p. 359 ﬀ. For a recent study of the Regensburg community during its last years and the expulsion, see W. Volkert, “Die spätmittelalterliche Judengemeinde Regensburg”, in: D. Henrich (ed.), Albert Altdorfer und seine Zeit (Schriftreihe der Universität Regensburg, 5), Regensburg 1981, pp. 123–49; idem, “Die Regensburger Juden in Spätmittelalter und das Ende der Judengemeinde”, in: E. E. Du Bruck and K. H. Göller (eds.), Crossroads of Medieval Civilization—The City of Regensburg and its Intellectual Milieu (Medieval and Renaissance

122

[8]

5279 (1518⁄19)

Here it suﬃces to note that Regensburg is a prime example of how a combination of religious, economic and political factors brought about the disappearance of one of the oldest Jewish communities in Germany. The following is a brief summary of the main details of the expulsion. After the major ritual murder trial of 1476, the condition of the Jews in the city deteriorated steadily.171 The city council exerted tremendous eﬀorts to secure the permission of Emperor Maximilian to expel the Jewish community, but he refused to give his consent. For upwards of a year, proceedings were conducted in the Imperial Court of Justice at Innsbruck between the Jewish community and city council, which were cut short by the Emperor’s death on 12 January 1519.172 Immediately upon learning the news, the city leaders made haste to proﬁt by the interregnum and issued an expulsion decree without the authorization of the central government; they merely notiﬁed the authorities in Innsbruck that the Jews had been expelled. The city gave three reasons for its action: unrest among the clergy and laity, concern for the good of the city and the Emperor, and the desire to protect the persons and property of the Jews.173 The Jews were given only four days notice of the expulsion.174 Immediately after the expulsion decree had been published, the Jewish quarter was surrounded, a list was drawn up of all the pledges deposited with the Jews,175 and the city residents were asked to come Monograph Series, 5), Marygrove College, Detroit 1984, pp. 139–71. For expulsions of the Jews, and their various causes, see above, General Introduction, pp. 16–19. 171 This trial was a by-product of the trial of the Jews in the Simon of Trent Aﬀair of 1475. While on a visit to Trent, the Bishop of Regensburg learned that during the investigation of the Trent case the names of a number of Regensburg Jews had been mentioned in connection with the murder of Christian children. Consequently, the Jews in question were arrested, and a trial on the same lines as that in Trent was held in Regensburg, in the course of which they were interrogated and tortured. After spending four and a half years in prison, they were ﬁnally released, following the Emperor’s intervention. 172 The judicial proceedings terminated only in May 1521, when an agreement was signed between the city and representatives of the former Jewish community. The city undertook to pay the Jews, in addition to the debts owed to them, compensation for property and injury suﬀered by them as a result of the expulsion. 173 See Straus, Urkunden und Aktenstücke, no. 1045. 174 According to C. Matzel and J. Riecke (see following footnote); the various chronicles speak of eight days; even this space of time is quite unprecedented for expulsions during that period. 175 Compare Straus, Urkunden, as above. This list has been reprinted in a critical edition: Matzel and Riecke, “Das Pfandregister der Regensburger Juden vom Jahre 1519”, Zeitschrift für bayerische Landesgeschichte, 51 (1988), vol. 3, pp. 770–806.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

123

and retrieve their pledges in exchange for the principal only. Unredeemed pledges were sold by the city authorities. On January 22nd, the day after publication of the decree, while the Jews were still inside the city, the townspeople razed the synagogue to the ground in an act of religious ecstasy, the Bishop and monks presiding over the operation.176 Shortly afterwards, a church dedicated to the Virgin Mary was erected in its stead. After the Jews had departed, the entire Jewish quarter including the houses of the Jews, the cemetery and the remaining community buildings was demolished.177 The Jews’ petitions to the new emperor, Charles V, and their eﬀorts to return to the city proved fruitless. The city leaders exhibited the utmost obduracy, and, despite the Emperor’s vigorous protests regarding their unauthorized expulsion of the Jews and his demand that they take them back, they adamantly refused to allow them to return. In 1521, Regensburg was granted the Emperor’s pardon for the expulsion and his assurance that in future the city would not be required to accept Jews. In return, the city undertook to remit to the Emperor and the Elector Palatine the taxes that the Jews had been accustomed to pay their protectors of the House of Habsburg.178 The Regensburg expulsion found a wide echo in the literature of the period, and numerous ballads were composed extolling the deed.179 R. Joseph’s Account In this section, R. Joseph simply mentions the fact of the expulsion without giving any information about its background or causes. However, he does provide some important details about the events: 176

All the chroniclers emphasize the razing of the synagogue, but only one is openly critical of the action: “mit unvernünftiger hitzigkeit”; however, he is almost certainly referring to the irresponsible manner in which the demolition was carried out, as a result of which one person fell under the ruins. See Straus, Urkunden, no. 1044. 177 In a letter of complaint to the imperial authorities in Innsbruck, the Jewish exiles recounted all that had befallen them in Regensburg. Among other things, they stated that the synagogue, houses and cemetery had been razed to the ground, that the city had conﬁscated all the tombstones, valued at some thousands of guilders, and that all the corpses had been dug up, stabbed and removed from their graves, an act that is contrary to all law and nature (das wider alle gesatz und natur ist). 178 2 March 1521. See Straus, Urkunden, nos. 1113, 1114. 179 R. von Liliencron, Die historischen Volkslieder, III, nos. 336–40, pp. 316–39. Some extracts from these have been published by Straus, Urkunden, no. 1100, pp. 406–13.

124

[8]

5279 (1518⁄19)

he reports that the Regensburg Jews were sent in boats down the Danube;180 he also emphasizes the fact that one of the prominent families, the Auerbachs, found refuge nearby in a place called Stadtamhof, on the other side of the Danube. Stadtamhof was eﬀectively a suburb of Regensburg, outside the city limits, under the jurisdiction of the Duke of Bavaria. In order to reach it, one merely had to cross the bridge over the river. About 30 years later, the Jews were driven out of there too in the course of the expulsion from Bavaria in 1551. It is clear that R. Joseph was well acquainted with the Auerbach family. For years members of this family worked from their new place of residence to collect the debts owed to Regensburg Jewry at the time of their hasty departure, and to terminate the judicial proceedings between the former community and the city. They also endeavoured vainly to obtain a fresh entry permit to Regensburg, at least to pursue their business activities in the city.181 R. Joseph hints at the razing of the synagogue and also apparently makes an allusion to the destruction or conﬁscation of Torah scrolls.182 We have no information that R. Joseph was involved in any attempt to prevent the Regensburg expulsion. The Jews anyway had no time to take any form of defensive action. However, the Regensburg expulsion occupied his attention considerably, and he also devoted

180 This is noted also by the chronicler Christopher Ostrofrancus; see Straus, no. 1040, p. 386. This chronicler expresses a certain degree of compassion for them (quod erat miserabile visu). He remarks on the cruel manner in which the Jews—men, women and children, the sick, and nursing mothers—were sent “from life to death” (vitam cum morte mutasse) upon the river (ad navim deferrei ). One of the authors of the rhyming songs mentioned above relates that the Christians saw the Jews “sitting in the boats” (“Sie saßen auf die schiﬀe, do kam ir lezste stund, die rüder man angriﬀe . . .”), Liliencron, op. cit., no. 334, p. 339, 15. 181 See Straus, Urkunden, nos. 1048, 1049. 182 The expression pe"er u-ma˙mad eineinu, “the splendour and the apple of our eye”, (see below, in this section of the Chronicle, p. 314) hints at the synagogue and the Torah scrolls. Compare Sefer ha-Miknah, p. 9, line 16: “and the apple of our eye, several Torah scrolls . . .”. The German accounts of the expulsion report that the Jews were permitted to remove the contents of the synagogue before it was demolished. Compare, for example, Straus, Urkunden, no. 1049: “. . . das sy . . . bis an den fr[eitag] darnach sollend die Judengassen und nemlich in zwayen stünden . . . ire Judenschül räumen . . .”. However, it is possible that the expression “räumen” signiﬁes that the Jews were ordered to abandon the synagogue, and not necessarily that they were allowed to empty it.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

125

an entire paragraph to it in Sefer ha-Miknah, where, in characteristic fashion, he presents the events from a diﬀerent angle.183 The Dangolsheim Expulsion The second episode R. Joseph discusses in this section concerns the imperial village (Reichsdorf ) of Dangolsheim in Lower Alsace. R. Joseph relates, that one day in the month of Adar {February or March 1519} all the Jews were driven out of the village. According to him, it was feared at the time that all the neighbouring towns, including Rosheim, and perhaps also the bishopric of Strasbourg, would follow Dangolsheim’s example. He therefore approached the Bishop of Strasbourg and the Unterlandvogt at Hagenau (“ha-meltsar Hagenui ”, in his words), and after pleading with them, succeeded in persuading them to take action against the village. He journeyed with the Unterlandvogt to Dangolsheim and together they convinced the villagers—apparently by means of threats and harsh words—to restore the Jews to their homes. The Unterlandvogt also took punitive action against the village—this apparently involved the use of horsemen and hired soldiers184—and thus put an end to the disturbances, which had threatened to spread throughout the region. There is also a Christian source on the Dangolsheim expulsion. In a collection of fragments from contemporary chronicles185 is a

183 Compare Sefer ha-Miknah, pp. 14–15, and ibid., the introduction, p. 25 onwards. {For a recent study of R. Joseph’s treatment of the expulsion from Regensburg in Sefer ha-Miknah, see Elisheva Carlebach, “Between History and Myth: The Regensburg Expulsion in Josel of Rosheim’s Sefer ha-Miknah”, in Carlebach et al. (eds.), Jewish History and Jewish Memory—Essays in Honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, Hanover, NH 1998, pp. 40–53. AS} 184 The expression used by R. Joseph, “rokhvei u-marei levav” (= unfortunates), may allude to bands of mercenaries similar to the Armagnaken, who sowed havoc and destruction during their invasion of Alsace in the mid-ﬁfteenth century. These mercenaries, some of whom were cavalrymen, were nicknamed Armagnaken after their leader Bernard d’Armagnac; however, the term also had a popular connotation: “Arme Jäcken”. It should be noted that the Biblical phrase is “mar nefesh” (bitter of soul) and not “mar levav” (bitter of heart); however, the expression “mar levav” also appears in the fragment dealing with the events of 1552, see below, p. 422 and note 30 there. 185 J. Wencker, Extractus ex protocollis Dom. XXI vulgo Sebastian Brants Annalen. Les Chronique de Jacque Trausch et de Jean Wencker, no. 3447, p. 241, Anno 1519, Fol. 173. The extracts have been published in the journal Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Erhaltung der geschichtlichen Denkmäler im Elsaß, 2. Folge, 15, Strasbourg 1890.

126

[8]

5279 (1518⁄19)

note attributed to the year 1519, entitled “Bundschuh”,186 which translated reads as follows: The Dangolsheim peasants are expelling the Jews who are resident in the place, for with the death of His Majesty the Emperor, they {the Jews} once again have no protector (schirmherr), and are involved in all kinds of mischief (unfug). Therefore, the Unterlandvogt has asked the city of Strasbourg to aid him by lending him 30 horses, in order to make the journey to the Oberehnheim functionary and receive {his} instructions (sich bescheydt erholen) . . . It was agreed to give him 20 horses. He has also asked the Bishop for 25 [horses?], and in his region (Landvogtei ) has mustered 40–50 soldiers (Knecht).

The apparently illegal organization of peasants is described in this report as: “the peasants of the Dangolsheim Bundschuh” (Wie die büren von Danckoltzheim Buntschuh gemacht). From these two sources it emerges that the action taken by the village was unauthorized, and therefore constituted a breach of the public peace. The expression “Bundschuh” corresponds to R. Joseph’s words in this section: “And their violation of the privileges and the Landsfrieden”. In common with Regensburg, the village took advantage of the death of the Emperor, and even justiﬁed its action by the very fact that his death had left the Jews without a protector. The spontaneity of the expulsion is demonstrated also by the hasty manner in which it was executed. Emperor Maximilian died on 12 January 1519, which that year fell on 10 Shevat, and the Jews were already driven out the following month, in Adar. Similarly, the expression “with horsemen and hired soldiers” can be understood from what is said in the “Bundschuh” fragment. Curiously enough, the chronicler is completely silent about R. Joseph and his intiative in the aﬀair. He does not mention his presence in the village at the side of the Unterlandvogt. Moreover, he does not describe the “revenge”—the punitive measures taken by the Unterlandvogt against the village—although the impression is gained that the soldiers were recruited for the purpose of putting down the rebellion. He also does not state explicitly that the expulsion was revoked following the Unterlandvogt’s intervention. This we learn from R. Joseph.

186 The term Bundschuh indicates an organization of peasants, and is taken from the peasant uprisings in the years 1493–1517, the forerunners of the Peasants War. See A. Rosenkranz, Der Bundschuh, I–II (Schriften des wissenschaftlichen Instituts der ElsaßLothringer im Reich), Heidelberg 1927, p. 120.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

127

R. Joseph’s involvement in this aﬀair is understandable too in the light of its bearing on the question of the status of the Jews in Rosheim, which was still unresolved at the time when R. Joseph penned his account.187

[9] 5280 (1519/20)* The New Emperor The ceremony in which Charles V was crowned king of Germany, at the imperial city of Aachen in October 1520, marked the conclusion of over a year of interregnum, during which events took place that severely aﬀected German Jewry. The ascent to the throne of the new king should therefore have spelled considerable relief for them. It is true, as S. Stern notes, with some justice, that with his education and family tradition Charles might have been expected to display a rigid and uncompromising attitude towards the Jews;188 however, in this section there is no intimation that R. Joseph’s presence in Aachen was occasioned by any forebodings regarding the future. It must of course be remembered that the Chronicle was written in 1547, and that the author is observing the events from the perspective of his day and times. R. Joseph is completely silent about the festivities at Aachen. Perhaps he only reached the city after the coronation had taken place. Nevertheless, he is accurate when he speaks of Charles as “king” and not “emperor”. He writes that he came to the King to “plead for our people and our inheritance”. Perhaps he is hinting that he came as the spokesman for German Jewry as a whole, as well as for the Jews of Lower Alsace, whose oﬃcial representative he had been since 1510. Possibly the “man who was with him” was a delegate of some central Jewish body. R. Joseph does not write that he came to secure the renewal of Alsatian Jewry’s privileges,

See section 9 of the Chronicle, p. 316, line 4 ﬀ. * {The year 5280 corresponds to 1519/20; however, the events described in this section appear to have taken place in the fall of 1520 and the winter, spring and summer of 1521 (i.e. 5281) AS} 188 S. Stern, pp. 60–61. 187

128

[9]

5280 (1519⁄20)

but he stresses that he received “comprehensive privileges for all of Germany”—for all the Jews of the land. The text of this privilege is preserved in a certiﬁed copy from 1521 in the Stuttgart Archives189 and also in a document of the Emperor Ferdinand I from 1560.190 In that charter Charles notes the Jews’ request that he reconﬁrm all the rights and privileges they had received from his predecessors. This he graciously consents to do, and he conﬁrms letter for letter and word for word all the pledges contained in their charters. Apparently, R. Joseph was promised this privilege already in Aachen, but only actually received it on 3 November 1520 in Cologne, where Charles had journeyed after his coronation. Later, in a charter he accorded the Jews in 1530 at Innsbruck, after he was crowned Emperor, Charles reaﬃrmed the 1520 privilege in its entirety. Nevertheless, according to R. Joseph, at the very same time as he gave his comprehensive privilege to the Jews, the Emperor also granted charters to the region (Vogtei ) of Kaysersberg in Upper Alsace and to R. Joseph’s own city of residence, Rosheim, authorizing them to expel their Jews. Indeed, evidence is available from a non-Jewish source that the cities of Kaysersberg and Schlettstadt were accorded such a privilege.191 Extant also are the charters of rights called De non tolerandis Judaeis issued on 31 August 1521 to the cities of Ammerschweier, Türkheim, Winzenheim and a number of smaller places— all of these in the region of Kaysersberg. On 20 April 1521, Rosheim had received a similar charter.192 Clearly these are the privileges to which R. Joseph is referring. According to R. Joseph, all these developments occurred “in the same year”. He is apparently referring to the year 1520, which is mentioned at the beginning of this section. However, another explanation is possible. The Emperor’s coronation took place in October 1520, and the privilege to German Jewry was conferred in November

189

HStA Stuttgart, A 56 U 6b, with a notarial certiﬁcate (vidimus) of 1521. This was published in a collection of documents of the Emperor Ferdinand: S. Limnaeus, Tomus IV, Juris publici, Strasbourg 1650, p. 301, according to Feilchenfeld, p. 53n. 191 HHStA Wien, Buchstabe Sch, Fasz. IV. At the end of the document are the words: “conﬁrmatio privilegii”. It appears that the charter was not preserved in its entirety and there is some uncertainty about the date. See Germania Judaica, III/1, s.v. Kaysersberg, p. 609, and footnote 22 there. 192 HHStA Wien, Mandate, Fasz. I, Rosheim Stadt, Judenfreiheit, 20 April 1521. 190

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

129

of that year; April and August 1521 could therefore also be considered as being within what R. Joseph calls “the same year”.193 Although the privileges granted to these cities were totally at variance with those bestowed on German Jewry, this was not an unusual occurrence. In those days, the various instruments of government often operated in a completely uncoordinated fashion, and the emperor would sign documents placed before him even when these conﬂicted with each other.194 From R. Joseph’s words it can be inferred that the expulsion decrees were issued after the Diet {of Worms of 1521}, namely, when R. Joseph was already not on the scene.* We know from another source that the expulsion permit granted to Rosheim was obtained by emissaries from Oberehnheim who, according to R. Joseph, did so on their own initiative. R. Joseph seems to have made a special journey to the place where the Emperor was holding court after the Diet, and there he succeeded in preventing the expulsion from the Kaysersberg region. The imperial city of Kaysersberg was one of the places where Jews had been attacked by Swiss soldiers during the Burgundy War, and from that time on there was an unremitting struggle over the right of the Jews to dwell there. Like Oberehnheim, Kaysersberg had requested permission to expel its Jews, but was eventually obliged to acquiesce to the presence of two Jewish families in the city. Possibly all the Jews eventually left the city, but continued to reside in the region.195 Historians have speculated that there was an expulsion of Jews from the Kaysersberg region in 1522,196 basing this hypothesis on the existence of the charter mentioned by R. Joseph. However, it is hard to imagine that an expulsion did take place, since R. Joseph

193 There is no need to assume that there was an expulsion threat in 1520 that was lifted, and that afterwards came the expulsion edict of 1521. See the entry in the Germania Judaica on Kaysersberg, para. 13d. {See note at the beginning of this section. AS} 194 See above, General Introduction, p. 15. * {C. Fraenkel-Goldschmidt assumes that R. Joseph attended this Diet. However, R. Joseph’s audience(s) with Charles V, referred to here, took place towards the end of 1520, and the Diet of Worms met between January and May 1521. Moreover, had he attended the 1521 Diet, he would presumably have mentioned this fact in his Chronicle, as he does in other cases. Translator} 195 According to the Germania Judaica entry on Kaysersberg. 196 Ibid., p. 609.

130

[10]

5282 (1521⁄22)

had no knowledge of any such occurrence. With regard to the charter, he writes, “that particular expulsion charter was cancelled”, referring apparently to the charter De non tolerandis Judaeis. As for Rosheim, that city too exerted much eﬀort to prevent the readmission of the Jews after they had ﬂed during the Burgundy War, and there were apparently years when Jews did not dwell there. However, after 1514, R. Joseph was granted permission to reside in the city, and there is no doubt that other Jews were already living there at the time. All the same, tension between the Jews and the city authorities continued down the years. Time and again, the Jews in Rosheim were threatened with imminent expulsion. R. Joseph expresses this well when he writes, “The Rosheim expulsion charter was not revoked. By dint of supreme eﬀorts we succeeded time after time, with great diﬃculty, in obtaining yet another postponement. To this day we still do not know [how matters will turn out] . . .”. Unlike the Kaysersberg region, Rosheim did not have its privilege to expel the Jews revoked. Under such conditions, continuous and arduous negotiations were doubtless necessary, in order to ensure that, at least until 1554, the Jews were not expelled.197 After R. Joseph’s death, it seems that only one of his sons continued to reside in Rosheim.198

[10] 5282 (1521/22) The Diet of Nuremberg A large portion of this section is devoted to the Oberehnheim Aﬀair, which we discussed in the introduction to section 4 of the Chronicle (for 1505–1507).

197 In that year, R. Joseph submitted to the Unterlandvogt of the Hagenau region a long bill of complaint, extending to 10 sections, against the city of Rosheim. (ArchDep Bas-Rhin, C 78 (54)). The city studiously rejected each of his arguments (ibid., C 78 (61)). The document has been published by Feilchenfeld, appendix XXX, pp. 207–11. 198 M. Stern, “Joselmann von Rosheim und seine Nachkommen”, ZGJD, 3 (1889), p. 67. And see also Y. Tishby, “Teudot mi-Ketav Yado shel R. Moshe Loanz” (Documents Written by R. Moses Loans), Sefer Assaf, Jerusalem 1953, pp. 515–28.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

131

The section opens with a reference to an assembly convened by the Chief Rabbi, R. Samuel of Worms, in Nuremberg, which, R. Joseph appears to imply, took place concurrently with the meeting of the Diet in that city in the years 1522–1523.199 Our author does not disclose why the Rabbi called an urgent meeting, and what the subject was of the discussions. Various explanations have been oﬀered. Feilchenfeld surmises that R. Joseph was in Nuremberg in connection with an attack on a Jew,200 but he has no information about his actions in this regard. He is undoubtedly referring to the attempted murder of the Jew Phal near Oberehnheim, hinted at further on in this section. S. Stern201 believes, following M. Stern,202 that the occasion for the assembly was a tax demanded of the Jews to subsidize the Reichsregiment, which, in the early 1520s, was a permanent governmental body that sat at Nuremberg between one meeting of the Diet and the next. According to her, Rabbi Samuel was ordered to collect the special tax from all of German Jewry. This is not a reference to the payment to the Emperor of the Opferpfennig—a personal tax of one guilder a year imposed on all adult Jews and paid directly into the imperial treasury—but to an extraordinary tax. The Rabbi protested that he was not competent to decide this matter alone, and he was ordered by the authorities to summon a meeting of community representatives at Nuremberg.203 It is indeed possible that the words, “We were required to come . . . at the decree* of the great

199 For the Nuremberg Diet, which opened in 1522 and continued its sessions in 1523, see Deutsche Reichstagsakten, Jüngere Reihe 3, Reichstag Nürnberg 1522, no. 24, pp. 137, 146–47, 194, 234; J. Janssen, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters, fourteenth edition, II, Freiburg im Breisgau 1903, pp. 257–75. The debates at this Diet ranged chieﬂy around two topics: subsidizing the war against the Turks—who captured the island of Rhodes while the Diet was actually in session—and the struggle against Luther and his doctrine. The imperial cities opposed all additional levies, stressing that they were simply being asked to pay up, but were being denied the right to participate or wield any inﬂuence in the debates themselves. Among the decisions of this Diet: the rejection of all religious innovations and a prohibition on the printing of Luther’s writings. 200 Feilchenfeld, p. 99. 201 S. Stern, p. 66. 202 See M. Stern (in his study of R. Samuel of Worms), in Die israelitische Bevölkerung, VII—Worms, Part 1: Die Reichsrabbiner . . ., p. 5. 203 The document is in Worms City Archives and has been published by M. Stern, ibid., pp. 16–17. * {R. Joseph uses the word gezeira, which generally means “an anti-Jewish decree or persecution”. Translator}

132

[10]

5282 (1521⁄22)

rabbi, our teacher, Rabbi Samuel”, could imply that this was a governmental order that Rabbi Samuel implemented, although there is no clear proof of this. As to Feilchenfeld’s theory, it seems to me that the statement “and on that occasion I submitted a complaint . . .” does not permit the interpretation that there was an a priori connection between the meeting of Jewish representatives at Nuremberg and the problem of the ill treatment of the Jews by the Oberehnheim city authorities. The subject of the Jews came up for debate a number of times during the Diet: it is known that the Imperial Estates presented a proposal to levy on the Jews, in addition to the regular taxes, a poll tax of one guilder per person—a very large sum for those days. Moreover, there were renewed calls to prohibit the Jews from practicing usury. These proposals were brought to the attention of the Emperor, who was at that time in Spain; he returned an answer that it was permitted to levy taxes on the Jews only for his own requirements; for his part, he stressed, he was quite prepared to expel the Jews totally, if this was desirable for the sake of the Christian faith; it was preferable to expel the Jews rather than to burden them with additional taxes.204 During the Diet session the Estates also made serious complaints (schwere Klagen) about the practice of coin-clipping, of which they accused the Jews, and the fact that the “good coins of the land are being poured by Jews and Christians alike into the ‘welschenlanden’”205 (die gute münze durch Juden und Christen in welschenlanden geschleppt). This matter was accorded a special mention in the Diet resolutions.206 These complaints were reinforced by, and may even have originated from, another source. In the Nuremberg State Archives is a collection of documents, consisting mainly of letters written by a Jew named Moses of Silesia to the Nuremberg city council.207 In them he attempts to inform the city about sundry coin counterfeits ostensibly perpetrated by Jews. Most of the letters appear to be written in his own handwriting,208 a few are in another hand—perhaps copies 204

Deutsche Reichstagsakten, no. 24, p. 234. Namely Italy. 206 Deutsche Reichstagsakten, no. 24, p. 146, and vol. 4, p. 494. 207 StA Nürnberg, Bestand A, Laden-Akten Nr. 5, I Laden 81 Nr. 12. 208 In his letters, written in German, he was in the habit of substituting the letter “b” for every “w” (possibly inﬂuenced by the Hebrew, in which the consonants v and b are indicated by the same letter). 205

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

133

prepared by the city chancellory. One of the letters bears the signature “Moyses weisswerk (= Weissberk) aus Schlesien”, and it is entirely possible that this is the name of the author of all the documents. In the ﬁrst communication209 he begins by stating that he has written a letter from “norling” (Nördlingen) requesting a travel permit and permission to lodge in Nuremberg (Geleit und herberg) as he had received in Ulm and in Nördling[en]. He wishes to inform the city about all manner of coin counterfeiting perpetrated by Jews (von wegen der falschen muncz), and other matters. He had received letters of recommendation from the Bund [the Swabian?] to the city of Nuremberg, so he claims, but the latter has not yet sent him a reply (antburt). In particular, he wishes to give information about the fünfer [a coin?] which is being minted “here” (alhie) [where? in Swabia?], that it is being exported to Venice and from there to Germany, that proﬁts of 30 or more guilders on every 100 are being made on it, and that it is Jews who are responsible for converting it (Sie werden ausgebeschelt [ausgewechselt?] von den Juden) and exporting it daily out of the land. Many of them are carrying counterfeit money with them, and many merchants are causing the coins [the good?] to be exported from the country. A Jew and Jewess whom he knows well, he adds, have told him that at some place between “here” [?] and Schwabach is a Jew, who has brought many counterfeit coins into Swabia, and also into the state of Württemberg, and into numerous other lands. There were also additional crimes about which he wished to inform the council in person. The second document in the collection is a long letter from that same Moses of Silesia. In it, he writes that Jews and Christians from many lands are meeting monks [?] (brüder) on the road to Rome and are exchanging the monks’ good money for counterfeit. At the inn, they are buying gold and silver articles from the landlord and paying in counterfeit coin. He accuses his coreligionists of taking excessive interest and engaging in much sharp practice, about which he wishes to report in person. He again asks that he be granted permission to enter the city, so that he can bring about the arrest of those criminal Jews, and he stresses that he is awaiting an answer, which apparently was slow in coming. The whole letter is confused and constantly harps on the same themes. 209 Archival signature: Lade A 147, 14. On the outside of this letter are the words: received 4 September (?) 1522.

134

[10]

5282 (1521⁄22)

In another letter he writes that when he lived for a while in Italy, he learned that there, in Mantua and in Causile [?]* a great deal of money is being counterfeited, and that many Jews, whom he knows by name, are involved in it. In an additional document he lists the names of 18 Jews, residents of diﬀerent cities and villages, whom, he alleges, are engaged in this activity in their places of domicile. The collection contains other documents of a similar nature. The writer constantly reiterates the claim that he is unable to fulﬁl his mission, which is for the good of the Holy Roman Empire and the good of the land, and aquaint the city with the monstrous trickery practised by the Jews—this apparently due to the fact that he did not receive an entrance permit to Nuremberg. Taken as a whole, these documents depict what might be described as an international criminal network headed by Jews, although Christians too are accomplices in the felonious acts. All the documents rehearse the same two charges: (1) The Jews are coin counterfeiters; (2) The Jews are behind the smuggling of all the good silver and gold coinage out of the land. These two charges were precisely those that were levelled against the Jews at the Diet meeting of 1522–1523. Although it seems that Moses of Silesia was not granted an entry permit to Nuremberg, and none of the documents in the ﬁle indicate that his complaints were even investigated, it is highly probable that his letters did whip up anger against the Jews. It may well be that as a result of these letters, which reached the oﬃces of the city council at regular intervals, the Chief Rabbi was instructed to take action, and he summoned a meeting of all the Jewish representatives. Alternatively, the calling of the assembly may have had some connection with the allegations against Luther, raised at the meeting of the Diet, that he professed to Jewish beliefs. R. Joseph notes at various times that the Jews were accused of having taught Luther his doctrine.210 In Nuremberg, the Jewish representatives were hardly welcomed with open arms. On the advice of the city council, the Diet approved a decision that only Jews who had to appear before the Kammergericht or Reichsregiment, or received special permission from the city council, * {Casale Monterrato? AS} 210 See the “Letter of Consolation”, below, pp. 362 and 371–372.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

135

would be eligible for an entrance permit to the city (hierher geleiten), so as to prevent “all kinds of criminal activity, and, in particular, the counterfeiting of coins” (um Meuterei Unrat und besonders Falschmünzerei zu verhüten).211 Furthermore, according to a Diet decision of 23 January 1523, the city council asked the Reichsregiment to require all Jews receiving entrance permits to the city during and after the Diet to wear an identifying badge (ein kenntliches Zeichen tragen), in order to distinguish them from the Christians, and thus, “there will be a greater likelihood that they will refrain from their forbidden and nefarious activities” (sie sich um so eher ihrer bösen verbotenen Händel entschlagen).212 It is quite remarkable that in such an atmosphere R. Joseph still succeeded in reopening the question of Oberehnheim’s treatment of the Jews, and securing the appointment of the commission of inquiry presided over by the Abbot of Weissenburg.213 The date that R. Joseph puts at the head of this section poses no small diﬃculty. M. Stern has shown in his study on the chief rabbis of the Empire, that Rabbi Samuel was summoned to appear before the Diet towards the end of 1523, and that the invitation to an assembly of Jewish delegates was dispatched on November 16th of that year. Therefore, the assembly could not have convened before the start of 1524. This diﬃculty can be solved if we presume that R. Joseph’s attendance at this Diet, as at other Diets, was unrelated to the Rabbi’s summons. Among other matters, he dealt with the problem of Oberehnheim.214 In his account, he makes a connection between these activities and the Rabbi’s letter to the Jews, which, as remarked, was sent out only at the end of 1523. The Chief Rabbi, R. Samuel The Chief Rabbi, R. Samuel of Worms, also known as vom See, was appointed to oﬃce at the beginning of the reign of Charles V, in accordance with a decree of 22 May 1521.215 211

Deutsche Reichstagsakten, vol. 3, pp. 40–42. “Bestimmungen des Nürnberger Rates für die Aufrechterhaltung der Ordnung während des Reichstags”, ibid., p. 249. 213 For this episode, see section 10 of the Chronicle, p. 316, and the introduction to section 4, p. 86. 214 See above, p. 86, note 84. 215 Part of the text of the writ of appointment has been printed by M. Stern in Die israelitische Bevölkerung VII, Worms, vol. 1, pp. 15–16, from a copy in Worms City Archives. 212

136

[10]

5282 (1521⁄22)

R. Joseph calls him “our teacher, Rabbi Samuel of blessed memory”, so in 1546, when the Chronicle was written, he was evidently no longer alive. There is a document dated 1552, relating to divorce proceedings between a certain couple, in which R. Joseph claims that he is not competent to deal with the matter, but that the case should be taken to the Rabbi of Worms (der oberste Rabe zu Wurmbs), who had married the couple. Presumably what R. Joseph means is that the case should be adjudicated by the higher rabbinical court in Worms, and not necessarily by the rabbi who married the couple. It was this document that led M. Stern to conclude that Rabbi Samuel was still alive in 1552.216 He also goes so far as to determine that R. Joseph could not have written his Chronicle before 1552, basing himself on the testimony of the scholar E. Carmoly, who saw extracts of memoirs by R. Joseph up to the year 1554. Carmoly was undoubtedly referring to notes written by R. Joseph at the end of the manuscript of Sefer ha-Miknah,217 and perhaps to other writings by him from that time. True, there is no indication in the Chronicle of its date of writing, only of the date when the event occurred that led to R. Joseph’s decision to start writing—5304 (1543/44). However, it is hard to believe that the Chronicle was written only in 1552, as there is no record in it of the events that took place between the years 1547 and 1552. It can also be proved that Rabbi Samuel of Worms died in 1543. In a document of 28 March 1543, King Ferdinand authorizes the request of Imperial Jewry to continue to retain the services of the three dayanim {rabbinical judges} who had assisted Chief Rabbi Samuel, on account of his weakness and great age, also after the Rabbi’s death (Wann aber nun obbemellter Rabi Samuel mit Todt abganngen . . .).218 Indeed, there was a considerable interval between the death of Rabbi Samuel and the appointment of his successor, Rabbi Jacob of Worms, in 1559,219 and during that time the three dayanim 216

Ibid., p. 26. For example, his notes about the events of 1551–1552. See Appendix 3, below, p. 418. 218 HHStA Wien, Reichsregister Bücher, Ferdinand VI, pp. 30b–31. 219 The original writ of appointment has been lost; there is a copy in Hebrew letters in Frankfurt City Archives, from which the document was transcribed into German in 1607. Compare also M. Stern, “Ein Copialbuch der jüdischen Gemeinde zu Worms”, ZGJD, 1 (1887), p. 278. Extant too are petitions submitted by various German communities requesting the appointment of a new chief rabbi and proposing R. Jacob of Worms as a suitable candidate. See G. Wolf, “Zur Geschichte der 217

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

137

continued to oﬃciate. Thus it is easy to explain why R. Joseph referred to Rabbi Samuel as “of blessed memory”. This document also disproves all M. Stern’s other calculations.

[11] 5285 (1524/25) The Peasants War The Peasants War of 1525 marked the climax of the growing social discontent that had manifested itself in various regions of Germany, notably in Alsace, from the late ﬁfteenth century, and had already found expression in the 1493 Bundschuh Rising, and in Joss Fritz’s movement in the years 1511–1517.220 In 1493, the Alsatian peasants called for the institution of a jubilee year, the remission of debts and the cancellation of oppressive levies and duties, declaring that they were only willing to pay taxes to which they had agreed. They demanded that in court cases they should be tried by their equals. They also called for the abrogation of the powers of the ecclesiastical courts in Strasbourg and of the Imperial Court of Justice at Rottweil and for the expulsion of the Jews. Since the peasants’ chief objective was to free themselves from the onerous yoke of a variety of dues and taxes, it is understandable why certain articles in their programme were aimed, directly or indirectly, against the Jews. The peasants were mired in debt, and their Juden in Deutschland”, ZGJD, 3 (1889), p. 161. The writ of appointment issued by Emperor Ferdinand at Augsburg on 26 June 1559 has been printed in its entirety (according to the aforementioned copies) by M. Stern in his study “Der Wormser Reichsrabbiner Jakob”, pp. 180–81, which also surveys the literature on the subject (notes 2 and 3 there). 220 This account is based mainly on the following works: W. Zimmermann, Geschichte des großen Bauernkriegs, Essen 1856; H. W. Bensen, Geschichte des Bauernkriegs in Ostfranken, Erlangen 1840; G. Franz, Der deutsche Bauernkrieg (1933), Darmstadt 1956 (hereafter: Franz 1); idem, Quellen zur Geschichte des Bauernkriegs (Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte der Neuzeit, Freiherr vom Stein Gedächnissausgabe II), Munich 1963 (hereafter: Franz 2); H. Schreiber, Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg, Freiburg 1866; H. Buzello, P. Blickle and R. Enders (eds.), Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg, Paderborn-MunichVienna-Zurich 1982, pp. 80–89; H. Hantsch, Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg, Würzburg 1925; M. Bensing & S. Hoyer, Der deutsche Bauernkrieg 1524–1526, Militärverlag der DDR, Berlin 1987. Additional literature is referred to in the appropriate places.

138

[11]

5285 (1524⁄25)

creditors were generally Jews. When they were sued for defaulting on their debts, it was often before the ecclesiastical courts221 or before the Imperial Court of Justice, to which many Jews directed complaints about debts.222 In 1517, peasant demands were still more far-reaching, including calls for the expulsion of the nobility, and even their extermination, the repudiation of any form of authority, and the cancellation of interest payments and all taxes save those levied for the good of the Emperor and Empire. Both in 1493 and in 1517 the rebels were egged on by preachers, who inﬂamed the masses and convinced them that they were speaking in the name of the divine law or the “old good law”. However, these two uprisings were swiftly quelled. The Peasants Revolt of 1524–1525 was an additional link in the chain of uprisings, but was distinguished from its predecessors by both its scope and its character. The immediate cause of the rebellion was a local incident—a nobleman’s ill treatment of his peasants in the lordship of Stühlingen in the southern Black Forest—but it spread like wildﬁre throughout Germany, particularly in its southern and western regions, and even penetrated adjoining countries. All over Germany, thousands and tens of thousands of peasants assembled at meeting points or centres—Haufen, as they were called. They would generally take over the local monastery, expel its occupants, conﬁscate its property, drink all the stock of wine in the cellars, and remain in the place until embarking on their next enterprise. They moved from city to city, demanding that the gates be opened, and that the citizens swear an oath of ﬁdelity to their struggle and send men to join them. And as they advanced, there undoubtedly was a steady growth in the numbers of their sympathizers and those joining their ranks. Who were these sympathizers? Most of them were peasants who could no longer endure the oppression of the nobility and clergy, be it the demands for payments and services or the suppression of their rights as free villagers. The peasants were joined by members of the lesser nobility, who, owing to the increased employment of

221 See Franz 1, pp. 58–59. The author explains there that nonpayment of a debt was considered a violation of an oath and such cases came under the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. 222 For this, see above, the General Introduction, p. 23, and, in greater detail, in the introduction to section 15 of the Chronicle, below, pp. 179–180.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

139

hired auxiliary forces, found their power declining. They were joined as well by petty tradesmen, who were unable to compete with the large merchant concerns that had sprung up in the cities, and were impotent in the face of the developing capitalist market and the high imposts. Once again there were preachers and rabble-rousers in the peasants’ camp; they had already imbibed some of the Lutheran teachings, and it was they who accorded the uprising a distinct religious dimension.223 Already in its early stages the peasants’ uprising displayed a palpable anti-clerical bent. In this connection, the peasants’ campaign was directed principally against matters such as the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the corrupt practices associated with various ecclesiastical oﬃces, and the Church’s enormous wealth. In addition, they expressed their desire to choose their own minister, and to hear only pure evangelical sermons “untarnished by any man-made additions to the words of God”. 223

Due to the great variety of participants in the uprising and their diverse demands, scholars have examined the peasants’ movement from many diﬀerent points of view. Some see economic injustice as the decisive factor, some stress the problem of the peasants’ legal status and the denial of their personal freedom. Yet others underscore the religious factor. Compare, for example, the studies in the collection: B. Moeller (ed.), Bauernkriegsstudien (Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte, 189, Jg. 82/2; 83), Gütersloh 1975, especially the following monographs: H. Boockmann, “Zu den geistigen und religiösen Voraussetzungen des Bauernkriegs” (pp. 9–29), which places the emphasis on Luther’s doctrine as a cause of the uprising; F. Rapp, “Die soziale und wirtschaftliche Vorgeschichte des Bauernkrieges im Unterelsaß” (pp. 29–47), which concentrates, in particular, on Lower Alsace, stressing such factors as the change in the coinage and the severe famines that aﬄicted the region in the years before the war. Worthy of note is the study by H. O. Oberman, “Tumultus Rusticorum”, in: P. Blickle (ed.), Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg von 1525, Darmstadt 1985. Oberman concludes that the movement was fueled by religio-social trends and popular beliefs, which were deeply anchored in the city-culture of that period (pp. 219–21 and p. 225), and that the leaders of the uprising were not all necessarily peasants. On the other hand, he stresses the major role played by Luther’s doctrine in the formulation of the peasants’ demands (pp. 221–22). He also rejects the explanation that the peasants merely brandished religious slogans, while in reality their main demands were economic and social, and he demonstrates that at the start of the struggle there were genuine religious trends at work (pp. 234–36). For this, see also, W. Stolze, “Bauernkrieg und Reformation”, Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte, 141, Jg. 44/2, Leipzig 1926, which points to the strong link between Reformation ideas and the peasants’ demands, and notes (p. 56) that some of the Reformers themselves stemmed from peasant circles. Most scholars conclude that no single factor was at work here but a whole range, while scholars with Marxist leanings regard the Peasants War as manifestly an economic struggle. See, for example, G. Heumann, La guerre des paysans d’Alsace et de Mosel, Paris 1976.

140

[11]

5285 (1524⁄25)

The peasants lacked the resources in money, provisions and weapons to proceed with the struggle on their own. They relied on the cities, perceiving them as their natural allies. And it is true to say that the lower urban classes—the artisans and petty tradesmen as well as many peasants who resided in the cities and worked the surrounding land—all sympathized with the peasants’ struggle, and when the peasant forces advanced towards a city, they would endeavour to open the city gates to them and even to join their ranks. The cities were faced with a serious dilemma. They knew that aiding the peasants was tantamount to rebellion and a breach of their oath of allegiance to their lord the nobleman or to the Emperor. Moreover, among the higher classes, including the established middle class, there was also the fear that their cities might be devastated by rampaging peasants. However, as remarked, many townspeople openly or secretly supported the peasants, or at least acknowledged the justice of their demands. Thus, most cities debated whether to concede to the peasants’ demands or risk that their city fall into their hands. On occasion, the gates were opened through a subterfuge or against the wishes of the city administration. Some cities entered into negotiations with the peasants and parleyed with them concerning their demands. In this way, they also hoped to gain time. When the local administrators, the representatives of the territorial princes, perceived the extent of the uprising, they too began negotiating with the peasants and promised to convey to their masters the rebels’ demands. City representatives often served as intermediaries. The peasants were required to specify their demands in precise terms. The claims and stipulations raised by the peasants in their centres were determined partially by local conditions and grievances that did not always apply to the peasants as a whole. However, the various demands were eventually formulated into “The 12 Articles”—the joint document that all the peasant Haufen ultimately accepted. Only in a few locations did the peasants disperse peacefully following the negotiations. The overlords did not always seriously intend to bargain with the peasants but rather wished to procrastinate. The peasants, on the other hand, were enraged, and frequently would not listen even to honest propositions. After the peasants had gained not inconsiderable local successes, an army composed of contingents from the Swabian League and the armies of Elector Philip of Hesse and Duke Anthony of Lorraine

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

141

was organized to subdue their centres of resistance in Alsace. Against such overwhelming force the peasants were unable to stand their ground, and they generally made haste to lay down their arms. Nevertheless, the combined armies attacked them and crushed the rebellion with immense cruelty. Tens of thousands of peasants were put to the sword, drowned in the Danube or hung. Those who survived were forced to pay heavy ﬁnes over a period of many years for their part in the uprising. Scholars believe that the considerable diﬀusion of the peasant movement, which never became one uniﬁed body, as well as overdependence on the cities—which ultimately were shown to be false allies—were the factors responsible for the peasants’ overwhelming defeat. An additional decisive cause of their defeat was, in the opinion of researchers, the negative attitude to the movement of the leading Reformers. The peasants placed at the top of their programme their demand to institute the Reformed faith in the cities and villages. In their struggle against the excessive privileges enjoyed by the priests and the riches amassed by the clergy and monasteries, in their demand to forcibly abolish the monasteries and distribute their wealth among the poor, they saw themselves as Luther’s disciples. Indeed, many peasants averred at their trials that they had merely obeyed the instructions of the Reformed ministers in Strasbourg and elsewhere. However, from the moment that Luther and his followers abandoned them, and Luther published his harsh tract against them,224 the peasants could no longer justify their actions.225 Consequently,

224 Wider die räuberischen und mörderischen Rotten der Bauern (1525), Luthers Werke, WA XVIII, pp. 344–61, in which Luther urges that the peasants be pounded mercilessly and their uprising ruthlessly crushed. 225 The claim that the peasants regarded themselves as Luther’s followers who were implementing his ideas was made already at the time. After the publication of Luther’s inﬂammatory tract, the humanist Johannes Cochlaeus, an opponent of Luther, published a response: Antwort auf Luthers Schrift ‘wider die Räuberischen und mörderischen Rotten der Bauern’, ein kurzer Begriﬀ vom Aufruhr der Bauern, in: Flugschriften der Bauernkriegszeit, second edition, (ed.) A. Laube and H. W. Seiﬀert, Cologne-Vienna 1978, pp. 376–411. In his response he rejects Luther’s arguments point-by-point, and contends that it was the Reformer who had stirred up and incited the peasants, and then ultimately betrayed them. He concludes by describing the bitter fate of the peasants in every place where they had risen in rebellion. His writing is polemical, but there is clear evidence of his genuine solidarity with the peasants in their calamity. To this day a sharp controversy continues to rage in the critical literature over the question of Luther’s responsibility for the peasants’ uprising (see above, note 223).

142

[11]

5285 (1524⁄25)

the members of the old faith (the Duke of Lorraine) and the new faith (Philip of Hesse) joined forces to destroy them. We are concerned here with one particular aspect of the Peasants War—the events in Alsace. The main band of Alsatian peasants was located in the Abbey of Altdorf in the vicinity of Rosheim. They were led by Erasmus (or Asmuss) Gerber of Molsheim, along with three other men: Diebolt von Dahlheim, Peter von Nartheim, and Jorg Itel, a former mayor (Schultheiss) of Rosheim. It was in Altdorf that the Alsatian peasants drew up their own “Twelve Articles” containing the following demands: sermons to be in a pure evangelical spirit; abolition of the church tithe; cancellation of all interest and feudal payments; borrowers to pay annual interest, until it reached the sum of the principal at which point the debt was to be remitted; freedom to use the water, forests and trees; abolition of the perpetual serfdom of the peasantry; abrogation of the rule of any prince or overlord other than a ruler acceptable to the peasants (the Emperor?); preservation of the old law and justice; appointment of a district administrator (Amtmann) of their own choosing; cancellation of death duties; restoration of grazing land for public use. They declared that they would be willing to retract their demands if these were shown to contradict the Holy Scriptures.226 Reciting their demands, the peasants appeared at city gates. In Alsace, as elsewhere, reactions were mixed. There were cities that capitulated to their demands at once, or after a period of indecision (Schlettstadt, Kaysersberg, Bergheim), and there were others that ﬁrmly resisted them (Colmar, Ensisheim). Strasbourg was in a particularly diﬃcult position: on the one hand, it did not want the peasants to take over the city, on the other, its residents were betraying considerable sympathy for their struggle.227 The Reformed doctrine was already ﬁrmly established in the city; therefore, the peasants regarded Strasbourg as one of their main allies. In addition, the city feared the foreign forces that threatened to descend upon the region to suppress the uprising. Its attempts to convince the peasants to 226

Zimmermann, Geschichte des großen Bauernkriegs, p. 105. For Strasbourg’s actions and the atmosphere in the city during the Peasants War, see the collection of city correspondence: H. Virck, Politische Correspondenz der Stadt Straßburg im Zeitalter der Reformation, I, and the article by K. Hartfelder, “Straßburg während des Bauernkriegs von 1525”, Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, 32, Göttingen 1883. 227

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

143

disperse peacefully and to mediate between them and their various overlords came to naught. It even sent its three Lutheran pastors, Wolfgang Capito, Martin Bucer and Matthias Zell, to explain to the peasants that their actions were not in accordance with the will of God. Thus, it succeeded in prevailing upon them not to enter its bounds, without breaking oﬀ relations with them. It also succeeded in obtaining from them letters of protection for its residents, as well as a promise that they would not harm Strasbourg citizens (including the clergy), nor require them to swear oaths of ﬁdelity to their cause. For their part, the peasant leaders demanded from the city council that all the citizens residing in the surrounding countryside be brought into the city; failing that, they would be compelled to take the said oath.228 Indeed, Strasbourg served as a haven for the nobility, for monks and priests who ﬂed inside its walls,229 and also, as we shall see below, for the Jews. While there is a wealth of documentation regarding Strasbourg’s role in the Peasants War, we know of the events in Rosheim only from R. Joseph. He relates in a letter to the city of Hagenau, written some 30 years later, that it was he who saved Rosheim from the peasants.230 He recounts that the peasant leaders informed him in the greatest of secrecy that they intended to start out the following morning from Altdorf and set up camp in Rosheim. That same night he hastened to alert the city leaders. The city authorities ordered that the city gates not be opened, and in the morning the peasants found them locked. They were not yet suﬃciently powerful to break through into the city; however, when their numbers grew, they reappeared and once again threatened Rosheim. On this occasion too R. Joseph came to the city’s aid. He relates that he made his way to the peasants’ camp and negotiated with them. In exchange for 80 guilders (out of the Jews’ own pockets?) the peasants gave him a written promise that they would not enter the city until all the other imperial cities became their allies. According to R. Joseph they kept this promise. How was it that R. Joseph’s appeals found a ready ear with the peasants, while the city’s mayor, who accompanied him,231 apparently 228

See Virck, Politische Correspondenz, no. 265. See Strobel, Vaterländische Geschichte des Elsasses, IV—Elsaß unter Kaiser Maximilian, p. 33. 230 ArchDep Bas-Rhin, C 78 (54); printed by Feilchenfeld, Beilage XXX, p. 207. 231 Ibid.: “. . . und Jacob Wagner, Burgermeister selig, bei mir zu Altorﬀ . . .”. 229

144

[11]

5285 (1524⁄25)

did not dare to intercede with them? Before attempting to answer this question, we must examine the fate of the Jews during the Peasants War in Germany in general and in Alsace in particular. The Jews in the Peasants War The comprehensive article by A. Stern provides us with the fragmentary information that we have on the fate of the Jews during the Peasants War.232 We know that the peasants’ camp included elements that were very hostile to the Jews. One of the most prominent speakers in the peasants’ camp in Swabia was the fanatical preacher Balthasar Hubmeier, who some years earlier had inﬂamed the citizens of Regensburg with his sermons against the Jews until he had the Jewish community expelled from the city in 1519. Active in the peasant movement in Franconia was the preacher Dr. Johannes Teuschlein, who had been responsible for the expulsion of the Jews from Rothenburg in 1520.233 It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Jews suﬀered during the tumults. One of the participants in the uprising admitted during his trial that he and his comrades had been ordered by the peasant leader in his region to turn over to the collective body of the peasants all the purloined Jewish property they had collected in their houses. Thus he had been relieved of a bed, which had belonged to a Jew. His share of the booty was Jewish clothing—a pair of trousers, two tunics and a woman’s gown. He claimed that the said leader had been in charge of the spoils (Büttmeister), and had publicly auctioned oﬀ whatever remained of it.234 This random report describes what undoubtedly was typical behaviour for the peasants in many places. In “Articles” formulated by the peasants, the Jews are mentioned several times: in the region of Basel, the peasants called for the expulsion of the Jews from the land and the denial of entry to any new Jews.235 In the bishopric of Basel, they demanded that the property 232 A. Stern, “Die Juden im großen deutschen Bauernkrieg 1525”, Jüdische Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben, 8 Jg., Breslau 1870, pp. 57–72. 233 Bensen, Geschichte des Bauernkiegs in Ostfranken, p. 67; Franz 1, p. 10. 234 Schreiber, Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg, Beilage zu Nr. 492, p. 199. 235 H. J. Schreiber, Urkundenbuch der Stadt Freiburg im Breisgau, III, Freiburg 1828, p. 22: Artikel der Bauern auf der Tagsatzung zu Basel, Paragraph 20: “Desgleichen sollen alle Juden allenthalben aus dem Land vertrieben und von den Obrigkeiten zu Burger noch zu Hintersas nicht mehr angenommen, weder geschützt noch geschirmt werden.”

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

145

of the Jews be handed over to them. At the same time, they recommended that the Emperor protect the Jews and grant them land for their livelihood (!).236 The peasants of the Rheingau demanded that Jews be barred from dwelling permanently or temporarily in their region, because of “the serious damage they are inﬂicting upon the common people”. They further requested that no judge be permitted to adjudicate for the Jews in matters of interest, and that no more than the principal of any loan should be repaid.237 The peasants of the bishopric of Mainz called for restrictions on Jewish trade in new clothes and silver vessels, and limitations on interest rates.238 At the gates of Frankfurt on Main, laborious negotiations were conducted between the city council and the peasants, one point of issue being the peasants’ insistence that the Jews be deprived of their sources of livelihood;239 in Fulda, meanwhile, the peasants demanded permission to deal with the Jews as they saw ﬁt.240 Apparently the question of the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts over the debts to the Jews was one of the matters concerning which the peasants demanded a solution, although there is no mention of it in the available sources. Extant is a mandate by the Emperor from 1525, apparently issued in the wake of the Peasants War, which states that whereas before a regular court (in gemeinen rechten) it is forbidden for a poor (or: a common) person to swear an oath that his debt does not include interest (Wucher—excessive interest?), the same is not true for an ecclesiastical court. This provision was clearly designed to protect Jewish usury. However, there was a tendency to forbid oaths of this kind also in ecclesiastical courts, so that the poor would not suﬀer losses at the hands of the Jews.241 236 Franz 2, Paragraph 88, p. 264, no. 1: “All Juden ire guter in Stadt und Land innen dieselbigen zu iren Handen zu stellen, doch das K. Mt. innen ein Land ingeben, damit sie sich neren mogen.” 237 Franz 2, Paragraph 147, no. 17: “soll kein Jud in der Lantschaft sein Wohnung oder Behausung haben, von wegen des großen Schadens, den sie dem gemeinen Mann zugefugt. es sal ime auch kein Richter uber gesuch oder Wucher weisen. . . .” 238 Franz 2, p. 455, Paragraph 149, no. 24. 239 Ibid., p. 457, Paragraph 150, no. 12. 240 Ibid., p. 467, Paragraph 155, no. 13. 241 Nationalmuseum Nürnberg, Bestand Deutsches Reich, Kaiserliche Instruktion wegen Aufruhr und Empörung (Bauernkrieg) um 1525. This question was debated again in 1530, and a settlement was reached regarding the respective powers of the secular and religious authorities (Concordat als Reichsconstitution zwischen geistlichen und weltlichen Ständen über die Beschwerden). It was decided to prohibit the taking of such an oath before either a secular or ecclesiastical court. See

146

[11]

5285 (1524⁄25)

Jews are not mentioned speciﬁcally in the Articles of the Alsatian peasantry, listed above; although, judging from their demands in 1493, some such reference would have been expected. Almost certainly, this silence on the subject of the Jews can be credited to R. Joseph. In this section, R. Joseph relates that the peasants “intended to devour us alive”, and that he had heard a rumour that in some places outside Alsace “the scourge had already begun”. Consequently, he went to the peasants’ headquarters in Altdorf and convinced them not to harm the Jews—“I spoke to their hearts with the Book”. This might imply that he gave them a written document, but it is more likely that he convinced them with proofs from the Holy Scriptures, which were sacred also for the peasants, that the Jews should not be harmed.242 It is not diﬃcult to imagine what R. Joseph told the peasants and how he convinced them. The arguments that R. Joseph was accustomed to press in his petitions to the authorities, concerning the divine law, according to which all human beings possessed certain basic rights, could not fail to ﬁnd a responsive chord with the peasants, who identiﬁed with the selfsame principles.243 According to R. Joseph, the peasant leaders in Alsace instructed the heads of their forces—he is apparently referring to the commanders of the peasants in their Haufen in Alsace244—not to harm the Jews. They also dispatched letters to that eﬀect to their counterparts in other localities. R. Joseph relates that although in the end the peasants reneged on their promise; nevertheless, by virtue of their instructions and those letters “there was relief and deliverance for the Jews”. How were the Jews saved? This question he answers in another place. In the “Letter of Consolation”, R. Joseph writes that had it not been for the imperial cities and, above all, for Strasbourg,

F. B. v. Bucholtz, Geschichte der Regierung Ferdinand des Ersten, III, Vienna 1833, Beilage X, p. 652. 242 See also below, p. 317, note 175. 243 In a letter to the Landvogt at Hagenau, the leader of the Alsatian peasants, Asmuss Gerber, declares that one should deal justly with all men without distinction of faith: “wan die gerechtigkeit und pilligkeit niemant ausicht ouch nimant verschmacht weder juden thadten und heiden” [thadten = Tataren, comment by Yaacov Guggenheim]. (Virck, Politische Correspondenz, no. 283.) 244 In Alsace there were 12 peasant centres; as distinct from the peasantry in other places, they were organized collectively and all recognized the authority of the main centre at Altdorf. See Heumann, La guerre des paysans d’Alsace, pp. 83–84; and Franz 1, p. 143.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

147

the Jews would not have been saved. We have already seen above that Strasbourg sheltered the residents of the surrounding area within its walls, and it is clear that the Jews were included among them. R. Joseph emphasizes that the city did not ask for any payment for its protection of the Jews.245 A document has survived in which the Jews petition the city of Strasbourg to further extend their stay, because of the tumult that has still not subsided.246 Also extant are the contents of a letter of a Jew named Elias of Rosheim, who extends his thanks to the city for having protected him and other Jews.247 Colmar too seems to have given sanctuary to Jews from the surrounding area and protected Jewish property.248 Thus the expression “relief and deliverance” used by R. Joseph is a reference to the haven provided for Jews and their property by a number of charitable cities. Not all cities helped the Jews. In front of the gates of Rappoltsweiler, the peasants reassured the residents that they did not intend them any harm; they merely planned to attack priests, monks and Jews.249 The burghers attempted to placate them, and even before they entered the city, supplied them with wine from the monastery and from the Jews ( Judenwein).250 In Bergheim, which made haste to open its gates, the peasants set upon the Jews: they burnt down the synagogue, ripped up the Torah scrolls—despite the Jews’ oﬀer of a 245

In contrast to its conduct towards others who asked for refuge: for example, Strasbourg demanded from the residents of one of the monasteries in the area the sum of 50 schillings in protection fees (Schirmgeld ) to lodge them in the city, with the additional condition that they must defend the city like the other residents. See L. Dacheux, Le Chroniques Strasbourgoises, Strasbourg 1892, no. 3499b, p. 251, in a note for 19 April 1525. 246 ArchMun Strasbourg, V 1, 13, and see also Dacheux, Le Chroniques Strasbourgoises, no. 3499b, p. 251. In a record, made apparently in the city chancellory, is written: they have read the Jews’ petition, and for the sake of God, will tolerate them in the city in these troubled times. It has been decided to grant them eight days’ grace; however, they must punctually leave the city during that time or even earlier, and not remain for any longer, and this concession has been accorded to them as a special favour, on account of the hostile men of war (der ungtreuen kriegsläuﬀ halben). 247 Ibid.: “Elias jud von Rosheim danckt mhn. von sin und andrer Juden wegen, dass man sie beherbergt”; and see A. Glaser, Geschichte der Juden in Straßburg, Strasbourg 1894, p. 24. 248 A. Stern, “Die Juden im großen deutschen Bauernkrieg 1525”, p. 68. 249 Strobel, Vaterländische Geschichte, IV, p. 27. Similar pronouncements were heard from the peasants of Münster-Ebersheim, according to Zimmermann, Geschichte des Großen Bauernkriegs, 2, p. 107, and see also A. Stern, ibid., p. 62. 250 Zimmermann, ibid., p. 113.

148

[11]

5285 (1524⁄25)

large sum of money for them—destroyed the debt books, and gathered all the Jews in one house. The pledges deposited with the Jews they collected in a separate house, and every peasant wishing to redeem his pledge was called upon to do so, with the peasant leaders appropriating the takings. They also helped themselves to the rest of the Jews’ property.251 Despite all this, R. Joseph is correct in concluding that, on the whole, the Jews did not suﬀer at the hands of the peasants as much as might have been expected. Even in the case of Bergheim, there is no record of any loss of life. It should be noted that neither in the Articles of the Alsace peasantry nor in those of the peasant movement as a whole is there any section that deals explicitly with the Jews—and possibly this too was a consequence of R. Joseph’s intercession. Although the section in the Articles concerning the abolishment of interest could be interpreted as being directed against the Jews, its phrasing is entirely general in nature. It seems that the war’s relatively minor impact on the Jews gave rise to the libel that was concocted against them at that time. They were accused of being in league with the peasants against the princes, and the imperial cities were alleged to be aiding the peasants by means of the Jews, in order to topple the nobility and clergy. These charges are raised in a letter by the German humanist Conrad Mutianus of 25 April 1525, to his protector, Elector Frederick of Saxony. He has been convinced by letters and information by word of mouth from the most reliable of persons, writes Mutianus, that the imperial cities, under the cloak of Evangelism, have engaged in secret subversive activities, and by devious means ( geheime Wühlerkünste), have incited the peasants, abetted in this by the Jews (adjuvantibus Judaeis). He warns darkly that after removing the bishops, the cities intend to shake oﬀ the rule of the princes, and follow the examples of ancient Greece and contemporary Venice by instituting a republican government.252 A. Stern253 categorically refutes Mutianus’s accusation and shows that here also, as in similar events in other periods, the Jews were trapped in the middle, between the rival camps, and presented an easy target for the peasants’ hostility.254 However, he too points out 251 252 253 254

Strobel, IV, p. 27. According to A. Stern, pp. 57–58. Ibid., p. 68. See also Bensing and Hoyer, Der deutsche Bauernkrieg, p. 110.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

149

that the Jews were aﬀected relatively lightly, and that the peasants, under the inﬂuence of leaders such as Müller von Bulgenbach in the Black Forest and Upper Swabia and Thomas Münzer in Thuringia, did not physically harm the Jews. R. Joseph’s Portrayal of the Events The author’s account cannot be conﬁrmed from any other source; however, upon examination, his story is found to be consistent with the conditions and circumstances prevailing at the time. R. Joseph’s visit to the peasant leaders in Altdorf does not appear so remarkable when we recall that many people, such as the Strasbourg reformers, and even envoys of other cities and delegates of the city of Strasbourg, went freely in and out of the peasants’ camp.255 The letters that according to R. Joseph the peasants dispatched on the subject of the Jews, distinctly resemble numerous letters of security delivered by them to the representatives of various cities in respect of their citizens, or of entire cities.256 These letters bore the peasants’ seals, like the letters of security obtained by R. Joseph for the Jews, which were, in his words, in a “sealed letter”.257 The negotiations regarding Rosheim had their parallels too; several cities endeavoured in one way or another to dissuade the peasants from entering their bounds.258 Even the surprising fact that the peasant leaders informed R. Joseph of their intention to take over Rosheim is not altogether exceptional. We have the testimony of a citizen of Heilbronn, who was in the peasants’ camp at Neckarsulm, heard about their plans to capture the city of Weinsberg, and hurried to warn that city.259 It should be added that, as remarked, one of the peasant leaders in Altdorf was a former mayor of Rosheim, and it is quite possible that R. Joseph already had a good relationship with him;

255

Compare, for example, Virck, Politische Correspondenz, nos. 195 and 196. An example of a letter of protection (Schutzbrief ) of the kind issued by the peasants can be found in Bensen, Geschichte des Bauernkriegs, appendix XVI, p. 540. 257 At the end of the Schutzbrief referred to in the previous footnote are the words: “des zu merer Sicherhait haben wir unnser gewohnlich Innsigel zu end diser Schrift getruckht”. 258 Kaysersberg, for example, asked the Strasbourg city council to mediate between it and the peasants, and to dissuade them from occupying the city. See Virck, no. 281. 259 According to Zimmermann, 2, p. 497. 256

150

[11]

5285 (1524⁄25)

moreover, the leader of Alsatian peasantry, Asmuss Gerber, was himself a citizen of Molsheim, a town in the vicinity of Rosheim. Likewise, R. Joseph’s description of the general events corresponds well with the picture we receive from other sources. We feel the strength and scope of the movement “in all parts of Germany”. R. Joseph is aware that the events in Alsace, for all their intensity, are merely part of what is happening in the whole of Germany, albeit a very central part: as he writes, “And above all, in this region—Alsace”. The crushing defeat sustained by Alsatian peasantry at the hands of the Duke of Lorraine is, according to R. Joseph, part of the general catastrophe that overtook the peasant movement. His description of the peasants’ bitter end accords well with what we know from the other sources: their heavy losses are graphically described in the words “carried out a great slaughter among them”, “thousands and tens of thousands were slain and drowned”; also the penalties referred to by him are known to us from other sources.260 Characteristically, R. Joseph does not tell us the full story in one place, but feeds us morsels of it in diﬀerent places in his writings as they ﬁt in with the purpose of his narrative. In this section of the Chronicle, he emphasizes the miracles performed for the Jewish people on every occasion, and their salvation from the hands of the peasants is an example of this. In the “Letter of Consolation”, R. Joseph expresses the idea that God endows the hearts of the rulers with wisdom and good counsel, by virtue of which the Jews are saved, and the attitude of the imperial cities towards the Jews is proof of this. Of his role in the saving of Rosheim, which is part of the general history of the Peasants War and ostensibly had no bearing on the Jews, he does not speak here, but he does refer to it in the letter to the Hagenau city council, in which he complains bitterly about his city of residence. In this letter he mentions the episode as proof of his loyalty to Rosheim, and to emphasize the ingratitude of the city, which he accuses of undermining his privileges and those of his family, and this in express contradiction to the promise made to him by the then head of the city. R. Joseph’s attitude towards the peasants and their struggle is wholly negative. In contrast to what might have been expected, in 260 On the drowning of the peasants, see Franz 1, pp. 132, 148; and Liliencron, Die historischen Volkslieder, III, no. 374, p. 441: “Drei tausent, als ich bin bericht, sind da erschlagen . . . acht hundert sind ersoﬀen . . .”.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

151

his words there is not a trace of sympathy or understanding for their grave predicament, for the exploitation and oppression to which they felt themselves to be subject. Interestingly, his words echo more the feelings of the upper classes, who were full of contempt for the lower classes, who wish “to make themselves masters” and eventually receive their just deserts. Here we seem to hear an echo of a theme found in folksongs composed at the time in Alsace, which depict the peasants as those who “wished to be masters” and “wished to rule the world”.261 In common with the authors of those poems, R. Joseph is convinced that the punishment meted out to the peasants is both just and timely: “Then came the time and season of their defeat”.262 His words evince no compassion for the horriﬁc fate of the peasants after their defeat. From his account we sense a great dread of the turmoil, the disruption of the established order and peace—a state of aﬀairs that is always particularly perilous for the Jews—and this is what concerns him. It is also diﬃcult to expect that he would empathize with the tragedy that befell the peasants, at a time when most of the Christian population, led by Luther and the princes of a number of states, reacted in the way that they did.

[12] 5288 (1527/28) The Events in the Hagenau Region This section deals with the region of Hagenau, which as part of Lower Alsace lay within the territorial jurisdiction of the Holy Roman Empire, and was therefore subject to the Emperor’s authority. With the death of Emperor Maximilian, Alsace devolved to his successor, Charles V. By virtue of his authority as Emperor and with the consent of the German princes, Charles mortgaged the Hagenau region to his brother Ferdinand, namely to the House of Habsburg, in exchange for a large sum of money. During the years 1519–1530,

261 Liliencron, ibid., no. 387, p. 497: “sei wolten herren sin allein”; no. 388, p. 499: “sei wolten herschen in der welt”; no. 376, p. 448: “wolten . . . auch selbs herren werden”. 262 The German folk-poet uses almost the same words: “wan iez dei zeit ist komen; das stundli das ist hie”; Liliencron, no. 376, p. 448.

152

[12]

5288 (1527⁄28)

Ferdinand held the position of Oberlandvogt of Alsace.263 In 1526 he became king of Hungary and Bohemia, and from 1531 he was also king of Germany; R. Joseph, writing in 1547, undoubtedly knew him by this title. However, as remarked, he bore the title of King already in 1526. We have no information from other sources about the events R. Joseph describes here.264 It appears from his words that the nobility of the Hagenau region solicited King Ferdinand, in his capacity as overlord (Landherr) of the region for the Emperor, and complained to him about the Jews. S. Stern believes that a sharp decline in the power of the Hagenau nobles and their growing impoverishment at that time was the occasion for their complaint about the excessive interest (Wucher) taken by the Jews, to which they attributed their ruin. They compelled the Unterlandvogt—“ha-meltsar ” (the superintendent), as the Chronicle calls him—to approach King Ferdinand in their name, and demand that the Jews be expelled from all the imperial villages, and from the cities where they were still resident. These included Rosheim, R. Joseph’s place of residence. Consequently, the King issued a decree (Ordnung) for the expulsion of the Jews from the Hagenau region. The Jews of the area took concerted action and asked R. Joseph to represent them to Ferdinand. R. Joseph set out to track down the King, who was travelling with his court and was apparently on the way to Prague. Ferdinand reached Prague on 7 April and stayed there until 23 September, and it was only there that R. Joseph caught up with him. He relates that he had an audience with him and presented his case, after which Ferdinand revoked the expulsion decree, and issued another order conﬁrming the right of the Jews to remain in the Hagenau region. Even then, the nobility of the region did not capitulate easily, and apparently made a renewed attempt to have the Jews expelled: In R. Joseph’s words, they stirred up fresh trouble and his achievement was put in jeopardy. However, a sudden outbreak of plague claimed the lives of three of the four chief instigators against the Jews. The fourth was captured and killed by his enemies in the province of Hochfelden. I have not succeeded in ﬁnding additional information about this incident in Hochfelden. However, we do know of a plague in 1529

263 264

See Becker, Geschichte der Reichslandvogtei im Elsaß, p. 84. For this, see Feilchenfeld, p. 114.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

153

that claimed many victims in Germany, the Netherlands and England. It particularly aﬀected middle-aged people.265 This may well be the plague to which R. Joseph is referring. In characteristic fashion, R. Joseph sees in the external events and the natural disasters (such as plague) the hand of God, who delivers His people from their adversaries and punishes their enemies. R. Joseph relates that his mission was entrusted to him by “the people of the medinah”, and he generally uses the word “medinah” to denote a country or large province. The Jews of the medinah turned to him, begging him to “go out and come in before them as in the past”, and he granted their request. The expression “to go out and come in” corresponds to his words in the section of the Chronicle for 1509/10: “to keep watch over the community with particular care and to lead it.” Apparently, there was a break in R. Joseph’s public activities, or perhaps for a while there was no need for him to intercede in the aﬀairs of German Jewry as a whole, and the necessity arose again at that particular time. He stresses also that he was allocated up to 300 guilders for the purpose of his mission, but spent only 40 guilders all in all for travel expenses and other expenses he incurred on the way. The allocation of so large a sum of money is an additional indication that some inter-community organization had approved his journey and the necessary funds to subsidize it. R. Joseph relates further that after his horse had an accident on the way, he resolved not to ride but to continue his journey on foot. He regarded the accident to his horse as a sign from Heaven that he should exert himself to the utmost to ensure the success of his mission. This idea contains something of the spirit and asceticism of the Óasidei Ashkenaz.*

265

See F. B. v. Bucholtz, Geschichte der Regierung Ferdinand, III, p. 403. * {A small but inﬂuential group of scholars within Ashkenazi Jewry in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Apart from asceticism, they emphasized piety and penitence and developed their own esoteric and mystical doctrines. One of the central themes in their thought was Kiddush Hashem (sanctifying God’s Name, i.e., martyrdom). Translator}

154

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle [13] 5289 (1528/29)

The Pösing Martyrs The Pösing libel case, which culminated in the burning at the stake of the Jews of Pösing on 21 May 1529 (13 Sivan 5289), has been discussed by several scholars, and there is both Jewish and Christian source material.266 The Christian version, published shortly after the aﬀair,267 is preserved in a ﬁle of documents of the Ministry for Financial Aﬀairs in the Government Archives in Vienna.268 It tells: Of a tale {of } a frightful act of murder, committed by the Jews in Pösing . . . of a nine-year-old boy, whom they brutally tortured, beat, stabbed, lacerated and murdered. For their heinous oﬀence, about 30

266 Owing to the complexity of the sources and the abundant literature on the subject, the source material and principal works are cited in the course of the discussion itself. In addition to the sources referred to below, the Pösing libel case was also examined by: H. L. Strack, Der Blutaberglaube in der Menschheit, Munich 1892, pp. 120–21, Feilchenfeld, pp. 115–16; S. Stern, pp. 80–81, and the literature cited there in note 29 (p. 295). 267 The title page of the pamphlet reads: “Ain erschrockenlich Geschicht und Mordt/ so von den Juden zu Pösing/ain Marckht/in Hungern gelegen: an ainem Neünjärigen Knäblin beganngen/wie sy das jämerlich gemarttert/geslagen/gestochen/geschnitten/und ermördt haben: darumb dann bis in die dreyssig juden/mann und weybs personen/umb jr miszhanndlung/auf Freytag nach Pﬁngsten/den XXI. tag May/des M.D. und XXIX Jars/verprennt worden seind” (without date of publication). The picture on the title-page depicts ﬁve Jews and the knife with which, ostensibly, they committed the crime; the caption beneath reads: “Form und gestallt ains Messers/damit Sy das khinndt gemarttert haben”. Another copy of this pamphlet can be found in the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest, and was the source for the text printed in Monumenta Hungariae Judaica, 1, Budapest 1903, p. 404 ﬀ. This copy was also in the possession of the anti-Semitic Hungarian statesman, Geza von Onody. In his book Tisza Eszlár in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, Budapest 1893, p. 103, he deals, among other stories, with the Pösing aﬀair, in an attempt to prove the Jews’ present and past iniquities with regard to Christian blood. Between pages 104 and 105 von Onody has a photograph of the title page of the original pamphlet. An additional copy of the pamphlet is in the National Library in Munich. I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Meir Weiss, who very kindly translated documents for me from the Hungarian. 268 The ﬁle is preserved in HHStA, Finanz- und Hofkammerarchiv in Vienna, under the reference: Niederösterreichische Herrschaftsfascikel J. 15, and on it is written: Jüden in Ungarn. The account of the aﬀair in the ﬁle is a copy made at the time. The original, according to von Onody (see previous note), p. 103, is in the Tyrnau City Archives. The Vienna ﬁle also contains a number of other documents, some of them contemporary copies, issued by the Imperial Chancellory of King Ferdinand, all of them connected with the Pösing aﬀair, including a letter written by representatives of the Jews to the King after the burning of Pösing Jewry.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

155

Jews, men and women, were burned at the stake on the Friday after the (Christian) Feast of Pentecost, on 21 May 1529.

According to this source, a nine-year-old Christian boy named Hans Maiszlinger, the son of a local waggoner,269 went missing, and the Jews immediately fell under suspicion. Searches conducted among them produced nothing. Meanwhile, the boy’s corpse was discovered bearing signs of shocking violence: his hands had been tied, the veins of his hands and feet severed and his body was full of wounds, stabs and cuts. The investigation into the aﬀair was conducted by Count Wolf of Pösing and his brother Count Franz of St. Jörgen (= St Georgen). They summoned representatives of two Hungarian Free cities, Pressburg and Tyrnau, and of two districts (Märckte), Wortberg and Moder, all of whom testiﬁed that they had seen the body, and that only Jews were capable of perpetrating such a deed.270 Consequently, all the Jews in the city were arrested and the cross-examination began of a number of Jews, who are mentioned by name. The investigation is described in the ﬁle of documents,271 and in the printed version.272 According to these sources, the Jews were severely tortured during their interrogation (mit strenger frag . . . angezogen worden), but unanimously and categorically denied the charge, as well as additional ones. Only when at the request of the Counts Wolf and Franz representatives of these same cities and districts had testiﬁed for the second time, and when the suspects had been interrogated again while being subjected to particularly cruel tortures (mit ernstlicher und strenger frag fürgewendt und gefragt worden), only then did they confess and give the answers required of them. They gave a detailed description of how, ostensibly, the deed was committed, and explained 269 The term “Wagner”, used in the printed text to describe the father’s occupation, can also mean “wagon builder” or “blacksmith”. See Grimm, DW, XIII, p. 493, c–d. The copy in the ﬁle of documents speaks only of “one of the residents of the city”. 270 Extant is a record, made apparently by the city treasurer of Pressburg. In a dry, business-like manner, he speciﬁes which of the Pressburg city delegates were sent to Saint George, to Tyrnau, and to Pösing, respectively, to attend the various stages of the trial, and also to the burning at the stake of the Jews, as well as the sum of money they received for their personal expenses. See MHJ, 8, no. 179, p. 162. 271 Fol. pp. 7–12. The title is “Examen und Urtheil über die Juden zu Bösing in Ungarn, die einen Christen Buben 9. Jahr alt im Keller mit vielen Wunden gemartert und ermordet haben; worauf alle Juden und Weiber, Töchter dienstbothen so über 10. Jahr alt waren, durchs Feuer hingerichtet worden”. 272 MHJ, 1, no. 329, pp. 407–11.

156

[13]

5289 (1528⁄29)

that they needed Christian blood for use at weddings and for their priests who blessed the community.273 They also implicated in the deed Jews from Tyrnau and from the region of Marchegg in Lower Austria. The Christian source relates further that during the ﬁnal stages of the trial and the pronouncement of judgement several thousand people were present, among them representatives of many other cities, including Vienna. All the Jews of Pösing were sentenced to be burned at the stake. From the material it emerges that immediately upon conclusion of the trial, a ﬁre was prepared in the city square, and the sentence was carried out. According to this source, little children, up to eight or ten years old, were pardoned by the two Counts and handed over to Christian families to be raised as Christians.274 While the trial was still in progress, Mendel, the leader of Hungarian Jewry (the Praefectus Judaeorum),275 “and the rest of the Jews of the kingdom” petitioned King Ferdinand. They complained that Count Franz of St. George had imprisoned a Jew who was in his territory, and that there was a concrete fear that he would be tortured, and might implicate them in deeds about which they knew nothing and would never have dreamt of committing, and thus all the Jews would be placed in great danger. This is known to us from a letter the King sent on 15 May from Buda to the city authorities of Tyrnau. In it, Ferdinand commands that if this Jew should testify to anything about the Jews that might incriminate them, the authorities should on no account presume to lay a hand on them, or harm them in any way, but they should be patient and transfer the investigation of the case and the names of the accused to the King’s castellani in Buda. This letter either did not arrive in time, or was ignored, for the interrogation report states that one of the accused, the Jew Jacob, brother of the Jew Kolman, was questioned rigorously

273 “. . . und nent solich Juden in Ebereiysch konam die den segen sprechen auch auf ebereisch priesther genant”. 274 However, Jewish sources relate that many children ran with their parents into the ﬂames. See below. 275 On this oﬃce and on the Mendel family, whose sons served in this capacity during the period under discussion, see A. Scheiber, “Mendel of Buda in Nuremberg”, Journal of Jewish Studies, 23 (1972), pp. 192–95, and the sources cited there. Scheiber is therefore incorrect when he states (p. 193) that this oﬃce is not known to have existed after 1526.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

157

on 19 May at the fortress in St. George,276 but did not confess to anything. He claimed that he was not a resident of Pösing, but had simply been on the way to his home and his wife and children. It was only during his third interrogation, which took place in Pösing itself, that he broke down and confessed to the deed. On 17 May, ﬁve days before the burnings, the leader of Hungarian Jewry appealed to Stephan Bathory and gave him a detailed account of what was being perpetrated against the Jews in the territories of the two Counts.277 We know this from a letter by Bathory to the city of Tyrnau in which he warns the residents to keep their hands oﬀ the Jews and their property.278 Presumably, similar letters were dispatched to Pösing, but have not survived. At all events, all the eﬀorts of Hungarian Jewry did not succeed in averting the tragedy that befell Pösing Jewry. It appears that immediately after the conclusion of the trial against Pösing Jewry, the Counts began to proceed against the other Jews implicated in the aﬀair, who did not reside under their jurisdiction. At this juncture, Moravian Jewry turned to R. Joseph of Rosheim.* Thus, R. Joseph only learnt about the entire aﬀair after sentence had already been carried out against Pösing Jewry. R. Joseph writes that: “in accordance with the request of our rabbis and the exigencies of the hour” he had to take to Günzburg all the old imperial and papal charters possessed by the Jews. He prepared copies of them and sent them, together with “words of apology”, to the King and his oﬃcials; the Jews were declared innocent and the prisoners were freed. Basing himself on R. Joseph’s account, Feilchenfeld surmised that in Günzburg some kind of emergency meeting took place of delegates

276 “. . . in Sannt Joergen im geschloss”, MHJ, 1, p. 408. Thus, Ferdinand’s letter deﬁnitely did not prevent the interrogation and use of torture. It is possible that as a result of his letter, the Count conducted the interrogation in his fortress, and not in the city itself. 277 Stephan Bathory (the father of Stephan Bathory, king of Poland, b. 1533) governed Transylvania for Ferdinand of Habsburg, king of Hungary. 278 MHJ, 8, no. 180, p. 163. This source shows that the city of Tyrnau was an active participant in the interrogation of the suspects and the conﬁscation of their property, all this during the very trial itself, and not only after the burning of the Jews. It seems that Count Franz presided over the interrogation in Tyrnau and Count Wolf in Pösing. * {After Jews in Moravia had been arrested and imprisoned, as R. Joseph writes in this section of the Chronicle, below, p. 320. Translator}

158

[13]

5289 (1528⁄29)

of the Jewish communities.279 However, it is hard to believe that in the case in question, where swift action was required to avert an additional catastrophe, there was suﬃcient time to assemble the authorized delegates, or the heads of the German Jewish communities, and in my opinion the text does not have to be interpreted in this way.280 R. Joseph probably went to Günzburg, the administrative capital of the Margraviate of Burgau, because it was the seat of the Imperial Chancellory, which could provide him with certiﬁed copies of the Jews’ charters. Scholars have already concluded that these were undoubtedly charters granted by various popes and emperors from the thirteenth century onwards, and subsequently reaﬃrmed by their successors, in which they explicitly repudiated the ritual murder accusations.281 German Jewry also possessed a charter granted to them by Emperor Frederick III in the wake of the Endingen blood libel of 1470.282 The “words of apology” mentioned by R. Joseph’s are no other than documents which can eﬀectively prove the Jews’ innocence.283 Andreas Osiander An additional contemporary source that sheds light on this libel is the treatise by the Reformer Andreas Osiander, written in response 279

Feilchenfeld, p. 115. How diﬃcult it was to convene the delegates of German Jewry, even for matters directly aﬀecting all their communities, can be learnt from an article by A. Maimon: “Tagungen von Judenschaften in Westdeutschland im frühen 16. Jahrhundert”, Jahrbuch für westdeutsche Landesgeschichte, 5 (1979), p. 8 ﬀ. Moreover, I have diﬃculty in applying as great a weight to R. Joseph’s words “at the request of our rabbis” as does S. Stern, who deduces, following Feilchenfeld, that at Günzburg R. Joseph was elected to his position of leadership over all the Jews in German lands. See also above (p. 96 onwards), the discussion concerning R. Joseph’s oﬃce, and compare E. Zimmer, Jewish Synods in Germany During the Late Middle Ages, New York 1978, p. 60, who likewise rejects S. Stern’s theory. We do not know to which rabbis R. Joseph was referring; however, there is no doubt that the charters of German Jewry were deposited in a speciﬁc location—probably in Worms—and that R. Joseph could not remove them from there solely on his own initiative. 281 For a general description of these privileges, see The Jewish Encyclopaedia, III, p. 265. 282 See, introduction to section 1 of the Chronicle (above, pp. 62–63). 283 See, for example, Sefer ha-Miknah, p. 15, line 11: u-le-hitnatsel be-uma ha-yisraelit be-maspik, “and to give a satisfactory apology on behalf of the Jewish people”. This is apparently a translation of the German words “sich entschuldigen”, whose original meaning was: to clear someone of guilt. And compare Grimm, DW, III, p. 611, § 4. 280

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

159

to the request of an unidentiﬁed “worthy man”, who sent him a copy of an account of the Pösing Aﬀair and solicited his opinion regarding the ritual murder accusation. Osiander produced a pamphlet entitled: “Is It True That Jews Are Secretly Killing Christian Children and Making Use of Their Blood?”, in which he brings 20 proofs against the blood libel in general, and goes into painstaking detail regarding the Pösing libel in particular.284 He stresses that Count Wolf of Pösing was known to be a tyrant whose repellent traits were evident also in his private life, and that it was well known that he owed a great deal of money to the Jews implicated in the libel. Although Osiander does not explicitly accuse Count Wolf of having been responsible for the libel, he does ask whether the latter’s heavy debts to the Jews did not give him an excellent reason to listen to the libellers.285 Osiander sharply criticizes the Christian version of the whole aﬀair, basing himself on the printed pamphlet, and apparently also on additional material with which he was furnished, possibly by the Jews.286 He explains at length how children are liable to go missing, and oﬀers various hypotheses to explain the condition of the child’s corpse in the case under consideration. He avoids laying any blame on the Jews. In addition, he has some harsh words to say about the judicial proceedings.287 He writes that the Jews’ guilt had been a foregone 284 Andreas Osiander, Ob es war und glaublich sey das die Juden der Christen kinder heymlich erwürgen/und jr blut gebrauchen/. . . . This booklet was published anonymously and without the date of printing. It was in the possession of the Jews during the proceedings in a diﬀerent blood libel case, at the village of Sappenfeld near Eichstätt in 1540 (see below, introduction to section 24 of the Chronicle, pp. 246–247). Osiander’s treatise aroused the ire of Dr. Johannes Eck who, in 1541, produced a vituperative tract against him entitled: Ains Juden buechlins Verlegung, darin ain Christ gantzer Christenhait zu schmach, will es geschehe den Juden unrecht in bezichtigung der Christen Kinder Mordt. Durch Doctor Joh. Eck zu Ingolstadt. Hierin ﬁndst auch vil histori, was übels und büberey die Juden in allen teutschen land und andern Künigreichen gestift haben. Ingolstadt, MDXXXXI (1541). Eck tried to disprove Osiander’s arguments one by one. Osiander’s treatise was later lost, and its contents were known only from the book by Eck, who copied many extracts from it so that he could refute their content. It was rediscovered by Moritz Stern, who published it under the title: Andreas Osianders Schrift über die Blutbeschuldigung, Kiel 1893. Osiander’s arguments are summarized by R. Po-chia Hsia in The Myth of Ritual Murder, pp. 136–43; see also H. A. Oberman, Wurzeln, p. 44 ﬀ. 285 Osiander, p. 32 (M. Stern edition). 286 See below. 287 Osiander doubts whether the witnesses summoned to examine the body identiﬁed the body of that particular boy. According to him, there was no necessity

160

[13]

5289 (1528⁄29)

conclusion; within a period of eight days, the Jews had been arrested, interrogated, sentenced and burnt at the stake, without their rightful overlord, namely the King, being apprized of the matter. All the accused had denied the charges even under torture, and in the end had only confessed after being subjected to particularly severe tortures.288 Indeed, in the Christian version, the words “confessed under rigorous interrogation” appear beside the names of each of the accused. Osiander also found inconsistencies and absurd statements in the depositions given by the various defendants. He concludes his argument with the following question: if those Jews who admitted to the deed were indeed the guilty ones, why were also the women and children and the rest of Pösing Jewry burned at the stake?289 Gerson Wolf ’s Study The historian G. Wolf was the ﬁrst to devote an in-depth study to the Pösing aﬀair290 and his conclusions have generally been accepted in the critical literature. His reconstruction of the events is based on the source material in the Vienna Archives, and, primarily, on a letter by the Jews to King Ferdinand that is in the ﬁle. According to him, the sequence of events was as follows: Count Wolf of Pösing owed large sums of money to a rich Pösing Jew named Eszlin Ausch and to a number of Jews in Marchegg. To relieve himself of his for witnesses in order to conﬁrm the discovery of a corpse, except if one assumes that there was a special reason for their summons, and that witnesses had to be called to testify to a falsehood (p. 34). Perhaps he is hinting to the Jews’ assertion that the body that was found was not of a nine-year-old boy. (See below.) 288 Osiander makes a distinction between “moderate” judicial torture (mit peynlicher Frage) and “severe” judicial torture (mit strenger Frage); and compare Grimm, DW, VII, col. 1528; X, col. 1412, II A 1d. It should be noted that the use of physical force during interrogation in the case of a particularly serious crime was permissible according to the German penal code. There were legal limits on the use of torture, and it was applied only when there was clear proof of guilt. However, in later periods these limits were not strictly observed. See H. Mitteis, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, revised by Heinz Liebrich, sixteenth edition, Munich 1962, p. 357; H. Conrad, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, I, Munich 1954, p. 391. And see also, below, the letter by the Jews to the King concerning the application of torture against the suspects. The petitioners showed a deﬁnite awareness of what was legal and illegal according to the German penal code. 289 Osiander, p. 39. 290 G. Wolf, Historische Skizzen aus Österreich-Ungarn, Vienna 1883, pp. 296–98; idem, “Ein Bild aus dem Mittelalter”, Jahrbuch für die israelitischen Cultus-Gemeinden in Ungarn, 1 (1860–1861), p. 266 ﬀ.; idem, Geschichte der Juden in Wien 1156–1876, Vienna 1876, pp. 23, 254–56.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

161

debts, he decided to bring false accusations against his creditors in order to destroy them. He induced a demented woman to kidnap a child, and when the child disappeared the Jews were blamed. After the burning of Pösing Jewry, proceedings were promptly initiated against those Marchegg Jews whose names had come up in the investigation. At that point Vienna Jewry appealed to King Ferdinand to intervene. According to Wolf, Jewish merchants accidentally discovered the woman together with the child, and the investigation against the Marchegg Jews was stopped. There are a number of problems with Wolf ’s version of the aﬀair: 1. Osiander, who as remarked received a copy of the interrogation record in the Pösing case, does not say anything about the lost child having being discovered alive. Moreover, R. Joseph, who relates that he was sent by the Jews to the King in order to free Moravian Jewry, does not mention any such thing. If he had he known about it, he would undoubtedly have availed himself of such vital information in his petition to the King, and if he had learnt about it subsequently, he would surely have mentioned it in his Chronicle, which was written 17 years after the aﬀair, as he did in the case of the Brandenburg martyrs.291 The documents in the Vienna Archives likewise are silent on this point. According to the Christian source, it was indeed an elderly woman who found the child’s corpse, and in their letters to the King the Jews protest that the woman was never adequately questioned. During the investigation, one of the accused testiﬁed that the Jews, ostensibly, had plotted to bribe the Count of Pösing to rigorously interrogate both the woman who had discovered the child and the servant of the child’s father, so that they would confess to the deed and clear the Jews of all suspicion. Perhaps this is the source from which Wolf culled his version of the aﬀair. 2. An additional problem with Wolf ’s version is the role of the rich Jew Eszlin Ausch, who, according to him, was the cause of Count Wolf ’s decision to manufacture a blood libel. The name of the Jew was extracted by Wolf from the Jews’ letter to King Ferdinand of 12 June 1529. Wolf, who published the letter,292 read the relevant 291 Section 5 of the Chronicle, below, p. 312, lines 4–7, and its continuation in section 22, below, p. 330, line 3 onwards. 292 The letter was originally published by Wolf with many errors in the Jahrbuch fur die israelitischen Cultus-Gemeinden. He published it again in his Geschichte der Juden

162

[13]

5289 (1528⁄29)

part as follows: “The Pösing Counts acted tyrannically, and tortured Eszlin Ausch mercilessly until they compelled him to say what they wished him to say” (“. . . thiranisch gehandelt sy mit grosser marter unparmklich genot gezwungen das Eszlin Ausch im hat muesen sagen was gemelts grauen wollen”). However, Wolf appears to have mistakenly read “Esslin” instead of “ettlich”. It seems to me that the correct reading is: “sy mit grosser marter vnerparmklich genot gezwungen das Ettlich aush293 ine hat muesen sagen was gemelts grauen wollen” (“. . . and they compelled a few [or: several] of them . . . to say what they wanted them to say”). Moreover, in the interrogation records in the Christian source, all the Jews who were questioned are mentioned by name, and the name Eszlin Ausch is not among them. Furthermore, memorial books of several communities are extant, in which the Pösing martyrs are mentioned by name—we shall discuss them in detail below—and not one of the lists of martyrs contains a name that can be identiﬁed as that of Eszlin Ausch. 3. Wolf attributes the letter by the Jewish representatives, which is included in the document ﬁle,294 to the Jews of Vienna.295 We shall discuss this letter in detail below. The King forwarded a copy of it to Count Nicholas of Salm, his representative in the region. The letter is signed simply “Gesante der Judischeit” (delegates of the Jews), and in an accompanying note, the King writes that it was sent to him by “Die gesanndten gemainer unser Judischeit in unnserm Ertzhertzogthumb östereich under der Ennss”, namely, by delegates of all the Jews in the Archdukedom of Austria in the region south of the river Enns. Actions Taken by the Jews Although the letter by the Jews to King Ferdinand is intended for the eyes of the authorities and is preserved only in an oﬃcial government copy, it may serve us as an “internal” source, for it provides

in Wien, p. 254 onwards, appendix XXVa. This is the source for the copy printed in MHJ, 1, p. 404ﬀ. 293 The reading of the word “aush” is not deﬁnite; it may possibly be read “aufh”, or perhaps “auss”, in which case its meaning is: a few of them. 294 The Vienna documents, fol. 20–21a; MHJ, 1, no. 333, pp. 414–16. 295 Historische Skizzen, p. 29; Geschichte etc., p. 23, while in the Jahrbuch he is more accurate and writes “the Jews of Lower Austria”.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

163

a detailed description of the proceedings from the Jews’ perspective, and therein lies its importance. Let us therefore consider this letter penned by the Jews’ representatives. They recount all that had happened in Pösing: they write that the Counts of Pösing acted in breach of law, honour and justice, without the King’s knowledge or consent, and, with inordinate haste (vbereilt), conﬁscated and damaged all the Jews’ property; that the Counts were assisted by the enemies of the accused, people from Pressburg and Tyrnau—those that had expelled the Jews and seized their houses;296 that they (the Counts) were debtors of the accused; that they compelled the accused by means of cruel tortures to incriminate two Jews from Marchegg, that also the men from Pressburg and Tyrnau were their debtors; that there was no reason whatsoever to apply torture; that the searches for the child made among them (the Jews) produced nothing, but that a legal prosecutor (ain Zichtiger) was nevertheless summoned; that they found in a ﬁeld the body of a nine-year-old boy, and probably knew in advance where to ﬁnd him; that they acted illegally by not submitting the ﬁnder of the corpse or the Jews’ accusers to a stringent cross-examination; that the slanderers were heard to say that they would burn the accused whether they confessed or not,297 and this is precisely what they did; that among those burned to death were several pregnant women,298 and that all this was done only to get their hands on the property and so that their tyrannous acts would not be exposed. Further on in their letter, they complain that immediately after the arrest of the Jews the slanderers approached the Count of Salm, demanding that he take similar steps against the Jews in Marchegg, and this even before he heard the accused’s version of the aﬀair. 296

The reference clearly is to the Pressburg expulsion of 1526. There are various documents on the subject of the houses of the Jews in the city, such as: MHJ, 8, no. 169, p. 155, which contains a list of the houses and their buyers, and also, MHJ, 8, no. 169, p. 160, which details the compensation paid to various Jews, former residents of Pressburg, for their houses. 297 The purpose of the tortures was to induce the suspect to confess his guilt, for otherwise there were no grounds for prosecution (see also above, p. 28). This is in contrast to Jewish law, in which the suspect’s confession makes no diﬀerence in the ﬁnal judgement. Compare Mitteis, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, p. 280. Therefore, as the Jewish petitioners and Osiander both argue, the conviction of suspects who have not confessed their guilt is a blatant departure from approved judicial procedure according to the ideas of that period. 298 The writer of the anonymous Kronika Ivrit mi-Prag, (ed.) Abraham David, refers to the brutal torture of a pregnant woman in Pösing, p. 8.

164

[13]

5289 (1528⁄29)

The slanderers also refused to accept the Count’s request to permit the Jews to take the Jewish oath as justice demands (den Juden Eidt gegen stellen lassen wie recht ist), and published an unjust and unnatural confession (of the crime), so as to exonerate themselves and incriminate the Jews. The Jews’ representatives go on to point out that on numerous occasions in the past the emperors and also the rulers of the kingdom of Bohemia have aﬃrmed that there is no truth to the blood libel and that the Jews are being done an injustice;299 the King could also ask the opinion of converts and of various scholars concerning the truth of this kind of allegation. They conclude their letter by appealing to Ferdinand to take action against the Counts of Pösing and to immediately free the unfortunate Jews imprisoned in Marchegg, and this in accordance with their privileges, which they have received from previous emperors, and also from King Ferdinand himself only a short time before.300 Ferdinand sent a copy of this letter to the Count of Salm, with an accompanying letter in which he requests an explanation for the arrest of the Jew from Marchegg, and demands that the latter be questioned in accordance with a list of questions enclosed with his letter. Both this Jew and all others are the property of the Royal Chamber (unser Chamerguet), he emphasizes, and he alone has the right to judge them. Therefore, he orders that the Jew be sent to him after being interrogated.301 Curiously, the King speaks only of one Jew that the petitioners wish to have freed, while in their letter the Jews explicitly refer to “those Jews imprisoned in Marchegg”,302 and this accords also with the information given by R. Joseph. According to the interrogation record in the Vienna Archives, one of the Jews confessed that another suspect had received instructions 299 Precisely the same words are found in Osiander’s treatise (pp. 6–7), and also in the title to Eck’s tract. 300 This is a reference to a privilege ( Judenschützung) granted to the Jews of Lower Austria by King Ferdinand. It bears the date 28 May 1529, namely, seven days after the burning of Pösing Jewry. Wolf (Geschichte, p. 22) notes that it is not known why it was granted at that precise time. It lists those territories in which it is valid, and speciﬁcally mentions the region of Marchegg. It was published by Wolf, Geschichte etc., Beilage XXIII, pp. 252–54 and also in MHJ, 1, no. 328, pp. 402–4. 301 MHJ, 1, nos. 335–36, pp. 418–20. The letter is dated 21 June 1529. 302 “und der armen gefangen Juden so zu Marchegk gefangen liegen”. Document ﬁle, fol. 21.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

165

to send the blood of the boy to two people in Marchegg, whose names are speciﬁed. It is quite likely that one of the two was arrested in Marchegg303 and with him, and perhaps following his interrogation, further Jews were taken into custody there, by the same procedure as in Pösing, or, for that matter, in the Silesia aﬀair.304 The Jews, therefore, concentrated ﬁrst and foremost on proving the innocence of that particular Jew, on whom the fate of the rest of Marchegg Jewry apparently depended. In my opinion, all the signs point to the fact that the letter sent by the Jewish representatives to the King is the self-same document {the “words of apology”} that the Jews dispatched to the King through R. Joseph, a copy of which was sent by Ferdinand to the Count of Salm. Certain points about the letter serve to reinforce this hypothesis: its references to the papal and imperial privileges against the blood libel, its forceful tone, and the inﬂuence it exerted on the King. Indeed, there is no doubt that Ferdinand was impressed by the Jews’ petition.305 Apart from his letter to the Count of Salm, the ﬁle also contains drafts of letters to various noblemen, including the Counts of Pösing and St. George, in which the King categorically commands them to immediately stop all persecution of the Jews and meddling with their property.306 In various letters, including to his castellan (castellanus) and to his legal adviser (consiliarus) in Buda,

303 The two Marchegg Jews accused of having received the blood are: Leble (= Löble) and Napl. The fourteenth and ﬁnal question the King’s representative was required to ask the Jew is: is he acquainted with Napl the Jew, did he indeed receive from him the blood brought by Jacob the Jew, son of Zschech (one of the Pösing martyrs), and what did he do with it. Hence, the name of the Jew mentioned in Ferdinand’s letter to the Count of Salm is Löbel. For some reason, the aforementioned question was omitted from the copy published by Wolf, and consequently it is missing also from that printed in the MHJ. 304 See below, section 18 of the Chronicle, p. 324. 305 The King’s actions may have been governed by considerations of prestige and fear of injury to his prerogatives. The Jews also took these considerations into account when they petitioned him, and Osiander, as we have seen, emphasized them. It must be added that the Hungarian government, which looked after King Ferdinand’s interests in that country, supplied him with regular reports concerning the fate of Pösing and Tyrnau Jewry in the wake of the Pösing libel. They had but one aim in mind however: that the King should receive the property of the dead Jews, and that thereby his ﬁnancial distress would be alleviated to some extent. Compare MHJ, 8, Nos. 181–84, pp. 163–66. However, this particular aspiration is not apparent in the King’s letters. 306 Vienna documents, fol. 17a–b.

166

[13]

5289 (1528⁄29)

he writes about the calamity inﬂicted on the Jews by the Counts of Pösing and St. George.307 He also endeavours to assist the son of the Jew Jacob, one of the Pösing martyrs, to retrieve the account books of his father and grandfather {that listed the debts they were owed}.308 Let us now return to Osiander’s treatise,309 and discuss the connection between it and the Jews’ letter to the King. I was unable to establish the identity of the “worthy man” who requested Osiander’s written opinion on the aﬀair. It is hard to believe that his treatise was written only in the wake of the 1540 blood libel,310 since the inquirer was clearly involved, in one way or another, in the investigation of the Pösing libel or in its ramiﬁcations.311

307

Ibid., fol. 15. MHJ, 1, no. 338, pp. 421–22. Initially, the response of the Pösing authorities to the son of Jacob the Jew had been that, according to the law of the land, he who loses his life also loses his property (qui amittit caput, amittit et res et bona), namely, that since the father has been judicially executed, the son cannot claim his property. After he appealed to the King, he was informed that all the debt books of those Jews (put to death in Pösing) had been handed over to the counsellors of the King of Hungary’s Chancellory, and that he should apply to them in this regard. On the same subject, in a letter of King Ferdinand to the Tyrnau justices, dated Prague, 7 February 1530, (printed in MHJ, 8, no. 190, p. 171) the King insists on the restoration to Abraham the Jew, son of Jacob the Jew who was burned in Pösing, of the house and all the property, movables and debt books belonging to his father and to his uncle Samuel, by virtue of his being their legal heir, and of having, up to that time, failed to receive his just due from the city authorities. In addition, the King demands that the Jew be given the names of all his father’s and uncle’s debtors, and that he be aﬀorded all available assistance without any delay. Thus, in the eyes of the King, the executed Jews of Pösing were not “executed criminals” in the normal sense of the term. 309 As cited above, pp. 158–160, especially note 284, which makes reference to the Sappenfeld libel of 1540, i.e., more than ten years after the Pösing aﬀair. 310 Osiander writes that he was hesitant to accede to the request for an opinion and that he took a long time to consider his reply (p. 6)—however, possibly what he means to say is that he already gave thought to the subject before his views were solicited, and that his words are expressly intended for the inquirer alone and not for publication (p. 4). Clearly, it must be assumed that a certain amount of time passed before the treatise appeared in print, and, as is known, Eck’s response was published already in 1541. Therefore, M. Stern’s theory (in the preface to his book on Osiander, p. xiv), that the “worthy man” is perchance the Elector Palatine Otto Heinrich von Neuburg, does not seem to me plausible. Nor can it necessarily be assumed that the inquirer in question was indeed a nobleman; the form of the request could also be that of a burgher—for example, from humanist circles; compare Stern, p. xiv, note 2, and see below, p. 247, note 545. 311 Osiander writes (p. 4) that his words may not be beneﬁcial and may even arouse anger, in which case the inquirer can disregard them. However, he also stresses that by means of his treatise, the inquirer may be able to arrange for the 308

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

167

Apart from this, it seems to me perfectly evident that Jews played a role in this appeal to Osiander. His treatise contains information that could only have been provided to him by the Jews; for example: Osiander could not have deduced from the Christian source that the Count of Pösing was in debt to most of the principal defendants, and that upon their arrest he promptly seized all of their property. The charges concerning irregular judicial procedures during the trial, including the bizarre testimony of the city representatives that they had seen the body, about which Osiander expresses his incredulity,312 and his conclusion that the Jews were considered guilty even before the investigation got underway, all these are arguments which appear in the letter by the Jews to the King. Similarly, Osiander’s invoking of the privileges accorded to the Jews and his advice to seek the opinion of Jewish converts to Christianity concerning the ritual murder accusation313—two points much emphasized in the letter of the Jewish representatives—were undoubtedly derived from Jewish sources. Another possible clue to the identity of the “worthy man” may be found in a document deposited in the Nuremberg Archives, in respect of the permit granted to the Jew Mendel in 1529 to visit the city and reside there for three months,314 although Jews were generally not permitted to lodge in the city. Now we know that a Jew by the name of Mendel, in his capacity as Praefectus Judaeorum, tried to save the Jews of Marchegg.315 It is highly probable that this is the same Mendel, and perhaps, as leader of Hungarian Jewry, he was able to avail himself of his connections with the city of Nuremberg in order to obtain from Osiander, a resident of Nuremberg, an opinion in favour of the Jews. Perhaps he was even behind the blood libel question to be thoroughly investigated once and for all. A further point: if this opinion was given in respect of the 1540 libel aﬀair, it is hard to understand why the inquirer sent him the interrogation records from a diﬀerent libel case. 312 Osiander asks why it was necessary for delegates from neighbouring cities to testify to the fact that they had seen the corpse; this is not customary procedure in murder trials, and it casts a suspicious light on the aﬀair. In his words: “When what needs to be proved cannot be proved, then is proved what does not need proving” (p. 34). 313 Osiander writes at great length on this point, and he argues that neither of the two converts, Pfeﬀerkorn and Paulus Ricius—the latter of whom he praises quite excessively—ever made such an accusation against the Jews (pp. 18–19). 314 See A. Müller, Geschichte der Juden in Nürnberg 1146–1945, Nuremberg 1968, p. 110. The document is in StA Nürnberg, Briefbuch Nr. 99, p. 86. And see also Scheiber, “Mendel of Buda in Nuremberg”, p. 195. 315 Above, pp. 156–157.

168

[13]

5289 (1528⁄29)

request of the “worthy man” to Osiander. We can do no more than speculate. Details of the Libel According to R. Joseph and Other Hebrew Sources Characteristically, R. Joseph does not elaborate on the libel itself. He merely informs us that there was a “false accusation made by a mamzer*”, as a result of which “36 souls—men and women, youths and young girls” were burned at the stake. He notes that in the wake of the Pösing libel “all those Jews in Moravia were taken into custody,” and he writes about his own involvement in the aﬀair, as we have discussed above. Additional information about the proceedings in Pösing and the attempts by the Jews to save the accused can be found in the seventeenth-century Hebrew chronicle from Prague.316 The anonymous author of the Prague Chronicle likewise does not give details about the blood libel itself. Although he provides some information about the interrogation, which apparently was circulating among the Jews, it is not fully substantiated from the other available sources.317 On the other hand, he is well informed about the danger that threatened the Jews of the neigbouring lands and the Jews’ intercession to save their brethren. He writes: And the Jews in other places were in great danger . . . the Jews banded together, and taking their moneybags, they bribed the King and many oﬃcials with a large sum, several thousands. Through this intercession, with God’s help, their evil designs were nulliﬁed and the remaining prisoners were released. . . .318

The expression “together” hints perhaps at the joint action taken with R. Joseph, who was from a diﬀerent land. Unlike the anonymous author of this chronicle, R. Joseph does not make any mention

* {Literally: “bastard”. And see footnote 2 to the text of the Chronicle, p. 303. Translator} 316 Kronika Ivrit mi-Prag, (ed.) A. David, pp. 8–9, and the editor’s comments on pp. 36–37, and see also, ibid., in the introduction, pp. 22–23. 317 For example, the interrogation of the women is not conﬁrmed from any other source. 318 P. 9. {For the quotations from the Prague Chronicle (here and below, on p. 173), I have used, with modiﬁcations, the translation by L. J. Weinberger with D. Ordan of A. David’s edition, pp. 35 and 37. Translator}

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

169

of a bribe,319 nor does he refer to any intercession at the lower levels of authority.320 The Number of Pösing Martyrs There is some discrepancy between the various sources as to the number of martyrs: According to the Christian source, there were “bis in die dreyssig juden”,321 and Osiander uses exactly the same words: “bisz in dreyssig person”,322 that is, “approximately thirty people” and not necessarily exactly thirty.323 The author of the Prague Chronicle relates that “33 souls were burnt”,324 and therefore he too knows of more than 30 people. In addition to the sources already discussed, extant also are entries on the Pösing martyrs in memorial books of several Jewish communities, some of which include the names of the martyrs. In 1893, Nachum Sokolov published an extract from a memorial book of the Cracow community,325 and some time later D. Kaufmann published the complete list of 24 names contained in this book.326 Kaufmann also attempted to match

319 In contrast to other occasions, such as in the case of the Silesia Aﬀair (see pp. 213, 324–325). 320 The expression “many oﬃcials” (in the Prague Chronicle) may refer to various oﬃcials at the King’s court, and also to local functionaries, such as the King’s representatives in Lower Austria and in Moravia. 321 The source of the confusion in the Christian documentation with regard to the number of people burnt at the stake is almost certainly related to the question of whether the Jewish children were counted, for despite a last-minute decision to let them live, they ran with their parents into the ﬂames. The authorities undoubtedly knew only the number of adults. 322 Osiander, p. 38. 323 Compare Grimm, DW, IV–2, s.v. in, II 1 k, col. 2098, which brings an example from II Maccabees 12:23, which translated reads: “and some 30,000 men perished” or in the German of that time: “und bracht ir in die dreiszig tausent umb”. Another example: ibid., 12:4: “And they drowned them, no less than 200 souls”— ”sie erseuften sie alle in die zwei hundert person”. On the Christians’ ignorance of the exact number killed, see above, note 321. 324 P. 9. 325 N. Sokolov, “Mi-Yemei ha-Asonot ve-ha-Gezerot” (From the Days of the Calamities and the Persecutions), Sefer ha-Assif, 6 (1893), p. 133. 326 D. Kaufmann, “Die Märtyrer des Pösinger Autodafes von 1529”, MGWJ, 38 (1894), pp. 426–32. The memory of the Pösing Jewish community has been preserved, among that of other martyred communities, in additional memorial books. M. Weinberg surveyed the “Yizkor” books of the Bavarian Jewish communities in his Die Memorbücher der jüdischen Gemeinden in Bayern, Frankfurt on Main 1937. However, in my humble opinion, he did not always succeed in identifying Pösing in the lists of the communities. In accordance with the numeration Weinberg gave to the

170

[13]

5289 (1528⁄29)

them with the 11 names published by Zunz from the Christian printed version.327 The identiﬁcation of the names is not our concern here, as R. Joseph does not mention names. However, it is of interest to establish the exact number of those killed. Kaufmann attributes the additional names in the Cracow memorial book over and above the 11 printed by Zunz to the fact that the Christian version contains only the names of those Jews who were interrogated, and not of all those who were put to death. The discrepancy between the total number listed by the Christian source (about 30) and the 24 names in the Cracow memorial book, Kaufmann explains by the fact that the memorial book mentioned only the names of adult Jews. In a number of places the words “and his sons”, “and his daughters” are appended to the name of the martyr, and these should therefore be added to the list. Bearing all this in mind, Kaufmann determined that the ﬁgure of 36 given by R. Joseph is almost certainly erroneous. A. Scheiber published two extracts from the memorial books preserved in the Jewish Museum in Prague.328 In one of them, there is a general reference to the Pösing martyrs without any mention of names, but the second book (MS Prague 64) lists 31 names. If we compare the list of names in the Cracow memorial book with that in Prague, it emerges that only 15 of the names listed in the Prague memorial book can deﬁnitely be matched with the names appearing on the Cracow list.329 Moreover, each list contains additional

memorial books, Pösing is referred to in the books by the following names written in Hebrew letters: no. 14: Boezingen; no. 15: Boezingen; no. 17: Boizingen; no. 19: Bozovangi; no. 22: Boizna’n [?]; no. 36: Binzingen; no. 37: Boezingen; no. 38: Bizingen; no. 39: Bizingen; no. 43: Boezingen; and in a series of names beginning with the Hebrew letter “bet”: no. 48: Boezing; no. 49: Boezingen. 327 L. Zunz, Die synagogale Poesie des Mittelalters, second edition, Frankfurt on Main 1920, p. 55. 328 A. Scheiber, “Kedoshei Pozing” (The Martyrs of Pösing), Aresheth, 6 (1980), pp. 227–30. 329 It is diﬃcult to identify the other people, as some of them are not mentioned by name, but are simply referred to as family members, e.g., “and his sons”, “and his daughters”, “and his two sons”, “and her daughter”, and even here the information is not always the same in the two sources; for example, by the name of one of those killed, the Cracow memorial book notes “and his sons” but that of Prague registers the names of two daughters. There is also uncertainty about some of the names of the women. We must also take into account the fact that all the Jews in Pösing perished. Naturally, it is possible that a member of the community was out of town at the time and was saved, or that one of the children of those killed had moved to another locality (compare above, note 308), and they would

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

171

names that do not appear on the other. If we add up all the names from all the sources we arrive at approximately 40 names. It would not make any sense that a memorial book should include the names of people who were not Pösing martyrs. On the other hand, some of the names of the martyrs may inadvertantly have been omitted from a long list. There is therefore no need to cast doubt on R. Joseph’s version, particularly since he was involved personally in interceding for victims of the libel. The minor diﬀerence between 36 and 40 can be explained by the impreciseness in the memorial books with regard to the children whose names were not listed. A further point: An examination of the names reveals that those killed were almost all members of eight families, and among them can be found parents, sons and daughters, and sons-in-law and daughters-in-law. The Christian source stresses that the sentence was pronounced against the whole Jewish community (die ganz Judischheit so da selbst), and from this we can deduce that the entire community in Pösing consisted of about eight families. As to the children, we learn from the Cracow memorial book that several young boys ran with their parents into the ﬁre. In one place, it is written: . . . and the soul of the martyr, R. Isaac bar Yekutiel ha-Levi (the community cantor) and the soul of his martyred wife, Mistress Gitel, daughter of R. Abraham, and the soul of his great-grandson, the martyred youth, R. Moses bar Jacob ha-Kohen, who ran willingly into the ﬂames with the rest of his companions, the martyred youths. . . .330

However, there were also children who were handed over to Christian families. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the author of the Prague Chronicle knows to relate that the young children taken by the Christians did not return to Judaism: “However, for our many sins, several children still remain among them to this very day, to this day they could not be saved”.331 From his words, it can be inferred that the Jews endeavoured to rescue the children from the

have been able to testify to the names of those who perished. However, even such witnesses may not have known precisely which Jews were living in Pösing at that time, and how many children they had over the age of ten, and what their names were. 330 See the article by Kaufmann, “Die Märtyrer des Pösinger Autodafes”, p. 429. 331 Kronika Ivrit mi-Prag, p. 9.

172

[14]

5290 (1529⁄30)

Christians, but that their eﬀorts were in vain. At any event, the knowledge that the children were in Christian hands was preserved in the memory of the Jews for many decades even beyond the frontiers of Hungary.332

[14] 5290 (1529/30) The Jews and the Turks At the end of the 1520s the Turks captured Hungary and they turned the environs of Vienna into a wasteland. Although at the close of 1529 they were driven back from the gates of Vienna, there was great fear that they would return and launch yet another attack. As in the case of other catastrophes, in this instance too the Jews were made the scapegoats. It was known that many Jews had settled during those years in the territories of the Ottoman Empire, not only exiles from Spain and other countries, but also Jews who had been persecuted for their religion in Christian lands and had ﬂed into Moslem countries. In the prevailing climate of suspicion and animosity against the Jews, they were accused of desiring a Turkish victory, and even of being in communication with the Turks and acting as spies within the Holy Roman Empire.333 Such accusations were liable to have disastrous consequences, especially at a time when proposals for a total expulsion of the Jews from Germany were being submitted almost daily. We learn from the Chronicle that an assembly was convened of delegates of German Jewish communities, and that R. Joseph was assigned to draw up a document—a “booklet” (kuntres) he calls it—refuting the accusations. Armed with this, R. Joseph travelled to Innsbruck, the capital of the Tyrol and one of the imperial cities, where Emperor Charles V was meeting his brother Ferdinand on his way from Italy to the Augsburg Diet. The charge that the Jews were supporting the Turks, and the resultant expulsion threat against the Jewish community is referred to also by the anonymous Prague chronicler, who writes: 332 And it is possible that the author of the Prague Chronicle copied this extract from an earlier source. See ibid., the introduction, p. 21. 333 For this, see S. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 13, New YorkLondon 1969, pp. 258–59, 444–45.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

173

In 5289 (1529) in all the lands there was a new accusation against the Jews, one not found in the Torah, impugning that they spy on the King {the Emperor}, may he be exalted, for the King of Ishmael {the Ottoman sultan}. In consequence, there was a plot to deny the Jews their rights, leaving them unprotected and liable to massacre and extermination, Heaven forbid! All the governors of the lands intended to carry out an expulsion in all the lands, God forbid, with the King’s approval, may he be exalted. But God, blessed be He, nulliﬁed their evil intent.334

The accusation that the Jews were spying for the Turks was renewed in subsequent years. It is mentioned in a document issued by King Ferdinand during the debates on the Prague expulsion,335 and again {at the Diet of Worms} in 1545.336 According to the Prague Chronicle the accusation was already widespread in 1529, and this is certainly feasible; Antonius Margaritha made just such an allegation in his book,337 which was published in 1530. Not only Jews were suspected of supporting the Turks. The Anabaptist sects, which were strong and active in Germany at precisely this period, constructed various fantastic plans to destroy those they considered to be Christianity’s true enemies and to establish a regenerated society in the spirit of their faith. Among other things, they hoped for a Turkish victory, which would result in the overthrow of the Emperor and the supporters of papal Christianity. The Anabaptist stronghold was in Augsburg. Three men headed the movement: Johann Denk, Ludwig Hetzer and Hans Hut. Together they produced a quasi-religious covenant, which included the abolition of private property, and augured a complete change in the entire social order. They foresaw a kind of war of Gog and Magog, in which all the evil rulers would perish, and the reins of government would pass to the righteous—namely to the members of the sect. The Turks would be active participants in this war, as the chastisers of the rulers.

334

Kronika Ivrit mi-Prag, p. 9, para. 34 and the editor’s comments, pp. 37–38. Compare S. Steinhartz, “Geirush ha-Yehudim mi-Beihem bi-Shenat 1541” (The Expulsion of the Jews from Bohemia in 1541), Zion, 15 (1950), p. 85, note 45. 336 See below, introduction to section 27 of the Chronicle (p. 267). On that occasion too there were calls for the expulsion of the Jews. 337 Der Gantz jüdisch Glaub, Augsburg 1530, C IIb, G 1; and compare Sefer haMiknah, introduction, p. 28, note 11. 335

174

[14]

5290 (1529⁄30)

In all those years the threat of expulsion continued to menace the Jews. As we have seen, as early as 1528 plots were hatched to expel the Jews from the Hagenau region and even from the imperial territories as a whole, and these designs were only foiled thanks to R. Joseph’s eﬀorts. R. Joseph notes that in 1530 in “several lands” plans were afoot to prohibit even the passage of Jews through those lands from which they had previously been expelled. We know, for example, that at that time Württemberg received a charter signed by Ferdinand in his capacity as protector of the duchy after the suspension from oﬃce of Duke Ulrich. This reaﬃrmed a charter received by the duchy from Charles V in 1521 denying the Jews any visiting rights and permitting them right of passage only. In the same document, Ferdinand forbade his subjects to borrow from Jews or make any business transactions with them, and he ruled that any contract that was concluded with them would not be legally binding.338 However, on 24 May 1530, while still in Innsbruck, he altered the charter slightly in the Jews’ favour,339 this concession being undoubtedly an immediate consequence of R. Joseph’s intercession. The “booklet” referred to by R. Joseph is not extant, but his “words of apology”340 were accepted by the Emperor and his brother, and already in Innsbruck R. Joseph received a charter of rights for all imperial Jewry.341 This charter is addressed to the princes of Germany of all ranks, and in particular to the imperial oﬃcials of Lower Alsace. He has been informed by all of imperial Jewry, writes the Emperor, that the Jews received privileges from various emperors and kings, but that, despite those bills of rights, they are being persecuted time and again in various localities and their rights are being impaired. They have asked him, as their protector and direct overlord, to ensure that they are not treated in a manner that is incompatible with their privileges.

338 Printed document of 13 July 1529: HStA Stuttgart, A 56 Bü 1, Judenheit Nr. 44. 339 Ibid. 340 For the meaning of the expression “lehitnatsel”, see above, introduction to section 13 of the Chronicle (the Pösing Martyrs), p. 158, note 283. 341 This privilege was given at Innsbruck on 18 May 1530. There are copies in various archives: HStA Stuttgart, H 53 Bü 181, Nr. 119; StaA Memmingen Schublade 1/3; HStA Düsseldorf, Jülich-Berg II 2638, 122v–123; StaA Eßlingen, L 26 f 34.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

175

Desirous to protect the rights of every person, continues the Emperor, he hereby conﬁrms every one of the freedoms that imperial Jewry has ever received, and he enjoins all the government bodies not to exert pressure on the Jews or harm them, but to treat them in accordance with the privileges they possess. Hence, the words “and they conﬁrmed all our former privileges” are a precise description of the content of the Innsbruck charter of rights. In Augsburg too R. Joseph continued his eﬀorts to soften the attitude of the various German states, and speciﬁcally of Württemberg, towards the Jews. On 4 August 1530, Ferdinand writes from Augsburg to his commissioners for the duchy of Württemberg,342 advising them that he has received a petition from all of Jewry (von gemeiner Judischeit wegen) {concerning} two Jews from Schwabach, Lazarus and Simon, who have encountered diﬃculties despite their privileges, which grant them right of passage through Württemberg for business purposes.343 Ferdinand orders the commissioners to honour the travel permits (Geleit) and privileges of the two aforementioned Jews and their men. He enclosed the petition by the Jewish representatives, signed by Lazarus and Isaiah in the name of all Jewry. It would appear that this petition of the Jews was drawn up with R. Joseph’s assistance. Possibly, the two Jews were in Augsburg as delegates of the Esslingen community to confer with R. Joseph about the economic document that the Jews drafted there at the time.344 That same month R. Joseph received from the Emperor a charter of rights for all Imperial Jewry, which reaﬃrmed the privilege granted by Emperor Sigismund to the Jews of the Alsatian imperial cities in 1433, and extended it to cover all the territories of the Empire.345 According to this charter, Christian debtors were required to honour their obligations, written and verbal, and to pay their debts.

342

The letter is in HStA Stuttgart, ibid. They were leading members of the Esslingen Jewish community. See below, introduction to section 27 of the Chronicle, p. 275. 344 See below, p. 179 onwards. 345 The charter was given on 12 August 1530. Copies of it are deposited in, among other places, Strasbourg, ArchDep Bas-Rhin, C 78; GLA Karlsruhe, 67/894. Feilchenfeld discusses this charter at length, pp. 53–55, and see also M. Freudenthal, “Zur Geschichte des Judenprivilegs Kaiser Maximilians II auf dem Reichstag zu Augsburg 1566”, ZGJD, N.F. 4 (1932), pp. 83–84. 343

176

[15]

5290 (1529⁄30)

The Jews were granted the right to sell pledges after a year from the date of deposit. The Emperor undertook to defend the lives and property of the Jews and not to levy taxes over and above the regular ones. Furthermore, he engaged to protect the Jews in times of war in the same manner as all other citizens. Jews were permitted to travel freely from city to city. Forced baptism of Jewish men, women and children was strictly prohibited. The Jews were also promised fair treatment before the courts in their places of residence. The importance of the 1530 charter for the Jews can be learned from the fact that immediately upon Duke Ulrich of Württemberg’s restoration to power in 1535, his advisers met in Stuttgart to confer about it.346 They did this despite the fact that Württemberg too had received an additional charter from Emperor Charles V at Augsburg that reaﬃrmed its right to bar Jews from visiting the duchy, determined that legal claims against Württemberg subjects should be heard only in Württemberg courts, and stressed that promissory notes to Jews would not be admitted in the courts of law.347

[15] 5290 (1529/30) The Diet of Augsburg R. Joseph discusses the Augsburg Diet of 1530348 in many places: in the “Letter of Consolation”,349 in Sefer ha-Miknah,350 in his Chronicle here, and also in his letters of 1543 to the Strasbourg city authorities.351

346

Gutachten der Räte für Herzog Ulrich v. Würtemberg über das Juden mandat Kaiser Karls V von 1530, 1. Febr. 1536, HStA Stuttgart A 56 Bü 4. 347 Privilege of 15 October 1530, Augsburg: HStA Stuttgart, A 81 U 2. 348 On the 1530 Augsburg Diet, see J. Janssen, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters, 20th edition, Freiburg im Breisgau 1917, III, pp. 198–259; L. von Ranke, Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation, Vienna 1934, pp. 568–604; K. E. Förstermann, Urkundenbuch zu der Geschichte des Reichstages zu Augsburg, 1530, I–II, Halle 1833–1835. Additional literature is cited in the appropriate places. Since R. Joseph gives no information about the debates at this Diet, we shall conﬁne ourselves to a discussion of those problems that aﬀected the Jews. 349 “Letter of Consolation”, sections 21b and 23, see below, pp. 362 and 371–372. 350 Sefer ha-Miknah, p. 15, the paragraph concerning the expulsion of Regensburg Jewry. 351 ArchMun Strasbourg, III 174, 23, below, Appendix 2, pp. 405, 414.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

177

Characteristically, his approach is slightly diﬀerent every time, and he provides a bit of information in one place and a bit more in another. R. Joseph does not concern himself anywhere with the actual Diet debates, although it can be said that this is the only time when he supplements his account with descriptive details of a general historical event that are not essential for his purpose. I am referring to the words “there was an assembly of all the princes of the Empire and the nobles, as well as countless ladies . . .”. The exceptionally festive nature of this Diet, commented upon also in other sources, must have much impressed him.352 However, he does not have a single word to say about the questions of doctrine that were at the heart of the debates, nor about the Protestant document formulated at the Diet that subsequently became known as the Augsburg Confession (or the Confessio Augustana). He merely relates that on that occasion they sought to “establish preventive laws and regulations”— a translation of the expression Gute Polizieordunung 353—and this is equally true for every Imperial Diet. However, we can understand the importance of the Polizeiordunung for R. Joseph, as these regulations included the directives and laws concerning usury. It seems that R. Joseph’s actions concerning the usury question during the Diet meeting were not directly connected with the Diet debates themselves. Hence, it is clear why there is no reference to R. Joseph in any document or published material on the Diet proceedings.354 With regard to his activities at the time of the Diet, in the Chronicle, R. Joseph mentions explicitly only his attempts to resolve the problems associated with interest taking. However, in his “Letter of Consolation”, written in 1541, he does not even allude to the usury question, although he refers twice to the 1530 Diet.355 On the other hand, he writes there that in 1530 a serious charge was levelled against the Jews, that it was they who had taught the Lutherans their faith (wir hart zu rede gestellt worden, wie wir hetten den luterischen 352 For the uniqueness of this Diet as regards the wealth of source material and the paintings that immortalized its pomp and glitter, see A. Aulinger, Das Bild des Reichstages im 16. Jahrhundert, Göttingen 1980, especially pp. 328–39. 353 See the General Introduction, p. 5. 354 In any event, I did not ﬁnd in them any mention of either R. Joseph or Margaritha (see below). 355 See above, note 349.

178

[15]

5290 (1529⁄30)

iren glauben gelert), but adds that there were also other allegations (mit mehr zugelegten sachen). He relates that during the Diet session, he responded to the charges of the apostate Jew, Antonius Margaritha, and in particular on the subject of the Jews’ attitude to the nations in whose midst they dwelt.356 According to him, the disputation with Margaritha took place in the presence of the Emperor, the King (Ferdinand)357 and the Imperial Estates (vor allen ständen des reichs). Similarly, in his letter of 1543 to the Strasbourg city council, R. Joseph writes that he refuted Margaritha’s three accusations at the Augsburg Diet in 1530, in the presence of the Emperor and all the Imperial Estates.358 From these two sources the impression is gained that this disputation took place before something like a full session of the Diet. Indeed, in Sefer ha-Miknah, R. Joseph gives the date Rosh Óodesh Av {1 Av},359 and thus it would have taken place at the height of the Diet sessions, which continued until the end of September. However, as remarked, I have been unable to discover any documentation concerning this disputation. In Sefer ha-Miknah, R. Joseph refers only to three charges that the apostate, whose name he does not mention, hurled against the Jews, and he describes how he was able to stand ﬁrm in the disputation and refute those allegations. He writes there that the Emperor, “exceedingly incensed”, called upon him to respond to Margaritha’s accusations, “promptly and without delay”, namely without any preparation on his part. It should be noted that in no place does R. Joseph link Margaritha with the campaign against Jewish usury, although this was central to Margaritha’s recommendations to the authorities, and his writings may well have carried weight on this subject too. However, his tract Der Gantz jüdisch Glaub (The Whole Jewish Faith) was only presented to Emperor Charles V during the Augsburg Diet itself, and R. Joseph 356 For Margaritha, see my article: “Be-Shulei ha-Óevra ha-Yehudit”, pp. 626–27; and also the introduction to Sefer ha-Miknah, p. 26 onwards, and the literature cited there. 357 Ferdinand was elected king of Germany during this Diet, on 5 September 1530, and was crowned on 5 January 1531 in a magniﬁcent ceremony at Cologne. See Janssen, III, pp. 256–57; however, as ruler of Bohemia, he already bore the title of king since 1526 (see also above, p. 152). 358 See above, note 351. 359 See Sefer ha-Miknah, p. 15, lines 10–11. {R. Joseph uses the term Rosh Óodesh when referring to the ﬁrst day of the month. In 1530, 1 Av fell on 25 July. Translator}

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

179

could not have been aware of its contents. In any event, in the disputation with Margaritha, he was obliged to refute those three accusations against the Jews that were submitted to him, none of which touched on the problem of interest. These accusations he speciﬁes in Sefer ha-Miknah: “. . . The Jews are cursing the Gentiles, mocking Jesus in the Aleinu le-Shabea˙ prayer,* and have circumcised proselytes”.360 These charges are not mentioned at all or only hinted at in the Chronicle. However, because of the importance of his disputation with Margaritha, it is permissible to surmise that the words in the Chronicle, “With God’s help I stood ﬁrm” and possibly also “and the accusers were silenced”, may also—and perhaps primarily—allude to Antonius Margaritha, although in their context in this section they refer to the usury question. R. Joseph’s eﬀorts to prevent the prohibition of Jewish usury focused on the drafting of a ten-article document called “Articles and Regulations” (Artikel und Ordnung) that included an undertaking on the part of all German Jewry to abide by certain self-imposed restrictions in their monetary transactions, in order to ensure the preservation of Christian rights.361 This economic document, on which he laboured throughout the days of the Diet, does not receive any speciﬁc mention in his Chronicle. The document opens with an introductory paragraph in which R. Joseph addresses all the princes and Estates of the German Empire. As the representative of all Jewry, he writes, he has received information from various sources that in several principalities and territories some Jews are not conducting themselves appropriately, thus causing unjustiﬁable injury to the citizens of those territories. Since the Jews themselves had been unable to resolve these matters, the lords of those territories had been obliged to ﬁnd ways to lighten the burden on their subjects. He, R. Joseph, had notiﬁed the Jews in all the localities about this problem, and had demanded that they * {This is a reference to the charge, made by Christians in the late Middle Ages, that the sentence in the Aleinu le-Shabea˙ prayer “For they bow down to vanity and emptiness and pray to a god that saveth not” contains an insulting allusion to the founder of Christianity. By coincidence, the numerical value of the Hebrew word va-rik “emptiness” is the same as Yeshu—Jesus. Due to pressure from the Christian censor the sentence was removed from Ashkenazi prayer books. It has now been restored to some prayer books. Translator} 360 See Sefer ha-Miknah, p. 15, line 8. 361 The text of this document is printed below, Appendix 1a, p. 377 onwards, together with the relevant information concerning its location in the archives.

180

[15]

5290 (1529⁄30)

or their representatives come to him to Augsburg; and, indeed, delegates of the communities came from many places and, together with him, they drew up the following ordinances:* 1. No Jew is permitted to give a loan** at hidden interest, namely, by charging a price in excess of the principal. 2. It is forbidden for any Jew who lends money to a Christian to charge compound interest. 3. It is forbidden for a Jew to sue any debtor in a court outside the debtor’s domicile (mit auslendischen gerichten furnemen).362 Instead, he must apply to the authorities in the debtor’s place of residence, and they should assist him to collect his debt within one month. If during that time he is unsuccessful and is compelled to bring an action in a non-local court, he should not demand an exorbitant sum from the borrower, but only the minimum that is required. 4. It is forbidden for a Jew to accept a stolen pledge; if it emerges that a pledge that he has received is stolen property, he is required to break oﬀ all business relations with the robber; if it happens a second time, he is required to return the pledge to its owners without any compensation.363 If the pledge is an animal, it should be returned to its owners without any compensation in every case. * {The legislation regulating the aﬀairs of the Jewish community is known as takanot, which I have translated as “ordinances” or “community regulations”. Translator} ** {However, both Feichenfeld and S. Stern read the German text here diﬀerently, and see below, pp. 378 and 383–384. Translator} 362 This is primarily a reference to the Imperial Court of Justice at Rottweil, to which Jews frequently brought their claims, and see above, in the General Introduction, p. 23. 363 One of the points of controversy was the right of Jews to receive payment for a pledge that they had acquired in good faith but was later found to be stolen property. This right is known as Jüdisches Hehlerrecht and it conﬂicted with the Deutsches Hehlerrecht, according to which a stolen pledge must be returned to the rightful owner without any compensation. See H. Meyer, Entwertung und Eigentum im deutschen Fahrnisrecht—ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des deutschen Privatrechts und des Judenrechts im Mittelalter, Jena 1902, section 3: “Das jüdische Hehlerrecht”, p. 166 ﬀ.; G. Kisch, “The Jewish Law of Concealment”, Historia Judaica, 1, pp. 1–30. For a detailed discussion, see S. Stern, pp. 112–14; see also the recent monograph by F. Lotter: “Talmudisches Recht in den Judenprivilegien Heinrichs IV? Zur Ausbildung und Entwickelung des Marktschutzrechts im frühen und hohen Mittelalter”, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, 72 (1990), vol. 1, pp. 23–61. Lotter examines the origin of the law and reaches the conclusion that rightly it should not be termed “Hehlerrecht” (Robbers Law), but “Markt-schutzrecht”, in the sense of “the market regulations” found in the Talmud. See also above, the General Introduction, pp. 23–24. In this article, R. Joseph partially waives an important privilege of the Jews, ﬁrst accorded to the Jews of Speyer by Emperor Henry IV in the late eleventh century and reconﬁrmed thereafter in all the Jews’ charters.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

181

5. A Jew is forbidden to engage in any business transaction of buying or lending with minors without their parents’ knowledge. If he does so, he will not be repaid the debt and will also be liable to a ﬁne. 6. If a debtor of a Jew dies, the Jewish lender is forbidden to proceed against his widow or heirs in the secular or ecclesiastical courts of law, but should bring the matter to the attention of the parnasim {leaders} of his community and act in accordance with their counsel. 7. If a Jew borrows money from a Christian, or receives goods from him, and then goes abroad in bad faith, the parnasim of his community are required to excommunicate him (unsern hochsten bann), expel him from the community and deny him the Emperor’s protection. If a Jew breaks the ban and has dealings with him, he is required to discharge the latter’s debt, insofar as his means permit, together with a ﬁne. 8. If a Christian submits a complaint against any Jew to the parnasim of the community, they must help the Christian to obtain justice and should conduct themselves towards him in accordance with divine law (das gottlich Recht ergen lassen), as also Christians behave justly towards Jews, and there is no diﬀerence between human beings on earth. 9. Every Jew is obliged to inform the community leaders of any instance known to him of a Jew behaving dishonestly. 10. If the community leaders learn of any unjust action taken by a Jew in their locality, in the cities, the villages or the marketplaces, they must vigorously proceed against the oﬀender, even if the Christian claimant is not at hand, because Jewish law and custom from time immemorial require justice and honesty, for the Jewish people shall not act unjustly. Next to some of the articles is an additional note specifying the size of the ﬁne to be paid by oﬀenders to the authorities and the community leaders. The ten articles are followed by a closing paragraph: In the past the princes have always treated the Jews mercifully, but today, in many places, they do not even permit them right of passage with their merchandise on their way to the Frankfurt fair. Since all the imperial privileges to the Jews have been reaﬃrmed, whereby they are permitted to remain in their places of abode, are not to be expelled, and are to be granted passage through every land without

182

[15]

5290 (1529⁄30)

hindrance, the Jews express the hope that the Christian authorities will not place new burdens upon them, but will continue to act towards them as in former times. And R. Joseph adds: “For the Jews too are human beings, whom God created to live on earth together and side by side with you, the Christians, and to traﬃc with you”. In closing, the Jews undertake to strictly observe the aforementioned Articles and to publish them among their coreligionists in every place. The document was sealed with R. Joseph’s personal seal on 17 November 1530, namely after the end of the Diet. However, an additional paragraph was attached, written by various hands, stating that the document was presented by R. Joseph personally to the Archbishop of Augsburg, and sent at his request to the Public Clerk (Landschreiber) of the Margraviate of Burgau and to the Imperial Governor (Landvogt) of Esslingen (Ayslingen). Before the end of 1530, R. Joseph also delivered a copy of the document to the Town Clerk (Stadtschreiber) of Ulm [ ?], so that he should give a copy of it to the Ulm city council. Yet another copy he presented to the Unterlandvogt of Lower Alsace, and, at the beginning of 1531, he gave copies to the city councils of Rosheim and Oberehnheim. There was no time for R. Joseph to present the economic document to the Emperor at Augsburg, and on 25 November, immediately after its signing, he received a letter from the Imperial Vice-Chancellor, Matthias Held, demanding that he take appropriate steps to ensure that the number of claims the Jews were making in the Imperial Court of Justice at Rottweil be reduced. After the Emperor left the city, R. Joseph was obliged to travel after him, and reached Günzburg, where, on 6 December, he requested a travel permit from the Württemberg authorities to enable him to pass through the state and overtake the Emperor, who was journeying with his court to Cologne to attend Ferdinand’s coronation as king of Germany. Already in Augsburg, he had written to the Württemberg authorities claiming that he possessed a safe-conduct from the Emperor to travel throughout the land (Geleit), and had received an ambivalent reply. This time he attached to his letter describing the purpose of his journey a verbatim copy of the Economic Document sealed with his seal.364

364 At the head of the document is written: “Josel Jud von Rosheim gemeiner Judischeit Regierer bittet um Geleit und ubersendet die durch ihn aufgestelte und von Gesandten der Juden wehrend des Augsburger Reichstages (am 17. Nov.)

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

183

Nevertheless, the Württemberg authorities rejected his request. They maintained that they had received a new charter from the Emperor, accorded them at the Augsburg Diet, whereby no Jew was permitted to pass through their land, and that therefore R. Joseph’s safeconduct was null and void. It would appear that R. Joseph was forced to cancel his plan to reach the Emperor. On 16 December we ﬁnd him in Hagenau, where he presented a copy of the Economic Document to the Unterlandvogt. R. Joseph’s eﬀorts to prevent the adoption by the Diet of stringent resolutions against usury proved fruitless. According to the Reformation Guter policey zu Augspurg, published at the end of the Diet, interest taking by Jews was totally prohibited.365 The relevant article states: whereas in various places in the German Empire Jews are not only lending at high interest and in exchange for pledges that belong to the debtor (eigene underpfandt), but also in exchange for stolen property, and, thereby, are oppressing and injuring the unfortunate and unwary common people, we decree that Jews who lend money at interest (so wuchern) are not to be maintained or received by anyone in the Empire, nor aﬀorded any protection or legal rights (weder friede noch gleidt), and that no court of law shall assist them in collecting their debts. In order that they should nevertheless be able to earn a living in those places where they are tolerated, they must refrain from practising any form of usury or engaging in any prohibited business transactions, but shall employ themselves in honest trade and handicrafts (mit zimblicher hantierung und Handtarbeit ernehren), all this being irrespective of the Jews’ present privileges or any privileges they may receive in the future that state the contrary. An additional article stipulates that it is forbidden for anyone to have Jews in the land unless he possesses a special privilege from the Emperor in this regard.366 It is incumbent upon authorities in bestätigten Judenartikel”. All these documents are in the same ﬁle in the Württemberg Central Archives at Stuttgart, A 56 Bü 2 (see above, note 361, and below, p. 377). R. Joseph’s letter has been printed by Feilchenfeld in appendix VI, pp. 161–62. The authorities’ reply was that “the Jew should take a diﬀerent route if he wishes to follow the Emperor’s court; {our} previous answer remains valid”. 365 Similar decisions were published already in the year 1500, and served as a model for the decisions of subsequent Diets. I have used the copy in StA Wiesbaden Abt. 171, Altes Dillenberger Archiv, J 26. The decrees were also published in a booklet, with the title Reformation Guter Pollicei Auﬀgericht zu Augspurg, 1530. 366 The rights appertaining to the king were called regalia; at times he transferred them to others, who enjoyed them on his behalf or with his consent. The right to

184

[16]

5291 (1530⁄31)

all places where there are Jews to be on their guard against the spread of the plague of usury in their territory, and to ensure that the Jews do not purchase stolen property. If they are found to be in possession of stolen property, they must return the same to those persons who can prove their ownership, without any compensation. We shall see below that R. Joseph worked indefatigably to prevent the implementation of these decisions of the Augsburg Diet.367

[16] 5291 (1530/31) The Brabant Aﬀair This section contains some information but a great deal remains obscure. We do not know why exactly R. Joseph journeyed to Flanders and Brabant, lands that, in his words, “were not inhabited by any Jew”.368 The main problem, however, is the identity of the “accusers” who according to him followed the Emperor to Flanders. Our author employs the expression “accusers” to describe Jew-baiters; he may have learned about new plots to expel the Jews, from the Hagenau region, or even from the whole of Alsace. On the other hand, the “accusers” may have been pressuring the Emperor to prohibit usury. We know that the question of usury occupied a prominent place in the debates of the 1530 Augsburg Diet. What is clear from the narrative is that at the time there was a renewed campaign against the Jews which R. Joseph was required to combat, since he writes: “and I stood forth from the many . . . to plead our cause”. While he does not disclose what the Jews’ adversaries were plotting, as remarked, it may well have been connected with usury. The expression “accusers” is mentioned both here and in the previous section {on the 1530 Diet}, and reappears in the section for 1531/32, in every case in the context of the campaign against usury. S. Stern tries to link R. Joseph’s meeting with Charles V with his eﬀorts to present to the Emperor his Economic tolerate Jews was considered regalia, and the Emperor accorded privileges—for example, to the imperial cities—permitting them to have or not have Jews within their limits. 367 See the document of 1536, below, Appendix 1b, p. 388 onwards. 368 This section is discussed by S. Stern, pp. 122–28.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

185

Document of 1530 on behalf of German Jewry, and this is a reasonable theory. It has already been remarked that R. Joseph did not succeed in bringing the document to the Emperor’s attention at Augsburg.369 Now, after the coronation ceremony, which took place in Cologne on 11 January 1531, the Emperor travelled to the Low Countries,370 and R. Joseph attempted to obtain an audience with him there at his Court. Charles V was accustomed to remain for long periods in the Low Countries. The Netherlands became a Habsburg possession through the marriage of Maximilian, Charles’s grandfather, to Maria, the daughter of Charles the Bold of Burgundy. However, a number of principalities challenged the Habsburg supremacy, and this led to a long series of wars.371 Jews were not permitted to reside in the Low Countries. R. Joseph describes the problems he encountered during those three months (18 February-17 May 1531) that he spent in Brabant or in Flanders, and it emerges that his life was in actual danger from his enemies at the Emperor’s court or from the authorities. Furthermore, it appears that he had quite some diﬃculty in securing an audience with the Emperor. We also do not know exactly where the Emperor was staying at that time. At all events, R. Joseph’s eﬀorts were ultimately crowned with success, and the interview with Charles took place.372 R. Joseph writes that he broached the problems that concerned him and the Emperor gave him “the right response”, namely he gave him a correct or candid answer. R. Joseph states that he was pursued by an army commander or ﬁghter named Roth Royth. I am not able to identify this man; however, he may have been one Martin van Rossem, a military man who was in the service of the Duke of Guelders, and on several

369

See above, introduction to section 15 of the Chronicle, p. 182. According to the registry of the documents dispatched from the Chancellory of Charles V, he was in the Low Countries from January 1531 until January 1532. Most of the time he was moving between Brussels and Ghent. Compare Die Reichsregisterbücher Kaiser Karl des V, Vienna-Leipzig 1913; K. Brandi, Kaiser Karl V, Munich 1941, pp. 275–76. 371 See P.J. Blok, History of the People of the Netherlands, II, 1400–1559, New York 1898, p. 188. 372 S. Stern (p. 123, and p. 301, note 2) notes that she was unable to ﬁnd any documents in the Brussels Archives that might shed light on this meeting with the Emperor. 370

186

[16]

5291 (1530⁄31)

occasions made forays with his soldiers against cities in Flanders.373 At various times van Rossem was hired by other noblemen, and eventually, after Guelders’s ﬁnal capitulation to Charles V in the War of Cleves of 1543, he entered the service of the Emperor. The Hebrew expression sardeyot used by R. Joseph aptly describes this type of soldier*, for he and his men imposed a reign of terror on the whole area.374 It is entirely possible that R. Joseph was caught up in one of his raids while on the way to the Emperor’s court, and perhaps this soldier was opposed to the presence of a Jew in the land. Another hypothesis is that R. Joseph was alluding to a nobleman who on 9 May 1531 received an oﬃcial permit (Legitimatio) in the city of Ghent,375 but more than that I do not know about him. During those three months in which apparently he waited to be received by the Emperor, R. Joseph was free to devote himself to matters of the spirit.376 This seems to have been one of the rare occasions in his life when he was at leisure to occupy himself with writing and during those weeks he composed a book entitled Derekh ha-Kodesh (The Holy Path), which is no longer extant. Feilchenfeld377 believes that the two passages attributed to R. Joseph in the book Yosif OmeΩ 378 are fragments from this work. The ﬁrst passage (paragraph 482) discusses the spiritual and physical strength of those who sanctify God’s Name by enduring cruel tortures, beyond human powers of endurance. Further on in the passage R. Joseph illustrates this point by describing the Würzburg libel case of 1543/44, to which he also refers in his Chronicle. Thus, in the version that we have, the passage in Yosif OmeΩ could not have

373 There was a noble family by the name of Rossum or Rossem in the Netherlands, and members of this family resided in the sixteenth century in the region of Geldern. * {The expression is a metaphor for a cruel or evil soldier or commander. Translator} 374 On Martin van Rossem, see Blok, History of the . . . Netherlands, pp. 221 and 354. 375 See Die Reichsregisterbücher etc., no. 5543. 376 S. Stern surmises (pp. 124–25) that R. Joseph’s seclusion was not voluntary, but that he was placed under surveillance or in some form of detention until his interview with the Emperor. Whether or not this was the case, in a country where Jews were forbidden to settle, R. Joseph undoubtedly could not move about as freely as he would have wished. 377 Feilchenfeld, pp. 138–39, and see also Sefer ha-Miknah, introduction, pp. 70–71. 378 R. Joseph Yuspa Hahn Nordlingen, Yosif OmeΩ (Increase Strength), Frankfurt on Main 1928.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

187

been written in 1531.379 The second passage (paragraph 18) teaches how it is possible to reach a level of total concentration during the recitation of the Shema prayer. This passage is more popular in character than the ﬁrst, and its style resembles more closely an extract from a book of ethical teachings. However, Feilchenfeld’s theory cannot be entirely dismissed, and it is possible that these are two extracts from the same book.

[17] 5292 (1531/32) The Regensburg Diet of 1532 and the Solomon Molcho Aﬀair R. Joseph’s activities at the 1532 Regensburg Diet were, in his words, a continuation of those in 1530, even as Diet itself was, in eﬀect, a continuation of that at Augsburg.380 The discussions focused on the eﬀorts to ﬁnd a compromise between the various German principalities on the religious issue, and also to reach agreement on joint support for the war against the Turks. R. Joseph does not provide details of his activities at the Diet, and there is no information about them in oﬃcial Diet records. However, there is extant a travel permit ( freies Geleit) issued by the Imperial Marshal, the Count of Pappenheim, in the name of R. Joseph, in his capacity as leader of all German Jewry (als der juden in teutschen landen oberster), authorizing him to visit this Diet in order to attend to his aﬀairs (auszuwarten seinem handel und sachen).381 It is also known that he took this opportunity to request from the papal nuncio at Regensburg, Cardinal Campeggio, the renewal of an ancient charter that had been granted to the Regensburg Jewish community in 1216 by Emperor Frederick II of the Hohenstauﬀen dynasty, and was based on an earlier charter of Emperor Frederick I.382 This charter had speciﬁcally accorded the 379 Feilchenfeld conjectures that the author added this paragraph to his manuscript at a later date; this is a deﬁnite possibility. 380 For the 1532 Regensburg Diet, see Janssen, III, pp. 303–11. This section here was examined in detail by Feilchenfeld, p. 56 onwards, and after him by S. Stern, pp. 129–37. 381 StaA Wetzlar, 3 B 289, 6: “Geleyt . . . und frey Sicherheit . . . Josel Juden von Roßheim . . . an andern Pﬁngstag (20 Mai) . . . anno 1532”. 382 The certiﬁed copy of this document is in Strasbourg, ArchDep Bas-Rhin, E 1406. There is a note on it to the eﬀect that Cardinal Campeggio, the papal

188

[17]

5292 (1531⁄32)

city’s Jews the right to earn their livelihood from the sale of gold, silver and other metals, and to sell and exchange all manner of goods and make their living in the manner in which they had been accustomed from time immemorial. S. Stern infers with justice that R. Joseph wished to avail himself of those rights accorded the Jews by the Emperors in order to convince the Estates present at the Diet not to deprive the Jews of their means of support—the practice of usury.383 And indeed, the decisions published at the close of the Diet (Reichsabschied ) included a milder resolution on the subject of usury in comparison with the one adopted at Augsburg. Therefore we can comprehend R. Joseph’s words in this section: “And God was with us on this occasion too; He preserved us from the accusations of the princes and nobles concerning usury, and gave us a means of livelihood among the nations”. However, we ﬁnd the most important event that R. Joseph discusses regarding his actions at that Diet in the second part of this section, which concerns the appearance in Regensburg of Solomon Molcho. As is known, Molcho’s activities are connected with the David Reuveni aﬀair. Both David Reuveni and Solomon Molcho have received extensive treatment in the historical literature, and we shall conﬁne ourselves here to those aspects of their story that are important for our concerns.384 envoy at the Diet, certiﬁed for R. Joseph, as the representative of all German Jewry, the copy’s authenticity; and see also Feilchenfeld, pp. 56–57. It was H. Bresslau who ﬁrst established the importance of this discovery in ZGJD, 3 (1889), pp. 394–95. On this privilege and the fact that it was regarded as signiﬁcant for German Jewry as a whole, see J. Cohn, Die Judenpolitik der Hohenstaufen, Hamburg 1934, pp. 17–18, 22. 383 See pp. 129–31. 384 For general biographies of David Reuveni and Solomon Molcho, see HaEntsiklopediyah ha-Ivrit, vol. 13, pps. 87–89, s.v. David Ha-Reuveni; vol. 23, pp. 767–68, s.v. Molkho, Shlomo; H. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, third edition, IX, Leipzig 1891, pp. 227–55, 530–48; H. Vogelstein and P. Rieger, Geschichte der Juden in Rom, II, Berlin 1895–1896, pp. 53–58; V. Sadek, “Solomon Molcho and his Teachings”, Judaica Bohemiae, 20, 2, pp. 84–96; J. Voos, David Reubeni und Salomon Molcho, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der messianischen Bewegung im Judentum in der ersten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts, Diss., Bonn 1933; S. Simonsohn, Toldot ha-Yehudim be-Dukasot Mantova (History of the Jews in the Duchy of Mantua), 1, Jerusalem 1962, pp. 16–18; A. Z. Eshkoli, Sipur David Ha-Reuveni (The Story of David Reuveni), Jerusalem 1940; S. Bernstein, “R. Shlomo Molkho, ha-Kadosh mi-Mantova” (R. Solomon Molcho, the Martyr of Mantua), in: Shomrei Ha-Óomot, Tel Aviv 1937/38, pp. 11–62 and the notes on pp. 173–79; For Solomon Molcho’s philosophical convictions and messianic ideas, see R. Schatz, “Kavim li-Demuta shel ha-Hit"orerut ha-Politit-Meshi˙it le-a˙ar Geirush Sefarad” ( Jewish Messianism After the Expulsion from Spain— Some Characteristics), Daat, 11 (1983), pp. 62–66; for an unusual side of his per-

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

189

Sixteenth-century scholars put forward various theories regarding the purpose of Molcho’s appearance at the Diet. The historian, R. Joseph Ha-Kohen, writes about him as follows: Solomon resolved to speak in detail with the Emperor about matters of faith, and while the Emperor was in Ratisbon (Regensburg), he made the journey and spoke to him there. However, the Emperor hardened his heart and refused to listen to him out of ill humour.385

R. Gedaliah ibn Ya˙ya, author of Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah (The Chain of Tradition) presents a diﬀerent version of the events: This R. Solomon went to Mantua to speak to the Emperor Charles, and it is not known what he said to him, only that the Emperor was ﬁlled with wrath against him and commanded that he be burnt.386

Here ibn Ya˙ya says explicitly that he knows nothing about the subject of Molcho’s conversation with the Emperor. He is incorrect about the place where Molcho had his audience with the Emperor. The tradition known to R. Joseph Ha-Kohen is thus the more accurate. According to his version, Solomon Molcho sought to speak to the Emperor about “matters of faith”. This may be a reference to the Christian and Islamic religions, since these were subjects for debate at the time. It is also possible that he is referring to the Christian and Jewish religions; however, here too, there is no concrete information as to what exactly Molcho wished to tell the Emperor in this regard. David Gans, the author of Tsema˙ David (Oﬀspring of David), devoted an entire paragraph to Solomon Molcho. He writes: The aforesaid R. Solomon and his companion David Reuveni spoke with the King of France and with Cralos [?] the Fifth, and they sought to incline their hearts towards the Jewish faith, for which reason R. Solomon Molcho was sentenced to be burnt in Mantua in the year 5293 (1532/33). They put a gag in his mouth so that he was unable sonality, see M. Idel, “Shlomo Molkho ke-Magikon” (Solomon Molcho as a Magician), Sefunot, n.s. 3 (o.s.18) (1985), pp. 193–219; and A. H. Silver, A History of Messianic Speculation in Israel, New York 1927, pp. 133–35. For the Solomon Molcho aﬀair as it aﬀected R. Joseph, see S. Stern’s analysis, pp. 131–37. 385 Joseph Ha-Kohen, Emek ha-Bakha (Vale of Tears), (ed.) M. Letteris, Cracow 1895, pp. 116–17. He writes similarly in his book Sefer Divrei ha-Yamim le-Malkhei Tsarfat u-Malkhei Beit Otoman ha-Togar (History of the Kings of France and Ottoman Turkey), Amsterdam 1733, fol. 95b. 386 Gedaliah ibn Ya˙ya, Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah (The Chain of Tradition), Jerusalem 1961/62, p. 103 onwards.

190

[17]

5292 (1531⁄32)

to say a word and burnt him. As for David Reuveni, the Emperor took him shackled in chains to Spain, and there, so it is said, he suﬀered the bitterness of death.387

Similarly, Azariah de’ Rossi, in his book Me"or Einayim (Light of the Eyes), mentions the death of Solomon Molcho for the sake of Kiddush Hashem.388 He does so in a passage in which he criticizes another writer, who had confused Molcho with Reuveni, and had written as follows: In the year 1530 he {Reuveni} came to France and spoke with King Francis I, and afterwards, at the command of the great Emperor Charles V, he was burnt in the city of Mantua. The reason for this was that he was covertly seeking to sway the hearts of the Christian kings towards the Jewish [religion], on which subject he had spoken in particular to the aforesaid Emperor.

De’ Rossi corrects the writer’s words: For he was not rightly informed; the person burnt in Mantua in the year 5293 (1532/33) was R. Solomon Molcho from Portugal, who had joined up with R. David Reuveni who came from Tartary.

And he goes on to describe the fate that befell Reuveni: It is true that the Emperor caused Reuveni to be dragged behind him in chains to Spain, and there, so it is said, he suﬀered the bitterness of death.

These are exactly the words used by David Gans in Tsema˙ David, and perhaps both these writers derived their information from the same source. At all events, we have here a recurrence of the same theme—that Molcho wished to inﬂuence the Emperor towards (the religion of ?) the Jews. David Gans interprets the words of Joseph Ha-Kohen, which he drew upon, to mean that Molcho attempted to persuade the Emperor to change his faith and adopt the Jewish religion [!]. The same view is expressed by Christian chroniclers from Mantua.389 387

David Gans, Tsema˙ David (Oﬀspring of David), (ed.) M. Breuer, Jerusalem 1983, part one—5293 (1532/33), pp. 138–39. 388 Azariah de’ Rossi, Me’or Einayim (Light of the Eyes), Vienna 1829, fol. 300. {Now in English translation, The Light of the Eyes, (trans.) Joanna Weinberg, New Haven 2001, p. 261. I have consulted this source. Translator} 389 See Simonsohn, Toldot ha-Yehudim, p. 23. According to him, these writers

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

191

According to some scholars, Molcho intended to suggest to the Emperor that he join forces with the Jews to ﬁght against the Muslim heretics.390 Yet others believed that Molcho wished to convince the Emperor to send the Jews to wage war against the Muslims.391 It is worth noting another Christian source, one that gives a slightly diﬀerent explanation for the burning of Solomon Molcho. In a bibliographical work in Latin from 1784, the publisher prints a comment by a sixteenth-century scholar, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter, which appears beside a description of one of Solomon Molcho’s kabbalistic works: “Book on occult theology of the Jews, by R. Solomon Molcho, who proclaimed himself Messiah of the Jews, and from fear of a Jewish rebellion, was burnt in Mantua by decree of the Roman Emperor Charles V, in the year 1532”. The scholar adds that he himself saw Molcho’s banner in Regensburg in 1541 and on it the letters ùbkm {Maccabee}. “R. Salomonis Molchi, qui se Messiam Judaeorum esse praedecavit, atque Mantuae propter seditionis Hebraicae metum Carolo V Rom. Imp. providente concrematus fuit anno (ni fallor) 1532, liber de secreta Hebraeorum Theologia. Hujus vexillum vidi Ratisbonae anno 1541 cum literis ùbkm”.392

derived their information from secondary sources; possibly they were acquainted with what Joseph Ha-Kohen had written on the subject. 390 He had proposed some such plan already during his ﬁrst audience with the Pope, and, as is known, David Reuveni had similar ideas. 391 This is also R. Joseph’s view. See below. 392 Cited in Graetz, vol. 9, appendix 5, p. 533. Compare also Vogelstein and Rieger, Geschichte der Juden in Rom, p. 58n. Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter (1506–1557) was an orientalist and a particular expert on the Syriac language. Towards the end of his life he served in an ecclesiastical capacity in Regensburg. Regarding the ﬂag, it should be noted that the ﬂag deposited in Prague is not identical with that described by the Christian scholar. It is highly probable that in Regensburg he did see one of David Reuveni’s ﬂags, since according to the available sources Reuveni possessed various ﬂags. It should also be pointed out that the coat preserved in Prague is not identical to the coat the picture of which is printed in the article by A. Grotte, “Die ‘Reliquien’ des Salomo Molcho”, MGWJ, N.F. 31 (1923), p. 168, while the ﬂag there is indeed the one displayed in Prague. In this article (p. 169), Grotte brings the testimony of R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller, who served as rabbi in Prague during the years 1624–1627: R. Yom Tov stated that he saw in the Pinkas synagogue a silk talit katan {small fringed ritual shawl worn under the clothes— Translator}, with silk fringes, which was said to have belonged to Solomon Molcho. This item too appears to have been lost. For the mystical or magical signiﬁcance of these items, see Idel’s article, “Shlomo Molkho ke-Magikon”, pp. 211–13. Photographs of the items preserved today in Prague are printed in the booklet by Z. Shazar, “Bein Eitanei Golah (Between Giants of the Diaspora), Jerusalem 1971/72, between pps. 10 and 11.

192

[17]

5292 (1531⁄32)

Graetz opined that Molcho wished to persuade the Emperor to better the condition of the Jews in Portugal, particularly in view of the introduction there of the Inquisition.393 However, the available sources do not support his hypothesis. V. Sadek was undoubtedly correct in his assumption that Molcho’s appearance at the Emperor’s court was connected with his Messianic plans,394 and this is stressed also by S. Stern. Many scholars have considered the question whether Molcho actually believed himself to be the Messiah; undoubtedly, he was imbued with messianic beliefs, whether he considered himself to be the Messiah, or only one of his forerunners. The Emperor or his advisers may well have feared that messianic ferment would cause unrest among the Jews, and, even more so, among the New Christians. It should also be emphasized that the name of Solomon Molcho was not unknown in Christian circles, including Protestant ones. G. Scholem points to the parallels between Molcho’s beliefs and those of the radical Christian sects, such as the disciples of Thomas Münzer, the Anabaptists, and eschatologists of all kinds, including also the peasants, who, during the great uprising of 1525, espoused chiliastic doctrines and slogans. In the Protestant principles of faith formulated by Philip Melanchthon at Augsburg in 1530, chiliasm was expressly rejected as being incompatible with the puriﬁed Protestant doctrine. Scholem believes that Melanchthon in one of his epistles hints at Molcho’s messianic beliefs in a disapproving manner.395 If a man such as Melanchthon could object to someone who professed ideas of this kind, how much more so the Catholic Emperor. S. Stern also stresses the fact that precisely at that time the Emperor was engaged in a war to eradicate the Anabaptist dissenters, who themselves were full of messianic ideas, and were accused of being in contact with the Jews, and vice versa. Molcho’s actions were thus doubly dangerous for German Jewry.

393 H. Graetz, “Salomon Molcho und David Reubeni”, MGWJ, 5 (1856), p. 258. 394 Above, note 384. 395 G. Scholem, “Shabtai Tsvi ve-ha-Tenua ha-Shabtait bi-Yemei Óayav” (Shabbetai Zevi and the Sabbatean Movement during his Lifetime), Tel Aviv 1957, p. 81. Scholem relies on the book by H. Bietenhard, Das Tausendjährige Reich, Bern 1944, p. 112; however, he maintains that Bietenhard did not realize that the reference was to Solomon Molcho. In Scholem’s opinion, the reference is deﬁnitely to Molcho, as the date of the epistle rules out any other interpretation.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

193

While speculation is rife concerning the purpose of Molcho’s meeting with the Emperor, there are also various theories regarding the Emperor’s wrath. Graetz believes that the handing over of Molcho to the Inquisition and his death at the stake were acts aimed against the Pope, who was Molcho’s protector.396 According to Graetz, the Emperor was displeased with the Pope’s opposition to the operation of the Inquisition against the New Christians in Portugal, which followed Molcho’s intercession at the papal court. Graetz emphasizes that immediately after Molcho was put to death, the Pope withdrew his consent to the Inquisition in Portugal, granted in the past simply as a result of pressure from Spain. In contrast, Shlomo Simonson oﬀers a totally diﬀerent theory to explain the Emperor’s arrest of David Reuveni and Solomon Molcho.397 He contends that Marquis Federico of Mantua, with whom Reuveni had engaged in negotiations, both written and verbal, discovered at the start of 1530, with the help of prominent Mantuan Jews, that Reuveni had forged the letters to the Emperor and to the Pope which he had claimed were from his brother, King Joseph. The Marquis brought this fact to the attention of his representative at the court of the Pope, who was at that time in Bologna, where he was meeting the Emperor. The Marquis’s representative was able therefore to thwart Reuveni’s attempt to have an audience there with both the Pope and Emperor at the same time. In April 1530, the Emperor was in Mantua and elevated the Marquis to the rank of duke. Simonson infers that during his audience with the Emperor, the Marquis cautioned him about David Reuveni, and that therefore, when Reuveni and Molcho reached Regensburg, the Emperor had already been warned and was on his guard, and so he promptly ordered that the two be placed under arrest. However, the events in Regensburg can be seen from yet another angle, as viewed through the eyes of Hieronymous Aleander, the special papal envoy in Germany at the time.398 Aleander was present in Regensburg during the Diet, together with the permanent

396

In his aforementioned article “David Reubeni and Salomo Molcho”, pp. 259–61; and compare also, in his Geschichte, p. 257. 397 S. Simonsohn, “Sheli˙uto ha-Shniya shel David ha-Reuveni be-Italiya” (David Reuveni’s Second Mission in Italy), Zion, 26 (1961), p. 203. 398 For Aleander’s mission as papal legate to Germany and at the 1532 Diet, see G. Müller, Die römische Kurie und die Reformation 1523–1534, Gütersloh 1969, p. 169 ﬀ.

194

[17]

5292 (1531⁄32)

papal nuncio Campeggio, and reported back to Rome on the MolchoReuveni episode.399 From his letter we learn various details that we do not know from other sources. On 21 August, Aleander reports to Giovanni Batista Sanga, the adviser and private secretary of Pope Clement VII:400 Behold, the heretical ( perﬁdus) Portuguese Jew, who already in Rome I proposed should be burnt, has arrived at the court together with Antonio di Leva,401 and His Majesty the Emperor has granted him an audience. And as the Jew himself related to me this evening, the Emperor listened to him most attentively for two hours, asked him many things and heard from him that he is being persecuted by all the Christians. He said that the Emperor has given orders for him to be granted a domicile in this land [or city], under the protection of Senor Antonio di Leva. He has brought with him an ensign, a banner, a sword and a shield, and with their aid he promises to vanquish the Turks. He says that he must be at the head of the army. I hope that the Emperor, who is well acquainted with this man, will not want to hear his empty talk. It does not please me that this heretic brings with him his Jewish emblems; instead of that, we should have brought the cross, since Christians should place all their faith in the cross, and these delusions of the Jew will cause only harm and dishonour. He came to visit me and solicited me insistently. He [apparently] does not entirely trust me, and assuredly, if I had my way, I would not permit him to escape, as that would entail too much humiliation for the Church of God. At any rate, he is stirring up a tumult; this was the situation in Mantua, as our man in Verona has informed me. I am certain that His Majesty, when he knows the truth, will not wish to tolerate this criminal (monster). I am convinced that even without further information, His Majesty, who is very prudent, has already himself noticed that this aﬀair is not a good thing, and I am conﬁdent that once he has been apprised of the truth, he will be even more diligent in correcting the matter.

On September 1st he writes again, this time to the Pope.

399 See Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, part 1, 1533–1559, Berlin 1909, pp. 426, 443–44. I would like to express my warmest gratitude to Renato Spiegel, who very kindly translated these letters for me from the Italian. 400 Because of the importance of this letter, it appears here in its entirety. 401 A man named Antonio de Leyva was one of the army commanders of Charles V. See Ranke, Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation, p. 516. At that time, Leyva was already an old and sick man, but continued to serve as military commander, and only a short time before had gained one of his greatest victories over the French.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

195

This same heretical Portuguese Jew, together with the other from Arabia [David Reuveni], who came to Rome during the ﬁrst year {of the reign} of Your Holiness, together with others, has arrived here in the company of Antonio di Leva. They have brought with them the Jewish banners, and that same shield and sword which, he says, have been sanctiﬁed with Names of God in Hebrew. He makes grand promises {to do battle} against the Turks, and says that he must be one of the leaders. He promises certain victory through him and his sacred objects, and that he will kill or capture the Sultan. I learned this from our man in Verona more than a month ago, as he had heard a rumour that these two characters were on their way here. Consequently, I passed on some details to His Majesty [the Emperor], and again through other people, since His Majesty is far away taking the waters at Baden, and I remain here with a bad leg. I was not able to ride until the day the two of them arrived. Although their chief, the Portuguese, [Molcho?] told me that His Majesty had listened to him with great attention, and had ordered that they be provided with a place of abode in the land [or: city]; despite that, the following day, they were all arrested and handed over to the alcalde {justice of the peace} of His Majesty’s court. It is not known what happened after that. Today, I sent a missive requesting that there should be no hurry about freeing them, for I hear that he is receiving much support ( favori ) from many quarters and that, with this performance of theirs and the promises of this impertinent heretic, there is considerable danger that His Majesty will be disposed to trust him. Then, if we are victorious, the world will be scandalized by the fact that the victory is credited to him and to his being a Jew. And if we are defeated in battle—if God brings defeat upon us on account of our sins—this will be credited to His Majesty and to all the Christians. Nevertheless, God who rules the heart of the Emperor endowed His Majesty with intuition, as is His wont, so that not only would he not make an error, but he would also have the sagacity to perform a holy deed and imprison them. Extreme vigilance must now be exercised to ensure that they do not escape, on account of the support they are receiving ( per favori ), but what justice and God’s honour demands, and the general good of Christianity requires shall be done. Respecting this and for this reason I have today sent information to the Emperor’s men.

From these letters by the papal envoy we learn a number of things: ﬁrst and foremost, they provide almost ﬁrsthand conﬁrmation of the nature of the meeting between Solomon Molcho and the Emperor, of its length and the subjects discussed during their conversation. There is no mention that David Reuveni was present at this meeting; he is referred to only as the person who accompanied Solomon

196

[17]

5292 (1531⁄32)

Molcho to Regensburg. It is clear that the conversation between the two ranged around the question of some kind of Judeo-Christian crusade against the Turkish Sultan—and indeed the idea of a crusade against the Turks was at the heart of the Diet debates of that year. In addition, the impression emerges from the two documents cited above that the person behind the arrest of Molcho and Reuveni was none other than Aleander. We also learn that Molcho had a “lobby” in Regensburg, and that even the papal envoy was alarmed by its strength. Therefore, even after Molcho and Reuveni were arrested, he endeavoured to exert inﬂuence on the Emperor, both personally and through other people, that he should not to be swayed by Molcho’s words and should not release the two prisoners. The evidence here clearly refutes Graetz’s hypothesis that the Emperor’s actions were directed mainly against the Pope. It also disproves the theory that the question of Reuveni’s forgeries infuriated the Emperor to such an extent, that upon the arrival of Reuveni and Molcho at his court he promptly ordered their arrest. On the other hand, there is corroboration of the theory that Molcho’s conversation with the Emperor was indeed connected with the plan to wage war on the Turks, which Molcho considered an integral part of his mystical beliefs, and, possibly, of his messianic aspirations. The progress of the war against the Turks was one of Charles V’s principal concerns at that time, for they had already reached the outskirts of Vienna, and he was informed that they were concentrating a new army against the Habsburgs. He appears to have been brieﬂy aﬀected by Solomon Molcho’s personal charisma, as the Pope similarly had been inﬂuenced by it just a short time before. It was Aleander, the judicious and sober politician, who seems to have tilted the balance against him, although the documents do not show conclusively that the arrest of the two came as a result of his actions. It should be added here that news of the Reuveni and Molcho aﬀair had been sent already from Italy to the Emperor’s aunt, Margaret, the Imperial Regent of the Netherlands.402 It is unclear what role Antonio de Levya played in the aﬀair. I have not succeeded in establishing whether he was indeed in Regensburg during the Diet. If this is the well-known military commander 402 Johann Hannart sent word from the battleﬁeld in Italy to Margaret concerning a new nation of Jews that sought to reconquer Jerusalem and was asking for sureties. See Reichstagsakten unter Karl V, jüngere Reihe 4, Gotha 1905, p. 741.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

197

of Charles V, is it likely that this man was present at Solomon Molcho’s interview with the Emperor? The question must remain open. And is it possible that the Emperor believed even for a moment that Molcho’s plans could crystallize into military action against the Turks? Assuming that de Levya did travel with the Emperor to Regensburg and that he served in a security capacity at the Emperor’s court, it is perhaps permissible to speculate that Molcho and Reuveni were under the watchful eye of the Emperor’s guards from the moment they reached Regensburg. R. Joseph’s Account Among the Hebrew sources mentioned here, R. Joseph is the only one who, like the papal envoy, describes the proceedings from inside Germany. In his words, he was told that Solomon Molcho wished to inform the Emperor that he “had come to gather all the Jews to wage war against the Turks”.403 Molcho, who on more than one occasion had found an attentive ear with the Pope himself, hoped therefore that he would impress the Christian Emperor with his ideas and plans, and, as we have seen above, he almost succeeded. R. Joseph, however, who was well acquainted with conditions at Charles’s court, understood that any such proposal would be suspect in the Emperor’s eyes, and that it contained an explosive potential that could cause inestimable damage. R. Joseph relates that after he had attempted in vain to dissuade Molcho from his plans, he left the city so as not to be suspected of any involvement in what he terms Molcho’s “alien ideas”; that is, unacceptable plans. Characteristically, R. Joseph does not give much information about the proceedings in Regensburg after he left the city. He states that Molcho was burnt at the stake in Bologna, which is incorrect, as it is known that the burning took place in Mantua. Apparently he only heard about Molcho’s fate through rumours, and that explains his error. One of the great diﬃculties raised by R. Joseph’s narrative is his omission of any mention of David Reuveni. This has even led some researchers to suggest that Reuveni did not, in fact, accompany 403 Graetz, Geschichte, appendix 5, p. 547, interprets these words as referring not to the Jews but to the Marranos in Spain, and for that reason Molcho required the Emperor’s permission.

198

[17]

5292 (1531⁄32)

Molcho to Regensburg,404 speculation which is unfounded in the light of Aleander’s report, quoted above. Is it possible, therefore, that R. Joseph knew nothing at all about Reuveni? And if he knew nothing about him at the time of the events, did he not hear about the arrest of the two men? It is true that Molcho was the dominant personality. This is clear also from Aleander’s report. However, it is known that Reuveni made representations to the Pope and at the court of the King of Portugal and he too had proposals for a war against the Muslims, in which the Jews would participate. Therefore, he must have played an appreciable role in the initiative to seek an audience with the Emperor. R. Joseph’s omission of any reference to him is justiﬁably perplexing, even allowing for the fact that, due to R. Joseph’s terse style of writing, items of information which we would have expected to be included are sometimes left out.405 In my opinion, there is only one possible explanation for this enigma; R. Joseph was not interested in mentioning David Reuveni. S. Stern intimates that at the time of the writing of his Chronicle, R. Joseph may already have heard that Reuveni was exposed in his later years as a liar and imposter and perhaps for that reason did not want to write about him.406 Although this explanation is feasible, it still seems to me that R. Joseph was simply not interested in discussing the happenings at Regensburg; his sole concern was with Solomon Molcho. Despite the strong criticism that he has for Molcho’s plans and deeds, his attitude towards him is one of great reverence. He calls him “a righteous convert”, and stresses the fact of his religious martyrdom. Moreover, he knows about Molcho’s great inﬂuence on the Marranos in Portugal. In his words: “And he reformed many sinners”. All this is not relevant in the case of David Reuveni. R. Joseph did not regard him as an important personality, and he may even have found him repellent. An additional question that provides room for speculation is why R. Joseph decided to mention speciﬁcally the Solomon Molcho aﬀair and his own conduct in connection with it. Perhaps he was suﬀering pangs of conscience that he had not tried suﬃciently hard to save 404

Thus S. Eidelberg, “Ha-im Nitlava David ha-Reuveni li-Shlomo Molkho beMasao le-Regensburg?” (Did David Reuveni Accompany Solomon Molcho on his Journey to Regensburg?), Tarbiz, 42 (1972/73), pp. 148–53. 405 See General Introduction, p. 46. 406 In her book, pp. 134–35. It must be remembered that R. Joseph wrote his account some 15 years after the events took place.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

199

Molcho from the Emperor’s clutches, and, contrary to his usual practice, had left the battleﬁeld while the battle was in still in progress. His “weakness”, which doubtless was preceded by great agonizing, demanded a public explanation, an obligation he discharges here in this section of the Chronicle. R. Joseph, aware of his responsibility towards those in whose name he was interceding with the authorities, made the decision he did in this dilemma because he was not at liberty to endanger his position and that of German Jewry for the sake of ideas that appeared to him to be illogical, and even dangerous. Assuredly, most of Molcho’s projects and his suppositions could not have been to R. Joseph’s liking: the attempt, as it were, to expedite the end of days, the great emphasis on the fact that the end was nigh, and the notion that preparations should be made for imminent redemption. R. Joseph was well aware of the dangers inherent in such beliefs, ﬁrst and foremost for the Jews themselves, and not necessarily from the authorities. Although he makes no mention anywhere of the Asher Lemlein aﬀair,* which had shocked German Jewry about a generation earlier, he doubtless knew about it and feared a repetition of episodes of this kind.407

[18] 5293 (1532/33)** The Silesia Libel The events in Silesia occurred during a period when the region was under the administration of the Margraves of Brandenburg, their liege lord being the Habsburg king.408 Margrave George of the * {Lemlein was a false messiah who was active in 1500–1502. Translator} 407 Z. Shazar, in his dramatic dialogue “Bein Eitanei Golah, Si˙a she-Lo Hayta” (Between Giants of the Diaspora: An Imaginary Dialogue {between Joseph of Rosheim and Solomon Molcho}), admirably delineates the diﬀerences between these two personalities and the problems arising from their dissimilar approach to the question of the existence of the Jewish people in diaspora. His poem was ﬁrst published in the Davar Annual, Tel Aviv 1953/54, pp. 97–106, and reprinted in the booklet Bein Eitanei Golah. ** {The date R. Joseph gives here is incorrect. The events took place in 1535. See below, p. 212.} 408 For the history of Silesian Jewry, see M. Brann, “Geschichte der Juden in Schlesien”, Jahresbericht des Jüdisch-Theologischen Seminars in Breslau, 12 (1909), p. 157 ﬀ.; L. Neustadt, Die letzte Vertreibung der Juden in Schlesien, Breslau 1893.

200

[18]

5293 (1532⁄33)

Brandenburg-Ansbach dynasty, whose capital city was Ansbach, exerted considerable eﬀorts to expand his territory. In 1523, he captured the principality of Jägerndorf in Upper Silesia, and, by various means, also took possession of the duchies of Ratibor and Öls and the bishopric of Breslau. All these territories he placed under the administration of an oﬃcial called a Landeshauptmann. This oﬃcial was responsible to the Margrave, but seems to have possessed considerable powers of his own. In the case under consideration here, he regarded himself as competent to administer justice, put a Jew to death by burning at the stake, and imprison all the Jews in the region. At some stage, however, he appears to have realized that he had exceeded his authority, and applied to the Margrave for instructions. His letter to the Margrave, dated 11 June 1535, is preserved in a collection of documents of the princes of the House of Brandenburg-Ansbach, and thus we have a detailed account of the course of events—from his perspective, naturally.409 There are also other documents relating to these territories in the collection, among them a ﬁle of correspondence between Jews of the region,410 who endeavoured to organize in order to combat the threat of judicial proceedings against them, or of their actual expulsion from the region. Extant too are other contemporary writings on the Silesia libel,411 as well as this section from R. Joseph’s Chronicle. 409 The collection was preserved in the nineteenth century in the State Archives in Munich, and contained two ﬁles relevant to our concerns: Brandenburg CCIX no. 6; Brandenburg CCIII Fasc. 4. These ﬁles are now deposited in the Government Archives in Nuremberg, reference no: Brandenburger Literalien (hereafter: BL) no. 1034; BL no. 1244. The letter to the Margrave is in BL no. 1034, fol. 123r–125r. 410 BL no. 1244, fol. 18–25. These letters did not reach their destination, but were apparently seized by the authorities, and thus came to be deposited in the principality’s ﬁles. They were ﬁrst published by I. Kracauer, “Additions a l’histoire de la persécution des Juifs dans la Haute-Silésie en 1533”, REJ, 20 (1890), pp. 108–16, according to a copy made by L. Neustadt, and, again, by Neustadt himself in his Die letzte Vertreibung, pp. 4–11. There (pp. 11–23) he analyzes their content, edits them in chronological order and reconstructs the course of events, insofar as is possible. This cannot have been easy work, for not only are the letters diﬃcult to read and some sections impossible to decipher because of damp and mould, but also, as Neustadt establishes, they are almost certainly written in the Yiddish of that time, or at least a vernacular German in Hebrew letters. The authorities’ own translation of the letters was at times word for word and quite incomprehensible, and it was often necessary to reconstruct the original, in order to fathom the meaning. The dating presents a particular problem, with the Hebrew and Christian months jumbled together. M. Brann, “Geschichte der Juden in Schlesien”, also discusses these letters (p. 161, note 2), but his analysis adds little new in contrast to Neustadt’s pioneering research. 411 The story, with minor variations, appears in Johannes Eck’s book, Ains Juden

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

201

With the aid of the said documentation, it is possible to reconstruct the following sequence of events.412 In the city of Jägerndorf in the principality of that name, a woman was accused by her husband of adultery. This woman then charged another woman, named Dorothea Schkaryn, of having been responsible for the whole aﬀair. The Landeshauptmann—his name was Hans Jordan—explains that the second woman was known to be of loose morals and was caught in the act, and because of her adultery and depraved way of life, as well as the fact that she was suspected of further oﬀences, it was decided after consultation and deliberation to use the whip on her during her interrogation (mit der scherpf zimblich angegriﬀen). Following this, she confessed that she and three other women had engaged in acts of witchcraft, thereby causing damage and injury to sundry persons. In addition, she accused the Parnas Abraham Hirsch from the city of Leobschütz—the Chief Elder of the Jews in all Margrave George’s duchies—of a shocking deed (eins erschrocklich that), and she told the following tale:413 The Jew Abraham Hirsch asked her to supply him with mother’s milk from a Christian woman in order, in her words, “to cause the death of all the Christian women in the land” through sorcery. However, instead of giving him mother’s milk she presented him with sows’ milk, in exchange for which he gave her a scarf made

buechlins Verlegung etc., fol. F IIIb, among other tales of villainous acts allegedly perpetrated by Jews on Christians. A similar story, referring to the Jews of Coburg, can be found in a collection of Thüringen folk tales: see L. Bechstein, Thüringer Sagenbuch, I, Leipzig 1885, p.15; and also H. Bächtold-Stäubli, Handwörterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens, Berlin 1927–1942, s.v. Milch. A virtually identical tale can also be found in the book by the Franciscan monk Alfonso de Espina, Fortalitium Fidei {published 1460}, which states that the events took place ostensibly in France. The motifs of this libel by de Espina served Jew-haters at a later date, in the Spanish Inquisition trials. For this entire episode, see Y. Baer, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain, vol. 2, Philadelphia 1966, pp. 287–88. Libels of this kind were therefore prevalent in Christian society in diﬀerent places. 412 For lack of other detailed source material, we shall ﬁrst describe the events as seen through the eyes of the Landeshauptmann, and at a later stage we shall examine the accuracy of his account. 413 Her testimony was taken down by the Landeshauptmann and bears the title: “Bekanntnus Dorothea Schkaryn gutlich unnd peinlich am monntag nach Corporis Christi Anno MCXXXV”, BL no. 1034, fol. 127 a-b. It is included in the interrogation ﬁle, sent by him to the Margrave. {According to Brann, “Geschichte der Juden in Schlesien”, these events in Jägerndorf occurred in May 1535 and Dorothea Schkaryn made her confession on 31 May. See pp. 157–58 there, and the sources he cites. Translator}

202

[18]

5293 (1532⁄33)

of mixed silk (halbseiden). The Parnas ordered a peasant from the neighbouring city to carry the milk for him to the site of the gallows in Leobschütz, and, in return, agreed to cancel a debt the peasant owed him. Next to the gallows, they split open the skull of a man who had been hanged there and the peasant poured the milk into it. The Jew asked the peasant: “What is grunting inside there?” and the peasant answered him: “Piglets are squealing inside there”. Then the Jew said: “The whore did not give me the right milk, otherwise all the women in the land would have died. Now all the sows must die”. Hans Jordan continues his report by relating that, following this deposition, Abraham Hirsch was arrested on his orders and confronted with the woman, and she repeated her story to his face. The Jew denied everything; he averred that he had never met the woman in his life and that the whole story was a tissue of lies and fabrications. However, “in order that they should arrive at the complete truth, and so as to have enough good reasons to proceed against him”, in Jordan’s words, (damit man nun zum grund der sachen von dem juden glaubwirdig antzaigen bekomen, vnd sich ferner gegen jm neben der billicheit mit) the interrogators ﬁrst threatened him with the whip (zuuerhalten genugsam vrsach gehaben mögn der scherpﬀ ) and after he persisted in his denials, they continued to interrogate him while subjecting him to severe torture (zimblicher weisz peinlich gefragt worden), whereupon, he confessed to everything they wished to hear. He even supplied them with the names of Jews, residents of various cities in the area, who, ostensibly, had participated with him in the act of sorcery and had been present at the time of the crime next to the gallows. He also claimed that all the men in Leobschütz and in the territories mortgaged to the Margrave knew about this act of sorcery, and that only the women and children had no knowledge of it. As a result of this testimony, continues Jordan, he placed in custody all the {adult male} Jews in Leobschütz and the territories mortgaged to the Margrave;414 however, three Jews, precisely those whom the Parnas had accused of being his principal accomplices, were not found in their homes. Jordan reports, furthermore, that six 414 He is referring to the principalities of Oppeln, Oberglogau and Neustadt, which were the places of residence of the six men in the Jewish delegation (see below)—whom he terms aus E.F.G. Pfandschaft—and to the principalities of Öls and Ratibor, whose Jews likewise were placed in custody.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

203

people from that same region, whose names he gives, were sent to him on behalf of the Jews to ransom Parnas Abraham Hirsch for a large sum of money, and that he declined their oﬀer. According to him, they declared emphatically that they {the Jews} possessed privileges and claimed that he—the Landeshauptmann—had a special obligation to protect them. They further contended that only the supreme overlord could judge in such matters, and that action should not be taken against Hirsch, or any other Jew, until the Margrave arrived in person. They also said “many other impertinent things”. Since, according to him, the said privileges applied only to the duchy of Oppeln and not to Jägerndorf, and since he had never received such instructions respecting the Jews from the Margrave, he rejected their claims and, furthermore, arrested the six Jews and put them in jail on the pretext that he might need them for the investigation. He also ordered that all the Jews in Leobschütz and the Margrave’s other possessions be conﬁned to their places of residence and prevented from leaving their domiciles or sending any of their money out of the territories under the Margrave’s jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the woman who had slandered the Parnas was sentenced to death, along with the other three women. Before her death she reaﬃrmed her story. According to Jordan, she was asked expressly if she had not falsely accused the Jew out of hate, but she maintained that everything she had said was absolutely true. She adhered to her story even while being taken to the execution site, but added that she had hoped that the Lords of Jägerndorf would show her more mercy, for had she not warned the whole land of the injury and calamity that this Jew and others were seeking to cause. However, “since matters cannot be thus”[?], she was placing her judgement in the hands of God Almighty. The Landeshauptmann adds that through her death, which she met with a cheerful spirit, she conﬁrmed her guilt and the guilt of those whom she had accused in her deposition. However, after her death, Hirsch retracted his confession. He denied everything and claimed that he had only confessed because of the severe torture; the woman was wanton and characterless; he had been unjustly accused and they merely wished to settle accounts with him. These words much embarrassed him, Jordan writes, and he did not know what to do. By chance two learned jurists were passing through the city at that time, one of them being the legal adviser to Breslau city council. After consultations with them, it was decided, “since they knew of

204

[18]

5293 (1532⁄33)

no alternative counsel”, to resume the interrogation under torture, and then, as expected, the Parnas returned to his original confession, and so, comments Jordan with satisfaction, everything proceeded in a desirable manner.415 Hirsch also spoke against his fellow-Jews. They are all corrupt, he proclaimed, and seek only to defraud the Christians in their business transactions, and their sole desire is for the misfortune and death of all the Christians.416 The Parnas was sentenced to be burnt at the stake and the sentence was executed promptly on the morrow.417 Although according to Jordan the Parnas did not recant his confession even during the pronouncement of sentence or afterwards in the prison, at the moment when the ﬁre was kindled “to punish him for his crime” he called out in a loud voice (mit lautbarn wortten), that all that he had said in his confession concerning the other Jews was lies, and that he retracted his words. The oﬃcial ﬁnds it necessary to add: “but he did not alter the rest of what he had said”. He stresses also that before Hirsch was put to death, he was confronted with the six other Jews whom he had implicated in the alleged crime; 415 In his second cross-examination, the Parnas told a new story: previously, he had claimed that he wanted the milk so that his wife could get pregnant, and only later did he “confess” that his real motive was to use it for witchcraft, so that all the sows [!] would die; at a still later stage, he added that he had not meant sows but women. In addition, he not only accused all the Jews of having known about the act of witchcraft, but also claimed that one of them, the Jew Leo from Öls, had lured him into the whole aﬀair, and had even been present in the cemetery at the time, and that it was he who had poured the milk into the skull of the hanged man. Neither the Landeshauptmann, who, as mentioned, transferred all the documentation on the case to the Margrave, nor the judges who pronounced sentence on Hirsch, appear to have attached any particular importance to all the discrepancies between the woman’s testimony and that of the Parnas or, for that matter, to those in Hirsch’s own testimony at diﬀerent times. One of the versions of Hirsch’s story reappears in Johannes Eck’s tract, Ains Judenbüchlins Verlegung, in an even more tortuous form. There, Hirsch knows to relate that after the milk had been poured into the skull, all the sows in the land went berserk and gored each other; and that the same would have happened to all the women, had this witchcraft been performed with mother’s milk. 416 Abraham Hirsch’s two confessions are in the interrogation record sent by the Landeshauptmann to Margrave George. They are entitled: “Bekenntnus Abrahams Heresch gutlich vnd peinlich”, BL no. 1034, fols. 127b-129. 417 The second interrogation took place on 8 June, and in one of the letters dispatched by Oberglogau Jewry to the leaders of Öls Jewish community, they notify them about the burning at the stake of the Parnas. According to Neustadt, the date given in the letter is 9 June. This corresponds perfectly with the information in Hans Jordan’s letter to the Margrave of 11 June, after the sentence had been executed. From the wording of his letter too, it is evident that only a short time elapsed between the second interrogation and the burning at the stake.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

205

but they denied everything, even when threatened with interrogation under torture, and, states Jordan, they remain steadfast in their denials.418 At this point, Jordan ends his report by noting that he is awaiting instructions from Margrave George on how to proceed. The sources do not disclose how the Margrave responded to Landeshauptmann Jordan’s letter. However, from the letters of Jewish community leaders we learn about various actions that were taken simultaneously in the wake of the burning of the Parnas and the arrest of the Jews. Despite their diﬃcult plight, their being incarcerated (im Turm), or, in some places, under house arrest, the Jews of the various communities turned for assistance to every quarter. Jewish communities in neighbouring countries initiated fund-raising campaigns and money was collected to subsidize the rescue eﬀort. Moravian Jewry petitioned King Ferdinand and obtained from him a letter urging that justice be accorded the Jews imprisoned in Jägerndorf.419 This they sent to the Frankenstein Jewish community, which was directing the whole campaign, requesting that they bring it to the attention of Margrave George. However, as remarked, the letter did not reach its destination. Even before this, the Frankenstein community had sent emissaries to the Margrave’s court in Ansbach to prevail upon him not to take hasty decisions concerning the Jews. This community was also the address for additional letters exchanged between

418 It is unclear from his words to which six Jews he is referring, and how all these suspects were suddenly discovered, since earlier on the Landeshauptmann wrote that the three men named by the Parnas were not found in their homes and had not yet been arrested at the time when his report was prepared. It seems that all of a sudden the six Jewish delegates who had come to ransom Hirsch were embroiled in the aﬀair. 419 We know about the existence of this missive and its contents from the letter by the Jews of Kremsier to the Jews of Öls, which is among the said collection of letters. It is very likely that the Jews obtained a copy of Ferdinand’s letter to the Statthalter, Margrave George’s governor in Jägerndorf, in which the King demands in those exact words that justice be accorded the Jews imprisoned in Jägerndorf because of the confession of the executed Jew, and asks to be sent Hirsch’s interrogation record. According to the King, he received no response to his letter. Although the letter has been lost, Ferdinand himself quotes from it in his letter of 15 August 1535 to Margrave George. See G. Bondy and F. Dworsky, Zur Geschichte der Juden in Böhmen, Mähren und Schlesien von 906 bis 1620, Prague 1906 (hereafter: BD), I, no. 419, p. 297. For this letter by Ferdinand, see also S. Steinhartz: “Geirush ha-Yehudim mi-Behem”, Zion, 15 (1950), p. 73, note 13; however, he does not link the letter with the Silesia Aﬀair.

206

[18]

5293 (1532⁄33)

Jews of the various other communities420 with the aim of rousing their brethren to take action, each one through his own particular overlord, or through inﬂuential Jews, or possibly even apostates.421 It appears from these letters that there was great diﬃculty in establishing contact between the Jews of the various communities: most of the men were in prison and the women, through whom attempts were made to communicate between the communities, did not always know how to read and write in the Judeo-German language in which the Jews of that region communicated with each other. The Christians, whose assistance they endeavoured to obtain, naturally could not read these missives written in Hebrew letters. Furthermore, the Jews’ isolation from the outside world only exacerbated their situation. In addition, innumerable obstacles were placed in the way of the emissaries at the Margrave’s court: every step they took entailed an enormous expenditure, and as remarked above, they were forbidden to remove money from their homes. The emissaries suﬀered from a severe lack of funds; according to them, the Jews [which Jews?] were refusing to lend them more money, and only a few local Jews, among them Simon Auerbach of Schwabach, did indeed always pay their share, but refused to lend them additional sums. In the emissaries’ words: there is resentment among German Jewry, who consider that their Silesian coreligionists—perhaps those who were not in prison— have the wherewithal, but are refusing to make any contribution.422

420 As mentioned, these letters survived only owing to a series of errors and bad luck, as a result of which they never reached their destination and were conﬁscated by the authorities. Therefore, it is quite possible that there were additional letters, which were lost. 421 One of the men whose assistance they sought was Abraham Balgel. He was the son of the convert Emerich Szerenscés, who was an adviser to the king (a kind of court Jew), and, despite his conversion, a very respected ﬁgure among the Jews. Balgel himself appears to have held a prominent position at the court of Margrave Karl von Münsterberg, the son-in-law of Margrave George. According to the wording of the letter, he was regarded as a Jew to all intents and purposes. Indeed Neustadt establishes beyond any doubt that two of the convert’s sons, one of them being this Balgel, remained Jews. See his book, Die letzte Vertreibung, pp. 12 and 22. For Szerenscés, see Brann, “Geschichte der Juden”, p. 169, note 2, and G. Hamman, “Jüdische Konvertiten in Deutschland und Ungarn im 16. Jahrhundert”, Zeitschrift für bayerische Kirchengeschichte, 1972, p. 230 ﬀ. On Balgel, see ibid., pp. 232–33. Both Brann and Hamman believe that Balgel did not convert to Christianity. 422 This emerges from one of the letters in the said collection, which includes a report from Ansbach by the two emissaries of the Frankenstein community to the Jews of the Silesian communities.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

207

What did the emissaries wish to obtain from the Margrave? The letters contain crumbs of information: again and again we ﬁnd the expression “the martyr retracted” (wegen des heiligen das er hat widerruft; das er hat widerruft im feuer); the Jews of the beleaguered communities did not know whether the Margrave was aware that Parnas Hirsch had denied the accusations before his death and had retracted what he had said under torture. They wrote to the Frankenstein community leaders asking them to inform their representatives in Ansbach that three witnesses who had heard Hirsch’s recantation, among them a judge who lived not far from Jägerndorf, were willing to testify to the fact. The danger menacing the Silesian communities was therefore a direct consequence of Abraham Hirsch’s testimony. Although Jordan himself notiﬁed Margrave George that the Parnas had retracted his accusations—at least in respect of some of the Jews—the Margrave does not seem to have been impressed; at all events he did not release the prisoners. How can this be explained? At that time, it was not only the Jews who had emissaries at the Margrave’s palace in Ansbach. Also there was a delegation on behalf of the Leobschütz city council, intent upon obtaining the Margrave’s consent to the expulsion of the Jews from their city. This was not a new demand; during this period various Silesian cities were endeavouring to expel their Jews. Some of them had gone even further. A year before the Silesia libel aﬀair, in 1534, the city of Jägerndorf, after having previously driven out its Jews, had written to Margrave George, requesting that the Jews from the surrounding area be prohibited from trading in the city’s weekly market. The reason given was that the burghers were suﬀering greatly from Jewish competition, particularly since the Jews were in the habit of lowering their prices and did not respect the merchants’ regulations.423 At this point, it was Parnas Hirsch who had sprung to the defence of the Jews, and this is relevant to our discussion. When Hirsch learnt at the time about Jägerndorf ’s action, he wrote to the Margrave in an attempt to forestall any such decision against the Jews. He argued that the Jews possessed the right from ancient times to trade in the city, and that if this right were denied them, they would not have the means to pay their taxes.424 423 424

Letter by the city dated 14 March 1534, BL no. 1034, p. 3. Letter of 10 April 1534, ibid., p. 4. It should be noted that in his letter

208

[18]

5293 (1532⁄33)

In response to Abraham Hirsch’s appeal, George rejected the burghers’ demand, declaring that city’s poor would actually beneﬁt from the lower prices charged by the Jews. However, in an appendix to his reply to them, he stressed that he was referring only to the weekly and annual markets, those that were open to everyone, and not beyond that.425 He wrote to Hirsch in a similar vein, adding that his approval of limited Jewish trading rights was given on condition that the Jews would not oppress the city residents and would make only honest proﬁts.426 At this point, an intelligent surmise can be made as to who was behind the bizarre libel, the charges of witchcraft made against the Parnas: perhaps this was the Jägerndorf burghers’ revenge for his having foiled their plan of the previous year,427 or perhaps they only wished to remove an obstacle from their path. At all events, the burghers of the region, envious of the Jewish trade—or possibly it was simply blind hatred—apparently sought a pretext to rid themselves of the Jews. The charge against Hirsch of practicing sorcery to bring about the death of the Christians, his own testimony that all the Jewish men in the region of Silesia knew about and were implicated in the plot, as well as his declaration that the Jews’ only desire was to harm the Christians, defraud them in business transactions, and even bring about their death—all these accusations were suﬃcient to bring about a change of heart on the part of the Margrave and convince him of the justice of the burghers’ demands. It should be added that the person who fabricated the story and put it in the mouth of the woman undoubtedly promised her something in return for her unshakeable testimony—if not for herself, doubtless for someone dear to her428—otherwise it is hard to understand what could have led such a woman to give evidence against a Jew, whom it seems she hardly knew, and thus was even able to claim with justice that she was not motivated by any desire for revenge. As we have seen, in addition to the Jewish lobby, there was also a delegation from Leobschütz at the court of Margrave George in Abraham Hirsch ascribes the actions to prevent the Jews from trading in the Jägerndorf weekly market to the cities of Leobschütz and Jägerndorf jointly. 425 Letter of 27 April 1534, BL no. 1244, p. 6. 426 Letter of 29 April 1534, BL no. 1244, p. 25. 427 This is Brann’s opinion, p. 157. 428 We have already seen above that she did make statements that could be interpreted in such a manner.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

209

Ansbach. Indeed, the ﬁle of documents contains a bill of complaint dated October 1535, sent by the city to the Margrave, which gives details of its charges against the Jews.429 This document also contains allegations that the Jews had poisoned the city’s wells. From the documents in the ﬁle, we ﬁnd that the Margrave started active negotiations with the city concerning the expulsion of the Jews: he demanded that the burghers undertake to remit all the payments he was accustomed to receive from the Jews, and upon their consenting to do so,430 he apparently no longer had any objection to the Jews being expelled. Nevertheless, the negotiations between Leobschütz and the Margrave continued for several years, and in the ﬁle there are a number of documents on the subject.431 Of particular interest is a letter of 1537 by the same Hans Jordan, in which he explains to the Margrave the advantages of the proposed agreement: the Margrave will not lose on the deal since the burghers are undertaking to pay the Jews’ taxes; the evil inﬂuence of the Jews will be eradicated, and more important still, in place of the Jews it will be possible to settle artisans, and from them concrete advantages will accrue to the city.432 This document exposes the role of the Landeshauptmann in the libel plot itself. He is not an honest oﬃcial simply carrying out his duties, but a tool in the hands of the burghers for the achievement of their objectives, with which he apparently identiﬁes himself. At the very least, he hopes to beneﬁt personally or improve his status in the city.433 The actions of the Leobschütz delegates prevented the Jewish representatives from making any kind of headway. From their letters we learn that whenever they felt they had succeeded in convincing the Margrave of the Jews’ innocence, counter-pressure on the part of the city delegates inclined him to their side. The Jews then appealed

429

October 1535, BL no. 1244, p. 9. Letter by the city of 28 November, ibid., p.10; and the Margrave’s reply, ibid., p. 13. 431 BL no. 1244, pp. 11–17. The agreement with the city, which undertakes to pay the Jews’ taxes—ibid., pp. 15–16. 432 Ibid., p. 30. 433 Brann notes (p. 157) that in most cases the position of the oﬃcial who governed on behalf of the ruler was not easy, and there was often tension between him and the local nobility or burghers. 430

210

[18]

5293 (1532⁄33)

to his wife, the Marchioness Amelia, to intercede with her husband on their behalf, but in vain.434 It is apparently at this point that R. Joseph of Rosheim comes into the picture, together with R. Liebermann, a prominent member of the Ansbach community—possibly it was R. Liebermann who summoned R. Joseph.435 He travels to Margrave George’s court in Schwabach and in Ansbach and succeeds in convincing the Margrave “that we are the innocent victims of this calumny”. Through R. Joseph’s eﬀorts, those Jews who survived their incarceration are released from prison, and so it seems are all the rest of Silesian Jewry.436 R. Joseph may have believed this to be the end of the matter— and it cannot be denied that there was, to use his language, “relief and salvation” for Silesian Jewry.* He does not mention that the process to expel the Jews continued. Leobschütz city records show that in 1539 the Jews were in fact expelled from the city,437 although the oﬃcial expulsion decree is dated 1543. Other cities and principalities in Silesia were also not idle when it came to the Jews. There is almost continuous correspondence between cities and principalities in connection with their eﬀorts to expel the Jews.438 Already in August 1535, Margrave George requested permission from King Ferdinand to expel the Jews from Oppeln and

434 Letter of 5 February 1538, ibid., fol. 38, and the Marchioness’s reply of 28 February, ibid., fol. 43. 435 We have no information about him. In 1511, the local Margrave took a Jew by the name of Liebermann under his protection. This is almost certainly the same man. Compare S. Hänle, Geschichte der Juden im ehemaligen Fürstentum Ansbach, Ansbach 1867, Urkunden und Regesten, no. 11, p. 222; no. 25, p. 227; and compare Brann (p. 163, note 2), who rejects Neustadt’s assumption that this R. Liebermann was a rabbi in Ansbach. 436 According to the sources, one or two of the Jews died while in prison. * {R. Joseph does not use these words about Silesian Jewry, although he does use them in other cases where Jews were saved. Translator} 437 According to Neustadt, pp. 20–21: “Anno 1539 der juden ende zu leobschüz”; and elsewhere, “Anno 1539 omnes Judei ex hoc oppido expulsi sunt”. It is curious that Brann (pp. 166–67) disregards these sources and brings forward the expulsion to 1537. 438 In the ﬁle of documents (pp. 32–33) is a letter from the cities in the principalities of Oppeln, Ratibor and Oberglogau, dated 2 April 1538, in which they detail their complaints against the Jews. Margrave George deferred his decision, apparently due to the opposition of King Ferdinand, who wrote to him already on 4 September 1537, evidently following an appeal to him by the Jews, demanding that the Jews not be expelled without his knowledge. See BD, I, no. 426.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

211

Ratibor. Ferdinand declined to consider the matter, incensed at the lack of compliance with his demand regarding Jägerndorf Jewry.439 In September 1537 Ferdinand wrote again to Margrave George in the same vein,440 and, furthermore, instructed the Bishop of Breslau to ensure that the Jews of those regions were not expelled until a decision had been reached on the fate of Bohemian Jewry, whose expulsion likewise was on the agenda.441 The Bishop did in fact publish an opinion in favour of the Jews.442 In one of the letters of 1539, Margrave George responds to a demand to expel the Jews made on the part of ﬁve cities: Oppeln, Oberglogau, Troppau, Onolzbach and Neustadt.443 He requests them to wait and not expel them at the present time. However, in September 1541, he instructs the Bishop of Breslau to enter into negotiations with Oppeln and Ratibor and obtain from them an undertaking to pay the Jews’ taxes if the latter were expelled. This was after those cities had accused the Jews of spying for the Turkish foe.444 The pressure from the cities to expel the Jews continued until Margrave George’s death in 1543. In 1544, the provisional ruler of Ansbach issued an order requiring the Jews to leave the principalities within one year. The Jews again appealed to the King and asked for his assistance to prevent the expulsion. They presented him with a long petition, basing their case also on the said written opinion of the Bishop of Breslau, who, they argued, had examined the charges against them and had concluded that there was no justiﬁcation for their expulsion. Extant also is a letter from King Ferdinand dated 20 October 1544, in which he expresses astonishment that an expulsion order has been issued against the Jews in his hereditary principalities (Erblichen Fürstenthümber) and demands clariﬁcation.445 On 16 July 1545 the King wrote again, and this time explicitly ordered that the Jews of Oppeln and Ratibor not be expelled.446

439 BD, I, no. 419, p. 297. All this correspondence is also in the ﬁle of documents; for the sake of convenience, I am quoting from BD. 440 BD, I, no. 426, p. 303. 441 BD, I, no. 443, p. 322. 442 BL no. 1244, p. 40, 1542. 443 The cities’ demands are in BL no. 1151. 444 BD, I, nos. 460–61, pp. 336–45. 445 BL no. 1244, p. 45, and compare also BD, I, no. 493. 446 See ibid., no. 510.

212

[18]

5293 (1532⁄33)

The ambiguity with regard to the status of the Jews in these principalities continued,447 but evidently, at least in the case of Oppeln and Ratibor, the Jews were granted their request, and their expulsion was postponed. It is hard to know to what extent the libel against Parnas Hirsch aﬀected all these negotiations. The libel does not appear to have been the reason for their expulsion; rather, it was one of the stages in the process, which began already in 1534, and ended, accordingly, with the expulsion of the Jews from most of the Silesian cities. R. Joseph’s Description of the Events The main diﬃculty with R. Joseph’s account is the date that he gives for the aﬀair. R. Joseph writes that the events in Silesia occurred, or at least began, in 5293 (1532/33). Neustadt, Brann and S. Stern have all concluded, and we can only defer to their opinion, that the date speciﬁed by R. Joseph cannot be correct under any circumstances.448 The events are documented very clearly in the Christian sources and there is no doubt that they took place in 1535. It is hard to explain this discrepancy; R. Joseph is generally very accurate in his facts. However, it must be remembered that he cannot conﬁrm any details of the aﬀair: he believes wrongly that, apart from the Parnas, two or three other Jews were burnt at the stake,449 an assertion which is not corroborated in the Christian sources. On the other hand, he states quite accurately that the Jews in the region were arrested. He also knows about the actual libel, since he was delegated to convince Margrave George that it was groundless. As usual, he does not give a detailed description of the course of events, but simply states that the libel was connected with sow’s milk. However, it is extremely surprising that he does not emphasize the fact that the Parnas died as a martyr for Kiddush Hashem.450 This is

447 Brann rightly emphasizes that the various interested parties (the Margrave, the Bishop and the King), changed their attitudes many times in a short period of time. 448 Neustadt, pp. 15–16; S. Stern, p. 303, note 29. 449 See below in the Chronicle, p. 324, lines 13–14. 450 Compare with the Endingen Aﬀair; in that case too the suspects were compelled to confess to crimes they had not committed and even implicated other Jews; notwithstanding this, R. Joseph has no complaint to make about them (see above, p. 65).

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

213

even more astonishing in light of the fact that, as already remarked, the Jews referred to Abraham Hirsch simply as der Heilige—the martyr. The large sum of money required to persuade the Margrave that the libel was baseless is mentioned also in the other sources. Clearly, even R. Joseph’s convincing words did not suﬃce without the payment of a substantial amount of money. It is unclear from where he obtained so large a sum. From his account it does not appear that there was an organized fund-raising campaign in Germany— such as the one to assist the Jews of Coron and Patras, and of Tunis, referred to in the next section. Probably, German Jewry had a special fund for national purposes, and these monies were put at R. Joseph’s disposal when he was engaged in community business. The expression “the resources” may refer to this fund.451 The words “German territory” as opposed to “the region of Silesia” apparently emphasize that for the purpose of his mission he used the funds of German Jewry, and perhaps there were those who disagreed with this decision. A possible intimation of this can be found in the letter by the Jewish delegation in Ansbach.452 Perhaps, for that reason, R. Joseph’s words at the end of the section are written in the ﬁrst person plural: “That we and all of Jewry were innocent of any crime and that this accusation was baseless”. He hints that the libel was aimed against the whole of Jewry and that all Jewry was obliged to take action to refute it.

[19] 5293–5295 (1532–1535) The North African War This section describes the fate of the Jews during the war of Charles V against the Muslims in Tunisia.453 This was yet another chapter in

451 Perhaps in the sense of “resources” in the modern meaning of the word, and see the commentary on the text, p. 324, line 18 and note 269 there. 452 “Auch sagt man heraussen wie zu Oelss sollen IIc [= 200] gl. ligen, das macht die deutschen verdrossen, das niemand kein gelt schickt.” Compare Neustadt, p. 10. German Jewry were incensed: they have to pay for the Jews of Silesia, who in fact do not lack funds of their own. 453 This account is based on: K. Brandi, Kaiser Karl der Fünfte, third edition, Munich 1941, p. 306 ﬀ.; D. B. W. Lewis, Emperor of the West—A Study of the Emperor Charles

214

[19]

5293‒5295 (1532‒1535)

the continuing conﬂict between Muslims and Christians at every point of contact: in Spain, in Hungary and in North Africa. In Spain the Moriscos were harshly subdued after the uniﬁcation of the country under the Catholic monarchy, and many of them ﬂed to join their fellow Muslims in North Africa. The Berber tribes harried the Christian countries relentlessly, in particular those under Spanish rule, and engaged in acts of piracy along the Mediterranean coast. In order to combat this practice the Spanish captured a number of strongholds in Morocco and Algeria. However, at the end of the 1520’s they lost most of them one after another, and, by mid-1529, were forced to surrender to the Berber military commander Chaireddin Barbarossa, and to hand him back the fortress of Algiers. In the spring of 1530, the admiral of Charles’s acclaimed ﬂeet, the Genoan Andrea Doria, carried out a successful raid on the pirates’ nest in Cherchel, west of Algiers. However, he too dared not challenge Barbarossa in face-to-face combat. The Knights of Saint John, who after 1530 were based in Malta, suﬀered similarly from the pirates’ forays, but did not venture to take a stand against them. In 1532, Andrea Doria reached the Adriatic coast with his ﬂeet and captured Coron and Patras in the Peloponnesian Peninsula, but was afterwards compelled to return them to the Turks. In this war, many Jews were killed and injured and others taken captive, as we shall see below. Barbarossa was closely allied with the Turkish Sultan, who gave him command of large portions of his ﬂeet. In the name of the Sultan, he committed wide-scale acts of piracy along the coasts, including the coast of Naples; he kidnapped many Christians and sold them into slavery in Turkey. Since the Muslim attacks were directed against the Habsburgs, France negotiated with the Sultan in the hope of fulﬁlling her aspirations regarding Genoa with the aid of the Turkish ﬂeet. A permanent the Fifth, London 1932, pp. 163–64; K. Voigt, Kaiser Karls V. Kriegsfahrt nach Afrika (K. H. L. Pölnitz, Jahrbücher der Geschichte und Staatskunst, 1), 1829, pp. 261–95; G. de Boom, Le Voyages de Charles Quint, Brussels 1927, p. 72 ﬀ.; K. Lanz, Staatspapiere zur Geschichte Karls V, Stuttgart 1845, p. 569 ﬀ.; E. Bashan, Sheviya u-Fedut ba-Óevra ha-Yehudit be-Artsot ha-Yam ha-Tikhon (1391–1830) (Captivity and Ransom in Mediterranean Jewish Society), Jerusalem 1980, pp. 40–41, 136–38; M. Benayahu, HaYa˙asim bein Yehudei Yavan li-Yehudei Italyah mi-Gerush Sefarad ad Tom ha-Republika ha-Venetsianit (The Relationship between Greek and Italian Jewry from the Spanish Expulsion up to the End of the Venetian Republic), Tel Aviv 1979/80, pp. 60–62, 72; and see additional bibliography there, p. 61, note 6.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

215

French envoy was stationed at the Sultan’s court. In 1535, an oﬃcial French delegation came to Istanbul and, in 1536, France and Turkey signed a treaty. For its part, Spain began negotiations with the Sultan’s enemies, the Persians, through the agency of the Portuguese colony to the east (on the Indian Ocean). However, these proved unproductive, for precisely at that time the Shah made his peace with the Sultan, so as to be free to conduct the war in Khorasan. Moreover, Portugal did not wish to identify itself unequivocally with either of the two sides, as it also had relations with France. From the end of 1533, Charles V had been weighing the idea of a crusade against the Muslims in North Africa, and his mind was made up after Barbarossa seized Tunisia in August 1534 and deposed its legal ruler, Muley Hassan. Preparations went ahead in the utmost secrecy; above all, Charles’s intention to participate personally in the warfare was kept a closely guarded secret. The Spanish, led by the archbishop of Toledo, Cardinal Don Juan de Tavera, were strongly opposed to the Emperor’s planned Tunisian campaign and, in particular, to his personal participation in it. However, Charles was adamant; he viewed the North African expedition as a religious mission—the war of the Christian Emperor against the heretics—although, as remarked, the operation was not devoid of political motives. The Emperor’s armies embarked from Barcelona and on 10 June 1535 joined up with Andrea Doria’s ﬂeet. The forces participating in the campaign—the German, Papal and Italian contingents, and soldiers from Malta—all assembled in Sardinia. There were about 100 warships and another 300 transport vessels. On 14 June this large ﬂeet set sail and a day later anchored opposite the ruins of Carthage. Their ﬁrst objective was La Goletta, located in an adjacent bay. Barbarossa had stationed there his ﬁnest troops, around 5000 Turks and many Moors. He himself waited in Tunis and merely harassed the Emperor’s forces with his cavalry units. The siege, punctuated by cannon ﬁre, continued for more than three weeks. Illness and an extreme shortage of water exacerbated the attackers’ situation; in addition, tensions erupted between the various forces. The Emperor himself participated in the ﬁghting; this was his baptism of ﬁre. After a short battle the Turks retreated and part of their army ﬂed to Tunis. Huge amounts of spoil were seized, especially French cannons. Barbarossa’s entire ﬂeet—82 galleys—fell into Charles’s hands.

216

[19]

5293‒5295 (1532‒1535)

There were many who advised the Emperor to let this victory suﬃce; however, he decided to advance and besiege Tunis itself. During the siege of Tunis, the deposed ruler, Muley Hassan, joined the attackers with 300 soldiers. Hassan sought to guide the Emperor and his army to the springs of sweet water. Charles’s army moved with great diﬃculty in the intense heat and suﬀered grievously from the lack of water. As soon as they reached the springs, Barbarossa fell upon them. Charles succeeded in rallying his troops and fought back vigorously, but suﬀered heavy losses. Barbarossa, meanwhile, ﬂed into Tunis. Thousands of Christian slaves, faced with almost certain death at the hands of the Moors, rebelled and took over the city, thus ensuring its capture by the Emperor. However, while the imperial army was engaged in looting, Barbarossa succeeded in escaping to the coastal town of Bona, and embarked for Algiers with the remainder of his ﬂeet, which the Emperor’s forces had left behind. The Emperor’s armies did not pursue him and thus the war’s objectives were not fully achieved. However, Charles held La Goletta, Bona and Bizerte, and tens of thousands of Christian captives were liberated in Tunis. The Mediterranean coastline was still exposed to the danger of forays by Barbarossa and to his plans for vengeance, but the campaign had not been in vain. In August 1535, Muley Hassan was restored to the throne as ruler of Tunisia. The war increased Charles’s prestige greatly, and upon his arrival in Sicily, he was received enthusiastically and victory parades were held in his honour. The Situation of the Jews in the North African War The Jews’ experiences during this war are described by Joseph HaKohen in his two books.454 In Emek ha-Bakha (Vale of Tears), he writes that Andrea Doria, “the commander of Emperor Charles’s ﬂeet”, went to wage war in the cities of the Turks, in the year 1532: And they besieged Coron in the seventh month [= Tishri*]. The Turks surrendered it to him on Hoshana Rabbah, in the year 5293 (1532), and they made a treaty. And the Jews were plundered and pillaged and

454 Emek ha-Bakha, p. 113; Sefer Divrei ha-Yamim, part 2, fol. 90; fols. 99–102. * {Tishri is the ﬁrst month in the most common reckoning of the year in the Hebrew calendar, varying between September and October. However, it is also referred to as the seventh month when the month of Nisan is counted as ﬁrst. AS}.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

217

taken captive by the adversary, and they had no saviour on the day of God’s wrath. Patras too was captured, and likewise the many Jews there drank the cup of poison during this tumult; some of them were ransomed in Zante, some were sold into slavery here and there, and some were ransomed in Italy in that year. . . .

In other words, the Jews—some 300 in number—were taken captive by the Italian and Spanish forces, some were sold into slavery in diﬀerent locations and some were “transported in ships” to various coasts and ransomed in Zante (an island west of Greece) and in Italy. He writes much the same in his Sefer Divrei ha-Yamim. Gedaliah ibn Ya˙ya gives a similar description of the events in his Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah.455 One of the pirates against whom Andrea Doria battled was a man by the name of Sinan Rais{?} “the Jew”,456 and this may be the reason why Doria dealt so harshly with the Jews wherever he encountered them. Indeed, in one place, Joseph Ha-Kohen calls him “oppressor of the Jews”. Concerning the fall of Tunis, Joseph Ha-Kohen writes as follows: The Emperor Charles went to ﬁght against Tunis, which is on the Barbary {coast}, and captured it on 21 July in the year 5295 (1535). All its splendour departed at that time. As for the many Jews who were there, some ﬂed into the desert, hungry, thirsty and destitute . . . some died by the sword when the uncircumcised entered the city, and some were taken captive by the enemy, and they had no saviour on the day of God’s wrath . . . and they were sold to be slaves and maidservants at the four corners of the earth. In Naples and Genoa, the Italian communities ransomed many {of them} at that time. . . .457

Hence, the process repeated itself. Extant are letters by R. David ibn Ya˙ya, Rabbi of Naples and R. Joseph Ha-Kohen in Genoa,458 which they hastily dispatched to the various Jewish communities; in them, they relate that the Jewish captives were treated very harshly by their captors in order to compel Italian Jewry, who witnessed 455

Gedaliah ibn Ya˙ya, Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah, pp. 274–75. There are theories that he was a Jew who converted to Islam, or that he was not Jewish at all, but was thought to be a Jew. See E. Bashan, Sheviya u-Fedut, p. 40. 457 Emek ha-Bakha, pp. 117–18. 458 See A. David, Igrono shel Yosef ha-Kohen, Ba"al Emek ha-Bakha (The Letters of Joseph Ha-Kohen, Author of Emek ha-Bakha), Jerusalem 1985, introduction, pp. 15–19, and letters nos. 29–41. 456

218

[19]

5293‒5295 (1532‒1535)

their suﬀering, to ransom them. All attempts to argue or bargain over the size of the ransom proved futile.459 Many of the prisoners were kept on the ships, and employed in forced labour, and each time the ships returned to Italian shores the question of their ransom came up again.460 The Jews of Naples and Genoa did not have suﬃcient means to cover the enormous expenses alone and made impassioned appeals for assistance to the other Italian communities and to Salonika and Provence. From the section under discussion here we learn that their letters also reached Germany. R. Joseph’s Account Echoes of the Emperor’s campaign undoubtedly reached R. Joseph in Germany; however, he does not provide much information about it. On the contrary, in his brief account he combines the two wars, that of 1532 (the raids against Coron and Patras in the Peloponnesian Peninsula) and that of 1535 (the Tunisian War), while accurately specifying their dates. There is no need to assume that R. Joseph mistakenly believed the towns of Coron and Patras to be in North Africa. In the perception of that generation, and most particularly among those engaged in ransoming the captives, the two wars were considered to be one episode: when the Jews were taken captive in Tunis, there were still captives to be ransomed from the earlier campaign, and, probably, in the letter sent from Italy to R. Joseph, both the former and the latter were mentioned. R. Joseph writes, “for our many sins, some persons were slain and others taken captive”, and notes that he was informed of this by a letter reaching him from Italy. In his words, “the communities of that foreign country [namely Italy] wrote and appealed for assistance

459 For the size of the ransom, which was quite unprecedented, see M. Benayahu, Ha-Ya˙asim bein Yehudei Yavan li-Yehudei Italyah, p. 41. 460 See for example A. David, Igrono, nos. 34 and 36. Extant also is a responsum of R. Azriel Diena, in which he describes in emotional terms the bitter fate of those Jewish captives. He calls for the imposition of a ﬁxed levy on all the Jewish merchants in Italy, according to the size of their income, and that the money raised should be collected in Naples. There it should be exchanged and all the captives ransomed at the same time, in order to avoid having to pay more than their value. This responsum was published by S. Assaf in Kiryat Sefer, 14, no. 4 (1938), pp. 548–49, and, recently, in She’elot u-Teshuvot R. Azriel bar Shlomo Diena (Responsa of R. Azriel Diena), (ed.) Y. Boksenboim, Tel Aviv 1977, vol. 1, para. 97, pp. 256–58.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

219

in ransoming and maintaining them”, and, therefore, all the propertied Jews in Alsace had to pay 4% of their money towards this end. However, “we did not succeed in placing {the ransom money} in reliable hands”. That is, Alsatian Jewry did not ﬁnd a secure method of conveying the money to its destination.461 It is true that R. Joseph’s words do not give the impression that he understood the full gravity of the problem—that hundreds of Jews needed to be ransomed—for he writes of kama “some”, as though only a few individuals had been taken captive. The money was placed for safekeeping in the hands of the community leadership—or possibly of R. Joseph himself—and, while he undoubtedly had some qualms, he used it when necessary for other community purposes, such as his activities on behalf of Prague Jewry.

[ 20] 5294 (1533/34) The Prague Aﬀair This section is concerned with conﬂicts within the Prague Jewish community involving members of the Horowitz family.462 The head of the family, R. Isaiah Horowitz, was a very wealthy man and one of the leaders of the community. He had seven sons, and after his death, in 1514 or 1515, they too occupied prominent positions in the community.

461 This was true also of the money raised in other localities. See for example, A. David, Igrono, no. 31, where reference is made to sums of money that were collected in Salonika, and did not reach their destination. 462 For the Prague community in the sixteenth century see: J. He®man, “The Prague Jewish Community Before the Expulsion of 1541”, Prague Ghetto in the Renaissance Period ( Jewish Monuments in Bohemia and Moravia, 4), Prague 1965; A. Stein, Die Geschichte der Juden in Böhmen, Brünn 1904, especially pp. 41–46; for the Horowitz family in Prague, see Tsvi Halevi Ish Horowitz, “Toldot Mishpa˙at Horovits” (History of the Horowitz Family), in the appendix to A.N. Horowitz, Tov Ayin (Good Eye), Cracow 1934/35, especially pp. 6–13; 35–40; H. Horowitz, “Die Familie Horowitz in Prag”, Zeitschrift für die Geschichte der Juden in der Tschechoslowakei, 2 (1931), pp. 89–98; B. Wachstein, “Wer sind die Prager Munk im 16. Jahrhundert?”, ZGJD, N.F. 1 (1929), pp. 141–51, especially p. 148; and Encyclopedia Judaica, 8, col. 983–84, s.v. Horowitz; the principal documents relating to the aﬀair have been published by Bondy and Dworsky, Zur Geschichte der Juden in Böhmem, Mähren und Schlesien. (BD below.)

220

[20]

5294 (1533⁄34)

R. Horowitz’s eldest son was Aaron Meshullam, who was known as Zalman Munka.463 He too was extremely rich. Towards the end of his life, in 1535, he built the Pinkas synagogue, named after one of his brothers, who completed its construction after his death.464 Munka quarrelled frequently with the Prague community. As early as 1516 the King’s representative in Prague, the Burgrave (Oberburggraf ), requested that the community reach a compromise with the Jew Munka.465 In 1524, there was a major dispute within the community concerning the taxes to the authorities. The custom was that the community itself made the tax assessment of their members for the authorities. Munka appealed against the size of the assessment and sued the community. Eventually, a compromise was reached through the mediation of the mayor of Prague.466 A year later, Munka received a charter from King Ludwig II of Bohemia and Hungary granting him a special status in the community. According to its provisions, there had to be three permanent oﬃce-bearers in the community, two parnasim and one rabbi—all of them from the Horowitz family.467 On the basis of this privilege, Munka appointed his brother Seligmann to the oﬃce of parnas and another brother, Rabbi Shabbetai Sheftel, to serve as leader and dayan (rabbinical judge). These appointments evoked strong opposition within the community, both in themselves and also, possibly, because they were viewed as nominations sanctioned by the gentile authorities. In their wake, a serious controversy erupted between supporters of the Horowitz family and their dependents on the one hand, and their opponents 463 For Munka, see especially O. Muneles, “Ketovot mi-Beit ha-Almin ha-Yehudi haAtik bi-Prag” (Epitaphs from the Ancient Jewish Cemetery of Prague), Jerusalem 1987/88, no. 62, pp. 162–64. 464 J. He®man, “The Prague Jewish Community before the Expulsion”, p. 30, speculates that the construction of the Horowitz family synagogue may have been connected with the family’s social isolation owing to its disputes with the community. 465 BD, II, no. 1215, p. 958. 466 BD, II, no. 1221, p. 961. In the Prague community there was a large social gap between the few who were well-to-do and the great majority of its members. A valuation of Jewish property taken in 1540 showed that Zalman Munka was by far the wealthiest man in the community; his property was three times the size of that of the second richest taxpayer. For this, see J. He®man, “Das Steuerregister der Prager Juden aus dem Jahre 1540 (1528)”, Judaica Bohemiae, 1 (1965), pp. 26–58. The author stresses, however, that even these aﬄuent Jews were less prosperous than the rich Christian burghers. 467 He®man, ibid., (p. 47) considers that the basic importance of this family privilege was its decisive impact on tax assessment within the Jewish community; and compare also Muneles, Ketovot mi-Beit ha-Almin ha-Yehudi, p. 163.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

221

on the other.468 The arguments reached such a pitch that, in May 1533, Munka was arraigned before the Imperial Court of Justice, charged with possessing documents, and one letter in particular, allegedly containing evidence that he had engaged in deeds or transactions liable to harm the interests of the King (etlich bös vordeckt Handlungen und Praktiken).469 We learn of the course of events from two letters of the Imperial Bohemian Chamber (Böhmische Kammer) to the new king, Ferdinand.470 The ﬁrst was sent after the Bohemian Chamber had been informed of the episode by the King’s oﬃcial (Unterkammerer und Hauptmann), and the second, after it had received Ferdinand’s orders to conﬁscate all the papers in Munka’s possession, draw up an exact assessment of his wealth, and ensure that he did not ﬂee.471 From these letters it emerges that immediately after the Bohemian Chamber got word of the accusations against Munka, that ostensibly he had made an agreement with another parnas, an act that could be regarded as a contravention of the law (and might make him liable for a ﬁne to the King’s treasury), it attempted to investigate the matter. This was after the Prague city council had already made its own independent investigation and had even ruled that there was no incriminating material in the conﬁscated documents. Furthermore, the city authorities claimed that the Jewish community had not submitted any complaint against Munka, though they emphasized that anyone wishing to bring an action against him on any 468 H. Horowitz’s contention (“Die Familie Horowitz in Prag”), that Rabbi Abraham ben Avigdor headed the opposition to the Horowitz family, has no basis. On the contrary, he was appointed, together with R. Joseph, apparently because he was regarded as a neutral judge, to endeavour to ﬁnd a solution to the dispute. There is also a problem with Horowitz’s statement that there were 400 men in the opposition camp. He bases himself on this section of the Chronicle, in which is written that 400 men aﬃxed their signatures to the new ordinances. By doing so they naturally took a stand, which afterwards was repudiated by the Horowitz family, but that does not necessary mean that all of them were members of the opposition camp. 469 See BD, I, nos. 402–03, pp. 276–86. 470 The Bohemian Chamber (or oﬃce in charge of ﬁnances) was created by King Ferdinand upon his election as king of Bohemia in 1526. Among its other activities, it was responsible for Jewish aﬀairs, and, most particularly, for the taxes the Jews were required to pay. The Chamber scrupulously supervised all the Jews’ activities, so that it could impose ﬁnes on them for the King’s treasury in the event of violations of the law. See K. Bosl (ed.), Handbuch der Geschichte der böhmischen Länder, III, Stuttgart 1973, pp. 148–49. 471 BD, II, nos. 1243, 1244, p. 97. I would like to express my warmest gratitude to Dr. Livia Rotkirchen, who very kindly translated the Czech documents for me.

222

[20]

5294 (1533⁄34)

matter was free to do so. They had gone so far as to place six people in custody, charging them with having proceeded against Munka in the Imperial Court of Justice instead of bringing the case to the city authorities. In all this, they had made no attempt to bring the Bohemian Chamber into the picture, and relations between the Chamber and the Prague burghers became exceedingly tense. The Chamber considered their actions an infringement of the King’s prerogatives. An exchange of letters between the Chamber and the city of Prague in this connection apparently did not yield any concrete results. However, the Chamber summoned Munka and another parnas [his brother?] for questioning, and released them only upon payment of substantial bail. It also arranged for the release on bail of the six Jews arrested by the city. In their letter to King Ferdinand, the members of the Bohemian Chamber stress that his oﬃcial had erroneously given orders for the crate of documents conﬁscated from Munka to be transferred to the town hall (Rathaus), namely to the city council and not to the Chamber. The city burghers (die von Prag) had refused to transfer the documents to the Chamber and Chamber oﬃcials had been unable to examine them in detail. It was only later, when representatives of the Chamber came to the city council, that they were allowed to study the material. They conﬁrm that the oﬀending letter possessed by Munka is merely a promissory note, and that they have prepared a Bohemian and German translation of it and sent copies of the original and the translations to the King. Regarding Ferdinand’s query concerning the size of Zalman’s property, they explain that this is diﬃcult to ascertain in precise terms as most of his possessions are not in real estate but in loans and movables; however, they estimate his total wealth at 40,000 Schock (Schok meichsnisch).472 In response to the King’s question concerning secret contacts between Munka and the city burghers, they know nothing deﬁnite but feel that he must have promised the burghers something; otherwise, they would not be working so energetically on his behalf. They are under the impression too that Zalman is endeavouring to remove from the 472

See F. Frhr. v. Schrötter, Wörterbuch der Münzkunde, Berlin-Leipzig 1930, s.v. Schock Groschen. According to him, the Schock was a unit for counting money; it was current in Bohemia and the adjoining lands. One Schock was the equivalent of 60 Groschen added to one Gold Mark. In Meissen (Saxony) the Schock became actual currency and was called the Schock Meissnisch, namely the monetary value current in Meissen. There was also, to give another example, a Bohemian Schock.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

223

Chamber’s jurisdiction not only himself, but also all the other Jews. In their letter, the Chamber oﬃcials make all manner of conjectures to the King concerning Munka’s possible guilt. They analyze the agreement attached to the promissory note and endeavour to ﬁnd incriminating evidence in it: 1. Although the attached agreement is not entirely clear, it does state that if the borrower conducts himself while in his oﬃcial capacity in what the witnesses—the signatories on the agreement—consider to be a “treacherous manner” (verräterich oder unrecht), he will be required to pay Munka a ﬁne of 100 Schock. Since the witnesses are Munka’s brother and brother-in-law, this in itself is suspicious. 2. They believe—although they are not absolutely certain—that the meaning of the expression “treacherous” is that the borrower, who too is one of the community leaders, has promised to accept Munka’s opinion on any subject during community meetings and not take an independent position. If this is indeed the case, it constitutes a deﬁnite abuse of oﬃce on the part of Munka and his debtor as heads of the Jewish community, as well as a breach of the oath that they took in their oﬃcial capacity.473 Clearly this act is deserving of punishment. 3. Munka’s dismay at the disclosure of the aﬀair, and his subsequent request for aid from the city burghers shows that something is not as it should be. 4. Munka was not authorized to make an agreement of this kind, because when a Jew behaves in a treacherous manner, this is not an issue between two Jews, but a matter for adjudication by the King’s court of law. As for Munka’s connection with the burghers, the Chamber oﬃcials regard the city council’s contention that any Jewish community member who considers himself injured by Munka can sue him, as incorrect, for the following reasons: the community parnasim keep their aﬀairs a closely guarded secret from the public, and without full knowledge of all the details it is impossible for a claimant to prove the justice of his cause in a lawsuit against Munka. Moreover, the Jews

473 For the oath taken by oﬃce holders in the Jewish community, see above, introduction to section 5 of the Chronicle, pp. 95–96, note 106.

224

[20]

5294 (1533⁄34)

dare not complain against him, for the burghers have threatened to injure them in their livelihood, property and persons should they do so. Furthermore, add the oﬃcials, the burghers have suppressed the whole aﬀair, knowing of Munka’s enormous wealth, and doubtless thinking in terms of their own interests and not those of the King. Undoubtedly, not only the Imperial Chamber but also the burghers and the Jews regard the close relationship between Munka and the city authorities as an oﬀence against the law. Their advice to King Ferdinand is, therefore, to write to the Prague authorities and enjoin them not to execute sentence or take any action against the Jews they had jailed and afterwards released on bail, but to await the arrival of the King himself in Prague. The city burghers were consistent in their opposition to the King’s intervention in Jewish aﬀairs. Thus, they had disapproved of the charter accorded to Zalman Munka, and when they returned his papers they kept back his charter. By so doing, they may have made common cause with Zalman’s opponents within the Jewish community. Munka petitioned the King and, in March 1534, Ferdinand requested an explanation from the city in this connection.474 In December 1534, the King was obliged to write to the city again on the subject,475 and only then it seems was Munka’s privilege restored to him. Meanwhile, the quarrel within the Jewish community grew ever more acrimonious and even led to physical violence, when Seligmann Horowitz struck Rabbi Joshua Altschul in the synagogue and scratched his cheek. Seligmann was summoned before the Royal Court of Justice but did not appear. In a sharp letter to the community parnasim, from 23 April 1534, the King complains that Seligmann has not been punished for his deed, and that, furthermore, there are witnesses who do not wish to testify against him, on the plea that they are forbidden to bear witness against a Jew in the gentile courts. The King also accuses Munka, currently parnas, of covering up for his brother. He categorically orders the community to see to it that Seligmann is punished forthwith in accordance with the law.476 474 475 476

BD, I, no. 411, p. 291. BD, II, no. 1250, p. 979. BD, I, no. 413, p. 293.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

225

Subsequent developments in the conﬂict within the community can be ascertained, ﬁrst and foremost, from R. Joseph’s account, from which the following picture emerges: The dispute apparently spread to other Jewish communities in Bohemia, since R. Joseph writes, “. . . many feuding camps arose in the other communities in Bohemia”. This was a likely development, for the leaders of Prague community possessed authority over the whole of Bohemian Jewry.477 Echoes of these quarrels carried also beyond the borders of the kingdom—to Poland and Germany. The rabbis of Posen and Germany proposed that the settlement of the disputes be entrusted into the hands of “righteous men”, in R. Joseph’s words. It was suggested that R. Joseph of Rosheim should assist R. Abraham ben Avigdor to prepare community ordinances that would put an end to the strife.478 This was the troubled state of aﬀairs when R. Joseph arrived on the scene. He writes that he drew up 23 ordinances, presumably concerning the election of parnasim and rabbis in the city, and that more than 400 people aﬃxed their signatures to these ordinances. At that time the Prague community numbered about 1000 people,479 therefore the number of signatories was relatively high. The Horowitz family members were unhappy with the ordinances, which apparently did not recognize their charter. They may also have resented the fact that R. Joseph came from outside and established new laws without consulting them. They may well have complained on that

477 See A. Stein, Die Geschichte der Juden in Böhmen, pp. 41–42, and also BD, I, no. 429, p. 305. King Ferdinand writes to the Bohemian Chamber requesting that the parnasim of the Prague Jewish community not exert undue pressure on the Jews under the protection of one of the noblemen [village Jews?] in order to collect the tax. See also, He®man, “Das Steuerregister der Prager Juden”, p. 47. 478 R. Abraham ben Avigdor was the head of a yeshiva and a dayan {rabbinical judge} in Prague for many years. He composed various halakhic works, notably glosses on the Tur {the important halakhic work by R. Jacob ben Asher}. See also Muneles, Ketovot, no. 44, pp. 141–42, and the recent article by A. Eisenbach, “Hagahot u-Beurim al ha-Tur Hilkhot Pesa˙ [le-R. Avraham bar Avigdor]” (R. Abraham of Prague—Glosses and Commentaries on the Tur, Passover Laws), Tzfunot, 7 (1989/90), pp. 22–26, and ibid., pp. 22–23, biographical notes on the author; also supplementary notes to this article by Y. A. Weiss, “Girsaot ha-Tur shel ha-Gaon Rabi Avraham mi-Prag” (Rabbi Abraham of Prague’s Versions of the Tur), Tzfunot, 8 (1989/1990), pp. 82–83. For his seli˙ah (penitential prayer) on the expulsion from Bohemia, see below, introduction to section 25 of the Chronicle, p. 253 ﬀ. 479 See He®man, “Das Steuerregister”, p. 27. It must be assumed that he is referring to householders or taxpayers.

226

[20]

5294 (1533⁄34)

score to the authorities. On 2 November, Bohemian Chamber oﬃcials wrote to the King,480 deploring the fact that Prague Jewry had brought a foreign Jew from Germany and appointed him over them as rabbi [!] without the knowledge of His Majesty or his representatives, and that this Jew had enacted new community laws and written them all down in a booklet (in ein buechl beschrieben). According to the Chamber oﬃcials, they had sent a letter to the Prague city council requesting the booklet from the Jews in order to study it. The Prague people had indeed procured the booklet from the Jews but, according to the oﬃcials, the burghers were refusing to show it to them—this was probably on the Jews’ express instructions— claiming that they wished to keep it in their possession until the King’s arrival in Prague. The Chamber oﬃcials emphasize in their letter that the Jews were accustomed to appoint or remove their rabbis only with the consent of the King or the Imperial Chancellory, and thus, they were in no way entitled to appoint a rabbi for themselves without the King’s permission. All the more so was it forbidden for them to consent to ordinances directed against the King and the authorities (wider E. Mt. und die Obergkeit). The oﬃcials ask the King to instruct the city authorities to hand over to them the booklet of ordinances, and they will study its contents and pass it on to His Majesty. If the Jews in the meantime should request the King’s approval for the appointment of this rabbi, write the oﬃcials, His Majesty will know how to respond. The investigation against R. Joseph came, it appears, in the wake of this letter, or, possibly, on the heels of a complaint to the authorities. R. Joseph writes that he was in actual danger, and was compelled to plead in his defence “three times in the city fortress of Prague”.481 It seems that he was summoned to be questioned or tried by the representatives of the Imperial Government in Prague, who sat in the Burg—the city fortress.482 However, in his words, “all the community” supported him—he is undoubtedly referring to the 480

BD, I, no. 416, p. 295. However, it is unlikely that Horowitz’s supporters plotted to murder R. Joseph, and that he ﬂed to the city fortress for protection, as He®man writes on p. 29 (“Das Steuerregister”). Moreover, the text itself does not allow for such an interpretation. 482 The expression is apparently a translation of “sich auf das prager Schloss zu stellen und zu rechtfertigen”, as is written, for example in BD, I, no. 444, p. 322 (although, it is true that the latter is a summary and translation by the editor). 481

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

227

community leaders not belonging to the Horowitz family—and he emerged unscathed from the ordeal. This was not the end of the aﬀair. The Horowitz family was not prepared to admit defeat and the disputes erupted afresh. Members of the Horowitz family insulted the two prominent rabbis who had drawn up the ordinances. Prague community leaders then wrote to the rabbis of Italy and Austria to “demand satisfaction for the insult” to R. Abraham and R. Joseph, in the words of the latter. He writes that the Horowitz camp eventually yielded and “gave thanks for the blessings written down in that book”, namely, in the booklet of ordinances he had prepared for the community.* Nevertheless, the quarrels within the community continued, as can be seen from King Ferdinand’s letter of 30 April 1535, in which he orders the Jewish community to stop its internal strife over taxes and submit a report to him on the matter.483 The election of community leaders likewise seems to have remained a source of dispute. In May 1535, Ferdinand instructed the City Magistrate and the council of the old city of Prague to dismiss from the post of community elder any Jew who was not a subject of the king (Erbeigene Untertanen).484 Certain Jews may have been behind also this royal order—possibly the Horowitz family. In October 1538, Ferdinand notiﬁed the Prague Magistrate and city council that they were forthwith freed from the obligation, which had hitherto been theirs, of appointing the Jewish parnasim, and that this duty now reverted to the Bohemian Chamber.485 This royal decree was the outcome of a letter from the Bohemian Chamber to King Ferdinand, dated 5 October 1538, in which it accuses the city council of keeping all the revenue from the Jews for itself, although it belongs to the King’s treasury. The letter states that the King accorded the city council speciﬁc duties in respect to the Jews, namely, the protection of the latter from the mob, and the appointment of parnasim. The city, however, has extended its authority, and has arrogated to itself all matters concerning the Jews: it is

* {However, there is no evidence in the Chronicle that the phrase “gave thanks for the blessings . . . in that book” refers to the Horowitz camp; rather, from the wording it appears to refer to those “exemplary persons” who defended R. Joseph and R. Abraham ben Avigdor against the attacks by the Horowitz family and its supporters, and see below, pp. 327–328. Translator} 483 BD, II, no. 1264, p. 987. 484 BD, II, no. 1258, p. 983. 485 BD, II, no. 1269, p. 993.

228

[20]

5294 (1533⁄34)

levying all manner of impositions and ﬁnes, it is prohibiting some Jews from engaging in commerce—although this is their only livelihood—while at the same time permitting others to do so, and is appropriating all the ﬁnes paid by the Jews. Despite various admonitions from the Chamber and promises by the city to transfer to the King his portion of the ﬁnes, it has not given a penny. The Chamber emphasizes that if the King should decide not to expel the Jews, it makes sense that the royal treasury should beneﬁt from them. If His Majesty were to reassume the right to appoint the parnasim, then the royal treasury would be able collect the 200 Schock that the Jews are required to pay each year for these appointments, money they are presently paying to the city.486 On this issue there was constant tension between the city authorities and the King’s representatives, and the Bohemian Chamber even feared that the city would cancel any appointments of community leaders made without its consent.487 It should be noted that the question of the Horowitz family’s privilege came up again in ensuing years. On 28 September 1545, Ferdinand reconﬁrmed the family privilege to Israel Munka, son of the late Zalman, “for as long as there are Jews in Bohemia”.488 R. Joseph himself relates that he revisited Prague in 1547, undoubtedly at the invitation of members of the community and following letters from them, for he writes that he was informed by them, both “verbally” and “by letter”, that “some factions had reverted to their corrupt ways and had resumed the disputes”.489 R. Joseph again made eﬀorts to restore peace in the community. In his words, “I spoke to their hearts with words of explicit rebuke until they consented to follow the path of truth and peace”. This mediation eﬀort by R. Joseph is not mentioned at all in the oﬃcial sources. The Horowitz family’s opponents were active too. We ﬁnd that on 15 March 1548, Elector Maurice of Saxony intercedes with King Ferdinand on behalf of a Prague Jew, Uriah Leopold, who was not a member of the Horowitz family, but claimed that also he belonged to a prominent Prague family. The Elector argues that since the 486

The document has been published by Bucholtz, Geschichte der Regierung Ferdinand, IX (Urkunden), Vienna 1838, no. 69, pp. 186–87. 487 BD, II, no. 1270, p. 993. 488 BD, I, no. 515, p. 364. 489 At the end of section 25 of the Chronicle, which deals with the expulsion from Prague, below, p. 333, line 11 onwards.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

229

King has granted a diﬀerent family—namely the Horowitz’s—a special privilege, it is only ﬁtting that Leopold too be accorded a similar privilege, whereby from his family there should be appointed annually two elders, two parnasim[?] and a rabbi.490 Leopold had formerly been “his” Jew, the Elector explains, and had been of considerable assistance in providing various supplies to the Emperor’s camp and to his own during the recent war.491 For these reasons, he is interceding on his behalf. The struggle within the Prague community continued even after the expulsion (in 1541) and resettlement, and opponents of the Horowitz family did not balk at using the good services of one of the Bohemian princes to exert pressure against the exclusive rule of the Horowitz camp in the community. There is no extant copy of the ordinances established by R. Joseph in 1534; however, from a study of the community ordinances enacted in Prague in November 1577,492 it may be possible for us to deduce their contents. According to the 1577 ordinances, no member was to serve in any community oﬃce unless elected to the post by the majority of the community. The oﬃce of parnas, elder, rabbi or dayan was to be for a one-year term only, at which time new elections were to be held, “as is customary in all of the Jewish Diaspora”. It is worth remarking that among the signatories on the 1577 ordinances was a member of the Horowitz family.

490

BD, I, no. 546, pp. 393–94. The reference is to the Schmalkaldic War. For the role of the Bohemians in this war, see Bosl, Handbuch der Geschichte der böhmischen Länder, III, pp. 152–55. According to this document, the Jews were involved in furnishing supplies for the army in times of war already in the ﬁrst half of the sixteenth century. They were very active in this arena, as we know, during the Thirty Years War. 492 BD, I, no. 772, pp. 558–60. This is a document of the Prague parnasim and is signed by 53 prominent Prague Jews, including the Maharal*—Rabbi Judah Loew; the name of his brother, Rabbi Sinai ben Bezalel, heads the list. The document contains a summary of the ordinances instituted by the Maharam* of Padua and the rabbis Eliezer Treves, Jacob of Worms, Shalem Hershalem and Isaac Linz. It is designed for the eyes of the authorities, and is intended to clarify that these ordinances, which in the document are termed “die alte judische Ordnung” are not detrimental to the Emperor’s prerogatives. According to a note attached to the document, the community has elected four men—whose names are listed—to intercede with the authorities, in order to ensure the observance of the Jewish ordinances customary from time immemorial for the election of parnasim and elders (Ältisten, Gemeinältisten und Richter). {*Maharal = our teacher, Rabbi Loew, Maharam = our teacher, Rabbi Meir—a special title given to some great rabbis. Translator} 491

230

[20]

5294 (1533⁄34)

If indeed it is possible to make an analogy between the 1577 ordinances and those prepared and enacted by R. Joseph in 1534, it is easy to understand why the Horowitz family took exception to them. Clearly there were tensions within the community between the wealthy members, who wished to exercise absolute authority, and those members who endeavoured to preserve a modicum of democracy in the election of their community leaders, in the traditional manner of the Ashkenazi Jewish communities in their heyday.493 It is not fortuitous that R. Joseph ﬁghts the community’s battle against those petty despots. Elsewhere, he writes in a similar vein about the Nuremberg community, castigating a member of the Mendel family who, according to him, wished to rule autocratically over the community.494 It should also be pointed out that the 1577 ordinances did not put an end to the squabbles within the Prague community over the election of its leaders. About a year later, in March 1579, Emperor Ferdinand instructed the Bohemian Chamber to investigate the disputes in Prague between the community and its leaders.495 Characteristically, R. Joseph links these internal Jewish disputes with the misfortunes that subsequently overtook the Prague community. In his words: And the strife and dissension provoked and instigated by the Horowitz people has meant that for our many sins Jacob has been taken as spoil, to be destroyed and not built up, as is proved by the occurrence of calamity upon calamity. . . .

He is undoubtedly alluding to the expulsion of Bohemian Jewry, including the Jews of Prague, in 1541.

493 For the problem of social tensions within the Jewish communities in the Early Modern Period, see H. H. Ben Sasson, Hagut ve-Hanhaga (Philosophy and Leadership), Jerusalem 1958/59, p. 229 onwards; on the election of community leaders, especially p. 246 onwards. Although the author is discussing the communities of Poland and Lithuania in the second half of the sixteenth century, his conclusions (pp. 251–53) indicate that the problems were basically the same as those we have seen in the case of Bohemia. 494 See Sefer ha-Miknah, p. 12, line 10, and for another community (Ettlin; maybe Ettlingen?), ibid., p. 13, line 14. 495 BD, I, no. 776, pp. 578–79.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

231

[ 21] 5296 (1535/36) “Talebearing and Bad Men” It is unclear to what events R. Joseph is alluding in this section, and we have no information about them from any other source. It seems that he was denounced to the authorities and, perhaps, some false accusation was made against him. The words he uses, “due to talebearing and bad men”, appear to indicate that more than one person, possibly two groups of people, incited against him. It appears that some form of legal action was taken against him and that he was summoned to appear before the central authorities in Heidelberg and Ensisheim. Perhaps the key to the enigma lies in R. Joseph’s activity during that year in connection with the agreement he drew up in Strasbourg against the taking of excessive interest. There may have been Jews who did not wish to accept his authority and brought complaints against him to the gentile powers. R. Joseph himself testiﬁes that only “with great diﬃculty”496 did he succeed in having the agreement ratiﬁed. Indeed, at least one instance is known of a Jew who submitted a complaint against R. Joseph to the authorities, accusing him of having judged him excessively strictly. However, the information in this section is too meagre to permit an understanding of what lies behind the words. It is true that precisely in that year R. Joseph faced legal proceedings by the imperial authorities in respect of the title by which he designated his oﬃce.497 However that case was heard in Speyer before the Imperial Court of Justice, and as far as we know was not a result of Jewish talebearing. If, nevertheless, we want to link this section with the trial against R. Joseph concerning his title, we would have to assume that the initiative in that connection came from local government oﬃcials, and that the investigation began in the local imperial courts and only later was transferred to the Imperial Court of Justice in Speyer. This is a plausible theory, but no documentary evidence has been found to substantiate it. 496 Written in his hand on the cover of the document, see below, Appendix 1b, p. 390. 497 See above, introduction to section 5 of the Chronicle, p. 100.

232

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle [ 22] 5297 (1536/37)

The Expulsion from Saxony The expulsion of the Jews from Saxony was one of a number of such expulsions from German Protestant states.498 In 1535, the Duchy of Württemberg issued an expulsion order, and in 1536 the Jews were expelled from Saxony. In 1539 Landgrave Philip of Hesse was in a quandary over whether or not to keep the Jews in his land. Scholars have debated whether these expulsions were part of a wave of expulsions that began as early as the second half of the ﬁfteenth century and continued without any real interruption until the end of the sixteenth century, or whether they were speciﬁc to the Protestant states. Whatever the case, even if a connection can be established between Luther’s doctrine and one or other of the expulsions, this still does not prove that it would not have taken place otherwise. As one scholar correctly put it: Wherever the question of tolerating the Jews had already become problematical, Luther’s proposals concerning the Jews fell on fertile soil, and accorded legitimacy and coherence to the anti-Jewish sentiments, which were heightened by the religious struggle of the Reformation period.499

Let us ﬁrst consider the course of events: There were three stages in the policy of the Elector of Saxony, John Frederick, towards the Jews: the decree of 1536; a certain easing of its terms in 1539; and the 1543 decree, which marked a return to John Frederick’s policy in 1536. The text of the 1536 expulsion decree has not survived, but its contents have been preserved, both in the oﬃcial instructions accompanying the decree, copies of which

498 For the expulsion from Saxony, see C. A. H. Burkhardt, “Die Judenverfolgungen im Kurfürstentum Sachsen von 1536 an”, Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 70, Gotha 1897; H. Bresslau, “Aus Straßburger Judenakten”, ZGJD, 5 (1892), p. 312 ﬀ.; P. Aufgebauer, “Judenpolitik im Zeitalter der Reformation, vornehmlich in Norddeutschland”, Die Diözese Hildesheim in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart (Zeitschrift des Vereins für Heimatkunde im Bistum Hildesheim, 51), 1983, pp. 24–27, 30–31, 36–37; Feilchenfeld, p. 120 onwards; S. Stern, p. 154 ﬀ. 499 See R. Riess, “Zum Zusammenhang von Reformation und Judenvertreibung— Das Beispiel Braunschweig”, Civitatum Communitas (Studien zum europäischen Städtewesen, Festschrift Heinz Stoob zum 65. Geburtstag, 2), p. 640.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

233

were dispatched to all the oﬃcials in the electorate, as well as in the 1543 decree. The decree was issued on 6 August 1536.500 Its provisions included the expulsion of all Jews from Saxony and a strict prohibition on the passage of Jews through its territory. Burckhardt believes that the decree was implemented almost immediately, about two weeks after its publication.501 In the wake of the tidings reaching him from Saxony, R. Joseph decided to journey there and attempt to convince the Elector to rescind the expulsion decree. Thereupon, he wrote to the city of Strasbourg requesting a safe-conduct and a letter of recommendation to the Elector. Strasbourg was the most important city in his vicinity, and, as a bastion of Protestantism, a recommendation from that quarter carried particular weight. Unfortunately, R. Joseph’s letter to Strasbourg has been lost; however, it is possible to more or less reconstruct its details from a similar letter of his that was written when he planned to travel to Hesse, at the time when Elector Philip of Hesse was drafting the Judenordnung.502 R. Joseph presumably began his letter by describing the events in Saxony, continued by stressing that he hoped to persuade the Elector to alter his decision, and concluded by requesting a letter of recommendation. The Strasbourg city’s letter of recommendation for R. Joseph to the ruler of Saxony of 5 May 1537 has survived.503 In it, the Magistrate of Strasbourg praises R. Joseph for his good reputation and his work on behalf of his people, and requests that the prince graciously consent to grant him an audience. He invokes St. Paul’s teachings, according to which, he explains, Christians are duty-bound to treat the Jews mercifully. This idea had probably been mentioned in R. Joseph’s letter, or may have been borrowed from Wolfgang Capito’s letter, which will be discussed immediately below. 500

Feilchenfeld believes, erroneously, that the decree was issued in 1537. See Burkhardt, “Die Judenverfolgungen”, p. 594. It is unclear on what he bases his assumption that the expulsion was carried out with such speed; although the 1543 decree provided for the reintroduction by the Elector of the 1536 edict within 14 days, this does not necessarily imply that the same was true in 1536, and that on that occasion too only 14 days passed between the publication of the expulsion order and its implementation. 502 ArchMun Strasbourg, III, 174, 24, p. 133. The letter is undated, but from the context appears to have been written in 1541. For the Hesse episode, see below, in the introduction to the “Letter of Consolation”, p. 340 onwards. 503 ArchMun Strasbourg, III, 174, 24, p. 117. This is a copy prepared on 28 May 1543, apparently in connection with R. Joseph’s eﬀorts to change the Elector of Saxony’s decision of that year. 501

234

[22]

5297 (1536⁄37)

R. Joseph also asked two Strasbourg Reformers, Martin Bucer and Wolfgang Capito, to provide him with a letter of introduction to Luther requesting his assistance to secure an audience with the Elector. To his gratiﬁcation, he received a warm recommendation from Capito to Luther.504 It seems that Capito wrote his letter twice: once in Latin for Luther—for the letter is preserved in that tongue among Luther’s correspondence—and, a second time, in German for R. Joseph, perhaps because it was intended for the eyes of the Elector.505 In his letter of 26 April 1537 to Luther, Capito stresses R. Joseph’s standing and good name. R. Joseph has complained to him that he received word from Saxony, that following a crime committed by some Jews for which it was only right that those sinful people be punished, the Prince has expelled all the Jews from his land and forbidden them passage through his territory. Capito asks Luther to give R. Joseph a hearing, or, at the very least, to read his petition and intercede for the Jews with the ruler of Saxony. In addition, he expresses the view that according to Christian tenets, the Jews should be treated mercifully, so long as they do not mock Jesus, for they are a sprout from a blessed root and once possessed the covenant and the promise. They are a branch lopped oﬀ an olive tree, onto which the Christians were afterwards grafted,506 and, therefore, it should not be permitted to treat them unkindly. In his closing words, Capito sends greetings from Bucer, and emphasizes that it was Bucer who had approached him and requested that he write this letter, as he (Bucer) had to leave town and did not have the time to write. It is hard to know whether R. Joseph’s appeal to Luther indicates that he was completely unaware of Luther’s connection with the Saxony expulsion, or whether he wanted to meet him for precisely that reason—because he suspected him of involvement or, at the very least, of exerting inﬂuence on the Elector in this regard, and 504 Capito’s letter was ﬁrst published by T. Kolbe, Analecta Lutherana, Gotha 1883, pp. 304–06, and again in the collection of Luther’s correspondence: M. Luther, Werke, WA, Briefe VIII, no. 3152, pp. 76–78. 505 This is Bresslau’s opinion, (in “Aus Straßburger Judenakten”); in the “Letter of Consolation”, in paragraph 19, R. Joseph writes that when he journeyed to Saxony to seek an interview with Elector (Herzogk) Hans Frederick, he displayed the excellent recommendation he had received from Capito. He also mentions that he attached to the “Letter of Consolation” a copy of this letter of recommendation. 506 This is cited by R. Joseph in the “Letter of Consolation”: “. . . man solt und lieben und mitleiden tragen, dann wir weren die wurzel des rechten olbaums”.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

235

hoped that in a face-to-face meeting he could persuade him to change his mind. Whatever the case, Luther refused to meet R. Joseph, and remarked on the fact during his “Table Talks”.507 There it says that Luther read the letter by R. Joseph, who, “as on many previous occasions” had solicited him and insistently requested his assistance, to secure him entrance and safe passage through Saxony. Luther said on this occasion: “Why do favours for these scoundrels, who injure people in their property and persons, and who with their many superstitions turn Christians away from the true religion?” And he added: “But I shall write to this Jew, so that he will not return with such requests”. In fact, his reply to R. Joseph of 11 June 1537 has survived.508 In this letter, which already bears some of the hallmarks of his important tract against the Sabbatarians, published shortly afterwards in 1538, Luther stiﬀened his negative attitude towards the Jews. Luther writes that he would gladly help the Jews and that his book has done them great service.509 However, they have taken advantage of his friendly attitude in a despicable manner, and are committing insuﬀerable deeds against the Christians. It is the behaviour of the Jews themselves that has prevented him from interceding (Forderung) as he could have done on their behalf with princes and lords. He has always believed that the Jews should be treated benevolently, in the expectation that the day will come when God will deal favourably with them and grant salvation to their souls, and not from the assumption that, in this way, they will be reinforced in their erroneous beliefs and become even more depraved. Further on in his letter, Luther turns to polemicizing with the Jews with respect to Jesus being the Messiah, and he contends that the Jews have always rejected their prophets and righteous kings. The words of the prophet Daniel have already long since come to pass; it is pointless for the Jews to cling to hopes of their future fulﬁlment and they should realize this. He is kindly disposed towards them, but they are wickedly exploiting him to promote their own obstinacy.510 507

WA, Tischreden, III, no. 3597. WA, Briefe, VIII, no. 3157, pp. 89–91. 509 He is apparently referring to his ﬁrst book on the Jews: Das Jhesus Christus eyn geborner Jude sey, published in 1523. 510 He is apparently implying that the Jews, contrary to his expectations, did not convert to Christianity. There may also be intimations here of the accusations he was to hurl at them a year later, concerning their alleged inﬂuence on the Sabbatarians. 508

236

[22]

5297 (1536⁄37)

Therefore, he advises R. Joseph to send his letters to his lord the Prince through other people and not through him. R. Joseph’s mission was a failure. As he himself relates, he did not succeed in presenting the Elector of Saxony with his petition until he met him at the Frankfurt assembly of princes in 1539. In that same year the Elector again relaxed the regulations regarding the passage of Jews through his territory. Although his oﬃcial order has been lost, we are able to learn this from the text of the third decree, that of 1543, which states that an honourable [or proper] request and strenuous intercession by the Jews themselves with regard to passage through the land (stadlich bescheene Vorbit auch der Jüdenschaft selbst hochvleißiges Anhalten, bitten und erbeiten durch etzliche Missiven des Passes wegen) has resulted in his modifying his earlier decree. Without doubt, this intercession is partially, if not wholly, the eﬀorts of R. Joseph at the 1539 Frankfurt assembly. Presumably, R. Joseph took this opportunity to submit to the Elector the Strasbourg letter of recommendation, which he had received two years earlier, as well as Capito’s letter, and, perhaps, this is the “honourable” request hinted at by John Frederick. The third stage of the Elector’s policy was the decree of 6 May 1543 cancelling the 1539 modiﬁcations and bringing the 1536 decree back in full force. In this decree, the only one of the three in which the text has been preserved verbatim,511 and according to which it is possible to reconstruct the two earlier decrees, the Elector alleges that, already in 1539, when he had eased the transit of Jews through his territory, he had made this concession conditional upon the Jews not committing any crimes, and that if it became evident that they were misconducting themselves, he would re-enforce a total prohibition on passage. He claims that the Jews are engaged in dishonest commercial transactions, that they pursue trades and practise the medical arts, that they are endeavouring to lead the people astray with lying words and curses directed against the true Messiah and are entering into disputations on matters concerning their perverted faith. In the light of the writings just published by Martin Luther against the Jews, he is reimposing the 1536 decree, and from this time forth no Jew or Jewess will be permitted to reside, trade, travel and pass through any of the territories of the Electorate or those

511

For the text of the decree, see Burkhardt, Die Judenverfolgungen, pp. 596–98.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

237

belonging to the ecclesiastical princes or the nobility (das kein Jude, noch Jüdin, hinfurt in unsere Landen, Chur und Fürstenthümben . . . wonen, noch darin handeln, wandeln, webern, oder dadurch passiren, sonder sich unser Lande, ganz und gar eussern und enthalten sollen . . .). In this decree the Elector based himself explicitly on Luther’s 1543 tracts, Of the Jews and their Lies and The Ineﬀable Name, in which the Protestant leader made his most virulent attack on the Jews. That is not to say that Luther had a direct hand in the issuing of this decree, but, as remarked earlier, the Elector was under his inﬂuence, and understood that this was the way it was incumbent upon him to act according to Lutheran doctrine. R. Joseph’s Description of the Events According to R. Joseph the Saxony expulsion took place in 5297 (1536/37 {that is, after 16 September 1536}). It is possible to explain the inaccuracy in the date by assuming that he may only have received news of the expulsion several weeks later, and this can be attested to by the fact that the Strasbourg and Capito letters of recommendation were from 1537; it is also possible that the decree was only implemented in 5297, namely after mid-September 1536. R. Joseph writes in this section that the ﬁrst expulsion decree of 1536 was “on account of that priest named Martin Lo Tohar . . .”.* That is not to say necessarily that Luther was directly responsible for the decree, as Feilchenfeld opines,512 but, possibly, R. Joseph believed that as Luther was the Elector’s spiritual mentor, his doctrine must have had a decisive eﬀect, and that therefore a meeting with him could be helpful. It is also possible that R. Joseph, who wrote in 1547, under the impact of Luther’s last books, was unable to distinguish between the degree of inﬂuence that Luther exerted in the case of the ﬁrst decree and that of 1543.513 R. Joseph touches on the Saxony aﬀair in a number of places. In his letters of 28 May and 11 July 1543 to the Strasbourg city council, * {A play on Luther’s name—the Hebrew words lo tohar mean “the impure one”. See below, section 22 of the Chronicle, p. 329, lines 1–2. Translator} 512 P. 121. 513 In contrast, Aufgebauer, “Judenpolitik im Zeitalter der Reformation”, pp. 30–31, establishes that there is no proof that Luther was in any way responsible for the 1536 expulsion decree, while his inﬂuence is clearly discernible with regard to the 1543 decree.

238

[22]

5297 (1536⁄37)

against the printing of Luther’s books in the city,514 he makes reference to his involvement in the problems of Saxonian Jewry. He relates that he journeyed seven miles into Meissen, but was unable to obtain an interview with Luther, and he mentions the letter he received from him in this regard. To his letter of 28 May he attached copies of the two letters of recommendation—that of Strasbourg and that of Capito—to lend added weight to his demand that the Jews should be treated mercifully and that Luther’s books should not be printed in the city. Another place where R. Joseph refers to Capito’s letter is in his “Letter of Consolation” to Hessian Jewry.515 However, in that work, he has a diﬀerent purpose in mind, and he does not discuss Luther’s part in the events, but emphasizes that Capito gave him a letter, with Bucer’s knowledge and encouragement, containing a request to treat the Jews compassionately. Further on in this section R. Joseph hints also at the decrees of 1539 and 1543. We learn from his words that the 1539 Frankfurt assembly of princes of the Schmalkaldic League debated proposals for the expulsion of the Jews. Not only was the question of Saxony raised, but there was talk of a renewed expulsion from Brandenburg, which had meanwhile become Protestant.516 R. Joseph exerted eﬀorts to dissuade those present from agreeing to expulsions or to convince them to change previous decisions. This scenario would be repeated at the Worms Imperial Diet in 1545, at which the participants were in the main Catholic.517 It appears, however, that while at Worms he had to enlist the good services of Cardinal Farnese (as, so it seems, he was not permitted to plead his case personally), at Frankfurt he was able to hold a religious and political debate with the scholars and rulers present there, comparable to that at the 1530 Augsburg Diet. It is not a coincidence, therefore, that R. Joseph at times uses the same words in respect to the two events; the expression “they thanked me for the blessings” appears in both places, to emphasize

514 The two letters are in Strasbourg City Archives: ArcMun Strasbourg, III, 174, 24. 515 See below, pp. 361 and 370–371. 516 For the Brandenburg libel aﬀair and the expulsion of the Jews from that state, see above, in the introduction to section 5 of the Chronicle, pp. 103–113, and the discussion there. 517 See below, introduction to section 27 of the Chronicle, p. 266 onwards.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

239

the fact that he succeeded in convincing his listeners of the justice of his arguments.* His words also shed light on the diﬀerent and opposing trends that emerged in Protestant circles during those years. On the one hand, there was a man like Philip Melanchthon, who thought it important to expose the corruption of the “former regime” in Brandenburg and proclaim the innocence of the Berlin martyrs of 1510. On the other hand, there was the Margrave of Brandenburg, Joachim II, who, for reasons completely diﬀerent from those of his father, proposed to again expel the Jews, who had returned to his territory. Under the impact of R. Joseph’s forceful actions and Melanchthon’s dramatic disclosure, the two rulers cancelled their plans; the Elector of Saxony relaxed the regulations respecting the residence of Jews in his territory, and the Elector of Brandenburg allowed Jews to enter his land again after, according to R. Joseph in the “Letter of Consolation”, the land had been closed before them for thirty years. R. Joseph stresses that up to the time of writing, 1547, the Brandenburg ruler “has faithfully kept his word”, but Saxony “has gone back on his promise and has done us great harm by outlawing us”, namely, he withdrew the protection granted to Jews passing through his territory. Characteristically, R. Joseph regards the Elector of Saxony’s defeat in the Schmalkaldic War and his capture by the Emperor as a punishment from Heaven for his betrayal of the Jews. In his words: “For that reason he has been overthrown, and has received his just deserts. Blessed be God who has avenged His people.”

[ 23] 5301 (1540/41) The 1541 Diet and the Expulsion from Naples R. Joseph attended the Regensburg Diet, in his words, “to obtain improved conditions {for our people} in the form of further privileges * {There is an error here. The expression “they thanked me for the blessings” does not appear in the section of the Chronicle on the Augsburg Diet. It is found in section 20, with reference to the regulations that R. Joseph drew up for the Prague Jewish community (see below, p. 328). Translator}

240

[23]

5301 (1540⁄41)

from our lord the Emperor”. In typical manner, he does not go into any detail about these privileges. The charter of rights of 20 July 1541, which R. Joseph received from the Emperor, contains a number of articles not included in the 1530 privileges.518 The Emperor reaﬃrms those rights the Jews already possessed, exempts them from wearing the special badge on their garments when travelling on the open roads and prohibits the imposition on them of unreasonably high taxes. The charter was granted to the Jews in return for a substantial payment. In a letter to the Jews, dated 19 July 1541, namely the day before he conferred this charter, Charles demands that they contribute to the Turkish war tax (Türkhen Steuer), which had been authorized by all the Estates at the Regensburg Diet. For the “golden tribute penny” (Goldenen Opferpfennig) and for this special tax he requires from the Jews a total sum of 10,000 Rhenish guilders; non-payment will entail the loss of all their privileges. It is hard not to see a connection between the two documents.519 R. Joseph mentions the Regensburg Diet primarily as the background for his account of the expulsion of the Jews from Naples.520 After the expulsion from Spain many exiles found asylum in the kingdom of Naples, then under Spanish inﬂuence, among them Don Isaac Abarbanel and his sons, who were cordially received by King Ferrante. In addition, many Jews left Sicily, which too was under the rule of the Catholic monarchs (Ferdinand and Isabella), and moved to Naples, where special arrangements had to be made to absorb so large an inﬂux of immigrants. However, King Ferrante

518 The privilege bears the date of 20.7.1541, and a copy is in HStA Stuttgart, Rep. Nr. 56: Frayhaitt so die Juden uf dem Reystag zu Regenspurg erlanngt. 519 Although R. Joseph does not mention this tax. 520 For Jewish sources on the expulsion from Naples, see: Samuel Usque, Consolaçam às tribulaçoens de Israel (Consolation for the Tribulations of Israel), Ferrara 1553, Dialogues III no. 32. {Available in English translation by Martin Cohen, Consolation for the Tribulations of Israel, Philadelphia 1965, pp. 209–10. AS}; Joseph Ha-Kohen, Emek ha-Bakha, pp. 118–19; Gedaliah ibn Ya˙ya, Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah, Venice 1586, (at the end of the book); a letter by Rabbi David ben Joseph ibn Ya˙ya, Gedaliah’s grandfather, dated 27 February 1533, at the time of the ﬁrst expulsion decree, published by I. Loeb, REJ, 16 (1888), pp. 37, 46. For the history of Neapolitan Jewry, see D. Kaufmann, “Contributions a l’Histoire des Juifs en Italie”, REJ, 20 (1890), pp. 39–44; C. Roth, The History of the Jews of Italy, Philadelphia 1946, pp. 279–86, and the literature cited there; H. Graetz, IX, p. 306 ﬀ.; M. Kayserling, REJ, 43 (1901), p. 277; Vogelstein and Rieger, Geschichte der Juden in Rom, II, pp. 60–61.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

241

died in 1494, and his successor, Alfonso II, did not view with a friendly eye the growing Jewish population in the kingdom. Moreover, the King of France made a new claim to the monarchy of Naples, and a period began of constant warfare accompanied by pogroms and assaults on the Jews in various cities of the kingdom, both in the areas under French rule and those under the sovereignty of the king of Naples. Jews were murdered and robbed and debts to them cancelled. Don Isaac Abarbanel, who accompanied King Alfonso to Sicily—where the latter found refuge from the French—later ﬂed to Venice. After the King’s return to his capital in Naples, opponents of the Jews succeeded in obtaining a mandate from him for their expulsion (October 1496). However, in 1497, a new king ascended the throne. He was well intentioned towards the Jews, and once again Jews were favourably received, among them many exiles from Portugal. However, his reign was merely a short intermission. According to the Grenada Agreement of 1500, the kingdom of Naples was divided between the French king and King Ferdinand of Aragon; the latter ruling Naples through regents. Although the Catholic monarchs wished to uproot the Jews from all the lands under their rule, the expulsion of the Jews from Naples was prevented for a time. However, at the end of 1510, the expected decree was issued expelling all the Jews in the kingdom, apart from 200 families. During all this time the Marranos had not been harmed. Because of Italian opposition, the Spanish Inquisition did not operate in Naples. The delegate of the Papal Inquisition complained that many New Christians were residing there virtually as Jews and without any fear. Although in 1515 many of the Marranos were expelled, others succeeded in staying in the kingdom by various means. In addition, a small number of Jewish families remained there, notably, Don Jacob Abarbanel, the brother of Don Isaac. The economic situation in Naples apparently worsened as a result of the expulsion of the Jews. The interest rate exacted by Italian lenders shot up to such an extent after the Jews’ departure that some cities requested permission to allow them back. In November 1520, Emperor Charles V (by now ruler of Naples by virtue of his Habsburg inheritance) agreed to permit the Jews to engage in increased economic activity for a period of up to ﬁve years and also authorized the cities to accept a larger number of Jews. At about the same

242

[23]

5301 (1540⁄41)

time, Jewish communities were re-established in a number of towns in the kingdom including the capital city itself. However, this was only a transient episode. At the beginning of 1533, when the Emperor returned from his North African War and passed through the kingdom of Naples, ecclesiastical circles once more urged him to expel the Jews, alleging that they were encouraging the Marranos to adhere to their Judaism; again Charles ordered the expulsion from Naples of all the Jews who did not consent to convert to Christianity. Only the categorical opposition of the people of Naples, who pointed to the economic damage such an action would cause the kingdom, as well as the intercession of R. Samuel Abarbanel and his wife, averted the expulsion, and the decree was eventually rescinded. The sources also highlight the major role played by Neapolitan Jewry in ransoming Jewish captives of the wars with the Turks on the coasts of the Mediterranean, in Greece and in North Africa.521 Despite the danger of expulsion, in 1535 the Jews succeeded in signing with the Emperor’s representative a very advantageous tenyear agreement, albeit in return for a considerable sum of money.522 However, at the close of 1539, the expulsion question came up once again. On this occasion the opposition of the people of Naples was of no avail, and the decree was published in May 1541. All the sources conﬁrm that this was indeed an expulsion decree, although Samuel Usque, who as a resident of Naples witnessed the expulsion, and may himself have been one of the exiles, gives a slightly diﬀerent account of the proceedings.523 According to him, the Emperor commanded the Jews to wear a conspicuous badge on their clothes; any Jew transgressing this order would lose his life and property. The Jews had to comply within six months or leave the kingdom. Usque maintains that the Jews regarded this decree as a sign that the tide had turned against them and that even worse antiJewish decrees could be expected, and, accordingly, chose to leave the kingdom. At all events, during 1541, all the Jews of Naples left. The Abarbanel family, headed by Samuel Abarbanel, went to Ferrara. The rest of the Jews sought asylum in the Papal States or endeavoured 521

See above, in the introduction to section 19 of the Chronicle, pp. 217–218. The articles of this agreement have been published by Kaufmann in his article, “Contributions a l’Histoire des Juifs en Italie”, pp. 41–44. 523 See his Consolaçam, cited above. 522

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

243

to reach Eretz Israel. Among the exiles was Benjamin Nehemiah ben Elnathan, author of a chronicle known as “From Paul IV to Pius V”, who wrote that he himself was received “under the papal government”.524 Gedaliah ibn Ya˙ya emphasizes in Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah that the exiles were not harmed in their persons or property; however, “they were scattered to the four corners of the earth”. The author of Emek ha-Bakha knows that the Emperor was in Regensburg at the time of the expulsion, but has no knowledge of the proceedings there. He lays stress on the shocking tribulations suﬀered by the exiles.525 Only R. Joseph describes the expulsion of the Jews from Naples as an eyewitness to the events at the Regensburg Diet, at which he was present; and he seems to be the only source of information on the Solomon Romm episode. From him we learn that after the publication of the expulsion decree, Neapolitan Jewry made a ﬁnal attempt to prevent their banishment and, accordingly, sent a Jewish resident of Rome named Solomon to the Emperor at Regensburg. Nothing is known about the identity of this “man from Rome” known as Solomon Romm. According to Vogelstein and Rieger, he was a banker from Rome named Solomon Tsarfati.526 Solomon’s considerable eﬀorts not only proved fruitless, but, according to R. Joseph, he also succeeded in infuriating the Emperor, who actually threatened to have him put to death if he continued with his endeavours in this regard. It is unclear in what manner he tried to intercede and whom he solicited. Probably he attempted bribery as a means of persuasion, and some of the Emperor’s advisers may have been inclined to accept his oﬀers. That may be the explanation for the Emperor’s anger and threats. R. Joseph writes that Solomon was compelled to go into hiding and from there apparently still managed to obtain a brief postponement—“a little time” in R. Joseph’s words—by indirect means and in return for a large amount of money. Perhaps R. Joseph wishes to imply that Solomon Romm was helped by representatives of the Emperor, “governors” in his words, with whom he secretly negotiated.

524 See Mi-Paulo ha-Revii ad Pius ha-Óamishi (From Paul IV to Pius V), (ed.) I. Sonne, Jerusalem 1954, chapter 8, p. 91. According to the editor (p. 92, note 67), most of the refugees from Naples went to Rome. 525 Joseph Ha-Kohen, Emek ha-Bakha, p. 118. 526 Geschichte der Juden in Rom, p. 61.

244

[24]

5301 (1540⁄41)

The expulsion from the kingdom of Naples made a deep impression on Italian Jewry, and is often mentioned in the same breath as the major expulsions, such as those from France, Spain and Portugal.527

[ 24] 5301 (1540/41) The Tittingen Libel The three earliest sources for the Tittingen libel case are: (1) Johannes Eck’s account in the preface to his tract, which was written shortly after the events, in 1541;528 (2) this section of R. Joseph’s Chronicle; (3) a German ballad that was composed about the event, as was the fashion in those times, published after the event and again in 1563.529 Various scholars have studied the Tittingen aﬀair; my summary of the events is based in the main on Moritz Stern’s book530 and the writings in his literary bequest,531 as well as on the accounts by J. Aretin,532 S. Stern,533 and R. Po-chia Hsia.534 According to the Christian sources, the story is as follows: a three-yearold boy called Michel, the son of a peasant named Georg Piesenharter from the village of Sappenfeld, disappeared on 14 March535 1540, a 527

See Mi-Paulo ha-Revii ad Pius ha-Óamishi, editor’s comment, p. 91, note 66. Eck, Ains Judenbüechlins verlegung, p. A ii. As discussed above, (introduction to section 13 of the Chronicle, p. 159, note 284), Eck wrote his tract in an attempt to disprove Osiander’s treatise on the blood libel, and see below. 529 Ein hübsch new lied von Zweyen Juden / vnd einem Kind / zu Sappenfelt newlich geschehen [s.1. 1540?], cited by R. Po-chia Hsia, The Myth of Ritual Murder, pp. 125–26. See also, ibid., p. 61, the photograph of the title page of this print which is in the British Library. M. Stern mentions a later edition: Ein Lied von den Juden und einem Kind, Basel 1563. See in his edition of Osiander’s treatise, Andreas Osianders Schrift, p. x, note 2. 530 Ibid., p. v. For Osiander, see also above, p. 158 onwards, and below. 531 M. Stern’s literary bequest is in the Central Archives of the History of the Jewish People in Jerusalem (signature P 17). I was greatly assisted by M. Stern’s detailed notes from books that, to my regret, were not at my disposal. {Hereafter cited as M. Stern’s notes}. 532 J. Ch. von Aretin, Geschichte der Juden in Bayern, Landshut 1803, p. 45. 533 See pp. 180–81. 534 Hsia, The Myth of Ritual Murder, pp. 125–26. 535 The boy’s name and the exact date of his disappearance and of the discovery of the body are taken from the account by Eck, who states that he himself was present in Eichstätt at the time, having ﬂed from his native city of Ingolstadt because of an outbreak of plague. It is unclear from his account whether he actually saw 528

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

245

fortnight before Easter.536 A rumour spread that the Jews of Tittingen, a village in the same area, had abducted him.537 Count Otto Heinrich of Neuburg, who possessed the jurisdiction over Tittingen, refused to permit searches of the Jews’ homes. A later source charges that by that time the Count had already become a Lutheran, and that he was deeply in debt and did not wish to lose the revenue from the Jews.538 The ballad about the Tittingen aﬀair contains similar allegations against the Count.539 On 2 April, some days after Easter, the boy’s body was discovered by a shepherd from a neighbouring village in Weissenburg Forest near Tittingen. This was a forest owned by the Lords of Pappenheim. The boy had been stabbed in all parts of his body; the sign of the cross had been cut into his right shoulder and his foreskin slit.540 These facts were considered proof that the Jews were responsible for the crime. Moritz von Hutten, the bishop of Eichstätt, which is near Sappenfeld, placed the body in a church in his town541 and ordered the nobles in that vicinity to send their Jews to Eichstätt to be interrogated. Among those questioned were two Jews from Tittingen and two from Sulzbach. Christian sources do not know to relate what befell these Jews. Eck wrote that the suspects were brought

the body of the child; however, he stresses that the Bishop summoned not only his advisers but also a doctor, a bath attendant and a barber-surgeon (Balbirer) to examine the corpse. As to the facts, his testimony can be regarded as that of an eyewitness. Eck is at pains to emphasize that the boy disappeared two weeks before Easter (Sonntag Judica 14 Tage vor Ostern), namely on 14 March, and that his body was found on the Friday after Easter, on 2 April. 536 A later source gives April 11 (am anderen Sonntag nach Ostern) 1540 as the day on which the boy disappeared. A. Crammer, Heiliges und Gottseliges Eichstädt, Eichstädt 1780, pp. 243–46 (as cited in M. Stern’s notes, pp. 58–59). 537 This fact, that suspicion immediately fell upon the Jews, is not mentioned in Eck’s tract. 538 Crammer, Heiliges und Gottseliges, p. 245 {as cited in M. Stern’s notes}. 539 Ibid. Crammer quotes from a poem written against Otto Heinrich: “Otto Heinrich ein Mameluck, der das Christenblut getrunckt”. The author of the poem is Hilbrand Thiermayer von Erbertshofen, and in it he relates that the Count gave orders that the boy’s tongue be cut oﬀ; however, it grew back, and he was able to speak again and lived for another twenty years—proof of the Count’s injustice and the boy’s innocence. 540 Eck alleges that pieces of ﬂesh had been cut out of the boy’s body, so that it would not be possible to see the stab marks [!]. 541 S. Stern remarks (p. 180) that he had evidently intended to make the boy another St. Simon of Trent, and thereby turn his bishopric into a pilgrimage site. However, there is controversy as to whether the boy’s body was actually transferred to the church, and according to some sources, he was buried in Sappenfeld.

246

[24]

5301 (1540⁄41)

to the boy’s corpse, but it did not bleed, and therefore there was no conclusive proof of the Jews’ guilt and the authorities were obliged to free them.542 A later Christian source relates543 that as late as the beginning of 1609 the episode still intrigued local Christians, and they questioned a 93-year-old miller—Hans Obermüller (bey Titting Müller)—as to what he remembered about the aﬀair. He was asked whether he knew or had heard about an incident that occurred while the Jews were still resident in Tittingen—they were expelled from the entire region in 1555—of their having murdered a child. He replied that he well remembered that when he was still working in his father’s ﬂour mill, there had been some claim that the Jews living at the time in Tittingen had seized a boy in Sappenfeld, brought him to Tittingen and in one of their houses, which he described in exact detail, had proceeded to murder him. He asserted that the rope with which they had tortured the boy still existed, and that some people said bloodstains could still be detected on it. According to him, rumour had it, that a Christian woman, a resident of Tittingen, who was on close terms with the Jews, had brought the boy’s body back to Sappenfeld, for it was discovered in Sappenfeld near Eichstätt, but he did not know whether they had then disinterred the boy or where they had put him. Thus many diﬀerent rumours about the aﬀair circulated among the Christian population, since in this case, as opposed to other similar ones, no legal documents survived that might have thrown light on what ostensibly had occurred. It seems that the investigation of the Jews—if it ever took place—did not make any headway, and, therefore, was either not documented at all, or its protocols were not preserved. However, the Christian populace was ﬁrmly convinced of the Jews’ guilt. With reference to Andreas Osiander’s treatise against the blood libel, the following can be concluded: The two Jews from Sulzbach were under the jurisdiction of Bishop Haug von Parsberg, who was the Pﬂeger (governor) of Sulzbach. 542 One of the later sources cited by M. Stern in his notes knows to relate that the Jews, purportedly, were put to death. 543 Georgius Schlamp, Canonicus Curatis Senior Novi Colegii, B.M.V., 1669, pars altera (according to Stern’s notes). I was unable to obtain additional information about the writer, but he was apparently a Jesuit.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

247

During their interrogation, they gave the Bishop’s advisers Osiander’s treatise, as proof against the blood-libel accusation. Eck notes that Osiander’s booklet was brought to his attention by Albrecht von Leonrod, the “fürstlicher Hofmaister”, who asked him to investigate whether, as its author claimed, the Jews had been dealt a serious injustice with regard to the accusation that they were making use of Christian blood. He, Eck, had quickly read the treatise, and had written his book to disprove its arguments, by “conclusive evidence from written sources and from history”. Eck had a particular axe to grind for he had been told that the author of the treatise was a Lutheran pastor, and he hoped to convince the authorities and cities of the danger presented by the Lutherans and their views, and of the importance of eradicating them root and branch. Aretin, who was acquainted with Osiander’s treatise only from his reading of Eck’s tract,544 and did not know the identity of its author, speculated that it was written on the initiative of Count Otto Heinrich, in connection with the Sappenfeld case.545 However, Moritz Stern has shown this theory to be untenable,546 since Eck’s tract against Osiander was published already in 1541, and it is hard to believe that Osiander succeeded in writing his treatise and having it printed in so short a time. It seems much more likely that it was written earlier—apparently following the 1529 Pösing libel case, of which he makes a detailed analysis.547

544

See introduction to section 13 of the Chronicle, p. 159, note 284. Aretin, Geschichte der Juden in Bayern, p. 45. Aretin believed that the “worthy man” who solicited Osiander’s opinion concerning the blood libel was Count Otto Heinrich; however, see the discussion on the subject, above, in the introduction to section 13 of the Chronicle, p. 166, note 310. It is true that there were close ties between Osiander and the Count of Neuburg. It was Osiander who was invited by the Count to Neuburg in 1542, to introduce the Reformation there. 546 In the introduction to his book, Andreas Osianders Schrift, pp. xiv–xv. 547 This is also the opinion of E. Hirsch in his study of Osiander’s book. See Hirsch, Die Theologie des Anderas Osiander und ihre geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen, Göttingen 1919, pp. 276–80. And compare also G. Seebas, Das Reformatorische Werk des Andreas Osiander, Erlangen 1967, p. 143. This scholar surmises that the Count heard about Osiander from his treatise on the blood libel, which, as remarked, was exhibited by the Jews at the time of the Tittingen libel; namely, that the ties between them were established as a result of his booklet and not previously. And see ibid., note 516, for further contacts between Otto Heinrich and Osiander and Eck with regard to the Jews. 545

248

[24]

5301 (1540⁄41)

R. Joseph’s Account of the Aﬀair It should be noted that R. Joseph gives 1541—and not 1540—as the date of the Tittingen aﬀair.* However, it is impossible to query 1540 as the date of the aﬀair since Eck, whose book was published in 1541, states expressly that it occurred in the “previous year”. Maybe, R. Joseph is referring to the interrogation of the Jews, which apparently continued over a long period, or, possibly, he only heard about the aﬀair in 1541. Although not all the details in R. Joseph’s account are clear, he does provide information which is not known to us from the Christian sources: the dead child was discovered in Weissenburg Forest; the Lords of Pappenheim, whose lands bordered on those of the Count of Neuburg, were involved in the aﬀair, and apparently it was they who held the Jews. As remarked, the Christian sources are silent about the fate of the Jews arrested in the case. Only from R. Joseph’s Chronicle do we learn that he intervened to free the prisoners, and, to that end, was obliged to bring an action against the Pappenheim lords in the Imperial Court of Justice. Evidently there was a court hearing and his opponents were roundly defeated. From his account it appears that it was the Pappenheim Lords who at ﬁrst prevented the release of the Jews. The Count of Neuburg, with whom, as R. Joseph writes, he was obliged to “intercede very strenuously,” may have tried to help him, for only the Lords of Pappenheim were sued by him. He writes that he had many trials and tribulations until the “Swabian people” withdrew from the battle [with the Emperor?]; thereupon, the two Lords conceded defeat—“retreated”—for “the Lords of Pappenheim were ﬁlled with fear and dread of them [the Swabian people?]” and they consented to release the Jews. It would appear that R. Joseph was not acquainted with the treatises of Osiander and Eck, for he does not mention them at all. If he had known that help had come to the Jews from a Christian source he would assuredly have told us, as he did in other cases.548

* {That is, Easter in 5301 fell in the spring of 1541. AS} 548 He mentions Melanchthon in his account of the Brandenburg aﬀair, Reuchlin in his description of the Pfeﬀerkorn aﬀair, and Farnese in his account of the expulsion threat in 1545 (see below, p. 268 onwards).

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

249

[ 25] 5302 (1541/42) The Expulsion from Prague The expulsion from Prague in 1541, which is the subject of this section, has been extensively researched, and, therefore, what follows is a summary of the main events only.549 In Bohemia there was considerable tension between the various social classes—the higher nobility, the lesser nobility and the urban middle class. In 1490, the Bohemian ruler, King Vladislas II (1471– 1516), became king of Hungary, where he established his court permanently, leaving Bohemian aﬀairs to be administered on his behalf by functionaries, generally members of the lesser nobility. During the years 1503–1508 a nobleman by the name of Albrecht von Kolowrat took over the oﬃce of Oberlandmarschall of Bohemia. He achieved power primarily as a result of the jealousy and competition obtaining between the Bohemian nobility and urban classes, a state of aﬀairs that also aﬀected the status of the Jews in the kingdom. Already in the latter part of the ﬁfteenth century, the Bohemian Estates began to call for the expulsion of the Jews, and from that time on the threat of expulsion hung constantly over them.550 There were times when, year after year, Bohemian city assemblies would adopt resolutions to expel them.551 In 1507, it seems that an expulsion 549 The principal documents relating to the expulsion from Prague were published by Bondy and Dworsky, Zur Geschichte der Juden in Böhmen, Mähren und Schlesien, I–II [hereafter: BD]. Details of the documents are given in the appropriate places. For the Hebrew sources, see Kronika Ivrit mi-Prag, (ed.) A. David, p. 12, and the editor’s comments on pp. 39–40. The main studies on the 1541 expulsion are: S. Steinhartz, “Geirush ha-Yehudim mi-Behem bi-Shenat 1541” (The Expulsion of the Jews from Bohemia in 1541), Zion, 15 (1950), pp. 70–92 [hereafter: Steinhartz]; J. He®man, “The Conﬂict between the Jewish and Non-Jewish Population in Bohemia before the 1541 Banishment”, Judaica Bohemiae, 6 (1970), pp. 39–54; idem, “The Prague Jewish Community before the Expulsion of 1541”, in: O Muneles (ed.), The Prague Ghetto in The Renaissance Period ( Jewish Monuments in Bohemia and Moravia, 4), Prague 1965, pp. 15–40; J. Polak-Rokycana, “Die Geschichte der Juden in Böhmen in den alten böhmischen Jahrbüchern”, Zeitschrift für die Geschichte der Juden in der Tschechoslowakei, 2 (1931/32), p. 173 ﬀ. (hereafter: Polak); and additional literature that is cited in the appropriate places. 550 The economic and social causes of the Prague expulsion are stressed in particular by He®man in his studies. 551 He®man, in appendix 2 to his article, “The Prague Jewish Community”, lists a long series of expulsions and attempted expulsions of the Jews from Bohemia and from individual communities there. See also Polak-Rokycana, pp. 178–84.

250

[25]

5302 (1541⁄42)

was actually carried out, but the King subsequently rescinded the decree, and the Jews were again permitted to reside in the kingdom.552 In 1527 came renewed demands for the Jews to be expelled,553 based on various reasons, ﬁrst and foremost complaints by the Prague guilds of loss of income due to Jewish competition. Indeed, the calls for expulsion came mainly from the townspeople in the two sections of Prague.554 At the end of the 1530’s events took a fateful turn when the Bohemian Chamber, which was responsible for Jewish aﬀairs on behalf of the Emperor’s brother, King Ferdinand (who reigned as King of Bohemia from 1528), asked the King to expel the Jews. In its letters to the King, the Chamber gives various reasons: the Jews are all suspected of fraudulent practices; they are not bound by any commercial regulations; they are counterfeiting coins and smuggling valuable metals out of the country; the ﬁnancial proﬁt that the King derives from them is dubious as most of the money goes into the coﬀers of the Oberburggrag—the King’s representative in Prague, to whom the Jews were required to remit their taxes.555 The Chamber is apparently implying that the income from Jewish taxes was being expended on Bohemian internal requirements and was not being transferred to the King’s treasury. In 1540, an additional argument was added: the Jews’ wealth is not so great as was previously believed, and therefore a sizeable income cannot be anticipated from them.556 On top of all this, another familiar allegation was appended—that of treachery. This was after Ferdinand’s crushing 552 At the time of their departure, the Jews were accepted onto the estates of Bohemian noblemen. On learning of this development, King Ferdinand rescinded the expulsion edict. See BD, II, Nos. 1202, 1203, p. 947. 553 BD, II, no. 1233, p. 967. 554 The Old City (Altstadt), where most Prague Jews dwelt, and the New City. 555 BD, I, no. 457, p. 335. However, see above, introduction to section 20 of the Chronicle (pp. 227–228), and note 486 there. According to a document cited there the Chancellory’s complaint appears to have been that the city authorities (and not the king’s representative) were receiving the revenue from the Jews, and this seems more logical. 556 This is a reference to the King’s demand that the Jews remit a very large sum of money towards the construction of a garden for his palace in Prague, and the Jews’ claim that they did not possess the means to cover the full amount, and their suggestion that they pay half the required sum. This matter created much tension and it was decided that the Jews should make a declaration under oath of all their property. It emerged that they had spoken the truth. See BD, I, no. 454, p. 330, no. 456, p. 333 f., and Steinhartz, “Geirush ha-Yehudim mi-Behem”, pp. 81–82.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

251

defeat in the war against the Turks in 1541, which not only thwarted his attempt to recapture Hungary but also resulted in the fall of the city of Ofen (Buda) to the Turks. With anti-Jewish sentiment rife in the land, it is hardly surprising that the Jews were accused of having disclosed to the Turks details of the war preparations.557 Scholars have suggested yet another possible factor that may have carried weight with King Ferdinand in his decision to expel the Jews: the dissenting Protestant sects, such as the Anabaptists and Sabbatarians, who had adopted some Jewish customs, had grown in strength at that time, and there were charges, on the part of both Protestants and Catholics, that it was the Jews who had inﬂuenced them.558 Be that as it may, the immediate reason for the expulsion, according to all the sources, was a series of large ﬁres in Prague and throughout the kingdom during 1541.559 One of the ﬁres broke out in the Prague city fortress destroying many documents including all the bills of rights of the Estates and the cities. The Estates feared that the King would take advantage of the destruction of the privileges and would no longer honour them. There was even a theory that Ferdinand himself was responsible for that ﬁre. However, when the wave of ﬁres spread, there was a search for culprits and suspicion soon fell upon the Jews. It was alleged that they had hired shepherds to set alight the Bohemian cities. A number of Jews and shepherds were

557 This accusation is contained in a letter of 12 September 1541 to the Landtag (the territorial Diet), in which the King informs the Bohemian Estates of his decision in principle to expel the Jews. See Steinhartz, p. 85. We have already seen that a similar charge was raised in 1530, when the Turks stood at the gates of Vienna. See section 14 of the Chronicle, (below, p. 321): “. . . there was a great and clamorous cry . . . that the Jews are in treasonous communication with the Turks”; and compare also A. David’s analysis, Kronika, p. 37 onwards. 558 This is Steinhartz’s theory, p. 79. See also He®man, “The Conﬂict between the Jewish and Non-Jewish Population”, Judaica Bohemiae, pp. 41–43, and A. David, Kronika, p. 40. However, He®man’s hypothesis regarding the meaning of the name “Shabbat Tash” (section 20 of the Chronicle, below, p. 327, line 6), that it might be an allusion to the Sabbatarians, has no basis to support it. 559 See, in the appendix to Steinhartz’s article, pp. 89–90. The connection between the ﬁres and the expulsion is testiﬁed to in all the chronicles, some of which are contemporaneous, and is hinted at also by our author. In addition to the sources cited above, there is the Bohemian chronicle by Georgi Spalatini Ephemerides (inchoatae anno MCCCC LXXX), in Quellen und Darstellungen aus der Geschichte der Reformationszeit, (ed.) Georg Berbig, III, p. 78. In the section for 1541 is written: “Hoc anno Judaei ex toto Boemiae Regno exacti sunt. tum ob alia, tum quod cum incendiariis conjurasse viderentur, et multis in locis nedum Pragae, olim Marobodi sede et Regia, Ignem injecisse”.

252

[25]

5302 (1541⁄42)

arrested and, after being interrogated under severe torture, they confessed to the deed and were burnt at the stake. This was the appropriate moment to renew demands for the expulsion of the Jews. Some scholars suggest that in order to allay the suspicions against him, Ferdinand fastened on this libel against the Jews, and authorized their expulsion.560 By royal decree, all Bohemian Jewry, including that of Prague, were required to leave the kingdom by 23 April 1542.561 Fifteen families were permitted to remain for an additional year so that they could collect their debts. The Jews began leaving en masse. Although they had an escort promised for their safety, many of them were attacked on the roads. The Hebrew chronicles describe the tribulations they suﬀered, and various oﬃcial documents report on the assaults to which they were subjected while still inside Bohemia.562 One of the exiles wrote as follows about his own personal experiences:563 On 9 Tammuz 5302 (23 June 1542), we journeyed from the holy community of Tachau, a whole company of residents of Haid together with their wives, sons and daughters as well as their precious Torah scrolls and other books. Also with us were valiant men, residents of Tachau [apparently, armed men who escorted the exiles]. When we reached the forest between Tachau and Bärnau [?], 95 robbers descended upon us to plunder and pillage and we began to ﬂee, for they were stronger and outnumbered us two to one. And had God not manifested His prodigious mercy we would have been trapped. However, God On High put Your fear into their hearts, so that they ﬂed. One of the robbers was slain and three were captured, while we did not lose a single person, in that He does not abandon us nor forsake us in the land of our enemies at this time. And as He has delivered us at this time, so may He, in His mercy, redeem us a second time, and restore us to our land. Amen. May it be God’s Will.

560

Compare He®man, “The Prague Jewish Community”, p. 39. On 17 January 1542, the King oﬃcially announced his decision to expel the Jews. See Steinhartz, p. 87, and BD, I, no. 469, pp. 341–432. 562 Joseph Ha-Kohen, Emek ha-Bakha, p. 120; David Gans, Tsema˙ David, part 1, p. 139; part 2, pp. 393–94. 563 This eyewitness account was recorded on the ﬂyleaf of a copy of Sefer Mitsvot Gadol {an halakhic book written by R. Moses ben Jacob of Coucy in the thirteenth century}, Soncino 1489; and published by D. Fraenkel, in Alim le-Bibliograﬁyah veKorot Yisrael, Vienna 1933/34, vol. 1, p. 20. 561

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

253

Already in the same year as the Jews left the land, the King realized that they had been falsely accused.564 It was for this reason, apparently, that he revoked the expulsion decree after about a year and various Jews received new permits to reside in Bohemia. There are many documents attesting to the fact that in ensuing years, Jews received charters of protection authorizing them to settle in Prague, or in other Bohemian cities. However, from that time on stringent precautions were taken to ensure that only Jews possessing letters of protection from the King were permitted to remain in Prague; the others were compelled to leave. All in all, only about one tenth of the number of Jews returned to the city.565 Mention should be made here of the seli˙ah (penitential prayer) composed by the Rabbi of Prague, R. Abraham ben Avigdor. Zunz believes that it was inspired by the Prague expulsion. Steinhartz disagrees with this conclusion; he concedes that there are allusions in it that could apply to the events in Prague in 1541–1542, but maintains that it was composed before the expulsion was carried out.566 The seli˙ah, which is extant in the Prague and Bohemian rite, opens with the words: “ I beseech you, God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob”.567 Below are a number of lines from this seli˙ah. The stanzas are arranged in an alphabetical acrostic and the name of the author is also in an acrostic: Avraham ben Moreinu haRav Avigdor, Óazak ve-Amats (Abraham, son of our teacher, Rabbi Avigdor, be strong and of good courage). 1 Our adversaries would drive us far away from our dwelling places/ O Lord, scorn them, He who abides in the heavens, mock {them} . . . 2 Bring us salvation, deliverance and relief/For we are ﬁlled with great dismay and lamentation . . . 3 Behold, smoke rises like a thick pillar . . . 4 Be mindful of this, an enemy has villiﬁed Your name/Those who hate You have lifted up their heads, they have conspired against Your people 564 BD, I, Nos. 514, 571, p. 367. This is mentioned also by David Gans, Tsema˙ David, part one, p. 139; and see Steinhartz, pp. 90–91. 565 See J. He®man, “Das Steuerregister der Prager Juden”, p. 31. 566 Steinhartz, p. 89. 567 Davidson, Otsar ha-Shira ve-ha-Piyut (The Thesaurus of Medieval Hebrew Poetry), no. 6111a; Zunz, Die synagogale Poesie des Mittelalters, p. 57; idem, Literaturgeschichte, p. 390. In the 1535 edition of Seli˙ot Prag this seli˙ah does not yet appear. The text printed here is the one in Seli˙ot Beit ha-Knesset ha-Yeshana be-Prag (Penitential Prayers of the Old Synagogue in Prague), Prague 1605. In the later editions of Seli˙ot Behmen . . . (Bohemian Penitential Prayers . . .) the text is censored.

254

[25]

5302 (1541⁄42)

5 They that rebel against You have devised plans, to burn us, expel us, to despoil and plunder {us}/{O God} Fight my enemies, combat Your foes 6 You have heard their insults, O God, their designs against me/In their wickedness and deceit they utter calumnies 7 We have sought You over every enemy who would shed blood like water 8 Who hopes for and awaits the exile of those who have knowledge of You . . . 9 “Banish them completely”—that is what the Christians desire/That we should be put to the sword and despoiled at the hands of the cruel 10 They have ﬁlled us with shame and made us quaﬀ bitterness and gall/Have them drink the cursed water [!] {they say}, and it will be bitter for them 11 Do not behold Your sheep and hide Yourself from them/How will they graze and how will they lie down in the land of their enemies . . . 12 We pour out our words like water/You alone are our refuge, we place our trust solely in You . . . 13 Grant us compassion, have mercy upon us and bestow upon us loving-kindness/For we do not know to turn to the right or to the left . . . 14 Observe and behold the many needy and unfortunate in our midst/ If we wander far away where shall our tranquility and our sustenance be 15 And even if we go in peace, the world is hostile for us/Where shall we build our home and in what place shall we ﬁnd rest . . . 16 Almighty God, cause fear and trembling to fall upon them . . . 17 Why should we fall as the wicked fall/Let us fall into the hands of God and not into the hands of man . . . 18 Be strong and of good courage to redeem your ﬁrstborn son/And close and seal the mouths of our detractors . . .

Between the lines of the Biblical verses hints can be found to the following: the repeated debates among the Christians on the subject of the Jews and their expulsion (lines 4, 6); the expulsion and wanderings of the Jews (lines 1, 4–5, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15); the ﬁres (line 3); the fact that the exiles would have to go to an unknown and possibly desolate place (lines 11, 13, 15); pogroms against the Jews already before the implementation of the expulsion decree (lines 7, 9). There is also a possible allusion to apostasy (line 10). It has to be concurred with Steinhartz that the seli˙ah was written before the expulsion, for the author pours out his supplications, imploring that the evil decree not be carried out (lines 1, 2, 12, 13,

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

255

16, 17, 18). However, its main importance lies in the fact that it was an inside source written at the height of the events. The second Hebrew source, written very soon after these events, is this section of R. Joseph’s Chronicle. R. Joseph’s Account As is customary for him, R. Joseph does not give speciﬁc details about the expulsion and the events leading up to it, but hints at them very brieﬂy. However, his account is accurate, and this is hardly surprising, for he was personally involved in the proceedings after the decree was issued. R. Joseph hints clearly at the immediate cause of the expulsion, the ﬁres that broke out throughout Bohemia. However, he mentions also the events preceding the expulsion: captivity, killing, burning and cruciﬁxion (that is, hanging). Most probably, he is referring to the libel cases in which Jews were brought to trial and burnt. He may be alluding also to pogroms against the Jews that took place in a number of Bohemian cities before and during the expulsion. This may be the explanation for the words “captivity” and “killing”. Like Abraham ben Avigdor, R. Joseph describes the actual expulsion as the bitterest blow of all. Despite his experiences in Prague about nine years earlier, he consents to be a member of a delegation to the King, to petition him to annul the decree. According to R. Joseph, the delegation included apart from himself “men of deeds from the holy Prague community”, namely prominent members of the community. We do not know whether they had an audience with the King in Prague, or possibly at some other location. The rhetorical expression, “to entreat the face of the king”, can also be interpreted to mean that they made an earnest appeal and supplication to the King, possibly even in writing. It can be deduced from the text that the concession they secured from Ferdinand amounted to no more than his permission for a “remnant” of Jews to remain. This is undoubtedly a reference to those 15 families whose residence permits the King extended by an additional year, and who subsequently, following the revocation of the decree, were allowed to remain in the city. R. Joseph knows about the cancellation of the decree and the restoration of the Jewish quarter of Prague. Possibly the words “{they}

[26]

256

5304 (1543⁄44)

rebuilt what had been destroyed” allude to the renewal of the Jewish community. However, while between the lines it is apparent that he did have some responsibility for the fact that not all the Jews were expelled, he does not attribute the return of the Jews to his intercession. In this section too R. Joseph cannot but link the calamities that befell Prague Jewry with the conﬂicts within the community, and he maintains that the acts of public repentance were beneﬁcial and brought about salvation.568 At the end of the section, R. Joseph reports on an additional visit he paid to Prague, this time in the very year in which he wrote his Chronicle, and again at a time of disputes within the community.569 However, the section concludes on a note of hope for a better future.

[ 26] 5304 (1543/44) The Würzburg Libel R. Joseph refers to the Würzburg libel in two other places apart from the section under discussion here. He mentions it for the ﬁrst time in the section of the Chronicle for 5236–5237 (1476–1477), where he writes: When I was in the holy community of Würzburg because of the trouble caused by a calumny about a child who had drowned in the river, and the Jews were accused of having drowned him—I was there from Sunday 3 Shevat until Monday 3 Adar 5304. . . .570

He mentions it as well in a fragment preserved in the book “Yosif OmeΩ ” by R. Joseph Yuspa Hahn, para. 482, which has the following heading: “I copied this from the manuscript of the Aluf Rabbi Joselmann Rosheim, the great shtadlan”.571 We shall have more to say about this fragment below.

568

See section 20 of the Chronicle, below, p. 328. This passage has already been discussed in the introduction to section 20 of the Chronicle, above, p. 228. 570 See below, p. 305. 571 Yosif OmeΩ (Increase Strength), Frankfurt on Main 1927/28, p. 101. 569

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

257

At the beginning of the Chronicle, R. Joseph is interested merely in the fact that it was in Würzburg that he reached his decision to write this work, and he mentions the blood libel only in passing. In the section here, however, he gives a little more information about the accused and their fate and especially about his actions in connection with the aﬀair. The fragment in Yosif OmeΩ deals with Kiddush Hashem and with man’s ability to withstand severe torture.572 Among other examples cited is: . . . Yet another proof, that of the virgin who was sorely tried*; she and other persons were aﬄicted with sundry tortures. Nevertheless, she did not sacriﬁce her honour, and, together with three other women and a man, steadfastly endured this trial in the year 5304 (1543/44).573

According to R. Joseph’s account in this section, the body of a boy was discovered, in his words, “a corpse trodden underfoot”, and ﬁve Jews, a man, three women and a girl, were accused of having murdered him. They were severely tortured over a period of many weeks, the girl for more than 32 weeks, but refused to confess to anything; eventually, they were released, apparently after payment of a large ransom. Apart from R. Joseph, other Jews were involved in the eﬀorts to free the prisoners, among them two rabbis. The identity of “Rabbi S.”—one of the rabbis who interceded together with R. Joseph—is unclear.574 The second rabbi was named Selkelin, or perhaps Seligmann.575 As remarked, R. Joseph remained in Würzburg 572 Feilchenfeld (pp. 138–39) assumes that this is an extract from the book Derekh ha-Kodesh (The Holy Path), which is mentioned by R. Joseph in section 16 of the Chronicle (p. 323, line 1), and see above, pp. 186–187. * {See discussion below, p. 263.} 573 Both in the 1927/28 edition and in that of 1623, on which it is based, there is an error here and the date has been omitted. The correct text has been published by Jacob Horowitz, “Aus der Oxforder Handschrift des Josif Omez”, Festschrift Dr. Jakob Freimann, Berlin 1937, pp. 90–91, but without the manuscript’s signature. I am quoting from the MS in the Bodleian Library in Oxford, Mich. 109, no. 419, fol. 54. 574 The Chief Rabbi, R. Samuel, whose seat of oﬃce was in Worms, had died in 1543, and R. Joseph writes the blessing for the dead after his name. See above, introduction to section 10 of the Chronicle, pp. 135–137. 575 In the period under discussion, there was a rabbi in Germany of that name who served in the Frankfurt Rabbinate and was a signatory on behalf of the Frankfurt community to the 5302 (1542) rabbinic ordinance. See Marcus Horovitz, Rabanei Frankfurt (completed by Joseph Unna), (trans.) Joshua Amir, Jerusalem 1972, p. 20, note 36, and in the appendix, p. 314; and also E. Zimmer, Mi-Toldot ha-Rabanut be-Ashkenaz ba-Meah ha-Tet Zayin (Aspects of the History of the German Rabbinate in the Sixteenth Century), Jerusalem 1984, document I, p. 3, where there is a

258

[26]

5304 (1543⁄44)

for a month; he was active in this matter also in Speyer, where he appears to have received letters from the Emperor. Apart from the aforesaid I do not know of any other Hebrew sources. There are a number of documents in German that may throw light on details of the aﬀair; however, I was unable to ﬁnd the protocols of the judicial proceedings against the Jews.576 The ﬁrst document is dated 1 November 1543—apparently before the arrest of the Jews.577 Bishop Conrad of Würzburg grants a charter of protection to a number of Jews from “Oberhaidt”, whose names are speciﬁed. They are the Jewess Reinlin, her two sons Seligmann and Elisar, the Jew Mayer, and Hendlin wife of the Jew Joseph. According to the document, these two women and three men came to the Bishop of Würzburg and made a complaint to him: They say that they are being persecuted because of a false accusation against them that, purportedly, they had tortured and murdered a Christian child. They claim that they have been maligned, and are willing to stand trial to prove their innocence. They ask the Bishop to provide them with a bill of protection against violence. He consents to their request and gives them, their children and all their households full protection (unser frey, stark, sicher glait) for the sake of justice and against unjustiﬁed violence (zum rechten fur unrechtlichen gewalt aber nit fur recht)—namely, only against violence that is not justiﬁed, and without this privilege constituting any detriment to justice.

reprint of the 1542 ordinance, signed by, among other rabbis, “Judah, son of our teacher and rabbi Israel Rheinbach of blessed memory, who hereby aﬃxes his signature in the name of the Frankfurt community, may God protect and preserve it”. Furthermore, document 22, p. 61, lists the names of the rabbis who were signatories at the time to the ordinance enacted at the 1542 Worms meeting, and reference is made to that same rabbi who signed in the name of Frankfurt Jewry: “. . . and our teacher and rabbi Seligmann Rheinbach of blessed memory did sign in his name and in the name of the Frankfurt community”. Compare also E. Zimmer, Jewish Synods in Germany during the Late Middle Ages, p. 142. Y. Guggenheim has drawn my attention to a rabbi named Seligmann, who served in the Jewish community of Schweinfurt, which is in the vicinity of Würzburg. Compare Germania Judaica, III/2, s.v. Schweinfurt, 13b. 576 A search of the Würzburg Government Archives, kindly conducted for me by the Director of the Archives, Dr. Hatto Kallfelz, drew a blank. 577 The document, apparently from the Würzburg Archives, is printed without an archival signature, and not without errors, in the appendix to the book by L. Heﬀner, Geschichte der Juden in Franken, Nuremberg 1855, Beilage DD, pp. 71–72, under the heading “Judenn Gleitt”. A search of the Würzburg Government Archives failed to produce any information as to its precise source, or its signature.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

259

In my opinion, the false accusation referred to in this document is the self-same one under discussion here. As we shall see below, also the Jews who were victims of the Würzburg libel came from the village of “Obernheid”, even though the identity of the people does not correspond fully to what is known to us from the other sources. The importance of this document lies in the fact that it lists the names of a number of Jews, some of them undoubtedly those who were subsequently arrested and imprisoned. It also provides a date for the beginning of the aﬀair, one which tallies with that in the other sources. The second document that we have is a draft of a letter of 14 January 1544 from Emperor Charles V to Bishop Conrad of Würzburg.578 The Emperor writes: He has heard from the Jews in the Empire that harsh treatment is being meted out to their brethren in the Bishop’s diocese. A number of Jews from the village of Obernheid579 have been arrested and tried before the regional criminal court (Zentgericht)580 in a village by the name of Hoheneich, which is under the Bishop’s jurisdiction, on account of a dead child found in a well or pit of water (in einem wasser). The Bishop is to desist from all interrogations that include the use of torture ( peinlich) and to wait until he, the Emperor, comes to attend the Diet in Speyer. This intervention on the part of the Emperor was, therefore, the direct result of an appeal made to him by the Jews, most probably through R. Joseph, who was present in Würzburg at the time.581

578 HHStA Wien, Reichsarchiv, Reichshofskanzlei, Jud. Misc. E-2, kt. 21. Only the draft in the Imperial Chancellory still survives. It is rather diﬃcult to read, owing to the many erasures and corrections. It is headed, “Bevelh an Bischof zu würzburg”, and closes with the words: “Given in our imperial city” [Cologne?]. According to the Reichsregisterbücher of Charles V, in January 1544 he was in Cologne. The draft is in the ﬁle together with the Bishop’s letter of reply. See below, note 583. 579 He is almost certainly referring to Oberhaid, a village located a little northeast of Hamburg. 580 The Zentgericht was the secular criminal court (Blutgericht). For these courts of law in Franconia during this period, see F. Merzbacher, Hexenprocesse in Franken, Munich 1969, p. 79. For the origin of the expression, see Grimm, DW, XV, col. 636. 581 In 5304, 1 Shevat fell on 27 December 1543; 3 Shevat was therefore 30 December. 1 Adar fell on 26 January 1544. Hence, R. Joseph was in Würzburg between 30 December and 26 January. {There is an arithmetic error here: if 1 Shevat fell on 27 December, then 3 Shevat fell on 29 December. Moreover, R. Joseph writes in section 2 of the Chronicle (see p. 305) that he was in Würzburg “from 3 Shevat until 3 Adar 5304”. That would mean that he was there from 29 December 1543 until 28 January 1544. Translator}

260

[26]

5304 (1543⁄44)

Bishop Conrad replied to the Emperor in a letter of 18 February 1544,582 in which he describes the developments from his own perspective: he writes that a man named Pancratz Engelein and his friends (seine freundschaft) have sued the aforesaid Jews in the criminal court (die zent) in a place called Hohenaich, which is partly under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Würzburg and partly under that of various noblemen. Pancratz has demanded the arrest of the Würzburg Jews and their indictment (das peinlich recht uber sie angeschriehen) on suspicion of having taken and murdered his child. He has made sundry allegations and submitted various testimonies (alerlai vermutung unnd antzaigung). The judges (zentrichter) have conducted the case in the usual manner, and, guarantors (burgschaft) having been found, the Jews have been placed in detention. The Bishop emphasizes to the Emperor that he can not release them without there being a court decision on their case; however, he promises to ensure that justice will be dispensed equitably to both sides. Meanwhile (on 23 February) the Jews begged the Emperor to order Bishop Conrad to release the prisoners on bail. On the same day, the Jews were shown the Bishop’s letter to the Emperor and asked for their reaction.583 On 3 March, a note was made in the protocols of the Reichshofrat (Imperial Privy Council),584 apparently as a result of the Jews’ complaints, to the eﬀect that a letter should be sent to the Bishop demanding that the imprisoned Jews be provided with legal aid in accordance with the special law [?] (sunderlichs Recht), that they be supplied with adequate food, drink and clothing, that their rights not be prejudiced and their right to protection safeguarded (irer freyhait schutz schirmb und Gelaidt nit beschwert werden). Extant too is a draft of the letter of the same date from the Emperor to Bishop Conrad, which includes the Jews’ complaints.585 The Jews state, among other things, that the man who made the accusations and his confederates (der klager und sein anheng) have attacked a Jew in the village of Obernheid, and have beaten him almost to death (bis auf den tod ). However, even though the Jews complained to the Magistrate (Amtman), the man has not been punished. Yet, the 582

HHStA Jud. Misc. E-2, kt. 21. Reichshofratsprotokolle zum Jahr 1544, p. 4 (23 Feb): “Die gefangenen Juden zu Obernheid begern Bevelh an Bischof zu Würzburg das man sy auf caution auszlassen wolle”. 584 Reichshofratsprotokolle 1544, 3. März, p. 10. 585 Reichshofrat Antiqua, Fasz. 1159, Nr. 6. 583

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

261

imprisoned Jews, who, rumour has it, include some nursing mothers and a 16-year-old girl, have already been in prison for a lengthy period of time, and are receiving only meagre rations of bread and water. Their families are forbidden to visit them or send them food, drink or raiment, on the claim that it is not their due. The Emperor instructs the Bishop to provide the prisoners with adequate living conditions and suitable legal defence in accordance with their privileges. It seems that the Bishop eventually bowed to the Emperor’s demand: extant is another document, likewise entitled Juden gleit, in which he accedes to the request to accord protection to the friends of those Jews and Jewesses arrested by order of the court of law (Zent) in Hohenaich for various crimes. It is only right, he rules, that the prisoners be tried; however, for the purpose of their defence they require the advice and assistance of those friends. And, therefore, he now permits them to visit the prisoners at all times, and, furthermore, allows the accused to avail themselves of the services of lawyers and defence attorneys (Redner, warner, lassner) in order to prove their innocence. To all of them he is guaranteeing full protection and defence.586 Indeed, in the Chancellory protocol for 6 March 1544 is written: “Jews request safe-conduct ( geleit) in the matter of the prisoners”, and alongside it the word: “authorized”. Immediately preceding it is the following note: “Jews—regarding the communication from Speyer city concerning permission to lodge overnight in the city”; and under it: “Negotiations on this to be conducted with the Speyer people”.587 This is an apparent reference to R. Joseph and the rabbis who accompanied him, who sought to travel to the Emperor’s court in Speyer to intercede for the release of the prisoners. On the other hand, the ﬁrst note may be referring to a permit to lodge in Speyer during the sessions of the Diet, which opened in the city on 20 February. Among the documentary material in the Vienna Archives is a long and detailed letter (undated) from R. Joseph to the Emperor, which,

586 This document too has been published by Heﬀner, Geschichte der Juden in Franken, pp. 72–73, without indication of date or archival signature. In M. Bohrer’s study, Die Juden im Hochstift Würzburg im 16. und zu Beginn des 17. Jahrhunderts, Diss. Freiburg i/B. 1922, p. 49, mention is made of a document in the Würzburg Archives, according to which the Bishop permits the Jewish suspects to employ legal advisers and to have visits from their Jewish friends. However, I have been unable to ﬁnd the signature of this document. 587 Reichshofratsprotokolle (1544), p. 15.

262

[26]

5304 (1543⁄44)

from its contents, appears to have been written after 16 May 1544.588 In it R. Joseph recounts the entire episode. He notes that the Emperor has already twice written to Bishop Conrad and has even threatened to penalize him severely if his instructions are not obeyed, but that the Bishop has disregarded his orders and has not released the imprisoned Jews. He describes the harsh conditions under which the prisoners are being held, and stresses that they have already been incarcerated for over 30 weeks (bisz inn dreissig wochen), have been starved almost to death, and have repeatedly been most cruelly tortured almost to death ( für und für onableszelich gemartert bisz gans nahe uﬀ den thod gepracht) in order to make them confess to what they have not done. He begs the Emperor to compel Bishop Conrad to release the Jews forthwith—whether they confess to the deed because of the unbearable tortures or whether they do not. There is no information about this letter in the Christian sources. However, R. Joseph’s petition apparently achieved its purpose. At the time of his writing, the Jews had already been imprisoned for more than 30 weeks, and the girl, according to R. Joseph, for “more than 32 weeks”. It appears that within two weeks of this petition the prisoners were set free. R. Joseph does not write that they were acquitted of the charges, but only that they were released from prison. That was the customary procedure: when guilt could not be proved, the defendant was not cleared, but was released for lack of evidence. Thus it often happened that suspects released in this way were later re-arrested when it was thought that it would be possible to prove their guilt. In this instance it appears that neither the Bishop of Würzburg, nor the court that heard the case against the Jews, could come to any decision, as the prisoners had not broken down under torture and confessed to the deed. This was the reason why the trial was so protracted.589 588 Jud. Misc. 41. In his petition, R. Joseph refers to the Emperor’s two letters to the Bishop, as well as to documents forwarded by the notary of the court that tried the Jews, the third of these being from 16 May 1544 ( freitag nach cantate). 589 According to both the German criminal code and ecclesiastical law, sentence of death could not be pronounced on a convicted prisoner unless he had confessed to his guilt (see above, p. 28). In the great proportion of ritual murder trials, which were held according to the rules of Inquisition trials, torture was applied until the necessary confession was obtained. Compare H. Mitteis and H. Liberich, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, 16, enlarged edition, Munich 1981, p. 280, and Merzbacher, Hexenprozesse, p. 141. In this particular instance the suspects were exceptionally courageous and withstood all the tortures. However, apart from this fact, it appears that the pro-

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

263

R. Joseph notes that procuring the release of the prisoners entailed “an enormous sum in numerous expenses”. This was probably the payment for the expenses of the trial, the imprisonment and the torture [!]. This was the customary procedure in all serious criminal cases.590 Perhaps, however, he is implying that the prisoners’ freedom was obtained through the payment of large bribes. If by 16 May over thirty weeks had passed, then the whole aﬀair must have commenced around the beginning of November 1543.* Doubtless R. Joseph only heard about it some time later, and thus it is perfectly feasible that he reached Würzburg on 29 December. Although many details of the aﬀair are known, others are still unclear. Thus we know the names of the Jews—or at least of some of them—but we have no other information about them, nor any details of the charge against them. All that is known is that a Christian child was drowned and that, according to the Bishop of Würzburg, there were allegations that the Jews had kidnapped and murdered him. It is not known why those particular Jews—especially the young girl—were embroiled in the calumny. The passage in Yosif OmeΩ hints that there was also some pressure of a sexual nature; the expressions “ba"a be-yad anasa”** (“she was sorely tried”) and “lo hemira kevoda” (“she did not sacriﬁce her honour”) seem to point in that direction. At any rate, the repeated reference to the “virgin” and the entire sentence R. Joseph devotes to her at the end of this section would appear to intimate that the girl was, in some form or another, a central ﬁgure in the libel. However, until additional documentation is discovered, all this will remain in the realm of speculation.

ceedings, which at ﬁrst were conducted along the lines of Inquisition trials, ultimately underwent a slight change for the better, thanks to the eﬀorts of R. Joseph and his colleagues. The prisoners were granted legal defence, and consequently, contrary to what might have been expected in a ritual murder trial, they were eventually released. 590 Compare Merzbacher, Hexenprozesse, p. 178. * {That would make only 28 weeks. However, it is unlikely that R. Joseph would have written his letter to the Emperor exactly on 16 May. If we assume that his letter was written at the end of May or the beginning of June 1544, that would be over 30 weeks from the start of November 1543. Translator} ** {The word anas can mean “to rape”. The author might be implying that an attempt was made to seduce her. Translator}

264

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle [ 27] 5305 (1544/45)

The Diet of Worms In this section, R. Joseph concentrates on events that occurred shortly before and at the time of the 1545 Diet of Worms: the 1544 military expedition by Emperor Charles V against France and the tax paid by German Jewry towards the costs of that war; the threat of total expulsion that hung over German Jewry during the Worms Diet; expulsions from various cities such as Esslingen and Landau, and from the “domain of Mainz”. An exhaustive account of the campaigns of Charles V is not relevant to our concerns, so a brief summary of the 1544 war will suﬃce.591 Charles resorted to arms after he had failed to reach a peaceful settlement with King Francis I of France, and, more crucially, after the latter had concluded a treaty with the Turkish Sultan, whose armies at that time were actually threatening the frontiers of the Empire. In 1543, a joint Franco-Turkish ﬂeet operating in the Mediterranean captured Nice, thereby jeopardizing the Emperor’s dominion in Italy. In the same year, Charles recaptured territories in the Low Countries seized by the Duke of Cleves, France’s ally, and in 1544 he negotiated with the Imperial Estates at the Speyer Diet to obtain their assistance for his French war, the ﬁrst phase of the campaign against the Turks. Despite the religious schism in Germany at the time, with the newly Protestant principalities pressing the Emperor to recognize their religious innovations, and despite the fact that the French King was extending aid to the German Protestants, there was unanimous agreement among all the parties in the land that the Turkish advance must be halted. Moreover, King Francis’s betrayal of the Christian cause had turned all Germany against him. Thus, Charles could rely on general support for his French campaign, and indeed he went to war only after having received pledges of money and military assistance from all the Estates.592 591 For the wars of Charles V against France during those years, see K. Brandi, Kaiser Karl V, pp. 245–46; L. v. Ranke, Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation, pp. 886–97; J. Janssen, Geschichte, vol. 3, pp. 646–64. 592 For details of this and the composition of the Emperor’s army, see Ranke, pp. 890 and 894.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

265

In mid-1544 the Emperor captured Luxembourg, opening the way for his advance towards Paris. By September 1544, his army had reached the outskirts of the French capital. However, the Peace of Crépy on 18 September put an end to the war. It is hard to know whether the special war tax on the Jews was imposed only when the Emperor was already on the battleﬁeld, as transpires from the section under discussion here, although this is conceivable. At all events, it is clear that R. Joseph remitted the money to the Emperor’s treasury only during the 1545 Diet of Worms, for there is a memorandum of the Imperial Chancellory to that eﬀect from the time of the Worms Diet, in mid-1545.593 There is also a document, given to R. Joseph, acknowledging receipt, at the Emperor’s request, of a total of 3000 guilders, valued at 15 batzen (silver coins) for each guilder, in ready money, in the name of all imperial Jewry. For his part, conﬁrms the Emperor, this tax is not to be regarded as a precedent, but is a special levy for the war exigencies. He authorizes R. Joseph to collect the tax from all the Jews who have not yet paid their contribution, to which end he is at liberty to employ all available means including excommunication. In addition, Charles notes that, at this opportunity, he has given R. Joseph the privilege already promised at the Speyer Diet, the one which up till now he has not had time to present to the Jews.594 The sum of money paid by the Jews to the Emperor that R. Joseph speciﬁes in the Chronicle, is therefore conﬁrmed precisely in this document. R. Joseph also reveals that, in common with other sections of the population, negotiations were conducted also with the Jews concerning the size of the payment they were required to make; in his words, “And we reached a compromise and agreed to give . . .”. R. Joseph undoubtedly attached great importance to the Emperor’s victory and to the participation of the Jews in the war eﬀort. In the few words he devotes to the subject, he describes the impressive size of the imperial army—in his words, “a great army”—and the Emperor’s advance towards Paris. Although the Jews’ enemies cast 593 HHStA Wien, Reichstagsakten Fasz. 16, Konv. III, Fol. 224; and see S. Stern, pp. 206–07, and p. 308, note 18. 594 Strasbourg City Archives E 1406, document dated 7 August 1545. The Emperor conﬁrms receipt of 3000 guilders (rheinischer Wehrung in Müntz) from R. Joseph in the name of all the Jews. Written next to this are the words “Juden, Privilegien”. The document has been printed by Kracauer as an appendix to his article, “Procès de R. Joselmann contre la ville de Colmar”, REJ, 19 (1889), pp. 288–89.

266

[27]

5305 (1544⁄45)

doubts on their loyalty to the Emperor and accused them of spying for the Turks, we can feel R. Joseph’s complete identiﬁcation with Charles in his wars. Incidentally, we also learn that, as in previous cases when the Jews were required to pay a special war tax, in this case too it was the Jewish leadership that was responsible for collecting the money. In his letter acknowledging receipt of the money, the Emperor, as remarked, authorized R. Joseph to collect taxes from Jews who had neglected to make their contribution, and even to employ the extreme measure of excommunication. Thus, on this occasion, R. Joseph was oﬃcially in charge of the Jews’ taxes, a duty which, at other times, devolved upon the Chief Rabbi.595 Although this section refers to 5305 (= 1544/45), R. Joseph discusses the Emperor’s French war, which, as remarked, ended in September 1544, at the very end of 5304. Apparently, his main concern was to describe the proceedings at the 1545 Diet, as well as to specify the monetary aid provided by German Jewry in that year. It is also possible that he did not know precisely when the war ended. And the year 5305 began in mid-September of 1544. From Charles V and his war in France R. Joseph moves on to a discussion of the Worms Diet, which opened in January 1545.596 Virtually all the debates at the Diet ranged around the issue of the religious schism in Germany or around the question of the support of the German Estates for the proposed war against the Turks. On the decisions of the Diet hinged not only the fate of the projected campaign against the Turks, but also the future relationship between the two warring camps in Germany. In the framework of the discussions by the committee dealing with “deliberations on the preparation of a system of good lasting laws for the Empire” (Berathschlagung einer guten und beständigen Policei ), this Diet, like its predecessors, also debated the usury question, and, in this context, the Jewish problem. These issues similarly became part of the struggle between the

595 See M. Stern, Die israelitische Bevölkerung, vol. 7, part 1, Der Wormser Reichsrabbiner Samuel, pp. 3–6, 12, for the years 1522–1523 and 1542; and E. Zimmer, R. Óayyim bar Betsalel mi-Friedberg, Jerusalem 1987, introduction, p. 21, and the literature cited there. For a similar case when R. Joseph was called upon to arrange collection of a special tax, see above, in the introduction to section 5 of the Chronicle, p. 92, and note 99, there. 596 For the Worms Diet, see P. Kannengiesser, Der Reichstag von Worms vom Jahre 1545, Strasbourg 1891, which does not mention the Jews at all; and Janssen, Geschichte, p. 536.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

267

two camps: the Catholic {Estates}, while admitting that usury was an evil malady in the land and that interest takers should be penalized severely, contended that Luther’s call to the priests,597 which included blatant incitement against usurers, was not in the spirit of Christianity, and that it encouraged the impoverished masses, groaning under the burden of interest payments, to take the law into their own hands and rebel. At the same time, the Catholics sharply attacked Luther’s latest book against the Jews, The Ineﬀable Name, published in 1543, charging that it was a harsh and angry book, written, as it were, in blood, and that it was goading the masses to acts of thievery and murder. According to them, it was already well known in several places how the populace had followed these doctrines and had injured many people bodily and spiritually, among them innocent persons.598 The committee concluded its report with the following words: Whereas the excessive interest taken by the Jews has seriously harmed many subjects of the Empire and brought them to the verge of destitution, and whereas through the Jews the Turkish [ruler] receives information he can use to his advantage against the German nation,599 the committee leaves to the discretion of the Estates, whether it would not be preferable to expel the Jews totally from the German Empire, rather than continue to suﬀer them for the sake of the meagre proﬁt the authorities derive from them.600

The Christian sources do not tell us whether this advice had any practical eﬀect; however, R. Joseph’s words are enlightening. According to him, the princes of the Reich agreed between them to expel the

597 In his tract, “An die Pfarrer, wider den Wucher zu predigen”, WA, 23, pp. 282–338. 598 It should be noted that the Estates here are not basically opposed to Luther’s vitriolic attacks on the Jews; they are impressed by a purely practical consideration—the fear that the populace will take the law into its own hands. They seem to have dreaded a repeat performance of the violence and carnage that accompanied the 1525 Peasants War. R. Joseph, who knew the sensitivity of the Christian authorities to breaches of the public peace on the part of the populace, employed the same argument in his complaint to the Strasbourg city council against Luther’s tract. Compare below, Appendix 3. 599 For the charge that the Jews allegedly were collaborating with the Turks, see also above, introduction to section 14 of the Chronicle, pp. 172–173; and see A. David, Kronika, p. 37, note 34. 600 According to Janssen, vol. 3, p. 653, Anm. 2. The text of the decision is according to StaA Frankfurt, Frankfurter Reichstagsakten 58, fol. 95; all the relevant documents are in the ﬁle: Triersche Sachen und Briefschaften, fol. 223–27.

268

[27]

5305 (1544⁄45)

Jews from all imperial territory, and they planned to request the Emperor’s consent to this decision. Only the words of a “good man” among the Christians, whose name R. Joseph does not disclose, foiled this move. This man stressed to them that the way of Christianity was not to expel the Jews, but rather to permit them to reside in Christian lands, so that they would be a sign and testimony to the truth of the Christian religion.601 His words impressed the princes and they apparently withdrew their proposal from the agenda. In his letter of 1546 to the Strasbourg city council, R. Joseph refers to the events of that Diet. He writes that at the recent Diet of Worms in 1545, a poll was taken among members of all the Estates (ein umbfrag geschehen) at the behest of many of the Jews’ ill wishers (uﬀ etliche unser Miszginer), with the aim of enlisting support for the expulsion of the Jews from Germany. However, by the grace of God, it was made clear and stressed to all the princes and the Estates and the learned men present there that this must not be done, and that the government (Oberkeit) “can continue to tolerate its Jews and grant them security, protection and safe conduct (Schutz Schirm und Geleit) as in the past”.602 R. Joseph does not specify in his letter who those “ill-wishers of the Jews” were who wanted to expel them. Moreover, he does not credit the prevention of the expulsion to any “good man”, but solely to God’s Mercy, and we can understand why. The Christian who spoke up at the Worms Diet against the proposed expulsion was doubtless Catholic, his apologetics are typically Catholic,603 and Strasbourg was a Protestant city. Even in this section of the Chronicle, in which R. Joseph refers to a “good man”, he does not reveal his identity. Graetz assumed that he was alluding to the Papal legate, Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, who was present at the Diet to participate in the debates on the

601 This was the oﬃcial policy of the Catholic Church vis-à-vis the Jews. See S. Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century, second revised edition, New York 1966, p. 92, note 5, which cites charters of Calixtus II and Innocent III. These state that the Jews are witnesses to the truth of Christianity, for their own Holy Books contain evidence to this eﬀect, although they themselves do not comprehend this. Therefore, the Jews have the right to live and maintain themselves in Christian lands, and their lives and privileges must be safeguarded. It was on these charters that later popes based their rulings concerning the Jews. {For a recent treatment of attitudes toward Jews in medieval theology, see Jeremy Cohen, Living Letters of the Law, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1999. AS} 602 ArchMun Strasbourg III, 174, 26. 603 This point is stressed by S. Stern, pp. 207–08.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

269

religious question.604 Graetz’s theory has recently been conﬁrmed unexpectedly by a document in the Marburg City Archives, published by D. J. Cohen.605 This is none other than a petition by the Jews to the same Cardinal Farnese, submitted to him at the Worms Diet. In their letter the Jews complain of oppression and attacks by their persecutors—they are almost certainly referring to Martin Luther and his followers—who are attempting to inﬂuence also others [namely Catholics] among those present at Worms. The Jews accuse the former of seeking to institute new laws and directives that prejudice the charters and bulls the Jews have received from emperors and popes. Several articles in those directives would make their lives quite unbearable. They entreat the Cardinal to support them, so that the rights granted to them in those aforesaid charters and bulls will not be infringed, and they hope that also the Pope, the Emperor, and the King will safeguard them and their rights. In order to persuade the Legate of the justice of their case, they are enclosing a copy of the aforementioned privileges and bulls, and request a response from the Legate to their letter. There is a slight problem with the fact that the letter does not refer to the proposed expulsion plans, but speaks of a general attack on Jewish rights. On the other hand, from the section here it appears that the debate on the question of tolerating or expelling the Jews was purely an internal German aﬀair, and there is no intimation that the Jews were active participants in it. An additional diﬃculty is that while in their letter to Cardinal Farnese, the Jews lay emphasis on the actions of Luther and his disciples, in the section of the Chronicle there is not a hint to suggest that it was the Lutherans who instigated the expulsion. On the contrary, the fact that it was Cardinal Farnese, the Papal legate, who was responsible for persuading the supporters of expulsion to withdraw their proposal, using very “Catholic” arguments in the process, indicates that the initiators of the proposal were themselves Catholics. Although it is correct to 604 See Graetz, Geschichte, IX, p. 317, and D. J. Cohen’s comment in his article, “Al Ma’avakam shel Yehudei Germaniya neged ha-Mezima le-Garsham bi-Shenat 1545; R. Yosef me-Rosheim ve-ha-Peniya el ha-Kardinal Farnese” (German Jewry’s Struggle against the Plot to Expel them in 1545: R. Joseph of Rosheim and the Appeal to Cardinal Farnese), in: Bein Yisrael la-Umot (Israel and the Nations), Jerusalem 1987, p. 46, note 17. 605 D. J. Cohen, ibid., appendix, pp. 49–51. The document is in the Marburg Government Archives, StA Marburg a.d. Lahn, signature: Bestand 115, Waldeck, 7.44.

270

[27]

5305 (1544⁄45)

say that the tendency towards expelling the Jews was particularly prevalent in Lutheran states and among the Lutheran princes,606 the attempts to bring about a total expulsion of Jews from the Empire, to which R. Joseph refers on a number of occasions, were not necessarily Protestant initiatives.607 As is known, the trend towards expelling the Jews from the imperial cities began long before the rise of Protestantism, and gathered momentum for precisely the same reasons in Catholic and Protestant cities alike. I feel that these diﬃculties can be solved only if we assume that the appeal to Cardinal Farnese was made at the beginning of the committee’s deliberations. At that time it was not yet known that this committee would propose that the Estates vote in favour of a total expulsion of the Jews; it was known that a discussion was in progress on the subject of usury, and usury was vital for the Jews’ livelihood. Therefore, in their letter to the Cardinal, the Jews emphasize the violation of their rights and the unbearable conditions under which they will have to live. Their appeal to the Cardinal was that he, as the consummate representative of traditional Christianity, should wield his inﬂuence on the Estates and possibly also on the Emperor, and prevail upon them not to sanction any infringement of their rights. We can also understand why they lay such stress on the role of Luther and his followers in the anti-Jewish campaign: in the ﬁrst place, Luther, as remarked above, was the most vehement opponent of usury; secondly, this was clearly a tactical move, designed to secure the Cardinal’s sympathy and support for the Jewish position by drawing him into the anti-Lutheran camp. It is highly probable that this petition drew Farnese’s attention to the problems of the Jews, and when the expulsion proposal was submitted in the form of a poll, he adopted a pro-Jewish stance, or at least recognized the fact that the true papal position was reﬂected in the bulls accorded the Jews over hundreds of years (copies of which had been enclosed in the aforementioned letter). This explains his advice to the Estates. I agree with D. J. Cohen’s conjecture that the author of the petition is none other than R. Joseph of Rosheim.608 Apart from the 606 See General Introduction, p. 18, and also D. J. Cohen, ibid., p. 49, and the literature cited there. 607 Compare sections 7, 9, and 14 of the Chronicle, below, pp. 313, 315–316, 321. 608 In the aforementioned article, p. 48.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

271

fact that there was no other Jewish leader at this Diet who could have been its author, the style resembles to a large extent that of R. Joseph’s petitions to the various authorities, and the argumentation is similar.609 True, R. Joseph does not say that he had a hand in preventing the expulsion; and indeed, if the above analysis is correct, he undoubtedly did not deal with the question of the expulsion itself. The fact that R. Joseph does not mention Farnese by name is in keeping with his usual practice. He knows that his readers, who could even be his sons, might never have heard of Cardinal Farnese, or Melanchthon,610 or even Reuchlin,611 and that whether or not their names appear in his memoirs is quite immaterial. What determines is that the Holy One, blessed be He, saves His people in their hour of need, and this through the agency of “good people” or “learned people”, as he writes in his letter to Strasbourg. We shall now address the subject of the individual expulsions mentioned further on in this section. In his account, R. Joseph refers to the total expulsion of the Jews from Germany, which was averted, in juxtaposition with “individuals who were expelled”. This last expression is unclear: he may be referring to individual communities that were expelled as opposed to a total expulsion. He could also be implying that individual Jews were expelled—which did occur in the places under consideration here. We must therefore examine the situation of the Jews in Esslingen, Landau, and Mainz, in order to ascertain whether the expulsions carried out in those places were of entire communities, or of individual Jews only.

609 For example, an expression such as “nos miseri” is evidently a translation of “wir armen”, an idiom R. Joseph frequently employs. The closing words, “obsequentissimi famuli”, are clearly something approximating “untertänigste”. As to the argumentation, the heavy stress on the violation of Jewish privileges is a dominant theme in all R. Joseph’s letters to the authorities. Compare, for example, in the case of Esslingen Jewry, below. 610 Section 22 of the Chronicle, below, p. 330. 611 Section 5 of the Chronicle, below, p. 312.

272

[27]

5305 (1544⁄45)

The Expulsion From Esslingen612 In the imperial city of Esslingen in the Duchy of Württemberg, it seems that the Jewish community ceased to exist in the latter part of the ﬁfteenth century.613 However, from the end of 1527, negotiations were entered into with various Jews wishing to acquire residence rights in the city. In one of the letters to the city, the Jew Simon of Schwabach emphasizes that in Esslingen there is already a Jewish school (Schule), a synagogue (Kirche) [?] and a Jewish cemetery. In another, Jews ask for, among other things, a synagogue with an adjoining yard for a Sukkah*, a wedding hall, and for the appointment of a Jewish dayan (rabbinical judge) as the Jews have in Frankfurt, Worms and Landau.614 In July 1529 a number of Jewish families were admitted to Esslingen by a special contract (Anstand ) that stipulated their duties towards the city.615 By that time it appears that a few individual Jews were already residing there.616 The new residents were accepted into the city for a period of eight years, for the express purpose of lending money to city residents and institutions on terms easier than the usual ones. These conditions did not apply in the case of loans to non-residents of the city.617 612 For the history of Esslingen Jewry, see R. Overdick, Die rechtliche und wirtschaftliche Stellung der Juden in Südwestdeutschland im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert, dargestellt an den Reichsstädten Eßlingen und Konstanz und der Markgrafschaft Baden, Konstanz 1965. The account below is based on Overdick’s research, and on registers of documents in Esslingen City Archives and Stuttgart Government Archives, and documents in Vienna Government Archives. 613 See Germania Judaica, III/1, s.v. Eßlingen. According to this source, the city notes in 1465 that it is many years since Jews have resided there. In a document of 13 July 1490, the Emperor’s oﬃcial requests the dismissal of an appeal by one of the residents, who has been prosecuted for having sold the school [or synagogue] (die Judenschule), which is the property of the Emperor. See Esslingen City Archives, StaA Eßlingen, Reichsstadt E., Fasz. 34, L 16, Akten betr. Juden pro 1451–1537. On 24 November of that year Emperor Frederick III authorizes the sale. From these documents it is evident that the Jewish community buildings were still standing. * {Booth erected for the Feast of Tabernacles.} 614 Esslingen City Archives, ibid. 615 On the conditions of admission to the city, there were negotiations between the Jewish representatives and the city authorities. In Esslingen City Archives, apart from the contract itself, are several petitions to the city by Jews headed by the said Simon of Schwabach, one of them written prior to the signing of the contract and the others after the signing. These documents have been printed by Overdick, Die rechtliche und wirtschaftliche Stellung der Juden in Südwestdeutschland, pp. 170–77. 616 Rabbi Moses and a number of other Jews resident in Esslingen gave personal surety for two Jews who were joining the community; 28 February 1530, City Archives, ibid. 617 Thus the status of the Jews in Esslingen resembled more their status in a city

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

273

Even before the end of the eight years, Duke Ulrich of Württemberg, who had banished the Jews from his own territory already in 1526, raised objections to the Jewish presence in Esslingen. In November 1535, the Duke wrote to the Esslingen city council stating that he desired to protect his subjects from the unwholesome business dealings of the Jews, and therefore he advised the city not to suﬀer their corrupt practices any longer and to rid itself of them. The city council replied to Ulrich, explaining that the domicile of Jews in the city was restricted by the terms of their residence permit. In July 1536, the Duke again criticized the Jews’ usurious transactions with Württemberg subjects. Immediately afterwards, close to the expiry date of the Jews’ residence contract, Esslingen began negotiations with him with regard to their expulsion. The problem was that many Esslingen townspeople and Württemberg subjects owed the Jews large sums of money, and these debts had to be discharged before they could depart. On 16 October, the Duke requested from the city particulars of the debts owed by his subjects to the Jews. In a memorandum of 5 November 1537 is a list of 266 residents from Esslingen and from the Duchy of Württemberg, who had borrowed from Esslingen Jews against pledges in the years 1530–1536 sums totalling 5,275 guilders, and had not paid oﬀ their debts. It would seem that on more than one occasion Jews had to sue their debtors in the courts, and especially at the Imperial Court of Justice at Rottweil, something which the Christian debtors particularly detested, and which often infringed upon their privileges. On 9 November 1536, the Duke’s advisers complained to the Esslingen city council that the Jews’ claims before the Rottweil Court were causing severe hardship to his subjects in the Stuttgart and Cannstadt regions.618 At this time too, the terms of the 1529 contract were tightened considerably, and the Jews were forbidden to conclude any new monetary transaction with any subject of Württemberg or Esslingen such as Venice, where they were required to practice usury, and were tolerated solely for that purpose. This is in contrast to the situation in other German cities, where the authorities or city council made a pretence that the Jews’ usury was undesirable and gave this as the oﬃcial reason for their expulsion. We shall see below that, ultimately, this same argument was used also in Esslingen. 618 In the charter accorded by Charles V to Württemberg on 15 October 1530, in which he reaﬃrmed the Judenmandat of 1521, one of the articles stipulates that subjects of Württemberg are only to be sued before local courts. See HStA Stuttgart, C 3 R 39 25. In the years that followed, legal scholars held debates and exchanged written opinions on the subject.

274

[27]

5305 (1544⁄45)

without the express permission of the authorities. Stricter conditions were also imposed with regard to pledges found to be stolen property.619 All this made it extremely diﬃcult for the Jews to continue residing in the city; however, there was agreement on all sides that the settlement of outstanding debts was a precondition for their departure. On 19 June 1537, the vinegrowers guild appealed to the city council for assistance for its members to repay their debts to the Jews. Members of the guild knew that non-payment of their debts might entail eviction from their homes. In fact, during that same period, when the Jews are on the verge of departing the city, on 5 July 1538, we ﬁnd that the house of an Esslingen citizen is given over to the Jew Lazarus because of an unpaid debt.620 We also ﬁnd that the city goes to the defence of one of its Jews after he is ill-treated by the owner of a village in the area (October 1537).621 Thus, some principles of justice towards the Jews were preserved even during this period. Not all the Jews appear to have stayed in the city until the last minute. Extant is a letter of recommendation of the city council, dated 23 August 1537, made out to the Jew Beifus Lemle, attesting to his good behaviour. The Jew knew that in order to ﬁnd a new place of residence he had to furnish himself with some such document. Other Jews were still permitted to remain; as late as March 1538 the mayor and city council granted eight Jews a permit to remain in the city for a further two and a quarter years, and this was twice extended for an additional year. The Jews, for their part, endeavoured to prevent their expulsion. In a letter of 5 June 1537 to the city council, ﬁve Jews write that their expulsion will not beneﬁt the city, but will only be detrimental to it.622 However, it seems that all in all the Jews did not succeed in changing the city’s basic decision that they must leave. 619 Whereas according to the original agreement the Jews could demand the cost price of any pledge that was found to be stolen property; henceforth, they were required to restore the pledge without receiving any payment whatsoever; and compare above, introduction to section 15 of the Chronicle, p. 180. 620 City Archives, L16, F 35, document from 5 July 1538. 621 The correspondence on this subject, which is carried on between the dates 4–28 October 1537, is in document F 34 in the City Archives. {The Hebrew text is unclear here. I would like to express my gratitude to the Director of the Esslingen State Archives, Dr. Joachim Halbekann, who gave me helpful information regarding this source. Translator} 622 Overdick, Die rechtliche und wirtschaftliche Stellung, p. 76. The original is in Esslingen City Archives.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

275

An audit of city residents’ debts, made at the start of 1542, revealed that the debts to the Jews had decreased by 1000 guilders. It was decided to permit the Jews to remain for an additional year, so that residents could settle the rest of their arrears, and then it would be possible to expel them (vollends aus der stadt entfernt werden können).623 In the middle of 1543 Esslingen Jewry requested the city council’s assistance to collect their debts, and in August that same year they requested to remain in the city for another year because of the alarming and dangerous situation in Germany.624 However, at the end of 1543 the city arranged with Duke Ulrich for the security escort ( Judenvergleitung) that would accompany the departing Jews.625 A list was drawn up of all the Jewish families, and by the name of each family was noted its prospective destination.626 In a memorandum of 21 December 1543, it was stated that the Jews would remit a lump sum of 120 guilders for the safe-conduct and security escort (Geleit und Sicherheit), and in fact there are extant safe-conducts (Geleitbriefe) for the Jews of Esslingen from the year 1544.627 Ten wagons drawn by four horses were ordered for the Jews, and they departed in three separate convoys during the months of January and February 1544. In the City Archives are listed the names of all the Jews who left on these organized convoys.628 Extant too are copies of the “departure permits” (Abschiedsbrief ) issued by the city to three Jews: Enoch, Schmul and Lazarus. The city attests to their good behaviour during their 14 years of residence, and certiﬁes that they have received its permission to depart [!]. Although the expulsion of the Jews from Esslingen came as no surprise and merely entailed the non-renewal of their residence permit—a perfectly legal practice in those days—some Jews still did not give up hope, and seem to have turned to R. Joseph. In a long petition dated 21 May 1544 R. Joseph appeals to the Emperor.629 He stresses that in 1530 the Emperor accorded German Jewry a privilege that is binding on all the princes and imperial subjects, according 623

City Archives, ibid. The document does not have an exact date. August 1543, City Archives, ibid. 625 4 January 1544, issued to three prominent members of the community. 626 16 December 1543, City Archives, ibid. 627 HStA Stuttgart A 56 Bü 7. 628 City Archives, ibid. 629 HHStA Wien, Jud. Misc. 41 Supplicatio Josel Juden, 21 May XLIIII. On it is written that it should be forwarded to the city for its response (p. 85) and R. Joseph’s request that the city render its reply in writing (p. 90). 624

276

[27]

5305 (1544⁄45)

to which they are not to expel the Jews from their domiciles (von irer heusslichen wonung . . . vertreiben oder verjagen). Not only the expelled Jews but all of imperial Jewry regard this act of Esslingen’s as a violation of their freedoms, for the Emperor’s privilege refers to all the Jews collectively and to each Jew individually (samentlich und sonderlich), and so a strong protest is justiﬁed. He adds that although the exiles had had a contract (Ein bestand und vertrag) with Esslingen specifying the length of time they were permitted to reside there; nevertheless, by the terms of the imperial privilege granted to all Jewry, the city was not authorized to expel its Jews without the Emperor’s knowledge and consent. Therefore, he appeals to Charles to compel the city, now, after the fact, to readmit three Jews, Lazarus, Jacob and Enoch, with their families, and permit them to return to their homes and former way of life, all the more so as these Jews have always conducted themselves faithfully and honestly towards the city. He hopes that the city leaders will take into consideration that it is only a question of these three men, and they can rest assured that with respect to the other expelled Jews no legal action will be taken against the city. However, if the city were to reject this request, he asks that the Emperor should take ﬁrm action in the matter, so that there will not be this kind of contempt for the Jews’ freedoms. Thus, R. Joseph attempted to demonstrate that the banishment of the Jews from any place where they were resident was unlawful, since it ran counter to their privileges. In a society where permission to reside in any city or locality was contingent upon a speciﬁc contract between the candidate and the place in which he sought to reside, it took quite some daring to make such a claim. However, R. Joseph knew that the Jews had already been expelled, and therefore his letter could do no harm and might even do some good, so he tried his luck. Strange to say, the Imperial Chancellory received his petition and appears to have found no legal ﬂaw in it, for it passed it on to the Esslingen city council, together with a request for a response to his claims. The city replied, at ﬁrst it seems only verbally, and R. Joseph then asked that its answer be given in writing. The reply by the city delegates to R. Joseph’s complaint has survived, and in it they present their case and, as expected, reject R. Joseph’s charges.630 630

ibid.

Der Stadt Eßlingen . . . Bericht wider Josel Judens Supplicatio, Vienna Archives,

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

277

In their letter, the city delegates claim that Esslingen possesses a privilege permitting the admission of Jews for a limited period and also their ejection from the city after the expiry date speciﬁed in the agreement with them. Although, in 1529, Esslingen had indeed granted residence rights to a number of Jews, the contract had expired, and the city had decided to ask the Jews to leave. This was because the city had become aware of the immense damage caused by the Jewish usury, not only to the citizens of Esslingen, but also to the subjects of the entire Duchy of Württemberg, many of whom had as a consequence been ousted from their houses and positions. Since the city delegates did not wish to create the impression that they sought to harm and injure the subjects of neighbouring Württemberg, they had decided not to renew the Jews’ residence rights.631 They contend that the Jews accepted into the city had pledged and sworn by their Jewish oath (mit jrem jüdischen aidt) that if the city did not renew its protection at the end of the stipulated period, they would leave and not demand a renewal of the contract, either directly or through a proxy, nor would they support their claims by reference to any privilege they had received, or would in the meantime receive, from any party. The city delegates request, therefore, that the Emperor reject R. Joseph’s petition and that he protect the citizens of Esslingen and the hapless subjects of Württemberg against the Jews. In an additional document,632 received at the Imperial Chancellory on 20 June 1544, Esslingen asks the Emperor to prohibit Jews living in various places in the vicinity of the city under the protection of various lords, from lending money to city residents, whether in exchange for a pledge, movables, or real estate. Residents are borrowing from these Jews at high rates of interest, the city claims, and later are unable to settle their debts and are reduced to penury. It is to avoid such situations that the city has decided not to permit Jews to dwell anymore within its bounds.633 R. Joseph does not appear to have succeeded in having the three Jews resettled in Esslingen. His exceptional sensitivity concerning this 631

There is a hint here that the expulsion of the Jews was due to pressure from the Duke. 632 Vienna Archives, in the same ﬁle. 633 What happened here was the same as in other places, such as Nuremberg: despite the city’s opposition, the expelled Jews were granted protection by lords in the neighbouring city of Fürth. Hence, Esslingen did not proﬁt by its action; furthermore, it lost its revenue from the Jews.

278

[27]

5305 (1544⁄45)

expulsion is understandable; it was still fresh in his memory at the time when he wrote his Chronicle. The Expulsion from Landau The legal status of the Jews in Landau was very similar to that of the Jews in Esslingen: they resided there on the strength of residence charters for a speciﬁed period of years.634 For a time from the late ﬁfteenth century no Jews lived in Landau. Then, in 1517, ten families were granted residence rights for 29 years.635 The Jewish community seems to have grown after a few years, and this aroused the ire of the artisan guilds, which, in mid-1524, demanded that the number of Jews in the city be reduced again to ten families or, failing that, that all the Jews be expelled. An additional grievance against the Jews was a dispute within the Jewish community or involving individuals outside it, with which the city had to deal. The guilds demanded that the Jews settle the dispute once and for all or leave the city. The discussions between the city council and the members of the guilds continued for a full year, and the Jews, for their part, appealed to the Elector Palatine and the Unterlandvogt in Hagenau regarding their problems. Extant is a document of 2 August 1525, in which the Elector Palatine mediates between the Jews of Landau and the city council.636 According to this document, the Jews complained to the Elector Palatine that during the Peasants War the city ill-treated them and took unjust measures against them, although the terms of their contract entitle them to reside there for 29 years. Since the Jews enjoy

634 For the history of Landau Jewry, see J. D. Schöpﬂin, Histoire des Dix Villes, Colmar 1825, II, pp. 222–23; M. Wiener, “Zur Geschichte der Juden im Elsaß”, Achwa Jahrbuch für 1867, Leipzig, pp. 117–19; H. Hess, Die Landauer Judengemeinde, ein Abriß ihrer Geschichte, Landau 1969; Germania Judaica, III/1, p. 703 ﬀ. The short account below is based mainly on these works. 635 The city, which was mortgaged to the bishop of the region, needed a large sum of money, in order to buy its freedom. On the question of whether to admit the Jews to the city, and in this way procure the required sum, protracted debates ensued, in which the guilds and the diﬀerent social classes in the city all participated. See Hess, Die Landauer Judengemeinde, p. 7. 636 This document has been printed without an archival signature in L. Löwenstein, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland, I—Geschichte der Juden in der Kurpfalz, Frankfurt on Main 1895, Beilage no. 7, pp. 289–90.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

279

his special protection, he, the Elector Palatine, wishes to bring about a compromise between the two sides. He writes that he invited both sides to a meeting with him at Heidelberg and together with his counsellors reached the following arrangement: the Jews, out of gratitude to him, will forego ﬁve out of the 29 years speciﬁed in their contract with the city, and the city, for its part, will restore to the Jews their old contract which it cancelled, or draw up a new one in regard to their residence in the city. The city apparently did not agree to this proposal, for, in September of that year, a vote was taken among all its guilds on the question of whether to tolerate the Jews and for how long, and it was resolved to grant the Jews resident rights for another two or three years. At the start of 1527, a compromise solution was reached whereby the Jews agreed to forego not ﬁve but nine out of the 29 years; the city, however, was adamant that at the end of the ﬁrst ten years, namely in 1527, the ten Jewish families should be replaced by ten diﬀerent families. To this arrangement they received the Unterlandvogt’s consent.637 Hess believes that in 1527 the number of Jews was again restricted to ten families; however, according to him, the sources do not say whether these ten families were in fact replaced by others.638 If this was the case, it is clear that many Jews were forced to leave the city. Indeed Schöpﬂin writes that in 1529 the Jews of Landau were expelled.639 He believes that, after a time, individual Jews were again permitted to live in the city. The original contract was due to expire in 1546, and after a reduction of ﬁve years—in 1541. In that year, apparently in this context, a ﬁerce controversy erupted between the Jews of Landau and the city council, which apparently wished to curtail Jewish rights. The point at issue was the visiting rights to the city markets of non-resident Jews. This dispute was brought for arbitration to a committee consisting of the Unterlandvogt and four members of the Hagenau city council. Although the committee found in favour of the Jews, this did

637 See Hess, Die Landauer Judengemeinde, p. 9. The city council’s intention may have been to prevent the Jews from claiming established residence rights. The discrepancy in the number of years—in one place ﬁve and in another nine—may be due to an error in the reading of the number in one of the two publications. At all events, we do not know of any recurrence of the problem in 1537, whereas with respect to 1541 there is documentary evidence in this regard. 638 See ibid., p. 9. 639 Histoire des Dix Villes, p. 223.

280

[27]

5305 (1544⁄45)

not avail them, as Landau ignored its conclusions. Landau Jewry then appealed for assistance to R. Joseph of Rosheim, and he petitioned Emperor Charles V.640 In response to R. Joseph’s appeal, the Emperor addressed a letter to his Unterlandvogt at Hagenau and gave him a full account of R. Joseph’s complaint.641 In his letter he criticizes the city of Landau, which, he stresses, has contravened both the law and the privileges bestowed by the emperors on the Jews, in that it has reduced the number of years permitted the Jews by their contract, and has also imposed on them various limitations, including the prevention of visits by Jews from outside the city and the denial of access to the imperial markets. The Emperor adds that notwithstanding the Jews’ petitions through R. Joseph, both verbally and in writing, the city has not altered its practices, and has even taken Jews into custody and penalized them. He instructs the Unterlandvogt to reconvene the committee that dealt with the dispute between the city and the Jews, and to see to it that Landau honours its obligations and ceases to deny the Jews their rights. Filed together with the Emperor’s letter is a letter by the acting Unterlandvogt (the previous Unterlandvogt had completed his term of duty). This was sent to Elector Palatine Ludwig on 10 September 1541, and is a request that the latter appoint a chairman for the committee that is to reconvene, for he is merely a substitute and does not believe that he can ﬁll the position. The Elector Palatine writes in response that it is preferable to wait for the appointment of a new Unterlandvogt, at which time they will attend to the matter.642 It is not known how matters turned out in the end. We know that there was a Jewish community in Landau during those years and that it even had its own rabbi.643 As remarked, Schöpﬂin notes that, subsequently, individual Jews were again received into the city, and this is conﬁrmed also from the sources cited by Hess. From Hess’s account we learn that the city continued to harass

640 R. Joseph’s letter has been lost. However, the Emperor, in his letter to the Unterlandvogt in Hagenau (see next paragraph) speciﬁcally mentions that the matter was brought to his attention by R. Joseph. 641 Strasbourg, ArchDep Bas-Rhin, C78 (42), Regensburg, 20 Juli 1541. 642 Ibid. 643 Among the signatories to the rabbis’ ordinance at Frankfurt in 1542 was Levi Moses Open-{heim?}, “in the name of the Landau community, may God protect and preserve it”. See Horowitz, Rabanei Frankfurt, p. 314.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

281

the Jews. For example, in November 1541, the city council decided that Jews must wear the Jewish ring on their garments, and it also laid restrictions on their economic activities. This trend continued in ensuing years.644 It is very likely that in view of the extremely strained relationship between the Jews and the city, there were in fact families that found it hard to support themselves. There is no reason to query R. Joseph’s report in this section that there was an expulsion from Landau during those years, even if we assume that only a portion of the Jews were expelled. It is unlikely that R. Joseph, who dealt personally with the problems of Landau Jewry very shortly before the writing of his Chronicle, was inaccurate in what he wrote about the city.645 He also explicitly mentions Landau Jewry in his “Letter of Consolation”, in connection with the blood libel from which the Jews of that city were saved in 1539.646 The fate of Landau Jewry was close to his heart all this time. The fact that there were Jews in the city in ensuing years does not disprove his report of an expulsion. The Territories of the Archbishop of Mainz R. Joseph writes in his Chronicle, “. . . but individual { Jews} have been expelled from the domain of Mainz . . .”. Various scholars have pointed out that in the archival sources there is no mention of an expulsion from the archdiocese of Mainz. After the Jews had been expelled from the city of Mainz several times during the second half of the ﬁfteenth century,647 they settled in the neighbourhood of the city, within the Archbishop’s domain. The territory under his jurisdiction was quite extensive, and contained many small settlements. If R. Joseph is referring here to the expulsion of a small number of people and not to a general expulsion, it can be assumed that in one or other of the settlements under the Archbishop’s jurisdiction there were occasions when Jews were compelled to leave. Since no localities are speciﬁed by name, the task of ﬁnding any evidence of

644

See Hess, p. 9 onwards. As D. J. Cohen believes, in his article, “Al Ma’avakam shel Yehudei Germaniyah”, p. 48. 646 See below, pp. 362 and 373. 647 For the date and nature of these expulsions, see GJ, III/2, s.v. Mainz, 13d. Jews resided in Mainz intermittently in small numbers also in the sixteenth century. 645

282

[27]

5305 (1544⁄45)

this is a complicated one, but there is documentation to assist us in this. Extant is a 1541 document,648 in which residents of two small regions (Flecken), Byrmigkhaim and Erlick (?), petition Albert, Archbishop of Mainz, as their feudal lord (als dem rechterbherren baider ﬂecken), and raise the customary charges against Jewish usury, claiming that the Jews are bringing calamity upon the poor in their regions. They request that the Archbishop, in his capacity as lord of the region, and in the absence of the Emperor from the country, grant them a privilege against the Jews (das wir und die baid[en] obgemelten ﬂecken wyder die Juden gefreit werden), to be worded in accordance with a particular text, a copy of which they are enclosing with their letter. They stress that they know of other aggrieved parties (andere anstösser) who have received such privileges. The petitioners were in fact asking for the charter called De non tolerandis Judaeis, which conferred on them the right not to tolerate Jews in their territory. This was a privilege accorded by the Emperor to many cities and regions during those years, and it seems that he alone was authorized to grant it. For that reason, the petitioners emphasize that they are addressing the Archbishop also in his capacity as Arch-Chancellor of the Holy Roman Empire (als des heiligen Römischen Reichs Erzkantzler) and they sign the letter with the words lehenn lut—feudal subjects of the Archbishop. It is evident from this petition that there were localities in the Archbishop of Mainz’s domain which in those very years had been granted the right to rid themselves of their Jews. This bears out R. Joseph’s account. There are even intimations at the end of this section that R. Joseph possessed detailed information about the events, and that perhaps in this instance too he tried to avert the evil decree. In K. A. Schaab’s book there is evidence to conﬁrm R. Joseph’s words regarding an expulsion of Jews from the Mainz diocese: following Emperor Ferdinand’s mandate of 20 September 1558, prohibiting any monetary transactions with Jews, Archbishop Daniel of Mainz published a decree of the same kind for all the residents of his diocese. In it, he notes that his predecessor, Archbishop Sebastian, presided over the removal of all the Jews from his territory, but that, nevertheless, Jews in neighbouring territories, under other governments,

648

HHStA Wien, Judicialia Miscellanea 49.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

283

are continuing to practice usury and to engage in monetary transactions (Wucherlich Contrakte) with Christians in his diocese. He orders that the Emperor’s mandate—which he cites in full—be fully observed, and that there should be no traﬃc of any kind with the Jews.649 Since Archbishop Sebastian held oﬃce during the years 1541–1555, this information conﬁrms R. Joseph’s words in his Chronicle. Schaab expresses doubts as to whether this expulsion was ever carried out; however, the 1558 decree refers to Jews living outside the archdiocese, and this reinforces the assumption that the expulsion alluded to did in fact take place. What is clear is that a plan for a general expulsion undoubtedly did exist during those years; we have already seen that there were places which obtained a privilege authorizing them to expel their Jews, and it is hard to believe that this was simply a formal act, which in practice was not carried out. On the basis of the foregoing, it is diﬃcult to disprove R. Joseph’s report that there was an expulsion from the Archbishopric of Mainz.650 Furthermore, R. Joseph hints that monetary matters were behind the expulsions referred to in this section. It is known from documents relating to Esslingen, as noted above, that one of the charges against the Jews was that they were bringing their lawsuits before the Imperial Court at Rottweil. In the Economic Document drawn up by R. Joseph in the name of German Jewry at the Augsburg Diet, he expressly undertook that Jews would not sue their debtors in non-local courts.651 In 1536, R. Joseph prepared an amended economic document, in which the Jews of the Hagenau region undertook to sue their debtors only in local courts, and to return any pledge found to be stolen to its owners without any compensation. It is thus possible to understand his complaint in this section against those Jews who, despite his warnings, did not “redeem themselves . . . and follow the path of

649 K. A. Schaab, Diplomatische Geschichte der Juden zu Mainz und dessen Umgebung, Mainz 1885, pp. 182–84. 650 Clearly, it is inconceivable that R. Joseph wrote “Mainz” instead of “Saxony”, as Kracauer maintained (in his article on the Chronicle, [REJ, 16, 1888, p. 101]). R. Joseph devoted an entire section to the expulsion of the Jews from Saxony, and referred to the subject again at the end of his account of the Schmalkaldic War. Moreover, there is no connection whatsoever between the general expulsion from Saxony and the “individual” expulsions he mentions in the section under discussion. 651 For this Economic Document, see above, introduction to section 15 of the Chronicle, pp. 179–182, and below, Appendix 1a, p. 377 ﬀ.

284

[28‒29]

5306‒5307 (1545‒1547)

truth and peace”, namely—if our interpretation is correct—did not fulﬁl their obligations {in their business dealings}, and thus brought on themselves, and possibly also on their brethren, the harsh expulsion decrees.

[ 28–29] 5306–5307 (1545–1547) The 1546 Diet and the Schmalkaldic War The author devotes two sections to the preparations for the Schmalkaldic War that he observed at the 1546 Regensburg Diet, and the actual war itself.652 Since this is basically the same subject, the sections are discussed together. The events at the 1546 Regensburg Diet are closely connected with the war that broke out subsequently between the Catholics and Protestants in Germany. It is called the Schmalkaldic War, after the Schmalkaldic League—a federation of Protestant principalities and cities established in 1531 in the city of Schmalkalden in Saxony. Already at the Diet of Worms in 1545 it became clear that the relationship between the two rival camps in Germany was nearing breaking point. Already then, the Protestant princes were convinced that the Emperor was ﬁrmly set on war. There was a ﬁerce controversy over the question of the ecclesiastical council that the Pope proposed to convene in Trent in order to debate the religious problems in Germany. The Protestants objected to papal intervention in the religious conﬂict in Germany and demanded that a national council be summoned on German soil to discuss the issue. They refused to support the war eﬀort against Turkey unless they received assurances that the Emperor would not consent to a papal council, and a promise of immunity from prosecution on account of their beliefs. The Emperor, although unable to sever his ties with the 652 On the 1546 Regensburg Diet and the Schmalkaldic War, see especially: Brandi, p. 466 ﬀ.; Janssen, III, p. 673 ﬀ.; Ranke, vol. 8; for details of the war, see F. B. von Buchholtz, Geschichte der Regierung Ferdinand des Ersten, V, Vienna 1835, repr. Graz 1968, p. 475 ﬀ.; M. Lenz, Der Ausbruch des Schmalkaldischen Krieges, Kleine Historische Schriften, 1920, p. 68 ﬀ.; A. Schütz, Der Donau Feldzug Karls des V, 1546, Tübingen 1930. The account below is based mainly on these works. Additional literature is cited in the appropriate places.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

285

Pope, undertook that the Trent Council would not be the arbiter on the religious question in Germany. The Protestants were still not satisﬁed; on the contrary, they launched a violent campaign of invective against the Pope, and called on the Emperor to topple him once and for all. Luther himself was active in this campaign, until his death in February 1546. The already tense situation between the Protestants and the Emperor was exacerbated still further by the decision of the Archbishop of Cologne, Hermann von Wied, to institute the Protestant service in his diocese. The Emperor threatened that if he did so he would lose his position as Elector, and, when that did not deter him, publicly reprimanded him before his court in Brussels. In addition, legal proceedings were instituted against him in the Papal curia. In response, the Archbishop appealed to the Schmalkaldic League for assistance. At the same time, the Protestants conferred at an assembly of their own in Frankfurt (December 1545–February 1546), where they decided to vigorously back Archbishop von Wied. They also invested eﬀorts to ensure the election in Mainz of a pro-Protestant archbishop, after the death of Archbishop Albert of Brandenburg in September 1545. The Protestants displayed growing self-conﬁdence. The Elector Palatine openly sided with them, and they gained an important victory against Duke Henry of Braunschweig, who was captured by the Landgrave of Hesse.653 They regarded war as the most eﬀective means to inﬂict a crushing defeat on the Catholics and make all Germany Protestant. In the midst of all these proceedings, the meeting of the ecclesiastical council opened in Trent on 13 December 1545, and, at the same time, on the Emperor’s initiative, talks on religious questions began in Regensburg. They were intended to be preparatory discussions for the coming Diet, but broke down after a short time. The Regensburg Diet got underway after much delay. In spite of the Emperor’s express request that all the imperial princes be present, not one of them put in an appearance, and this stymied any possibility of a compromise between the two camps. The Emperor himself 653 Henry, who was a Catholic, was attempting to recapture his duchy after it had been seized by Landgrave Philip of Hesse and Elector John Frederick of Saxony, and the Protestant form of worship instituted there.

286

[28‒29]

5306‒5307 (1545‒1547)

arrived in April 1546, without a military escort, thereby demonstrating that he still hoped to avoid a military confrontation. Only in June did a number of princes appear, but the two Protestant leaders, the Landgrave of Hesse and the Elector of Saxony, pointedly stayed away. When the Diet opened, the Protestants rejected the Emperor’s proposal that, at the very least, they should send ambassadors to Trent to present their case. The Emperor was incensed by the numerous complaints from bishops, monks and ordinary Catholic citizens, of religious coercion and violence on the part of the Protestants, in the many localities where they had gained power. Tension grew, and a military confrontation appeared inevitable. War Preparations The Protestants relied on foreign assistance, both from (Catholic) France and from (Protestant) England and Sweden. The Emperor, for his part, pinned his faith on the undertaking made to him by the King of France in the Treaty of Crépy.654 In the secret articles of that agreement, Francis I of France had pledged to assist Charles in his war against the Protestants and in the restoration of the Catholic faith in Germany.655 Also at the Emperor’s disposal were Spanish soldiers, then stationed in Hungary. On 7 June 1546, Charles signed a secret agreement with Duke William of Bavaria, whereby William would pay him 50,000 guilders and supply him with arms, ammunition and provisions for his troops, in exchange for the marriage of the Duke’s son to Ferdinand of Habsburg’s niece, with the prospect of succeeding to the kingdoms of Bohemia, Austria and Hungary. In addition, William was promised an Electorship, if the Elector Palatine did not desist from his rebellion against the Emperor. All these provisions would come into eﬀect only in the case of war. On the same day, the Emperor also signed a compact with the Pope. By its terms, with the Pope’s assistance, he would make preparations for a war against all the opponents of the Trent Council, albeit not before endeavouring to lead them back to the right path by peaceful persuasion. He undertook not to reach any compromise 654

See above, introduction to section 27 of the Chronicle, pp. 264–265. See W. P. Fuchs, “Das Zeitalter der Reformation”, in: B. Gebhardt, (ed.) Handbuch der deutschen Geschichte, 8, Stuttgart 1970, p. 185; A. Hasenclever, “Die Geheimartikel zum Frieden von Crépy”, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 45 (1926–1927). 655

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

287

with the Protestants that might be detrimental to the Catholic faith or church. The Pope, for his part, undertook to furnish the Emperor with the sum of 200,000 guilders from his own funds. He also agreed to place at his disposal 12,000 Italian infantrymen and 5000 cavalrymen, and to pay for their upkeep for six months. In addition, he promised the Emperor, towards the war expenses, half of the Spanish ecclesiastical income and 500,000 gold ducats from the assets of the Spanish monasteries. The Emperor pledged to pay a commensurate sum out of his own pocket. However, Charles broke this agreement immediately by making a deal with the Protestant Duke Maurice of Saxony, who was the sonin-law of Philip of Hesse, as well as being a cousin of John Frederick, and at odds with him on internal Saxonian aﬀairs.656 Maurice left the Schmalkaldic League, although he sympathized with its goals, and promised the Emperor not to support the Protestants in case of war. In return, the Emperor undertook to grant Maurice the Electoral title and other beneﬁts at the expense of the recalcitrant John Frederick. After protracted arguments, Maurice also procured the Emperor’s assurance that he would have to abide by the decisions of the Trent Council only “if the other German princes will do so”. The Emperor also promised to establish an ecumenical religious council, in which the Protestants could make their voices heard. The Protestants regarded the agreements entered into by the Emperor with deep suspicion. On 17 June, Charles called on all the Protestant principalities and cities not to join the Schmalkaldic League, and averred that he was not embarking on a war for religious reasons, but for political reasons only, to safeguard his status in the face of the rebellious princes and to save Germany from anarchy. The Protestants were not convinced. They remained ﬁrmly of the opinion that his primary motive was religious, and that his objective was to restore the rule of the Catholic Church in all of Germany. They also heard as much from the papal representatives. Philip and John Frederick dispatched delegations to France and England to enlist their support in the war against the Emperor. At the same time, they wrote to the latter: they have heard that he is 656 Maurice was the son of Henry of Saxony, who in his time had been a member of the Schmalkaldic League, and the nephew of Duke George of Saxony of the Albertine dynasty, who had remained a loyal Catholic down to his death in 1539.

288

[28‒29]

5306‒5307 (1545‒1547)

mustering forces against them, but they do not admit to being at all guilty of rebellion. On the contrary, it is the Emperor who is in the wrong, for he is supporting the Trent Council and seeking to eradicate the puriﬁed faith in Germany and crush its freedom. In various pamphlets they even defamed the Pope, accusing him of poisoning the water in the wells and springs in Germany [!]. Politically, the Emperor’s situation was less secure than that of the Protestants, for even many of those who had assured him of their neutrality tended to favour the Protestants. The latter also enjoyed much support in England, France, Sweden, Denmark and the Swiss Confederation, as well as in Bohemia and Silesia. On the other hand, the Emperor’s position was strengthened as a result of the ﬁve-year ceaseﬁre that he signed with Turkey, in return for conceding his claim to Hungary. Militarily the balance of power between the two camps was unequal: the Schmalkaldic side recruited soldiers in all their territories, in Hesse, Saxony and Württemberg, and was allied with the most powerful imperial cities. They were led by Schertlin von Burtenbach, the military commander of Augsburg. The Fugger family, who were residents of Augsburg, vainly urged the city to remain neutral. Despite the opposing attitude of the city, and the eﬀorts by the Schmalkaldic League members to win them over to their side, members of the Fugger family provided the Emperor with funds, both during the war preparations and the war itself.657 Schertlin recruited many mercenary soldiers and urged the Protestant princes to attack the Emperor’s strongholds immediately, before he was able to mobilize a large army. The Protestant commander quickly made a number of conquests, and abolished the Catholic worship in those places. Wherever his forces went they wreaked havoc and destruction. On 20 July, his army joined that of the Duke of Württemberg, and they stationed themselves near the road to Italy in an endeavour to block the passage of the military assistance the Emperor was awaiting. Schertlin even dreamed of capturing Trent and abrogating the ecclesiastical council that was meeting there; however, he was recalled by his city, Augsburg, which feared an attack from Bavaria, and the Protestants lost an excellent opportunity to vanquish 657 See H. J. Kirch, Die Fugger und der Schmalkaldische Krieg, Munich-Liepzig 1915, pp. 3–33; It may be possible to compare the position of the Fugger family with the attitude of the Jews towards this conﬂict; see below.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

289

the Emperor. Historians stress that had the Schmalkaldic League attacked Charles while he was still in Regensburg, they would have compelled him to abandon the city, and foiled his plans. However, they contented themselves with writing letters and inﬂammatory pamphlets against him and against the Pope. The Emperor himself remained in Regensburg, where he took the “last step”, as it is known in the historical literature: in an edict of 20 July, published only at the beginning of August, he anathematized the two rebellious princes, Elector John Frederick of Saxony and Landgrave Philip of Hesse, on charges of disobedience, breach of trust, contravention of the public peace and injury to the Emperor’s prerogatives. By design—perhaps in order not to anger unduly those Protestants who had not joined the Schmalkaldic League—the Emperor did not stress the religious factor as a reason for the anathema. The two princes rejected the Emperor’s charges, claiming that they were not rebelling against the imperial government, and that the real motive behind the Emperor’s struggle against them was the religious issue. Whether or not this was true, the anathema was, eﬀectively, a declaration of war against the two princes. The Emperor ordered Count Maximilian von Büren, who until that time had been defending northern Germany, to summon his troops from Belgium. He was also obliged to mark time until the arrival from Austria of the soldiers promised by his brother Ferdinand and of the papal contingent from Italy. The Schmalkaldic armies, however, were already prepared for battle, and their troops were stationed at all the key passes and important strategic points. The Schmalkaldic War At the start of the war the Emperor’s position was clearly very weak; however, the Schmalkaldic leaders did not know how to exploit the situation to their advantage; they were divided as to military tactics, and while Schertlin wished to launch a frontal attack on the Emperor, Philip of Hesse shrank from such a step. There were disagreements between the princes themselves: John Frederick and Philip held each other back whenever one of them wished to launch an oﬀensive against the Emperor. There was also a lack of trust between the cities, headed by Schertlin, and the princes. The Emperor succeeded in joining up with part of his forces and pitched his camp in Ingolstadt by the Danube. The Protestant forces

290

[28‒29]

5306‒5307 (1545‒1547)

arrived there too, and the two armies confronted each other. The imperial army numbered 34,000 infantry and around 5,000 cavalry. The Protestants, on the other hand, had mustered over 50,000 infantry and around 8,000 cavalry. Although Schertlin was strongly in favour of attacking at once, Philip of Hesse hesitated yet again and the two armies merely ﬁred potshots at each other, without there being any serious ﬁghting. According to Schertlin, who left a written account of the war,658 the Emperor was never again in such direct danger as in Ingolstadt, and was saved only by the vacillations of the Schmalkaldic leaders. They later admitted to him, wrote Schertlin, that if they had only listened to his advice and attacked at that stage, they would surely have triumphed. The Schmalkaldic forces withdrew in the direction of Neuburg, in order to intercept von Büren and prevent him from joining up with the Emperor. However, in this also, they were unsuccessful. Meanwhile, the Emperor too had reached Neuburg, and the residents, who had heard about the cruelty of the Spanish and other imperial troops, surrendered at once. From then on, city after city fell to the Emperor. On a number of other occasions during the ensuing days the armies passed by each other without engaging in battle. Tension was high also in the imperial camp between the Spaniards and Italians, and there too the weariness from the long period of uncertainty was palpable. Von Büren, like Schertlin, strongly favoured an immediate attack, but the Emperor preferred to wait. In both camps there was illness and plague, and, to make matters worse, the soldiers fell upon the civilian population and wreaked shocking havoc. The war chroniclers describe the moral licentiousness and the gluttony and drunkenness in the camps as well as the plundering and looting by the armies on both sides. Meanwhile, Ferdinand and Duke Maurice’s forces captured virtually all of Saxony apart from the fortiﬁed towns, and John Frederick, who already earlier had sought to return to his land for fear of what the future held, now hastened back there. Philip too wished to make his peace with the Emperor. However, what ultimately decided the fate of the campaign was the fact that the Schmalkaldeners’ funds ran out and their large army disintegrated, leaving the cities without

658 Leben und Thaten des . . . Seb. Schertlin von Burtenbach, durch ihn selbst deutsch beschrieben, (ed.) O. F. H. Schünhut, Münster-Aschendorﬀ 1885.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

291

any military support. Philip passed through Frankfurt on his way back to Hesse, but was unable to save the city. The ﬁrst of the princes to capitulate was the Elector Palatine, who already in December 1546 received an imperial pardon. Soon afterwards, at the end of January 1547, when Charles captured Ulm, Duke Ulrich of Württemberg surrendered to him and agreed to leave the Schmalkaldic League, help the Emperor to enforce the anathema on the Duke of Saxony and pay war restitution of 300,000 guilders. He also had additional penalties imposed on him. Esslingen and Augsburg likewise capitulated; members of the Fugger family used their good oﬃces with the Emperor so that Augsburg should not be severely penalized. All the same, the city was required to pay particularly high compensation and to lodge the Emperor’s troops within its walls. Schertlin was obliged to ﬂee for his life.659 Also Strasbourg surrendered, after the failure of a last-ditch attempt to persuade the French king to conclude a treaty with it and the Swiss Confederation against the Emperor. Von Büren moved his forces from Swabia to Upper Hesse to subdue Frankfurt and Darmstadt. He reached Frankfurt at the end of December 1546.660 Frankfurt, which had been abandoned to its fate by Landgrave Philip, received word that the Emperor was particularly incensed with the city, because its preachers had incited against him, and its printing houses had published scurrilous matter and lampoons about him. According to one of the sources, Frankfurt made overtures to Count von Büren and asked him to take the city in the name of the Emperor.661 Indeed, on 29 December the city surrendered to von Büren unconditionally (auf Gnaden und Ungnaden), and was required to pay 80,000 guilders as well as a large bribe for the Emperor’s chief adviser, Nicholas Perronet, lord of Granvelle, personally. Only afterwards, on 7 January, did the city send emissaries to the Emperor, who was in Heilbronn, and begged his forgiveness. The emissaries explained that, like the other cities, Frankfurt had been enticed to join the Emperor’s enemies, but now it was

He ﬂed from Germany and entered the service of the King of France. For Frankfurt in the Schmalkaldic War, see especially P. Collischonn, Frankfurt am Main im Schmalkaldischen Kriege, Strasbourg 1890; F. Bothe, Geschichte der Stadt Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt on Main 1913, pp. 330–38. 661 See Janssen, III, p. 730. 659 660

292

[28‒29]

5306‒5307 (1545‒1547)

pledging its renewed fealty.662 Charles granted Frankfurt a pardon, but imposed harsh conditions: apart from a large ﬁne, the city was required to hand over 12 cannons to the Emperor, and to host an imperial garrison within its walls for an unlimited period.663 Darmstadt refused to open its gates to the imperial forces.664 A chronicler, who apparently belonged to Philip’s camp, relates that von Büren attacked the city immediately upon his arrival. The citizens defended themselves, although they had no prospect of getting help from any source. They repulsed two attacks and von Büren lost 200 men. He opened negotiations, but while they were still in progress, he broke into the city and looted it. He demanded from the city an enormous ﬁne of 10,000 guilders (zu Brandschatzung*), spent one night there, and the next day blew up the fortress. When the ﬁne was not paid at once, he threatened to order the stabbing of all the residents if he did not receive it within one day, and the city was forced to borrow the money to pay him. The chronicler adds the following anecdote: during his stay in Frankfurt after the city’s capitulation, von Büren said while at table that, in all justice, the citizens of Darmstadt ought to live in a city like Frankfurt and the Frankfurt burghers in a city like Darmstadt, since the Darmstadt townspeople had defended themselves with such courage although their city was not even adequately fortiﬁed, while Frankfurt, which indeed was heavily fortiﬁed, had surrendered with such alacrity.665 In the meantime, Duke Maurice was routed by John Frederick and the Emperor hurried to his aid. In a decisive battle near Mühlberg on 24 April 1547, the Emperor’s army inﬂicted a crushing defeat on John Frederick and the Elector himself fell into Charles’s hands. Only the intercession of several princes prevented Charles from having him put to death forthwith.

662 The main reason for Frankfurt’s hasty capitulation was its fear of losing the right to host the bi-annual fair from which it derived its living. 663 See I. Kracauer, Geschichte der Juden in Frankfurt a. Main, I, Frankfurt on Main 1925, pp. 298–99. 664 The capture of Darmstadt is described in a chronicle of the life of Philip of Hesse: Wigand Lauze, Leben und Thaten des durchleuchtigsten Fürsten und Herren Philippi Magnamini Landgraﬀen zu Hessen, Kassel 1847 (= Zeitschrift des Vereins für hessische Geschichte und Landeskunde, Suppl. 2). In vol. 2 of the chronicle, the title of chapter xix (p. 208) is: “Der Graue von Bewren nimmt Darmstadt durch ergebung und mit gewalt ein”. * {Brandschatzung—a forced payment levied on a conquered town or region under threat of being plundered and burned down.} 665 Lauze, ibid., pp. 214–16.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

293

The Emperor had yet to subdue Landgrave Philip. The latter was still making overtures to the French King, who continued to play a double game; he sent Hesse a sum of money for the war eﬀort, but at the same time divulged to the Emperor all the plans and strategies of the Schmalkaldic League on the border with France. Philip entered into negotiations with the Emperor, who demanded an unconditional surrender. The princes conducting the negotiations sought to extract from Charles a promise that this did not imply physical punishment or life imprisonment for the Landgrave. The Emperor gave his promise on condition that Philip not be told; however, contrary to the mediating princes’ expectations, the Emperor did not formally pardon Philip when he knelt before him, and refused to permit him to return to his land. Instead, he imprisoned him in one of his fortresses, where he languished for many years. The Emperor’s victory did not aﬀect the status of the Protestant faith in Germany, for Charles did not seek to alter the form of worship in the cities that he captured, except in the case of Cologne; Archbishop von Wied was obliged to relinquish his oﬃce, and the innovations instituted in that city were cancelled. In his discussion on the Schmalkaldic War the historian, M. Lenz, writes the following: There are not many examples in military history when all the components of success rested ﬁrmly with one side, as was the case with the Schmalkaldic League during those weeks: at that time, they straddled the Rhine, the Danube, the Lech, the Alva and the North Sea as well as the Alpine passes, and they merely needed to move forward. In the north and in the south, they numbered among their supporters the wealthiest and most powerful cities, each of them on its own capable of overcoming the entire imperial army, and the princes’ territories were well fortiﬁed. In spite of all this, the imperial army won a decisive victory.666

R. Joseph’s Account R. Joseph refers to the Schmalkaldic War in a number of his writings in addition to this section of the Chronicle: in Sefer ha-Miknah, in the chapter on Divine Providence;667 brieﬂy among other events 666 667

Der Ausbruch des Schmalkaldischen Krieges, p. 68 ﬀ. Sefer ha-Miknah, pp. 74–75, and see ibid., in the introduction, p. 12.

294

[28‒29]

5306‒5307 (1545‒1547)

that occurred in the reign of Charles V, at the end of the collection of his works that also includes Sefer ha-Miknah (after a miscellany);668 there is a hint to it at the end of the section of the Chronicle on the expulsion from Saxony (1536/37).669 During the entire time of the Diet R. Joseph was in Regensburg— which in the days before the outbreak of war could rightly be called the Emperor’s camp—and it is hardly surprising that he was conscious of the atmosphere prevailing there. His brief words paint a remarkably accurate picture of the Diet, and his orientation is wholly that of the imperial camp.670 He stresses that the debates focused on the attempt to reach a compromise on the religious issue, and that the princes of Saxony and Hesse deﬁed the Emperor’s command and did not attend. He underscores their long-standing rebellious conduct towards the Emperor: “{They} were rebellious and vexed the Emperor greatly, they rebelled against him for several years”, and he describes the Emperor’s recruitment of forces, “to gather forces”. All this occurred in the period before the outbreak of the war itself. The most signiﬁcant achievement of the Diet—as far as R. Joseph was concerned—was that the Emperor ﬁnally signed the charter of rights for the Jews which he and his advisers had promised him at the Diet of Speyer in 1544. This charter was, in his words: “New privileges and credentials the like of which no emperor or king had ever granted us before”. Indeed, this charter of 3 April 1544 was of extraordinary importance, as we can see from its provisions.671 The Jews are granted 668

Ms. Opp. 712, fol. 293r. See below, Appendix 3, p. 421 and note 13 there. Below, p. 331, line 3. 670 It should be noted that his city, Rosheim, was one of the few imperial cities which was completely unaﬀected by the Reformation during that period. See B. Moeller, “Reichsstadt und Reformation”, Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte, 180, Jg. 69, Gütersloh 1962, p. 9. 671 The text of this privilege is in various archives: the original is in HStA Stuttgart, A 56 Bü 8: Freyheyt der Juden Anno 1544 de 3 Aprilis zuo Speir ausgestelt. A certiﬁed copy is in the same archives, A 56 Bü 8, N 15,1; GLA Karlsruhe 67/894, 171–76. There are also copies in Strasbourg, ArchDep Bas-Rhin C 78 (75). An additional copy was prepared for Jews in the Hagenau area and sent to the cities of Rosheim and Türkheim. It is in Strasbourg, ibid., C 78 (79), and there are copies in other archives as well. The privilege was reconﬁrmed at the 1548 Augsburg Diet. A printed copy of the text is in HHStA Wien, Reichshofsrat, Schutzbriefe, Juden Fasz. 7, 30. Jan. 1548. Feilchenfeld discussed it on pp. 58–71 of his book, as did S. Stein, “Eine wichtige Urkunde”, JJLG, 9 (1912), pp. 305–17, who publishes the text of the privilege from a certiﬁed copy of a document {conﬁrming their rights}, 669

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

295

protection on journeys at sea and on land. They are released from the obligation to wear the distinguishing badge on their garments outside their places of residence. (This was already stipulated in the 1541 privilege.) They are accorded the right to lend money at a slightly higher interest rate than the usual, in order to protect their livelihood, since they have to pay higher taxes than other sections of the population.672 Apart from this, there is a categorical statement by the Emperor that blood libel accusations are not to be brought against the Jews and that they are not to be interrogated under torture on the basis of unfounded allegations, for, as he emphasizes, both the popes and the emperors preceding him have determined unequivocally that there is no truth in these accusations. In addition, there are articles prohibiting the closing down of synagogues, attacks on Jews, and the expulsion of Jews from their places of residence. Peter Aufgebauer links the granting of this charter to Luther’s 1543 tracts.673 According to this theory, it can be assumed that it was the appearance of Luther’s anti-Jewish writings that prompted R. Joseph to petition the Emperor for a reaﬃrmation of Jewish rights. It can also be surmised that his eﬀorts to receive this privilege were connected with his indefatigable struggle to prevent the prohibition of usury, and his intervention—at that precise time—in the Würzburg libel case, in respect of which he also enlisted the Emperor’s aid. S. Stern links all these factors,674 and she is undoubtedly correct, for any charter of rights will contain only those provisions for which its petitioners have actively struggled. And indeed, all the articles in the charter were vital for German Jewry in those years; in fact, R. Joseph invoked this charter immediately, when he requested the Emperor’s protection for the Jews during the Schmalkaldic War. Further on in this section, R. Joseph mentions the Jews’ dread of the Spanish forces. His words can be understood in two ways: either, that the Spanish soldiers—when they ran amok in Germany—also attacked the Jews, or that the Jews feared some such onslaught, and R. Joseph wished to forestall this danger. He writes that he petitioned Granvelle, whom he calls “that great governor, chief minister to the which the Jews received in 1562 from Emperor Ferdinand; and see the recent work by F. Battenberg, Das Europäische Zeitalter der Juden, I, Darmstadt 1990, p. 188. 672 This article reﬂects R. Joseph’s view on usury, as indeed he expresses it in his “Letter of Consolation”. See below, pp. 360, 368–369. 673 P. Aufgebauer, “Judenpolitik im Zeitalter der Reformation”, p. 34. 674 S. Stern, p. 202.

296

[28‒29]

5306‒5307 (1545‒1547)

Emperor”, and that Granvelle interceded in his name with the Emperor and convinced him to protect the Jews. This description of Granvelle’s status bears a distinct resemblance to that in the report from 1546 by the Venetian envoy Bernardo Naviagiero, in which he describes the court of Charles V. According to the envoy, the Emperor had two ministers, Granvelle and {Francisco de los} Cobos, and no important decision was ever reached without permission from one of them. Anyone wanting anything from the Emperor had ﬁrst to gain the favour of one or other of these ministers in order to have his request granted.675 Granvelle’s words to the Emperor, as quoted in this section, were undoubtedly put into his mouth by R. Joseph. The reason Granvelle gives for protecting the Jews is that they are suﬀering enough at the hands of the Protestants and it would be most unjust if also the Catholic forces of the Emperor were to assault them. As we have seen, R. Joseph used the very same argument with Cardinal Farnese, when he asked him at the Diet of Worms to support the Jews. In view of the political alignments of those times it was one that was likely to appeal to the Catholic side, and, indeed, R. Joseph writes that the Emperor published an order to all his troops proclaiming that anyone harming the Jews would be put to death. According to R. Joseph, from that time on there were excellent relations between the Spaniards and the Jews, and wherever the Emperor’s troops went, the Jews welcomed them with bread and wine. Granted that the Emperor’s edict was published throughout Germany, it is still somewhat diﬃcult to believe that it put an end to all attacks on the Jews, particularly in view of what we know about the conduct of the armies on both sides towards the civilian population, even when the latter was friendly. It may be added that the Emperor was also concerned about the conduct of his troops towards the Christian population, and one of the sources relates that he himself personally put to death soldiers who had plundered civilians.676 R. Joseph omits to tell us that he was also active in the opposing camp on behalf of the Jews. In the City Archives in Strasbourg— which, as we know, was an ally of the Schmalkaldic League—is a 675

In Buchholtz, Geschichte der Regierung Ferdinand, VI, 1. Beilage, pp. 485–86. G. Voigt, “Die Geschichtsschreibung über den Schmalkaldischen Krieg”, Abhandlungen der philosophischen historischen Klasse der Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 6, Leipzig 1875, p. 689. 676

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

297

letter from R. Joseph to the city council in which he proclaims his “articles of faith” regarding the status of the Jews in Germany.677 According to the city protocols, he seems to have requested that Jews in the area of Strasbourg be granted a permit to reside temporarily in the city for their own protection, as had been the case during the Peasants War.678 The commander of the Schmalkaldic forces, Schertlin, was then in the region, and his troops were sowing havoc and devastation all around them. However, R. Joseph’s petition was not granted. Strasbourg decided not to admit strangers, including Jews, within its bounds. R. Joseph also asked the city to exert its inﬂuence on Schertlin in favour of the Jews, for he had been told that in Swabia Jews had already been assaulted. However, in this too Strasbourg declined to be of assistance, and responded that he himself should approach the Swabian people, and they would decide as they saw ﬁt. All the same, the city eventually agreed that R. Joseph alone would be permitted to enter its bounds to plead his case in person. He used this opportunity to submit to the city leaders his petition, in which he explains at length that the Jews are included in the imperial public peace (Landfrieden), and apprizes the city of the Emperor’s mandate to all his armies not to molest the Jews. He emphasizes that the Jews have never been involved in any of the wars in the Empire; they are residing under all the governing authorities (Herrschaften) and have not given any cause for complaint. Every Jew, wherever his place of residence, is obliged to live under the authority of that place, side by side with his neighbours (bei seiner Oberkeith und mitbürger), and is required to comport himself blamelessly and observe the public peace (Lieb und Leidth, Burgfrieden zu leisten allwegenn schuldig). He claims that when he returned from Regensburg to his home he was informed of the attacks on Jews in Swabia. According to him, some Jews had been arrested and put in prison, others had ﬂed, but their houses had been broken into and all their property conﬁscated. And in Wallerstein in the Ries region, the Jews, fearing pogroms, had paid a large sum of money to the commanders of the forces. As proof of payment, the latter had presented them with a placard on which was the drawing of a lion 677 ArchMun Strasbourg, III 174, 26. It has been published by Feilchenfeld, p. 191, Beilage 21. This is the very same letter in which R. Joseph writes about the expulsion plan proposed at the Worms Diet of 1545, see above, p. 268. 678 ArchMun Strasbourg, Ratsprotokolle, anno 1546, fol. 438, fol. 444. Compare Feilchenfeld, pp. 64–66.

298

[28‒29]

5306‒5307 (1545‒1547)

[to hang on the front of their houses?], and they had been told that whoever had not paid up would not be safe from the forces. R. Joseph stresses that the Jews are not party to the internal German disputes and should not be molested, and he appeals to the city of Strasbourg to exert its inﬂuence on its allies to protect them. R. Joseph’s account in this section of the course of the war is remarkably accurate. He writes about the balance of power between the two camps and gives a good description of the size of the Schmalkaldic army in contrast to that of the Emperor. In his words, the Emperor’s enemies came with “huge forces, more than 100,000 foot soldiers and armoured horsemen” in contrast to the imperial army which was “only 40,000 in all”. He emphasizes the greatness of the miracle, that the few vanquished the many. He knows that the enemies were dealt a crushing blow—were “totally destroyed”; he relates also that the two princes, Saxony and Hesse, were captured by the Emperor, and that at the time of writing, they were still prisoners. From R. Joseph’s words it would appear that the Jews everywhere and all through the war consistently supported the Emperor. However, it is debatable whether this statement can be accepted without reservation, at least as far as the imperial cities are concerned; the case of Frankfurt will be discussed below. He writes that the Jews brought about 50 wagons of supplies for the Emperor’s forces,679 that they prayed throughout the war for his victory, and that when he was in Frankfurt—apparently after that city had already capitulated—the city’s Jews prayed daily for the Emperor’s welfare.680 He is clearly referring to the time when the Emperor was ﬁghting the decisive battle of the war at Mühlberg. However, R. Joseph’s main concern in his entire narrative is to underline the great miracle that was wrought for the Emperor, and with him—the Jews of the Empire. Neither of the two warring parties, the Catholics and the Protestants, took the life of a single Jew. As he writes, “We did not lose a single person in this great war”.

679 This is one of the ﬁrst documented cases of the Jews supplying goods to the armies in times of war, an activity that increased and expanded at a later period in various countries. 680 However, also in the city, the residents oﬀered prayers for a Protestant victory. See Collischonn, Frankfurt am Main im Schmalkaldischen Kriege, p. 65.

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

299

Frankfurt R. Joseph devotes a passage in Sefer ha-Miknah and section 29 of his Chronicle to the saving of Frankfurt Jewry. In Sefer ha-Miknah he writes that the minister “from Büren” had not planned to besiege the city, but the terriﬁed burghers went out to meet him and begged him to accept their surrender. He marvels at the fact that despite their great strength “their hearts melted suddenly and they opened their gates and surrendered themselves and their strongly fortiﬁed city into the hands of the eagle [namely the Emperor], to do with them whatever he desired”.681 This description corresponds exactly with what we know from other sources. Minister von Büren accepted their unconditional surrender, and this accords with the words of our author “to deal mercifully and unmercifully with them”.682 This was on 23 December, which that year fell on the ﬁrst of Shevat. However, it was only six days later that von Büren entered the city with a large army and occupied it. R. Joseph was already on his way to Frankfurt to protect the city’s Jewry from the Emperor’s wrath. His situation was somewhat complex; he had identiﬁed himself wholeheartedly with the Emperor’s cause, while Frankfurt Jewry had fully supported their city throughout the war and were liable to be penalized with the rest of the residents.683 This is possibly the reason why R. Joseph does not attribute the saving of Frankfurt Jewry to their own merits, but to those of the esteemed rabbis and sages buried in Frankfurt (the “sleepers in the dust”) and to the study of the Torah in that city. In this section, our author writes that Frankfurt Jewry asked him to mediate between them and von Büren. Evidently, it was not only the burghers but also the Jews who endeavored to ﬁnd favour with the Emperor, in their case through R. Joseph, and undoubtedly he succeeded in his mission. It is unclear from the text whether R. Joseph interceded only for the Jews, or, possibly also for the burghers— which is not impossible in view of his excellent connections at the Emperor’s court. He writes that von Büren was given a “gift” of

681

Sefer ha-Miknah, p. 74, lines 9–14, and see, ibid., in the introduction, p. 12. This is a translation of the German expression “auf Gnade und Ungnade”, i.e., unconditionally. 683 Indeed, there are no reports of accusations on the part of the city against the Jews that they not had been loyal citizens during the war. See Kracauer, Geschichte der Juden in Frankfurt a. Main, pp. 299–302. 682

300

[28‒29]

5306‒5307 (1545‒1547)

800 guilders. Again, it is unclear whether this was a payment by the Jews alone684 or by the whole city. Other sources speak of a ﬁne of 80,000 guilders paid by the city to obtain the Emperor’s pardon.685 Here, however, the reference seems to be to a gratuity or bribe for von Büren personally. From the tenor of his words it is more reasonable to assume that this was a payment on behalf of all the city residents. It seems unlikely that the Jews would have fared diﬀerently from other citizens; Frankfurt had always scrupulously enforced its jurisdiction over its Jews, and objected when the Emperor imposed special taxes on them,686 and, therefore, it does not seem reasonable that the Jews would have set themselves apart in this way from the rest of the city’s residents. If this is the case, and R. Joseph was negotiating with von Büren on behalf of the city of Frankfurt and not just its Jewish community, then we have here a situation similar to that which occurred at the time of the Peasants War, when R. Joseph, through his connections with the peasant leaders, was able to intercede with them on behalf of the city of Rosheim. The Jews, due to their unique position on the periphery of society, could at times play the role of mediator between the diﬀerent camps in Germany, in internal German aﬀairs, although on the face of it these did not concern them at all.687 It should be noted that R. Joseph’s description of the capture of Frankfurt is not identical in the Chronicle and Sefer ha-Miknah. According to Sefer ha-Miknah, a kind of miracle occurred in that the Frankfurt burghers opened their gates and the Emperor’s minister consented to accept their plea for forgiveness. According to this version, the miracle was in their actual surrender, for they possessed many soldiers and weapons. Conversely, in the section under discussion here, the minister was obliged to call on the city to surrender, and only then did it capitulate. It may be possible to explain 684

This is Kracauer’s opinion, ibid., p. 301. Kracauer, ibid. (p. 299), writes that the ﬁne was 100,000 guilders, and compare Collischonn, pp. 97–99. 686 For example, during the 1522 Nuremberg Diet, the city opposed the imposition of the Judenzoll on its Jews and contended that it had objected to it also in the past, and had received a satisfactory ruling in accordance with the Jews’ privileges. See Deutsche Reichstagsakten, jüngere Reihe II 2, Munich 1874, Reichstag zu Nürnberg, p. 234. 687 On the other hand, it is possible that in this case the city was too weak to oppose the contacts established by the authorities with its Jewish residents, and so the Jews paid a special tax. 685

introduction to specific sections of the chronicle

301

this discrepancy by the fact that, as remarked above, von Büren entered Frankfurt twice. At the end of this section R. Joseph makes another revelation; he writes that the Jews engaged in lucrative business deals after the war. They bought at cheap prices goods that the soldiers had looted in Darmstadt and Feuchtwangen, and sold them for a large proﬁt.688 The events in Darmstadt have already been discussed above, and we also have an eyewitness account of how the war aﬀected the small town of Feuchtwangen, given by a participant in the ﬁghting, who wrote a diary chronicling the daily events. Thus for 30 November 1546, he writes that Feuchtwangen refused to open its gates to the Emperor claiming that it had not received any order in this regard. As a result, all the city’s property was conﬁscated.689 A number of additional sources describe the capture of Feuchtwangen and attempt to explain the Emperor’s extreme displeasure with the city. According to one source, von Büren wished to lodge in the city but was denied entry on the plea that there was no one in authority there to give the order to open the gates, and, therefore, the military commander had to spend the night in the open air. Another source relates that the mayor refused permission for the Emperor’s troops to enter the city while prayers were being recited, and so the Emperor demanded that he be handed over to him for execution. The man ﬂed with the city keys, but the gates were forcibly breached and the order given to sack the city. All the sources report that the city was ruthlessly sacked. Only through the good graces of Margrave Albert of Brandenburg-Kulmach was it saved from complete destruction.690 It is no coincidence that R. Joseph pays special attention to these two cities, and his words are corroborated by the Christian sources. It is characteristic of R. Joseph that he does not repeat himself. In each place he emphasizes a diﬀerent aspect of the Frankfurt story. In Sefer ha-Miknah he refers only to Frankfurt’s surrender to the imperial army and the saving of its Jews, evidence of God’s special providence over the Jews. However, he is silent about his eﬀorts to mediate between the city’s Jews and the Emperor’s military commander, von Büren, discussed in this section. He also barely touches 688 Evidence that already at that time Frankfurt Jews were earning a living from peddling. 689 Das Viglius von Zeichem Tagebuch des Schmalkaldischen Donaukriegs, (ed.) A. von Druﬀel, Munich 1877, p. 176. 690 For these sources, see ibid., pp. 209–10, note 83.

302

[28‒29]

5306‒5307 (1545‒1547)

on the war itself; the Frankfurt episode appears totally detached from any political context. In contrast, in the Chronicle he is anxious to stress the great miracle of the deliverance of the Jews during this total war in Germany, and so he goes into considerable detail. There is nothing comparable in R. Joseph’s writings—from the point of view of detail and personal involvement—to his description of these events. Certainly, they were fresh in his memory, since the Schmalkaldic War occurred while he was actually writing his Chronicle. However, this explanation is insuﬃcient. We sense his intense personal involvement in the events, his fear of the war’s consequences, and his deep feeling of triumph when the Emperor gained a decisive victory.

THE CHRONICLE

[1] [fol. 5a] And it came to pass in the year 231 of the sixth millennium after the Creation,1 that the enemies in Endingen cast their net over three brothers, uncles of my father, my teacher of blessed memory, and they were all trapped together. My father of blessed memory, with 5 the help of God, blessed be He, succeeded with great diﬃculty in ﬂeeing. The enemies aﬄicted their souls with all kinds of torture until they were compelled to confess to a lie that was put about by a mamzer,2 regarding those [corpses] discovered3 in their impure grave.4 And they were burnt at the stake to sanctify the Name of God, 10 blessed be He. The martyrs of Pforzheim likewise were burnt at that time, and the brother of my father-in-law of blessed memory was condemned at that time to be broken on the wheel5 in the city of Hagenau.6 May their souls be bound up in the bond of eternal life in Eden. Amen. [2]* And it came to pass in the year 5236 (1475/76)** that {the Jews of } Alsace suﬀered a harsh persecution, as is evident from the note 1 In 1470/71 C.E. For a discussion on the date, see the introduction to this section, p. 64. 2 Literally “bastard”. Feilchenfeld believes (p. 6) that the word mamzer should be read together with the following words, and refers to the corpse that was found. However, it may be an allusion to the man who made the false accusation. Compare section 6 (pp. 312–313)—alilat sheker mamzer, and section 13 (p. 320)—alilat shakran mamzer. In both places, the word mamzer appears to refer to the person responsible for disseminating the libel. {The translation here follows C. Fraenkel-Goldschmidt’s suggestion, and, when appropriate, I have included explanatory words from her notes. They appear in square brackets. Translator} 3 In text, she-nimtsa, “discovered”—in the singular tense, and perhaps the correct reading is she-nimtseu (in the plural), as there were four corpses. 4 The Christian cemetery. 5 In text, be-ofen, a translation of mit dem Rad. This was a customary method of execution in that period; it was called Rädern. The condemned man was tied to a wheel and his bones were broken. 6 A regional capital of Lower Alsace, and see the introduction to this section, p. 66. * {I have divided this long section into paragraphs. Translator} ** {However, R. Joseph goes on to describe events that took place in 5237 (1476/77). Translator}

304

the chronicle

that I copied out of a prayer book7 I found in the holy community of Würzburg, and it reads as follows: “In the year 5237, in the month of Tammuz { June/July 1477}, the weekly Portion of the Law being Óukat ha-Torah, a priest came to me from the commu5 nity of Colmar.8 He showed me this book and told me how it came into his hands during the war waged by the Duke of Burgundy9 against the Duke of Lotharingia {Lorraine}, in which the city of Nancy10 was captured. Now the wicked Swiss people were in the Lotharingian camp, and Alsace too was with them in their confed10 eration,11 and, for our many sins,12 the Swiss conspired together13 that not a single Jew should be left in that land and in all of Alsace. When they journeyed to do battle with 14 the Duke of Burgundy, in all the towns that the Jews’ persecutors were able to capture, they slew some of {the Jews}, some they drove out, and some they com15 pelled to become apostates,15 and they plundered and pillaged and took whatever they could ﬁnd.16 I bought this book17 from that same priest for eight levanim18 and three invalid books.19 If anyone should 7

In text, teﬁla, “prayer”, here meaning a siddur, “prayer book”, a term used particularly by German Jewry; compare, e.g., the passage describing the conﬁscation of Jewish books by Johannes Pfeﬀerkorn in Frankfurt, published by Kracauer in MGWJ, 44 (1900), p. 119: “teﬁlot u-ma˙zorim u-selichot” (“daily prayer books and festival and penitential prayer books”). This usage of the word can also be found in Yosif OmeΩ (Increase Strength) by R. Joseph Yuspa Hahn Nordlingen, for example, in para. 37, p. 11, “. . . she-kulam mitpallelim mi-tokh ha-teﬁla” (“that they all pray from the prayer book”), and see Milon Ben Yehuda, s.v. teﬁla, p. 7857. 8 The writer designates the city by its Jewish community. 9 In text, Burgon, possibly inﬂuenced by the French Bourgogne. These two forms Burgon and Burgogne (below) used by R. Joseph are not mentioned by H. Gross in Gallia Judaica, pp. 108–09. 10 In text, Nassau, but clearly he must be referring to Nancy; the battle there was a turning point in the war; and see also Gallia Judaica, p. 400. 11 In text, be-agudatam, a hint at the term confederati, which in chronicles of the period refers to the Duke of Lorraine’s allies; or, possibly, an allusion to the Schweizer Eidgenossen (Swiss Confederation). 12 In text, the word ha-rabim here is apparently redundant. 13 In text, asu kesher beineihem, meaning “formed an alliance, collaborated”, possibly from the German “haben sich verbündet”. 14 There is a blank space here where the manuscript is stitched together. 15 In text, kafu li-shemad—they were compelled to convert to Christianity. 16 This description corresponds well with those in the Swiss chronicles. 17 That is, the Jew from Nuremberg; he may have been a bookseller, and therefore the prayer book was oﬀered to him for sale. 18 Apparently a translation of Weißpfennig, albus, a silver coin. A guilder was worth between 24 and 52 of these coins. The coin was in use in Koblenz and Kurrhein. See F. Frhr. v. Schrötter, Wörterbuch der Münzkunde, Berlin-Leipzig 1930, s.v. albus, and F. J. Mone, “Geldkurs vom 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert”, Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins, 9 (1858), pp. 190–91. 19 In text, sefarim pesulim. It seems that the Jews were in possession of Christian

the chronicle

305

come and say that the book is his, and give me signs and proof that it is his, as well as reimbursing20 me what I paid that certain soand-so,21 I shall return it {to him}.22 Signed, Jacob bar Isaac of blessed memory, Nuremberg.” 5 When I was here in the holy community of Würzburg,23 because of the trouble caused by a calumny about a child who had drowned in the river, and the Jews were accused of having drowned him24— I was there from Sunday 3 Shevat until Monday 3 Adar 5304*—I found the book25 in which the man of Nuremberg had written at 10 the top of a page about the harsh persecution that they26 had suﬀered for our many sins. Since I had come here, I said in my heart: it is ﬁtting that I should write down as a memorial what I heard from my father, my teacher of blessed memory, how he and my mother,27 may she rest in Eden, as well as all their loved ones28 and children, 15 left the city of Oberehnheim29 together with residents of the region.30 They took ﬂight upon hearing the shrieks,31 and ﬂed for their lives into the two fortresses of Bar and Lützelstein,32 where they remained for a full year, suﬀering extreme hunger and thirst.33 And, in the cities

holy books, or Jewish holy books that were invalid according to Jewish law, and sold them to Christians. 20 In text, ve-ya˙zor (the pa"al form of the verb), perhaps inﬂuenced by the Ashkenazic pronunciation. The correct reading is ve-ya˙zir (the hif "il form). 21 In text, man d"hu (Aramaic), meaning “someone, somebody”, namely the priest. The writer does not wish to refer to him directly. 22 This whole procedure conforms to Jewish law: compare the {compendium on the Talmud by the thirteenth-century Jewish halakhist} Mordecai on Talmud Bava Kamma, ha-Gozel Batra, para. 151, which cites the halakhic ruling in the name of the Raviah {Rabbi Eliezer ben Joel Halevi, a twelfth-century tosaﬁst}. 23 R. Joseph was in Würzburg in connection with the Oberhaid blood libel, below, section 26, and above, p. 256 onwards. From the text it is evident that our author began writing his Chronicle in Würzburg. 24 In text, hetavu, the correct reading is hitbiu. * {That is, 29 December 1543–28 January 1544. However, R. Joseph made a slight error here. In 5304, 3 Shevat fell on a Saturday. Translator} 25 The prayer book in which was written on a particular page, etc. 26 Alsatian Jewry. 27 {In the text, imi, “mother”, is preceded by the designation, u-mar’ = u-marat, “mistress”. I have omitted this word. Translator} 28 In text, me"ahaveih(em), “their loved ones”, the members of their family. 29 R. Joseph’s parents had evidently lived there after their marriage. 30 This may be a reference to Jews who dwelt in the villages, within the jurisdictional limits of the cities, or in the Hagenau region. 31 Numbers 16:34. 32 Bar and Lützelstein were fortresses in Lower Alsace. 33 After Deuteronomy 28:48.

306

the chronicle

of Schlettstadt, Bergheim, Kaysersberg, Kientzheim,34 Ammerschweiler, Türkheim, Colmar, and as far as Ensisheim, wherever Jews were found, young and old were slain,35 {or} forcibly immersed in the river to make them reek36 with apostasy. I learned37 from my father 5 and other elders that 74 people—men {including} rabbis, women, young men and boys, and young girls—all sanctiﬁed His Name through the sword,38 ﬁre, and water, until their souls and spirits departed in purity39 and sanctity. In any event,40 six men were forcibly converted, and, as I have heard and ascertained,41 they afterwards 10 were merited [fol. 5b] to return to their Father in Heaven, all save one man, Raphael was his name. His corpse rotted42 in Colmar. When he was still Jewish, 15 this man had developed heretical ideas and had demanded {to have intercourse with} his wife during her menstrual period.43 The woman

34 This reading is not certain. The letter “nun” (the Hebrew equivalent of “n”) appears to have been written above the line. I believe it is the correct reading since in the sources Kientzheim is generally mentioned in conjunction with the other cities enumerated here, and in the same order. For example, it is mentioned together with Ammerschweiler in connection with a campaign waged against those two cities by the Alsatian League of Cities in 1456. See J. Gyss, Histoire de la Ville d’Obernai, Strasbourg 1866, I, p. 228, and see also, in the Basel chronicle of the 1473 events, “. . . abduxit et deduxit in opidum Kunzheym et castrum Landspurg”; there the publisher notes that Kientzheim adjacent to Kaysersberg was the central town in the Landsberg region. See Basler Chroniken, (ed.) W. Vischer, Leipzig 1887, I, p. 14. 35 Esther 3:13. 36 In text, tsa˙anatan—a pejorative term for Christianity, and compare Sefer haMiknah, p. 11, line 9: “le-hodot al tsa˙anatam” (“to consent to their deﬁlement”). Compare also, in the chronicle of Gezerot TaTNU {4956} (The Massacres of 1096), “ve-lo avu lits˙on be-tsa˙anatam” (“and they did not consent to be deﬁled with their ﬁlth”), Sefer Gezerot Ashkenaz ve-Tsorfat (The Persecutions of Germany and France), (ed.) A. M. Habermann, Jerusalem 1945, p. 21, and, “ve-yetsa˙anu be-mei tsa˙anatam” (“and they were deﬁled with their putrid waters”), ibid., p. 18, the reference being to baptismal waters. 37 In text, ve-kiblani, should read ve-kibalti “and I learned (lit. received)”, or possibly ve-kibalnu “and we learned”. 38 Or perhaps should read be-˙arbam—through their sword{s}. 39 After B.T. Avoda Zara 27b. 40 In the manuscript the word is blurred; possibly should read mehem “of them”. 41 In text, keﬁ hishmiya ve-sevira li. This combination of shemiya li and sevira li (I heard and ascertained) is found frequently in the Talmud. See Otsar Lashon ha-Talmud (A Lexicon of Talmudic Language), vol. 21, p. 717. 42 In text, nifgar, a pejorative term for “died”—he died a Christian. 43 In violation of the Jewish laws of family purity.

the chronicle

5

10

15

20

307

would cry out, and told her aunt, who was my mother-in-law. I heard the story from her. Thus the reason why he was not merited to return {to Judaism} was because he was mired in his sins44 from earlier times,45 and did not consider repentance. All this, and one more matter: the persecutions took place in the month of Tevet {December/January 1476–1477}.46 And it was colder at that time than it had been for many a year, so that, because of the duration and severity of the cold weather, the Jews were unable47 to continue to hide and conceal themselves48 in the caves and hiding places and they ﬂed to houses in Türkheim and its vicinity. It was then that the foes49 delivered them into the hands of the murderers. There were some 8050 souls all told—men, women, youths and young girls—all prepared to sacriﬁce their lives51 and be slaughtered.52 They fell upon their faces to beg for mercy, that their innocent blood not be spilt. And God, blessed be He, sent His help and His angel before them,53 so that the leader, the chief of the forces,54 had mercy upon them. He said: “If you can bring {me} 800 guilders by tomorrow before noon, that will be a ransom55 for your souls, ten guilders for each person.” However, there was no Jew left in the region save one worthy man by the name of Judah Bamis,

44

Or possibly, “his sins were deep-rooted”. In text, mi-kadma dena (Aramaic), “earlier”, lit: from years gone by. Owing to his sins from the period before the pogroms, he could not endure this test of faith, and converted to Christianity. Nor did he afterwards return to Judaism. 46 In text, be-yera˙ Tevet. For another example of the author’s use of the word yera˙ for “month”, instead of the more usual ˙odesh, see section 8, p. 314. 47 In text, yukhlu (“will be unable”), inﬂuenced by the Ashkenazic pronunciation. The correct reading is yakhlu (“were unable”). 48 In text, le-hatsniya u-lehastir. For the author’s use of the hif "il, the active causative form of the Hebrew verb, see Sefer ha-Miknah, introduction, pp. 53–54. 49 Apparently it was Türkheim townspeople who handed them over to the Swiss. 50 In the text the letter “vav” after the word sh"monim, “80”, appears to be redundant, or maybe our author considered giving a more precise number and then changed his mind. 51 In text, hishlimu = masru. They were prepared to be martyrs for the sanctiﬁcation of God’s Name, and see Milon Ben-Yehuda, s.v. shalem, p. 7183. 52 In text, hishlimu nafsham li-she˙ita. The image is drawn from descriptions of Jewish martyrdom in the chronicles and liturgical poems on the 1096 massacres. See Zunz, Literaturgeschichte, pp. 641–42. 53 After Exodus 23:20. “Behold I send an angel before you to guard you on the way”. 54 The commander of the forces, and see section 11 (p. 317, lines 13–14) and section 29 (p. 339, lines 7–8). 55 In text, kapara, “atonement”, here in the sense of kofer, meaning “ransom”. 45

308

5

10

15

20

the chronicle

the memory of the righteous is blessed,56 who lived in the town of Mühlhausen.57 The rest of the Jews had either perished or been dispersed; some had ﬂed58 and some had been slain or drowned,* and all their possessions had been plundered. When the tidings reached this worthy man in Mühlhausen, he rent his garments and sat on the ground in sackcloth with ashes on his head, and his entire household did likewise. He took all that he possessed on that same day and night,59 and sent his servant Mordecai of blessed memory with the ransom money of 800 {guilders}. However, the servant was not able60 to come61 by the appointed time of noon, and they {the prisoners} were all led away {to be killed}, bound together with one rope, rabbis, parnasim {community leaders}, women, youths and young girls. First {the bandits} seized a man named Banet, of blessed memory, and tore his garments in order to cut oﬀ his head. They dealt likewise with the Aluf, Rabbi Zadok,62 the memory of the righteous is blessed, and all the others. The { Jews} fell upon their knees to make their last confession to the Creator, and they extended their necks to be slaughtered.63 At the very moment that the hangman64 drew his sword in order to cut oﬀ their heads one after another, the servant arrived and cried out in a loud voice: “Do not lay a

56 This blessing for the dead was added in the margin (in the abbreviated form) in the same hand. 57 Judah Bamis enjoyed the special protection of the authorities and this explains his presence as a lone Jew in Mühlhausen. See the extract from the Niederehnheim Memorbuch, above, in the introduction to this section, p. 75. 58 In text, nivre˙u, should read bar˙u. For these verb forms, see below, p. 311, note 84. * {In text, ve-nitbeu, “were drowned”. This presumably is the meaning. The same word appears below, in section 11 (see p. 318, line 8), and there it deﬁnitely has that meaning. However, earlier in this section we ﬁnd ve-tav"u ota{m} be-nahar, “they were forcibly immersed in the river”—a reference to forced baptism. Translator} 59 This could mean that Bamis waited until the night, until he succeeded in amassing the required amount of money. 60 See note 47. 61 In text, hamesharet lavo. In the manuscript the words were written in the reverse order and corrected by the author. 62 For him, see below, section 5, and in the introduction to section 5, pp. 99–100. 63 This expression is derived from Midrash Shir ha-Shirim Rabba (the homiletic commentary on the Song of Songs) on the verse: “Behold you are fair” (1:15): “In the same manner as this dove extends its neck to be slaughtered, so also does Israel: as it is written, for Your sake we are being killed all day long”. The wording is also inﬂuenced by the description of the Akeda (the binding of Isaac) in the midrashic literature and in liturgical poems. 64 In text, ha-kostinar, the Talmudic term for hangman.

the chronicle

5

10

15

20

309

hand65 on any Jew. Here in my hand is the money for the prisoners”. And the ringleaders took the 800 guilders and permitted them to journey safely to the home of R. Judah Bamis of blessed memory. And that same Banet, who had seen a drawn sword extended over his head, was paralyzed66 from fear of that sword for upwards of half a year, but afterwards he was restored to health. And the man {Bamis} who had redeemed and saved them rejoiced with them in his house until the mob67 had passed by and departed.68 The descendants of this worthy man were all rewarded with wealth and honour; my sister’s son, Isaac bar Yehiel Bamis of blessed memory, is of his seed; he is his descendant.69 From the above it is clear that he who devotes70 his life and money to saving the lives of those being taken to their death71 will enjoy the fruits in this world while the principal will remain intact for him and his descendants in the world to come.72 There is not suﬃcient space here to describe even one-tenth of the prodigious kindness of God, blessed be He, towards those ﬂeeing from that harsh persecution. He saved some families73 and persons of repute. Blessed be God who saved my father and mother and all the family74 of our loved ones and relatives, together with the rest of the men, women, youths and children. And for the sake of the martyrs, God wrought His vengeance upon the Swiss

65

After Genesis 22:12. In text, nishtatek, which may imply that he was deprived of the power of speech. 67 In text, ha-hamoni"i(m), a term for a large mass of people, and compare below at the end of section 28 (p. 339, line 3 and see note 445). 68 Na˙um 1:12. 69 In text, ben nino, “his great-great-grandson”. This does not have to be taken literally. He was a descendant of his. 70 In text, he"era, “roused, bestirred”, after Isaiah 53:12: “asher he"era la-mavet nafsho”, “because he has poured out his soul to death” {i.e. he has suﬀered and sacriﬁced himself on behalf of others}, and Bamidbar Rabba 13: “leﬁ she-he"aru yisrael nafsham le-mita be-galut”, “As the people of Israel dedicated their souls even unto death in the Dispersion”. 71 After Proverbs 24:11: “Rescue those who are taken to {their} death”. 72 According to the Mishnah (Peah 1:1): “These are the precepts whose fruits a man enjoys in this world while the principal remains intact for him in the world to come”. This passage is in the prayer book in the Morning Service. Its meaning here: he rejoiced in this world that the Jews were saved by him; his descendants attained wealth and honour and will also be rewarded for this deed in the World to Come. 73 A few families—indicates the small number of survivors. 74 In text, mishpa˙, the correct reading is mishpa˙ot, “families”. The abbreviation mark at the end of the word appears to have been omitted. 66

310

the chronicle

several times. O Lord God of vengeance, who avenges the blood of His servants. May it be His will. Amen. [3] [fol. 6a] 5 In the years 5263, 5264 and 5265 (1503–1505), many peoples fought in the name of our lord, the Emperor Maximilian, may he be exalted,* against the Duke of Heidelberg75 and they drove him out in ignominy from several fortresses and other places. At that time, they plundered and stole from me all that I had in the way of 10 pledges and household articles, more than 400 [guilders].76 All that remained to me were some personal possessions77 and a little from debts with interest, payable on “good faith”.78 I also succeeded in preserving 140 whole79 guilders from the clutches of {those} evil men.80 I salvaged them from their hands, and God was my support, 15 so that with their aid I was able to provide for my household until Shevat81 of that year. May He continue82 to perform miracles and wondrous acts day by day. May it be His will. Amen.

* {R. Joseph generally uses this expression when referring to the emperor or king. I have frequently omitted it hereafter. Translator} 75 George the Rich of Bavaria-Landshut, whose capital city was Heidelberg, or his son-in-law Rupert, son of the Elector Palatine. 76 And compare, for example, section 12 (p. 319): “to expend up to 300 [guilders]”. 77 In text, ˙eftsei—should read ˙afatsim, “possessions”; the abbreviation sign at the end of the word was omitted. 78 In text, mi-˙ovot bi-zekifa al amana, or literally “from debts charged on trust”: bi-zekifa, “charge”, may mean interest charged on the principal—see Milon Ben Yehuda, s.v. zekifa, and the sources cited there; al amana, loan given without receiving a pledge, relying on the good faith of the borrower. Possibly inﬂuenced by the German “das Geld steht auf Treu und Glauben”, or some similar expression (comment by Yaacov Guggenheim). 79 In text, shelemi(m), meaning “whole coins”, as distinct from those called “half coins” (Hälblinge), and see Schrötter, Wörterbuch, s.v. Hälbling, and Mone, “Geldkurs vom 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert”, Zeitschrift etc., p. 190. Or perhaps the meaning is “good money”, coins with a value. Compare Grimm, DW, IV, 1 (ﬁrst edition) col. 1297, s.v. Ganz II A 9 b. 80 In text, shin’ reshaim, should read shinei reshaim (“the teeth of the wicked”), Psalms 3:8. 81 Shevat—this is the correct reading. After this word is a word that was erased by the author. I am not certain why he speciﬁed that particular month; possibly that was the customary season for the payment of outstanding debts, or he may be implying that the hostilities continued until that month. {Shevat varies between January and February.} 82 In text, ve-khen yosif, “may he continue”. In this request, the author is hinting at his name, Joseph; he does the same below at the end of other sections of the Chronicle.

the chronicle

311

[4] In the years 5266 and 5267 (1505–1507) the burghers of Ober E[h]nhei[m]83 received {permission} from our lord the Emperor to expel84 the Jews who were with them in their city, and they obtained, 5 in addition, (his consent} that no Jew who worshipped the living God85 should enter their city or its limits.86 And inside the city, a certain Jew was beaten until87 he was at death’s door; indeed he almost died.88 Subsequently, a resident of Oberehnheim went out and slayed an honest man, a Levite by the name of Jacob bar Judah 10 sa""l 89 of blessed memory; the corpse was discovered in the [city’s] territory.90 Jewish travellers on the roads were pursued, and attacked and killed,91 and not only that but bears and leopards92 tormented them. Eventually the community was unable to endure {the situation} any longer, and {we} were compelled to make wide detours 15 around the city. They oppressed us93 for a long time, until the cries to God on High increased greatly. 83

“Ober Enhei” is Oberehnheim. {Below the author usually refers to the city simply as “Enheim”; to avoid confusion I have written Oberehnheim. Translator} 84 In text, ligrosh, should read legaresh, “to expel”. The author generally uses the root g-r-sh in the kal (simple) verb form, and for the passive he uses the nif "al form of the verb—nigreshu (for example, in section 8, and see note 126). For a discussion of R. Joseph’s use of unusual verb constructions, see Sefer ha-Miknah, introduction, pp. 53–54. 85 Possibly inﬂuenced by the piyyut (liturgical poem) by R. Abraham Ibn Ezra: “My soul thirsts for the Lord, the living God”, which stresses that the God of Israel is a “living God”, and hints at the “dead god” of the Christians. 86 In text, yudi, should read yehudi. The author is pointing out that the Jews were also barred from passing through any area within the city boundaries. 87 In text, al, should read ad, “until”, and compare, section 16, line 13, and see note 241. 88 He is referring to Phal the Jew, and see the introduction to this section, pp. 87–88. 89 The abbreviation of segan leviya, a term for a person from a Levite family. 90 In text, ve-ha˙alal nimtsa bi-gevulam. The corpse was found inside the city’s jurisdictional limits, and compare Deuteronomy 21:2. 91 In text, lifrots bahem, meaning “to attack them, to destroy them”. After Exodus 19:22: “Lest He burst forth against them”. 92 After Rashi {R. Solomon ben Isaac, leading medieval Bible and Talmud commentator}, commentary on Genesis 39:6. May refer to Bären, the people of Bern, i.e., the Swiss, who were still occupying parts of Alsace. See above, introduction to section 2, p. 68 onwards. A similar metaphor, “to extricate them from the clutches of bears and lions”, is found in a Rashi responsum. See A. H. Freiman, “Teshuvot Rashi” (Rashi Responsa), in: J. L. Maimon (ed.), Sefer Rashi, Jerusalem 1955/56, no. 4, p. 143. 93 The author includes himself. As a resident of Mittelbergheim, which is close to Oberehnheim, he presumably suﬀered from the same restrictions.

312

the chronicle

[5] In the year 527094 (1509/10), I was appointed together with the Aluf, Rabbi Zadok,95 and others to keep watch over the community with particular care and to lead it. And in that same year calamity struck 5 the Mark [of Brandenburg],96 where 38 righteous people were burnt {at the stake} and sanctiﬁed God’s Name in the city of Berlin. May their souls be bound up in the bond of everlasting life. Also enemies and apostates97 arose {and attempted} to annul the Written Law.98 And God, blessed be He, showed us a miracle within a mir10 acle,99 in that [one of ] the sages of the nations stood up against him100 and the Torah was restored to its former status.101 The holy community of Frankfurt102 devoted itself and its resources103 {to this matter}, every member [participating in] the enormous expenses,104 until God saw our aﬄiction,105 and saved us from the designs of that 15 apostate.106 [6] In the year 5274 (1513/14), the [ Jews] resident in Mittelbergheim, myself among them,107 were arrested on account of a false accusation

94 For the number 270, the author wrote ayin-resh, ayin = 70, resh = 200, reversing the normal order for this date, resh-ayin (200–70), to avoid forming the word ra, “evil”. It was customary to make changes of this kind so as to ward oﬀ the evil eye. 95 On him, see the introduction to this section, pp. 99–100. 96 Jews in all parts of Brandenburg were enmeshed in the libel. 97 In text, peritsei ameinu, “those who have broken away from the faith of our people”—a reference to the apostates Pfeﬀerkorn and Victor von Carben. 98 Possibly should read “the Oral Law”, or this may be a reference to sacred books (manuscripts and printed books). 99 The miracle of the deliverance from Pfeﬀerkorn’s evil designs and the miracle that salvation came through the good graces of a gentile scholar. The expression is derived from the Talmud, e.g., B.T. Shabbat 97a: “And Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods, etc. (Exodus 7:12), a miracle within a miracle”. 100 Against Pfeﬀerkorn. He is referring to Johannes Reuchlin. 101 The Jews were once again able to study in the books that had been conﬁscated from them; the phrase intimates that the Jews’ books were restored to them. 102 Frankfurt on Main. 103 That is, money. 104 In text, berov" hotsaot". He is referring to the immense eﬀorts exerted by Frankfurt Jewry in the struggle against Pfeﬀerkorn, and their large monetary outlay. The abbreviation marks at the end of both words seem superﬂuous. 105 After Genesis 29:32, and elsewhere. 106 Pfeﬀerkorn. 107 Evidence that R. Joseph lived there at that time.

the chronicle

313

by a mamzer.108 And they placed us, eight people, in two towers109 in Oberehnheim.110 We were there for seven weeks111 until justice was executed for us and it came to light {that we were innocent}.112 The robber repented of his evil ways and confessed to the truth, 5 that we were guiltless. Blessed be God who has not failed {us} in his kindness.113 [7] In the year 5275 (1514/15), I was sent to our lord the Emperor, 10 who is remembered for good, to submit a complaint against that same city of Oberehnheim, and against the Lords of Andlau114 and the Bishop115—he being with them in their plan to drive us out of the land. I had to make the journey on horseback as many as three times in this connection. And matters unfolded thus116 that fear and 15 awe fell upon all the peoples and the Lords {of Andlau} who were in the hills.117 They were summoned,118 and Oberehnheim in particular,119 to come and present their defence120 against my bill of complaint. The Bishop and the Lords of Andlau straightened matters out with us,121 but Oberehnheim refused to reply to us, and did 20 not appear on the appointed day122 before the Emperor. We had to

108 He is apparently referring to the person who brought this calumny against the Jews. {See also above, section 1 (p. 303), and the comment in note 2.} 109 Translation of Türme. These were towers, often in the city walls, in the depths of which were dungeons. 110 Where there was a prison. 111 In text, shavu"im shiv"a—after Daniel 9:25. 112 Adapted from Micah 7:9, Psalms 9:5, and the liturgy for the High Holidays. 113 Genesis 24:26, and elsewhere. 114 They ruled over regions bordering on Strasbourg. 115 The Bishop of Strasbourg. 116 In text, ve-narots ha-galgal, “and the wheel is broken”, after Ecclesiastes 12:6, with a change in meaning. 117 The hills of Andlau, or perhaps the correct reading is asher ba, “in it”, i.e., in Oberehnheim. 118 In text, shekar"u, “they summoned”. This would appear to be the correct reading, “they” being the authorities [?]. Or possibly the text reads yikreu and should read nikreu, “they were summoned”. 119 In text, prat, “except for”, should read u-vi-frat, “and in particular”. 120 In text, hitnatslut, “apology”, from the German Entschuldigung, a kind of bill of defence. 121 In text, hishva. They came to an agreement, or a compromise, with us. 122 In text, le-yom ha-mugbal. The particular day that had been set for hearing the case.

314

the chronicle

collect the wages of silence123 with regard to the conduct of the Oberehnheim townspeople. The day of reckoning will come, and at that time You will repay them in full measure.124 5 [8] [fol. 6b] In the year 5279 (1518/19), the Emperor died, who is remembered for good,125 and the community of Regensburg was driven out126 and uprooted127 from all the splendour and from our most precious possessions {the apple of our eye}.128 They {the exiles} were sent away 10 in boats on the River Danube.129 A small remnant,130 including the Auerbach family, remained in Stadtamhof,131 in the domain of the dukes of Bavaria.132 At that time,133 the villagers of Dangolsheim arrogated powers to themselves,134 and they plotted together135 to expel136 all the Jews; indeed, they carried out their design. On one 15 day in the month of Adar137 5279, they drove out all the Jews from Dangolsheim. And when the evil neighbours got word of this that same day, they wished to learn kal ve-˙omer * from them and follow their example. And God inclined the hearts of our master the

123 In text, sekhar al ha-shetika, the reward for {our} forbearance. Rashi in his commentary on Leviticus 10:3, and other examples. 124 In text, besas"a terivena, after Isaiah 27:8: “In full measure . . . You will contend with her”. Here the meaning is: When the time comes, You (God) will repay them, the people of Oberehnheim, measure for measure. 125 Maximilian, who was considered by R. Joseph to be a benevolent monarch. 126 In text, nigreshu = gurshu, according to Jonah 2:5. 127 After Amos 9:15: “And they shall no more be plucked up out of their land.” 128 A possible allusion to the synagogue and the Torah scrolls, and compare Sefer ha-Miknah, p. 9, line 16: “And the apple of our eye, several Torah scrolls . . .”. 129 In text, Tonau, from the German Donau. 130 He may be implying that only a few members of the community remained concentrated in one place close to the city. 131 In text, be-˙atser—from the German am Hof. Stadtamhof was actually a suburb of Regensburg, situated about one kilometer from the city. To reach it, the Jews merely had to cross the bridge over the Danube. The word nish’aru, “remained”, appears to hint at this. 132 In text, fyirin, from the German Bayern. 133 During the interregnum. 134 That were not legally theirs. 135 In text, yaatsu—in the sense: took counsel among themselves. 136 In text, ligrosh = legaresh. For these verb forms, see section 4 (p. 311), note 84. 137 In text, yera˙ Adar. {Adar 5279 = 2 February–2 March 1519. Translator} * {A conclusion inferred from a minor law to a major one, and vice versa. This is one of the well-known Talmudic rules by which the Torah is expounded. The meaning here: If a small village could expel its Jews, all the more so large towns. Translator}

the chronicle

315

Unterlandvogt 138 of Hagenau and the Bishop of Strasbourg to heed my supplications that I poured out before him {them?}. I went with our master the Unterlandvogt to Dangolsheim, and gave a stern warning, whereupon they {the villagers} repented of their evil intentions and 5 deeds, and their violation of the privileges and the Landsfrieden.139 They restored the Jews to their homes, and afterwards the Unterlandvogt came with horsemen140 and hired soldiers141 to mete out vengeance upon them.142 And if God had not been with us, aiding the [ Jews] in Dangolsheim143 through this said act of vengeance,144 and with us 10 in Rosheim,145 all the Jews in the Rhine [region] would have been in danger. Blessed be God who has not failed {us} in his loving kindness. [9] 15 In the year 5280 (1519/20), our lord, the Emperor Charles,146 was crowned king.147 I came to him and to his servants to plead for our people and our inheritance.148 We (that is to say I and the man who was with me)149 obtained comprehensive privileges for all of Germany.150 Notwithstanding this,151 in that same year, charters152 were issued

138 In text, ha-meltsar, the superintendent, administrator {after Daniel 1:11}. R. Joseph’s customary way of referring to the Unterlandvogt of Hagenau throughout the Chronicle. 139 Landsfrieden, the public peace. This was a law or regulation prohibiting declarations of war, the fomenting of unrest, and the use of violence against any person. For this particular breach of the public peace, see the introduction to this section, pp. 125–126. 140 In text, be-rokhvei, apparently should read be-rokhvim. 141 In text, marei levav, “mercenaries”, Landsknechte, and see the introduction to this section, p. 125, especially note 184. 142 In text, laasot nekama bahem, “to punish them”, possibly equivalent to the German Rächen. (In the manuscript, there is an abbreviation mark after the ﬁnal letter of the word laasot.) 143 Aiding the Jews resident in Dangolsheim. 144 The vengeance of the Unterlandvogt against Dangolsheim. 145 In Rosheim too the Jews faced the threat of imminent expulsion. 146 In text, Karolin. 147 In text, yatsa . . . limlokh, could also mean “elected Emperor”. 148 After Deuteronomy 9:26: “Your people and Your inheritance”, with the obvious modiﬁcations. 149 It is unclear to whom he is referring. 150 See introduction to this section, p. 128. 151 Despite these privileges accorded to the Jews, the Emperor authorized the expulsion orders mentioned below. 152 In text, kiyumi(m), “charters of rights” and in the language of the period Freiheit;

316

the chronicle

authorizing the expulsion of [the Jews] from Rosheim and from the Vogtei of Kaysersberg. With the help of God, blessed be He, I interceded with the King, and succeeded in having the expulsion from the Vogtei of Kaysersberg cancelled altogether, with the annulment 5 of that particular charter of expulsion. However, the charter to Rosheim was not rescinded, {nor was that city’s decision to expel the Jews}. By dint of supreme eﬀorts we succeeded time after time, with great diﬃculty, in obtaining yet another postponement.153 To this day we still do not know [how matters will turn out], and we 10 can but place our trust in our Father in Heaven. He will redeem us and save us from {our} assailants. May it be His will. Amen. [10] In the year 5282 (1521/22) we were required to come to Nuremberg 15 by the decree of the great rabbi,154 our teacher Rabbi Samuel155 of blessed memory, and on that occasion I submitted a complaint about that place Oberehnheim, and what had been done to us inside the city156 and outside in the ﬁelds.157 I succeeded in securing the appointment of the Abbot of Weissenburg158 as commissioner,159 to hear our 20 bill of complaint and the legal charges to which [the city leaders] were obliged to respond. Afterwards they were summoned [to us?]160 before a [judicial] assembly,161 and during the{ir} interrogation162

without entering into the question of whether the original meaning of the word kiyum was “a Jewish residence and work permit”, here it means “a certiﬁed document”. 153 In text, zemani(n) a˙ar zemani(n), “time after time” (Aramaic). Here meaning “postponement after postponement”. 154 In text, “h-h”, probably an abbreviation of harav ha-gadol, “the great rabbi”. 155 In text, “m-h-r-r-sh”, i.e. Moreinu ha-Rav, Rabi Shmuel. For him, see the introduction to this section, pp. 135–137. 156 A possible reference to the episode of Phal the Jew; see above, section 4 (p. 311), lines 6–8 and note 88 there. 157 A reference to the Jew who was murdered in the vicinity of the city, see ibid., lines 8–11. 158 Abbot Rüdiger of Weissenburg Abbey. 159 In text, commisarg—a person who is in charge of some matter, from the French commissaire; see A. Tobler, Altfranzösisches Wörterbuch, Stuttgart 1902, s.v. Commission. 160 In text, elei[nu], “to us”. This reading is not certain; possibly should read aleihem, to them. 161 In text, parlonment, a debate or dispute; also the assembly in which the debate is held. Here, presumably, a judicial body. {Compare to the French parlement. AS} 162 In text, negisa, “pressure”, a rigorous cross-examination; here possibly referring to the judicial proceedings themselves.

the chronicle

317

they were ﬁlled with dread.163 Through the mediation of the Unterlandvogt, they [the city] made a covenant164 with us. The [city] opened the gates and behaved165 peaceably towards us, in accordance with the text of the agreement signed between us. 5 [11] [fol. 7a] In the year 5285 (1524/25) there was a tumult166 amongst the villagers,167 who gathered168 in all parts of Germany and, above all, in this region169—Alsace. They wished to make themselves masters170 10 and it was their intention to devour us alive.171 The scourge had already begun172 in certain places. By God’s mercy, I came to them at the abbey173 called Altdorf,174 and spoke to their hearts with the Book,175 concerning the counsel they should give to the leaders of their forces.176 They proclaimed loudly177 that the Jews were not to 163

After Exodus 15:16: “Fear and dread”. A reference to the agreement signed between the city and the Jews, which terminated the litigation between them. 165 In text, le-hanhig, should read linhog. For an explanation of the grammar, see above, section 2, note 48 (p. 307). 166 In text, mehuma—a translation of the Latin word tumultum, frequently used in contemporary chronicles with regard to the Peasants War. 167 The peasants, as opposed to the townspeople. 168 Hints to the fact that the peasants came singly but together formed a large concentration of people—Haufen, in the language of the period. 169 In text, medina. A term for an administrative unit within German territory, here a Landvogtei. The author employs the same term also for principalities and Landgraves. 170 Despite the fact that in the author’s opinion they are required to be in the lowest stratum of society. 171 After Psalms 124:3: “Then they would have swallowed us alive”. 172 After Numbers 17:11: “The plague has began”; i.e. Jews were assaulted. This expression expresses the speed with which the danger {to the Jews} spread, without there being any possibility of halting it. 173 In text, be-beit komrin—literally, the “house of priests”, translation of the German Abtei. 174 See introduction to this section, p. 142 onwards. 175 In text, im ha-sefer, after Esther 9:25. The peasants based their demands on the Scriptures (das göttliche Wort). R. Joseph is apparently saying that he convinced them from the Book, i.e., with proofs from the Old Testament, that their view of the Jews was mistaken. Further on, he makes use of additional expressions from the Book of Esther. 176 The commanders of the peasants’ forces in the other Haufen. 177 In text, she-hikhrizu kol. He may be referring to a verbal proclamation, or, possibly, to written instructions, and see the commentary to the following line. Perhaps should read she-yakhrizu, “that they should proclaim”, or he may be implying that they made this proclamation as he had requested. What follows supports this interpretation. 164

318

the chronicle

be harmed and also wrote many letters of safe-conduct178 for every city and region. Although in the end they went back on and broke179 their word and written promises; at all events, their public undertaking brought relief and deliverance for the Jews.180 Then came the 5 time and season of their defeat.181 The Duke of Lorraine182 descended upon them and carried out a great slaughter among them. In other territories183 too thousands and tens of thousands were slain and drowned. Blessed be God who delivered us from their hands and from their evil devices.184 May He continue to save us. Amen. 10 [12] In the year 5288 (1527/28), the Landvogtei of Hagenau referred accusations {against the Jews} to King Ferdinand, may he be exalted, and secured {his consent} to expel us, we who are residents of the 15 German Empire,185 from our places of abode186 in all the villages, and even from some of the towns. The Unterlandvogt187 was forced against his will to obtain from the King a decree called an Ordnung. Then all the [ Jews] resident in the region entreated me to go out and come in before them188 as in the past189 and I consented to their 178 In text, tiyurim. Documents according safe passage to travellers—Geleitbriefe. Feilchenfeld (p. 101) believes that these were for the cities and states alone and that the proclamation in favour of the Jews was made only orally. However, there is room for another interpretation. From what is written in the text it appears that also the letters to the cities dealt with the Jews. In fact, there are extant letters of safe-conduct of the kind issued by the peasants. 179 In text, pagmu, “spoiled”—here in the sense of “breached, violated” (it has this meaning in the Talmud, e.g., “he who impairs his bond”, B.T. Shevuot 48b); and see the introduction to this section, pp. 146–147. 180 After Esther 4:14. 181 In text, magefa—lit. plague, scourge. The word can also mean defeat, rout. The peasants were routed by their enemies. The author plays on the root n-g-f: hit˙il ha-nagaf, “the scourge had begun”, magefa shelahem, “their scourge (defeat)”. He wishes to emphasize that the peasants were punished in their own coin. 182 Duke Anthony of Lorraine, who defeated the Alsatian peasants at the battle of Zabern. 183 After Esther 9:12: “What have they done in the rest of the king’s provinces”. He is referring to the other German territories. 184 After Esther 9:25. 185 We who are residents of the German Reich (this is how Feilchenfeld translates it, p. 114). 186 In text, mi-dirat’. Perhaps mi-diratam, “from their places of residence”, or possibly should read mi-diratenu {as translated above}. 187 In text, meltsar. And compare section 8 (p. 315), note 138 to line 1 there. 188 Namely, to be their leader and advocate. After Numbers 27:17. 189 To represent them to the authorities as I used to do in the past, for example,

the chronicle

5

10

15

20

319

request. And on account of190 an accident191 that befell192 my horse on the way, I resolved not to ride for the rest of the journey to the King’s court, which was situated where it was,193 {but to travel on foot}. My reason for this was {my hope} that with {the aid of } much toil, prayer and supplication194 {my} intercession would succeed. I was obliged to follow {the King’s court} to the holy community of Prague,195 and there I came into the King’s chamber and, with God’s help, I found favour in his eyes. He revoked the ﬁrst decree196 and gave me a charter {which reaﬃrmed} that the Jews should be tolerated as in the past in accordance with the text of our privileges. Although I was authorized to expend up to 300 [guilders] for all this; in the event, I spent only 40 guilders all in all to cover the cost of my journey there and back to my home and additional expenses.197 And the adversaries decided to stir up fresh trouble, to undo what had been achieved, but God sent angels198 of destruction and slew them; three of the ringleaders199 died in a sudden plague, and the fourth was seized by his enemies 200 in the domain of Hochfelden201 and put to death. And the land was quiet202 until this day. Blessed be God who took vengeance for us on our enemies, and saved us from their hands and from the evil designs that they had thought to carry out against us.

in 1520. The words latset . . . ke-me"az (“to go out . . . the past”) are written in the margin. 190 In text, u-vesibat, possibly should read u-vesiba. 191 In text, ones, an unexpected mishap. 192 In text, she-hukra, should read she-kara. 193 In the place where it was situated. 194 In text, ra˙am(im)—prayer for mercy, from the Aramaic ra˙amei. 195 In text, Prog, and should apparently read Prag. R. Joseph calls the city by the name of its Jewish community, and compare section 26 (below, p. 334)—“the holy community of Würzburg”. 196 In text, sefarim rishonim. The decree (Ordnung) mentioned above. After Esther 3:13: “And letters were sent”, and ibid., 8:5: “To revoke the letters”. 197 In text, ha-pizurim. See Milon Ben Yehuda, s.v. pizur, pizurim. 198 In text, malkhei, “kings”, should read malakhei, “angels”. 199 In text, ikarim, apparently in the sense of ikurim, “important persons”; in a later period, this was the title of oﬃce holders in several of the Jewish communities. They oﬃciated together with the “tovim”, the viri boni. Compare, Pinkas Berlin, in the index, and Milon Ben Yehuda, s.v. ikurim. Or it may be a translation of Hauptmann—commander, leader. 200 In text, mi-son"av (“ from his enemies”), should read al-yedei son"av (“by his enemies”). Inﬂuenced by the German von seinen Feinden. 201 In the territory under the jurisdiction of Hochfelden, northwest of Strasbourg. 202 Judges 5:31.

320

the chronicle

[13] In the year 5289 (1528/29), the holy martyrs of Pösing,203 36 souls— men and women, youths and young girls—were arrested because of a false accusation made by a mamzer,204 and they died for the 5 sanctiﬁcation of God’s Name. They were burnt at the stake on 13 Sivan 5289 [21 May 1529].205 On that occasion, all those Jews in Moravia were taken into custody. In accordance with the request of our rabbis and the exigencies of the hour, I had to bring all the old imperial and papal privileges to the city of Günzburg.206 There, I 10 prepared copies,207 which I sent together with words of apology in a booklet to the King208 and his servants, and they learned that we were innocent.209 They told the prisoners: “Go forth”,210 and, with the help of God, blessed be He, those who had survived the torture chamber211 were proclaimed free212 and released.213 May God, blessed 15 be He, favour us through the merit214 of those exalted martyrs who sacriﬁced their lives for the sanctiﬁcation of His Name.215

203 Or Bösing and, in Hungarian, Bazin. In one of the Latin documents (MHJ, 8, no. 191, p. 171) the city is called Bezing, in another (MHJ, 1, no. 338, p. 421)— Bozyn, and in yet another, Bazyn. 204 This may be a reference to Count Wolf of Pösing. 205 This is identical with the date given in the MS Prague 64 (see A. Scheiber, “Kedoshei Poezing”, Aresheth, 6 [1980], pp. 227–230), and accords exactly with that speciﬁed in the Christian sources: “Freytag nach Pﬁngsten den XXI tag May”. In 1529, the Friday after the Christian Pentecost fell on 13 Sivan. The author of the Prague Chronicle (Kronika Ivrit mi-Prag), on the other hand, erroneously writes “Erev Shavuot” (“the eve of [the Jewish] Pentecost”), i.e., 5 Sivan. 206 See above, introduction to this section, p. 157 onwards. 207 He prepared a certiﬁed copy of the documents. 208 Ferdinand I, who was king of Hungary. 209 In text, tsidkoteinu (should read tsidkateinu), inﬂuenced by the Ashkenazi pronunciation. The Jews are not guilty of the crime of which they were accused, namely the use of Christian blood for ritual purposes, and so R. Joseph wrote in the ﬁrst person. 210 After Isaiah 49:9: “Saying to the prisoners: ‘Go forth’”. The Jews imprisoned in Marchegg were released. 211 In text, ha-mah"pekhet—a place of detention and torture. According to Jeremiah 20:2, and elsewhere {e.g. 2 Chronicles 16:10}. 212 Jeremiah 34:8. 213 The judicial proceedings against all those involved in the aﬀair were halted. 214 In text, bi-zekhut". Or possibly he means bi-zekhutam “by their merit”. And perhaps the abbreviation mark at the end of the word should be deleted. 215 Compare above, section 2 (Chronicle for 1476/77), p. 307, lines 13–14, and notes 51 and 52 there.

the chronicle

321

[14] [fol. 7b] In the year 5290 (1529/30) there was a great and clamorous cry from all the nations {saying} that216 the Jews are in treasonous communication217 with the Turks.218 Calumnies of this kind219 ﬁnally 5 reached the ears of our lords, the Emperor and the King,220 may they be exalted, whereupon we were outlawed and were not permitted to set foot in several lands.221 With the consent of the communities, I prepared and put together a booklet222 containing our words of apology,223 and, with the help of God, {I presented it} 10 before the two monarchs in the city of Innsbruck.224 And Joseph found favour {with them},225 for they willingly accepted our words of apology and conﬁrmed all our former privileges. [15] 15 In that same year, 5290 (1530), there was an assembly of all the princes of the Empire226 and the nobles,227 as well as countless ladies,228 in order to establish preventive laws and regulations,229 and the princes and nobles intended to abolish usury.230 At that time, with God’s help, I stood ﬁrm,231 and I obtained from the Emperor the renewal

216

In text, heikh[i] {Aramaic}, meaning “how”. In text, deilatorin, “informers”. 218 In text, le-togar, with Turkey {the Ottoman Empire}, with the Turkish sultan. 219 In text, ka-ze in the singular instead of the plural ka-ele, or perhaps should read kazav, “lying words”. 220 Emperor Charles V and his brother, King Ferdinand. 221 A reference to Württemberg, and to projected plans for expulsions from imperial territory. 222 In text, kuntres, here apparently meaning a document or memorandum. 223 Words of justiﬁcation. From the German Entschuldigung, meaning a response to a complaint or legal suit. 224 Where R. Joseph had an audience with Charles V and his brother Ferdinand already before the meeting of the Augsburg Diet. 225 In text, ve-Yosef matsa ˙en. After Genesis 39:4. Marks between the letters of the word Yosef indicate that R. Joseph is referring to himself. 226 The princes of all the states of the German Reich. 227 In text, ha-partemim, after Esther 1:3. A reference to the nobility as a whole, or, possibly, to the higher nobility. 228 In text, va-alamot ein mispar, after Song of Songs 6:8. The opening of the Diet was a festive social event at which also ladies were present. 229 An apparent reference to the Reichsordnung. See the introduction to this section, p. 176 onwards. 230 To prohibit the Jews from practicing usury. 231 Against the Jews’ adversaries. 217

322

the chronicle

of our privileges from the Emperor Sigismund.232 The accusers were silenced233 and there was peace in the land for a little while.234 [16] 5 In the year 5291 (1530/31), the accusers235 were busy again, and they pursued and importuned the Emperor in Brabant 236 and Flanders237—lands not inhabited238 by any Jew. I came forward from the many and made the journey on horseback to those lands in order to plead our cause, with the help of God. I was at the Emperor’s 10 court from the ﬁrst of Adar till the ﬁrst of Sivan 5291 [18 February17 May 1531] to work for the common good. Although the ﬁghter named Roth Royth239 had intended to swallow me alive240—I was at the very gates of death241—however, God in His great mercy sent His angel before me,242 and saved me from his hands and from the 15 hands of all those who set an ambush for me. At that time I had an audience with the Emperor in his inner sanctum,243 and spoke to him concerning my business, and he gave me the right response.244 Meanwhile, as I was at leisure and secluded in my room, I composed

232 Especially a charter granted in 1433 to the Jews resident in the imperial cities of Alsace. 233 The initiators of the actions against usury; and perhaps he is also referring to Margaritha. 234 The language is reminiscent of the concluding words of chapters in the Book of Judges. For R. Joseph, his mission {like that of the Judges} is to save the Jews; however, he is aware that this salvation will be short-lived. 235 In text, ha-mekatregim—those persons who denounced the Jews. Compare section 15, lines 1–2: “the accusers were silenced”. 236 A region in the Low Countries whose capital was Brussels. 237 Flanders, adjacent to Brabant; its capital was Ghent. 238 In text, erets asher lo zerua—after Jeremiah 2:2: “You followed me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown”. For the author it is as though he had travelled to a completely uninhabited land, for not a single Jew lives there; Jews were not permitted to reside there. Possibly he is using a play on the words zerua or “sown” and zeroa meaning “hand”, to indicate that the Jews had no “handhold” or foothold in that land. 239 On the identity of this man, see introduction to this section, pp. 185–186. 240 After Psalms 124:3. 241 In text, ad sha’arei mit[a]. He was in mortal danger. The same expression can be found in section 26 (p. 334, line 11), and see note 389. 242 After Exodus 23:20. He came to my aid. 243 In text, lifnai ve-lifnim—generally refers to the holy of holies (the sanctuary in the Temple), but also has a secular connotation ( J.T. Ketuvot 12 3; 35a). 244 In text, nekhon’, should read nekhona, “words of truth”. Or perhaps should read nevona, “sage words”.

the chronicle

323

the work entitled Derekh ha-Kodesh {The Holy Path}.245 And as this writer lives,246 I took great pleasure in those days of solitude, and I said in my heart: “Happy were those righteous men of previous generations247 who directed their thoughts and minds to distancing them5 selves from the vanities of this world and to occupying themselves with matters of the spirit”.248 [17] In the year 5292 (1531/32), I was once again obliged to have an 10 audience with the Emperor, may he be exalted, this time at the Regensburg Reichstag, in order to stand guard over Israel. And God was with us on this occasion too; He preserved us from the accusations of the princes and nobles249 concerning usury, and gave us a means of livelihood250 among the nations. At that time the man 15 from Italy,251 the righteous convert named Rabbi Solomon Molcho, may his soul rest in Eden, came with his alien ideas252 to stir up the Emperor253 by telling him that he had come to gather all the Jews to wage war against the Turks.254 When I heard about his plans, I wrote him a letter warning him not to provoke the Emperor lest we 245 The name indicates that the book dealt with the subject of Kiddush Hashem, and see the introduction to this section, pp. 186–187. 246 In text, ve-˙ai ha-kot[ev]. This is a type of oath, similar to “upon my life”. In the manuscript, the abbreviation mark at the end of ha-kot was omitted. 247 In text, hanei enashei rishonim. They were men on a high spiritual level. Hanei enashei, meaning “these men”, is an Aramaic term frequently used in the Talmud. Possibly instead of enashei should read anashim, “men”. 248 In text, be-milei di-shmaya (Aramaic), “things divine”, in contrast to the worldly vanities, the everyday material matters with which he, R. Joseph, is obliged to occupy himself. For this, compare Sefer ha-Miknah, introduction, p. 74. 249 In text, ha-sarim ve-ha-partemim—the nobles of various ranks, after Esther 1:3. Compare section 15 (p. 321), line 16 and note 227 there. 250 In text, latet lanu mi˙ya, after Ezra 9:9; here in the sense of “livelihood”, possibly inﬂuenced by the German ein Leben machen. Compare Grimm, DW, s.v. Leben. 251 The author apparently did not know that Solomon Molcho was a native of Portugal, since he came to Germany from Italy. 252 In text, daat (inﬂuenced by the Ashkenazic pronunciation), should read deot; deot ˙itsoniot, meaning “unacceptable, illogical ideas”. The same expression with a similar meaning can be found in Geulat ha-Ger (The Redemption of the Convert) by R. Eliakim Rothenburg of Tannhausen, in his commentary on the Targum {Aramaic translation} to the Book of Esther, 4:1, Prague 5378, fol. 5b. 253 In text, le-orer ha-Kesar, to rouse the Emperor to action. Or possibly the meaning is: to arouse the Emperor’s suspicions; and see later in the section, le-orer lev haKesar, “to provoke the Emperor” (line 19). 254 In text, ha-togar—Turkey, the Ottoman Empire, or the Turkish Sultan.

324

the chronicle

be consumed255 by the great ﬁre.256 I left Regensburg, so that the Emperor should not say that I had a hand in his strange plans. When he came to the Emperor, he was put into chains and taken to Bologna,257 where he was burnt at the stake for the sanctiﬁcation 5 of God’s Name and the faith of Israel.258 He reformed many sinners.259 His soul is bound up in Eden. [18] In the year 5293 (1532/33),260 judgement was wrought upon261 our 10 brethren in Silesia, with the arrest of all the { Jewish} residents of the region. I had to go up to the cit[ies] of Schwabach and Ansbach,262 together with Rabbi Liebermann of blessed memory, in order to work for the release of the prisoners.263 The Parnas264 and another two or three people had already been burnt {at the stake}265 because 15 of a calumny about milk from sucking pigs of the forest,266 an accusation which in the end was shown to be false. And with the help of God, he told the prisoners that they were free.267 I expended in excess of six hundred [guilders]268 from the resources269 of the { Jews

255

All of Imperial Jewry. Or perhaps the correct reading is “lest he be consumed”. After Deuteronomy 5:22: “For this great ﬁre will consume us”. Here meaning “ﬁerce anger”. And it is possible that he is alluding to the ﬁres of the Inquisition. 257 He is mistaken here. The town where Molcho was burnt was Mantua. See the introduction to this section, p. 197. 258 In text, datot, i.e., the commandments of the Torah, for Molcho was a convert to Judaism. Should read ve-datot. 259 After Malachi 2:6: A possible reference to Molcho’s great inﬂuence on the Marranos. 260 Should be 5295 (1534/35). See the introduction to this section, p. 212. 261 In text, midat [ha-din] metu˙a. The word ha-din is omitted in the manuscript. {Presumably: divine justice. See following section. Translator} 262 Schwabach and Ansbach were both capital cities for the princes of BrandenburgAnsbach. 263 R. Joseph’s mission was to free the Silesian Jews from imprisonment. 264 Abraham Hirsch. 265 In text, nisraﬁm (present tense), should read nisrefu (in the past tense). There is no conﬁrmation in the sources that other people were burnt at the stake in addition to the Parnas. All that is known is that a few of the prisoners died in jail. 266 The libel was connected with pigs’ milk. After Psalms 80:14: “The boar of the forest ravages it {the Jews}”, and perhaps hints also at the homiletic interpretation (as in B.T. Pesa˙im 118b) according to which the boar of the forest represents Edom and the Christian kingdom. 267 Apparently after Isaiah 61:1: “To proclaim liberty to the captives”; “he told”— may be referring to the Margrave. 268 Compare section 12 (p. 319, line 11). 269 In text, mi-meod, after Deuteronomy 6:5: “with all your might”, namely from 256

the chronicle

325

in} German territory in order to impress upon and prove to270 the Duke, Margrave George,271 that we and all of Jewry were innocent of any crime and that this accusation was baseless. 5 [19] [fol. 8a] In the years 5293 and 5295 (1532/33 and 1534/35), judgement was wrought upon [the Jews in] the Barbary lands,272 when our lord the Emperor went to wage war against {those lands}, and the towns of Coron and Patras were captured.* For our many sins, some [ Jews] 10 were slain and some taken captive. The { Jewish} communities of Italy273 wrote {asking} for assistance in ransoming and maintaining the captives, as can be seen from what is written in {their} letter.274 However, although here in Alsace {a tax of } four percent275 was collected in order to redeem them, we did not succeed in placing 15 this ransom money276 in reliable hands.277 And I said: “It is permitted to use this money for the ransoming of other captives, or for similar important religious obligations of this kind.”278 Therefore, their resources, from their money (see Rashi’s commentary, there), and see the introduction to this section, p. 213. 270 In text, be-oznei, lit., “in the ears of ”. Perhaps the author is intimating that the interview itself with the Margrave was only secured by payment of a large bribe. 271 Markgraf Georg. In the German vernacular of the period we ﬁnd the name Jörg or Jörgel in place of Georg: for example, in the ballad about the Pösing libel. On the place name St. Georgen—St. Jörgen in the sources—see above, in the introduction to the Pösing Aﬀair (p. 155). 272 In North Africa—Morocco and Tunis. Aﬄiction struck the Jews. {The author uses the expression midat ha-din for the calamity that befell the Jews, which was sent by God, i.e., divine justice. The expression appears several times in the Chronicle. Translator} * {For a discussion of the linking together of the North African and Greek campaigns, see introduction to this section, p. 218 above. AS} 273 In text, medinat loez; the captives were sold into slavery on the coasts of Italy. 274 In text, sefer, i.e. the letter that was sent. This expression also appears in Joseph Hakohen’s Igrot, no. 34. See the introduction to this section, p. 217. 275 From the Jews’ property. 276 In text, le-oto pidyon shevuyim. We did not succeed in placing in reliable hands the money for that particular redemption of captives, i.e., for the Jews of Coron and Patras. Or perhaps the author terms the money itself “redemption of captives”. 277 In text, neemani(m). People who would arrange the transfer of the money. 278 According to Mishnah Shekalim 2.5: it is permitted to use what is left over of the money. Although in the ﬁrst place money donated for a particular purpose may not be used except for what it is designed, the sages ruled that, when necessary, the parnasim are allowed to make a change and use the money for a diﬀerent purpose. See the Tur {R. Jacob ben Asher, leading medieval halakhist.} on Yoreh De"ah 253, who cites this law in the name of the Rosh {R. Asher ben Ye˙iel, father of

326

the chronicle

I used a portion of it for my activities in connection with the harsh decree against [the Jews of Bohemia] and the holy community of Prague,279 and a portion of it for other life-saving work. May [this decision] be acceptable in the sight of God, blessed be He. 5 [20] In the year 5294 (1533/34), there was dissension and strife {within} the holy community of Prague between the community and the Horowitz people and others, and, consequently, many feuding camps280 10 arose in the other communities in Bohemia. The rabbis of Posen and Germany wrote281 {urging} that an agreement be reached, and that the settlement of the disputes be entrusted into the hands of righteous men. And it fell to the lot282 of that esteemed scholar,283 the great rabbi, our teacher Rabbi Abraham284 son of our teacher 15 Rabbi Avigdor, the memory of the righteous is blessed, and my insigniﬁcant self,285 to draw up and establish new ordinances286 for the {community}. At the request and insistence of our rabbis, I journeyed with much toil and trouble to that great city to God,287 to

the Tur, another leading medieval halakhist} on B.T. Bava Batra, chap. 1, end of para. 29. 279 A clear reference to the expulsion from Prague, which he discusses below, in section 25. The Jews were expelled from the entire kingdom of Bohemia, including Prague. 280 In text, kitot, lit: “sects”. Here in the sense of “camps”, formed as a result of the disputes within the community. Compare also below, section 25, p. 334, line 1 and note 384 there. 281 In text, katvu beineihem—“they wrote to each other”, or, “they wrote to the diﬀerent communities”. 282 In text, ve-narots ha-galgal, after Ecclesiastes 12:6. He apparently means: “the die was cast”. The same expression appears in section 7, and there too it has that meaning. See above, p. 313, line 14, and note 116 there. 283 In text, ha-patish he-˙azak—a ﬁgurative term for “a great man”, according to B.T. Berakhot 28b. In the manuscript the word “patish” has been corrected by the author. 284 On him, see the introduction to this section, p. 225, especially note 478 there. He died in 1542, and therefore at the time of writing the author accords him the blessing for the dead. 285 In text, ha-shafal—an expression of humility. 286 In text, ligdor gederim—to establish communal regulations {takanot} [see Rashi on B.T. Eruvin 21b, on the words divrei sofrim, “the rulings of the sages”]. 287 After Jonah 3:3: “And Nineveh was an exceedingly great city”. A possible hint by the author to the transgressions of the Prague Jewish community. {The Book of Jonah relates that the city of Nineveh sinned grievously against God.}

the chronicle

327

serve as an assistant288 to the Gaon of blessed memory.289 We prepared and enacted 23 excellent and estimable regulations, and upwards of 400 adult and responsible men290 were pleased to come and sign on the document.291 However, while I was still at table, the spike5 nard sent forth its fragrance,292 a supporter of Horowitz and his faction by the name of Shabbat Tash293 contrived to have me delivered294 into the hands of murderers.295 I had to plead in my defence three times in the city fortress296 of Prague, and all the community297 supported me. With God’s help, I emerged blameless and unscathed 10 from the lions’ clutches.298 In addition to all this, certain people with imaginary fancies,299 wise men who were in that camp,300 made common cause with those who were attacking my honour. However, justice will be done in its own way: exemplary persons came from all sides and appealed to [the rabbis of ] Italy* and Austria, animated 288 In text, snif—an expression of modesty: one who joins another, greater person; an auxiliary, and perhaps—assistance and support; and see Milon Ben Yehuda, s.v. snif. 289 R. Abraham ben Avigdor. 290 In text, yotse tsava (lit. “those that go out to war” {persons who perform military or public service}), after Numbers 1:3. The author may have used this expression because he was specifying a number of people, or he may have wished to intimate that these men came to the defence of the public, or, that they had full rights in the community. 291 In text, devari(m) kikhtavan, meaning “on the written words” (according to the Talmudic expression [for example B.T. Berakhot 21b], with a change in meaning). 292 After Song of Songs 1:12: “While the king was reclining at his board my spikenard sent forth its fragrance”. While R. Joseph is still in the company of these men, and is perhaps celebrating the acceptance of the regulations, the plotters are devising their evil designs. He appears to be hinting to B.T. Shabbat 88b, and the Rashi commentary there. I would like to thank Yaacov Guggenheim for drawing my attention to this reference. 293 He is referring to Shabbetai Sheftel, one of the Horowitz brothers. In the manuscript there is a mark over the name. 294 In text, limsor, etc., he informed against him to the authorities. 295 He is apparently intimating that he was in mortal danger. We know no further details. 296 A possible reference to the Hradschin, the city fortress where sat representatives of the Royal Chamber (Königliche Kammer). 297 The community leaders, those who led the community by virtue of their merits—unlike the Horowitz family—or perhaps he is referring to the entire community. 298 From the clutches of the authorities or the Horowitz family, who wished to “prey” upon him. 299 In text, ha-mitdamim. In the manuscript the letter “tet” is written above the word; should read ha-medamim. There is a similar expression in Sefer ha-Miknah, p. 21, line 7. 300 An apparent reference to rabbinical scholars, supporters of the Horowitz camp. * {In text, loez. Translator}

328

the chronicle

by zeal,301 zeal for the Lord of Hosts,302 to demand satisfaction for my insult, to ﬁght my battle, and to give thanks for the blessings303 as they are written down in that book.304 And the strife and dissension provoked and instigated305 by the Horowitz people has meant 5 that, for our many sins, Jacob has been taken as spoil,306 to be destroyed and not built up,307 as is proved by the occurrence of calamity upon calamity. May the Holy One, blessed be He, forgive them and all our sins. May it be His will. Amen. 10 [21] In the year 5296 (1535/36), the Landvogtei Hagenau, and also Ensisheim,308 waged war against me due to talebearing and bad men.309 I had to go up and do battle with the Landvogtei Hagenau in Heidelberg, and also many times310 in Ensisheim. With the help 15 of the One who aids me, they were unable to vanquish me, and He saved us from their evil designs and from the hands of villains. May God continue and increase His aid to me from the Heavens. May it be His will. Amen. 20 [22] [fol. 8b] In the year 5297 (1536/37) Duke Hans of Saxony311 outlawed us,312 and refused to permit the Jewish people even one foot’s breadth of 301

In text, lilbosh levush kin"a, they were zealous for him, as in kano kineti la-shem, “I have been very zealous for God”, I Kings 19:10. 302 Isaiah 9:6. The zeal is not for R. Joseph personally but for God. 303 This expression is derived from Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 33:9. In the context here: they accepted the regulations in the document he had prepared. The same expression reappears below in section 22 (see p. 330, note 332 there). 304 The said book of regulations. 305 In text, maru ve-itsvu—“angered”, after Isaiah 63:10. The Horowitz family attempted to undermine the agreement regarding the regulations. 306 In text, li-meshisa Yaakov, after Isaiah 42:24. {The name “Jacob” here is synonymous with “the Jewish people”. Translator} 307 After Job 12:14. He is referring to the calamities that befell the Jewish communities of Bohemia. 308 Ensisheim was the Habsburg seat of government in Alsace. 309 In text, anashei dela ma"alu (Aramaic), literally: “men who are not good”. Compare also Sefer ha-Miknah, p. 10, line 2. 310 In text, kama zimnin sagi’in (Aramaic)—a combination of two expressions: kama zimnin (“several times”) and zimnin sagi"in (“many times”). 311 The Elector of Saxony—his full name was Johannes Friedrich Hans von Sachsen. 312 In text, le-hafkir banu, i.e. denied us rights or protection. The meaning here: he expelled us from his land.

the chronicle

329

space313 in all his land. This was due to that priest named Martin Lo Tohar 314—may his body and soul be bound up in hell! In the many heretical315 books that he wrote and disseminated,316 he said that there was no hope for anyone who aided the Jews.317 His numer5 ous writings so inﬂamed the rulers and peoples against us that it was well nigh impossible for the Jews318 to maintain themselves. With the agreement of our rabbis,319 I procured excellent letters320 from other sages of the nations321 and from that place Strasbourg,322 and I journeyed up to request an audience with the Duke in Meissen 10 and Thuringia.323 However, I did not succeed in presenting the letters324 until he came to Frankfurt,325 to meet the other princes, including the Duke of Brandenburg*, who likewise had intended326 to expel327 all the Jews. However, it so happened that through the disputations that I had in the presence of many gentile scholars,328

313

Residence rights, and possibly also right of passage through his land. Lo Tohar, “the impure one”. A play on Luther’s name. The author indicates this by placing dots over the words. 315 The author writes from the Catholic viewpoint (!). 316 In text, nashru me-˙eko. The expression is derived from B.T. Óagiga 15b. 317 Namely, it is forbidden for Christians to help the Jews, for that makes them accomplices in the Jews’ crimes. The author has in mind primarily Luther’s tracts written in 1543, that is to say, after the Elector’s second decree. 318 In text, le-son"ei Yisrael, meaning “for the enemies of the Jews”. The author is referring to the Jews themselves, but made this change, as was customary, to ward oﬀ the evil eye. 319 R. Joseph was interceding in the name of all Jewry. He may be referring to the Chief Rabbi. 320 In text, ketavim meulim. May be a translation of Gutachten. 321 “From other . . .”, other Protestant scholars, as opposed to Luther; a reference to Bucer and Capito. The expression ˙akhmei ha-umot (“sages of the nations”) generally refers to humanists {in R. Joseph’s writings}. 322 The city of Strasbourg itself—and not only the Protestant Reformers there— gave R. Joseph letters of recommendation. 323 Meissen and Thuringia were territories in the electorate of Saxony. 324 In text, le-hashiv ha-ketavim. He did not succeed in delivering the letters to their destination. Possibly inﬂuenced by Esther 8:5. 325 This is a reference to the 1539 Protestant assembly of princes. See above, p. 236. * {Margrave Joachim II.} 326 In text, kiven; compare introduction to section 5 (p. 108 onwards). 327 In text, ligrosh, should read legaresh. For this verb form, see section 4 (p. 311, line 3), and note 84 there. 328 In text, ˙akhami(m) he-˙akhami(m) ha-umot, should read ˙akhmei ha-umot. At the Frankfurt assembly, the Reformers Bucer, Capito, Melanchthon and Zwingli were all present. 314

330

the chronicle

I {was able to} refute the arguments329 of Luther330 and Bucer331 and their followers {with proofs} from our Holy Torah, and they acknowledged the truth of my words.332 And a miracle within a miracle333 was performed for us, for it was revealed and made known to many, 5 and to that same Margrave Joachim, that all those martyred persons who had been burnt at the stake in the days of his father334 in the year 5270335—38 Jewish souls—were burnt because of a lying, malicious, false accusation. For already at the time, the robber had retracted336 his false testimony, but an evil enemy and adversary,337 10 the Bishop,338 had ordered the priest339 not to divulge to the Duke* the robber’s last confession. As a result {of hearing all these things} the Dukes340 repented of their evil ways and gave them [the Jews] a foothold in their lands. To this day341 Duke Joachim has faithfully

329 This may be a reference to the Reformers’ arguments against usury. R. Joseph proved that interest taking was permitted to the Jews according to the Torah. Or he may be referring to the charges that the Jews curse the Christians in their prayers, and that the Talmud contains insults and abuse against the Christians. 330 In text, ha-Luter (the Luther), and compare Sefer ha-Miknah, p. 15, line 13. 331 Martin Bucer (or Butzer) of Strasbourg was one of the leading Protestant Reformers. He instituted the Reformation in Hesse. On him, see below, introduction to the “Letter of Consolation”, p. 340 onwards. 332 Lit., “they thanked me for the blessings”. The same expression can be found in section 20 (p. 382, line 2), and see note 303 there. 333 For the source of this expression, see above, section 5, p. 312, note 99 there. His meaning here appears to be that the Duke of Saxony was convinced by R. Joseph’s arguments, and, at the very same time, Margrave Joachim was informed that the Brandenburg martyrs were innocent. And possibly he wishes to intimate that it was a gentile scholar who proclaimed the innocence of the Brandenburg Jews. The same expression appears in a similar context in section 5 (1509/10). 334 Margrave Joachim I. 335 The year 5270 (1509/10); 270 is the numerical sum of the word ra, “evil”. Here the author does not reverse the order of the letters, as was customary to ward oﬀ the evil eye (and as he does above in the section of the Chronicle for that year, p. 312, and see note 94 there), since he wishes to intimate that 5270 was indeed a year of calamity for the Jews. 336 In text, kvar ˙azar—at the time, after the trial, the robber who had stolen the Hosts retracted his accusation that the Jews were guilty of the crime. And see the introduction to section 5. 337 According to Esther 7:6: “An adversary and an enemy, this wicked Haman”. 338 The Bishop of Berlin, Hieronymus. 339 The priest who heard the robber’s last confession before his execution. The Bishop forbade the priest to divulge details of the confession to the Margrave, and thereby prevent the burning at the stake of the Jews. * {Margrave Joachim I.} 340 The Duke of Saxony and the Margrave of Brandenburg. 341 At the time of writing.

the chronicle

331

kept his word,342 but {the Duke of } Saxony has gone back on his promise,343 and has done us great harm by outlawing us.344 For that reason, he has been overthrown,345 and has received his just deserts. Blessed be God who has avenged His people. 5 [23] In the year 5301 (1540/41), when I came to the Reichstag of Regensburg to obtain improved conditions346 {for our people} in the form of further privileges347 from our lord the Emperor, judgement was wrought348 10 upon the [ Jews] of Naples.* Although the man from Rome named Solomon Romm was there {in Regensburg} and did all that he could349 {to prevent the expulsion}, the Emperor refused to listen to his words, and issued his harsh decree expelling them {the Jews} from that entire {kingdom}. He forbade Solomon to continue his 15 endeavours on pain of forfeiting his head. The man had to go into hiding, and {from there} gained a little time,350 by means of his secret contacts with esteemed351 governors.352 [24] 20 In that same year, 5301 (1540/41), a child disappeared in Weissenburg Forest, and was discovered stabbed to death—a putrid corpse trodden

342

Kam be-emuna (lit. “arose in faith”). He is referring to the 1543 decree, and see the introduction to this section, p. 236. 344 He withdrew the protection granted to Jews passing through his territory. 345 By divine intervention, or, maybe, by the Emperor; he is referring to the Duke of Saxony’s crushing defeat in the Schmalkaldic War. 346 In text, bidkei tsorkhei harabi(m): bidkei = bedek bayit, “maintenance, upkeep”, matters that require correction. 347 A reference to the 1541 charter, and see the introduction to this section, p. 240. 348 In text, midat ha-din, etc. See section 18 (p. 324, line 9), and note 261 there. * {An expulsion decree was issued against them.} 349 In text, be-hishtadlut rav. The author uses the expression hishtadlut in the masculine gender, as is often the case in the Middle Ages for nouns with the ending -ut; nowadays, nouns with this ending are generally feminine. 350 In text, zeman katan, “a brief postponement”, and compare above, section 9 (p. 316, line 7 and note 153 there). The mediator managed to secure a posponement of the expulsion, against the wishes of the Emperor. 351 In text, yekarim, possibly a translation of the German Teuere, a form of address for dignitaries. Or perhaps this is a hint at his considerable expenses ( yekarim in the sense of “expensive”). 352 In text, moshelim. He may be referring to the Emperor’s chief counsellors; compare below, section 27 (p. 335, line 10), and see note 403 there. 343

332

the chronicle

underfoot.353 Jews in that vicinity,354 {of?} the holy community of Tittingen, were falsely accused and placed under arrest. I had to intercede very strenuously355 with the Duke of Neuburg and also with the Lords of Pappenheim356 until, with the help of God, blessed be 5 He, they were freed. And I cannot write357 of all the travails I suﬀered358 during those days. The Imperial Court of Justice359 issued the Lords a summons in my name. And under pressure, the Swabian people360 retreated and withdrew from the battle.361 At all events, with the help of God, blessed be He, the Lords of Pappenheim were 10 ﬁlled with fear and dread of them {?},362 and they released the Jews from their enforced363 conﬁnement and acquitted them of the false accusation. Blessed be God who has not failed us in His loving kindness.364 15 [25] [fol. 9a] In the year 5302 (1541/42), judgement was wrought365 upon all the { Jews} of Bohemia,366 including the holy community of Prague, {by

353 In text, peger muvas, after Isaiah 14:19. Most commentators interpret the expression muvas as “trodden underfoot”. 354 In text, shekhun(a), here meaning “neighbourhood, vicinity”. Possibly what he is saying is that they lived in the vicinity of the Tittingen community. 355 In text, lif ’ol bi-peulo[t] rabo[t]. {For C. Fraenkel-Goldschmidt’s interpretation, see introduction to this section, p. 248} 356 They were the owners of Weissenburg Forest. 357 In text, kat mi-hekhil. I do not have suﬃcient space or words. 358 In text, she-hukr[a] u-faga bi, “that happened to me”—inﬂuenced by the German es ist mir geschehen, and see above, section 12, p. 319, line 1 and note 192 there. The expression hukra appears frequently in Sefer ha-Miknah, especially at the beginning of paragraphs in the ﬁrst part. 359 In text, kamir mishpat. He is referring to the Reichskammergericht. 360 Neuburg and Tittingen were both in Swabia, and the city of Weissenburg was a member of the Swabian League. 361 In text, mi-kishrei ha-mil˙ama—this term is derived from Mishnah Sotah 8:5; here apparently meaning the legal battle that R. Joseph waged against them. 362 In text, pa˙detam u-mora"am etc. According to Deuteronomy 11:25: “The fear of you and the dread of you”. The structure of the phrase is inﬂuenced by Jeremiah 2:19: velo pa˙dati elayikh, “and that My fear is not in you”. 363 In text ha-nidra(sh), apparently should read she-darshu me-hem, “that was required of them”. 364 Blessed be God, etc. This is also the ending for other sections of the Chronicle. See above, section 6 (p. 313, lines 5–6), and elsewhere. 365 In text, midat ha-din hayta metu˙a. See section 18 (p. 324, line 9, and note 261 there). 366 In text, Pihim, Böhmen in German, and in the language of the period, Behem or Beheim (comment by Yaacov Guggenheim).

the chronicle

333

means of } the snakes, the ﬁery serpents.367 {The Jews suﬀered} four severe punishments:368 captivity, killing, burning and cruciﬁxion,369 and, worse than all these, a bitter and hasty370 expulsion. In response to many pleas,371 I came,372 like a brother in adversity,373 to join 5 other men of deeds from the holy Prague community in an earnest appeal to the King,374 may he be exalted. And God, blessed be He, beheld the great fast and aﬄiction of souls,375 the repentance, prayer and charity,376 and He left a small remnant.377 And in the end, praise God,378 I was privileged to see the children return to their own ter10 ritory,379 multiply in number380 and rebuild what had been destroyed.381 However,382 I was informed by them, both verbally and by letter,383 when I was with them in the holy community of Prague on the ﬁrst

367 In text, mi-ne˙ashim ha-seraﬁm, “{by means of } the snakes, the ﬁery serpents”, after Numbers 21:6; he is alluding to the enemies of the Jews. The author uses a play on the word seraf and places a mark above the word ne˙ashim as a hint to it. Both words mean serpent, but seraf is a ﬁery serpent. The ne˙ashim and seraﬁm, i.e., the enemies of the Jews, used the rash of ﬁres (seraf is from the same root as saraf, “to burn, set on ﬁre”) as a pretext for their actions against the Jews. 368 According to Ezekiel 14:21: “When I send my four severe judgements etc.”. He is alluding to the arrest of the Jews and the execution of a number of Jews before the expulsion. See the introduction to this section, p. 255. 369 Hanging. 370 After Habakkuk 1:6: “That bitter and impetuous nation”. A hint to the very short notice given to the Jews according to the expulsion decree. 371 Or, “the pleas of our rabbis”. And perhaps it was Rabbi Abraham bar Avigdor of Prague who requested his help. 372 To Prague. 373 He may be implying that he came to assist them as though he was one of their own community, in spite of his previous bitter experience there. 374 Lit. “to entreat the face of the King”. He is referring to Ferdinand of Habsburg. 375 The community evidently proclaimed a fast, and perhaps also performed expiatory deeds. R. Joseph ascribes the success of his mission solely to God’s salvation. 376 From the prayer: “And repentance, prayer and charity avert the evil decree”. 377 After Joshua 8:22. 378 In text, “sh-l”, the abbreviation of sheva˙ la-el, “Praise God”. It is added in the margin. 379 After Jeremiah 31:16. 380 In text, ve-ravu, and should read ve-hitrabu. 381 After Ezekiel 36:36: “I the Lord have rebuilt the ruined places”, namely, they re-established the community. 382 In text, ve-af, “despite this”. He may be implying: and all the same they reverted to their corrupt ways. 383 In text, u-ﬁ ketavam, and should read, u-mi-pee ketavam—here meaning “their letters”. (According to the Talmudic expression mi-peehem velo mi-pee ketavam “from them personally and not from their written documents” [as in B.T. Gittin 71a]— with a change in meaning.)

334

the chronicle

of Tammuz this year {19 June 1547}, that some factions384 had reverted to their corrupt ways and had resumed the disputes. So I spoke to their hearts with words of explicit rebuke385 until they consented to follow the path of truth and peace. And so be His will. 5 [26] In the year 5304 (1543/44), judgement was wrought, for our many sins,386 upon ﬁve people—a man, three women, and a virgin—through a false accusation {concerning} a child whose corpse was found, 10 trodden underfoot.387 They tortured388 the man, the women, and the virgin until they were at death’s door,389 but praise God they refused to make a false confession.390 And during that time, I was active for a month in the holy community of Würzburg,391 and also in Speyer in connection with392 the Emperor’s letters.393 We, that is myself and 15 the other people, including none other than our teacher Rabbi Selkelin394 of blessed memory, and Rabbi S.,395 may God protect and

384 In text, kitot, as in section 20 (p. 326, line 9): kamu ze neged ze be-kitot, “feuding camps arose”. 385 In text, tokha˙a megula. After Proverbs 27:5: “Open rebuke is better than hidden love”. 386 For our collective sins; the suspects themselves are not guilty of any crime. 387 In text, peger muvas, after Isaiah 14:19. Perhaps he is trying to hint at the expression mitboseset be-damayikh, “weltering in your blood” (Ezekiel 16:6), hinting that the child may have been drowned. Compare with section 24 (p. 331, line 21 and p. 332, line 1), where the expression peger muvas does not have this connotation. 388 In the manuscript is written inui, “torture”, instead of ve-inu, “and they tortured”. 389 In text, ad sha"arei mit[a]. The same expression is used above, section 16 (p. 322, line 13). Exactly the same expression appears in R. Joseph’s letter in German to the Emperor concerning this libel: bisz gans nahe uﬀ den thod. And see the introduction to this section, pp. 261–262. 390 Praise God, for it was only due to their refusal to make a false confession that they could be saved. 391 Although the Würzburg Jewish community in actual fact no longer existed at that time, R. Joseph designates the city “the holy community”. It seems that a few individual Jews did live there during those years. 392 In text, im—possibly a translation of the German mit, “with regard to, in connection with”. 393 The Emperor’s second letter to the Bishop of Würzburg, of March 1544, was written in Speyer, during the meeting there of the Diet. 394 Perhaps Seligmann, and see the introduction to this section, p. 257, especially note 575. 395 I do not know to whom he is referring. The Chief Rabbi, R. Samuel, had died already in February 1543.

the chronicle

335

preserve him,396 expended on this matter an enormous sum397 in numerous expenses. This was the ransom money [or: expiation]398 to liberate the prisoners. And they were set free.399 The virgin sanctiﬁed God’s Name,400 enduring much torture for more than 32 weeks. 5 Blessed be God who saved them. [27] In the year 5305 (1544/45),401 the Emperor, may he be exalted, set out with a great army to {ﬁght} the King of France, and he advanced 10 as far as a town near Paris.402 And, at that time, the counsellors403 issued a mandate,404 requiring all the Jews in German territory to contribute to [the war eﬀort].405 Eventually we reached a compromise and agreed to give him {the Emperor} 3000 guilders at 15 batzen per guilder and 400 crowns for beverages,406 apart from addi15 tional gifts407 to the value of 1000 guilders. We levied408 three-quarters of a guilder for every hundred [i.e., 0.75%]. And on the same day409 396 Form of blessing for a living person. And see section 10 (p. 316, line 14 and note 155), where the abbreviation “m-h-r-r-sh” is followed by the blessing for the dead. 397 In text, hon atik (should read atek), after Proverbs 8:18: “Abundant riches”. 398 In text, hayta kapara, in the sense of “ransom”. Or in the sense in which it is used today—“atonement, expiation”; namely, the money was an expiation {for our sins} and it was right that we expended it on a good cause. 399 In text, ve-kara la-hen deror. After Isaiah 61:1: “To proclaim liberty to the captives”. 400 The steadfast endurance of torture without surrender is regarded by the author as Kiddush Hashem. Compare Sefer ha-Miknah, the introduction, p. 71. 401 He is presumably referring to the date of the Diet of Worms; he devotes the main part of this section to the Diet. And see the introduction to this section, p. 266. 402 He reached Soissons, which is on the road to Paris. 403 In text, ba’u ha-moshlim. He is apparently referring to the Emperor’s chief counsellor, Granvelle, and the other imperial counsellors. See also section 23 (p. 331, line 17 and note 352). The language is that of Numbers 21:27. 404 Orders from the Chancellory. 405 To give monetary assistance for the war in France. 406 For the Emperor’s retinue or for the army. 407 A distinction is made here between the contribution to the war eﬀort and the gifts to the Emperor himself for his expenses. 408 The Jewish communal leaders. They decided on the amount each Jew was required to pay; and see the introduction to this section, p. 265. 409 A reference to the day on which the event occurred which he is now going to describe. D. J. Cohen, in his article “Al Maavakam shel Yehudei Germaniya” (see above, p. 269, note 604 there), p. 45, opines that “day” refers to “Tag” in “Reichstag”. This is possible, but it should be noted that R. Joseph normally writes the word “Reichstag” in full, e.g., in section 23 (p. 331, line 7), and see below,

336

the chronicle

when I was with the holy community of Worms,410 all the princes and dukes planned to expel the Jews, and to appeal to the Emperor {in this connection}.411 Whereupon, there arose a good man,412 who is remembered for good, and explained and demonstrated to them 5 that this could not be done: the Jews could not be removed from under their government413 for [Christian] religious laws and precepts414 {required} that they be retained within the domains of the Roman emperor and king, as a sign and testimony415 [to the truth of Christianity]. The evil scheme for a total expulsion416 was can10 celled, but individual { Jews} have been expelled417 from the domain of Mainz,418 {and from} Esslingen, and Landau, and, since then, from other places. All this is by reason of the fact that, for our many sins, this generation is not worthy and does not conduct itself honestly and righteously as did our fathers, as they have told us.419 But 15 those who fear the word of God420 redeemed themselves, and follow the path of truth and peace.421

section 28 (p. 337, line 11), where R. Joseph calls the Reichstag Yom Va"ad, “the day of the assembly”. 410 The author generally designates a city that possessed a Jewish community as the “holy community”, even when describing events unrelated to the Jews. Compare section 26 (p. 334, line 13), and see note 391 there. It can be assumed that when he was in Worms, R. Joseph did indeed stay with the Jewish community. 411 The decision to expel the Jews had to have the Emperor’s consent. 412 This is clearly a reference to Cardinal Farnese, and see the introduction to this section, p. 268 onwards. 413 In text, lehaalot ha-yudi(m) mi-ta˙at yadam (lit: “to lift up the Jews from under your hands”). According to Exodus 18:10: “Delivered the people from under the hand of Egypt”. The image is of servants subject to Christian rule, and, by their expulsion, they are as it were being set at liberty. 414 In text, nimuseih(em). Can also mean “(their) customs”. 415 In text, le-zikaron, “as a sign”, like the mark of Cain. And see the introduction to this section, p. 268, note 601. 416 In text, gerush kala, after Exodus 11:1. 417 A few people—as opposed to the expulsion of whole communities or of the entire Jewish population of the land. In text, prati"i(m)—may resemble the German word sonderlich, as opposed to samentlich, which he uses in his letter of complaint to the city of Esslingen. See above, in the introduction to this section, pp. 271, 276. 418 Under the rule of the archbishop of Mainz, and see the introduction to this section, p. 281 onwards. 419 After Judges 6:13. 420 According to Exodus 9:20: “He that feared the word of God . . . made his servants and his cattle ﬂee into the houses”. Here apparently meaning those who were scrupulous in their monetary transactions and heeded R. Joseph’s admonishments. 421 His meaning seems to be: in their usury transactions with Christians.

the chronicle

5

10

15

20

337

[28] [fol. 9b] In the year 5306 (1545/46), our lord the Emperor came to Regensburg and commanded all the princes and dukes to attend the Reichstag and to reconcile their diﬀerences of opinion and422 their disagreements on matters of faith. Although most of them423 came, the two dukes, Saxony and Hesse,424 and their followers were rebellious and vexed425 the Emperor; they rebelled against him for several years. Meanwhile, I laboured to obtain new privileges426 and credentials427 the like of which no emperor or king had ever granted us before. Already in Speyer, the Emperor and his counsellors had promised to give them to me, and during this Diet428 at Regensburg I strongly urged the counsellors429 to keep their word. And, indeed, with the help of God, blessed be He, they were written down and sealed with the Emperor’s hand and seal. Soon afterwards, the Emperor resolved to gather forces and to wage war against those two aforesaid princes. Then came the people whose tongue you cannot understand430—the Spaniards—and would have attacked431 the Jewish people, had it not been for God who was with us,432 aiding us when I came to that great governor—chief minister to the Emperor—named Granvelle, {and requested him} to implore and entreat the Emperor to protect us, and he did what we asked. He went to the Emperor and said to him: “Behold, the Jews have suﬀered much persecution at the hands of those433 Lutheran heretics, and now come your own people, the Spanish,434 and will attack them in spite of the new privileges that you previously granted them {the Jews}”. And the Emperor

422

Apparently a word is missing here, such as “to discuss” or “to debate”. The princes. 424 Elector John Frederick and Landgrave Philip. 425 After Isaiah 63:10. 426 The 1544 privilege. 427 May imply that during the Speyer Diet R. Joseph also obtained renewed authorization of his powers and for his activities. 428 In text, Yom Va’ad. He is referring to the Reichstag. 429 In text, ha-moshlim—the Emperor’s advisers, and see above, section 27 (p. 335, line 10, and note 403). 430 After Deuteronomy 28:49. 431 {In text, le-hafkir, lit., “to act lawlessly”. As C. Fraenkel-Goldschmidt remarks in the introduction to this section, p. 295, this could mean that the Spaniards actually assaulted Jews or that the Jews feared that this would happen. Translator} 432 After Psalms 124:1. 433 In text, me-hanei (Aramaic). 434 Charles V considered Spain to be his homeland. 423

338

5

10

15

20

the chronicle

gave a gracious reply: “It would not be right to leave the Jews unprotected. Here are written and signed orders that no soldier from any of our armies shall lift hand or foot435 to injure or harm any Jew on pain of punishment.” Therefore, it was publicly proclaimed by {imperial} command in all parts of Germany that anyone violating the Emperor’s decree would be punishable by death. All at once the Spaniards became well disposed towards the Jews, and when the Emperor arrived with his army to do battle, the Jews brought {them} bread and wine and supplied the forces with more than 50 wagons and karren.436 The two princes, Saxony and Hesse, together with all the German cities,437 had huge forces, more than 100,000 foot soldiers438 and armoured horsemen.439 However, although our lord the Emperor, may he be exalted, did not possess so great and powerful an army as they did—only 40,000 in all—God came to his aid, so that he pursued and totally destroyed them. And in the end he captured the two princes. They are still in his custody.440 We strenuously appealed to all the Jews to pray morning and evening [for the safety of the Emperor] {and to recite} “Our Father Our King” and the Hymn of Unity,441 and in the holy community of Frankfurt [the Jews prayed] that God should protect our lord the Emperor, and His people Israel. For His hand is not too short to save the many and the few.442 The victory that the Emperor won was in the year 5307 (1546/47). And God performed miracles and wondrous acts for us: in His mercy He protected the Jewish people, so that

435

Genesis 41:44. These too are wagons. 437 Most of the imperial cities joined the Schmalkaldic side. 438 In text, anshei regel, a translation of the German word Fussvolk. 439 In text, rokhvei barzelot (“horsemen of iron”). They were equipped with iron coats of armour. Inﬂuenced by the verse: “Because they had chariots of iron”, Judges 1:19. 440 At the time of writing. 441 The prayer “Our Father Our King” is recited during the Ten Days of Penitence {the period that includes the Jewish New Year and the Day of Atonement}, and in a few communities also on fast days. The Hymns of Unity are recited daily in several communities and in all Ashkenazi communities during the Evening service on the Day of Atonement, after “Our Father Our King”. Here the intention seems to have been that they should pray intensively, possibly from a feeling that the fate of the Jews would be determined by the outcome of this war. 442 After Isaiah 59:1: “Behold the Lord’s hand is not too short that it cannot save”, and 1 Samuel 14:6: “For there is no restraint upon the Lord to save the many or the few”. 436

the chronicle

339

we did not lose a single person443 in this great war. Blessed be God who did not fail us in his loving kindness, and delivered us twice over444 from those great multitudes.445 May He continue and do more also. Amen. 5 [29] In the year 5307 (1546/47), our lord the Emperor sent the commander of the forces446 with 10,000 soldiers to {besiege} the city of Frankfurt and subdue447 it. If {the city} were to capitulate and sue 10 for peace, he was to agree conditionally. The { Jewish} community sent {emissaries} to me {to request} that I intercede on their behalf with the commander, Count von Büren.448 The {city} was captured and the gates were opened to the commander and all his soldiers. I went with proposals to the commander bringing him a gift of 800 15 {guilders}. And there was peace for the Jews in the street449 and in the city. The plunder and loot taken in Feuchtwangen and Darmstadt was sold cheaply to the Jews, and they were able to make a certain amount of money. Praise God, their prayers were eﬃcacious and their mourning was turned into joy.450 May God continue to grant 20 peace to all Israel.

443

Numbers 31:49. His meaning may be that neither of the two warring camps harmed the Jews. 445 In text, hamoni"im, hamoni"im. The expression conveys the totality of the war in Germany. 446 Von Büren. 447 In text, le-khofam, possibly inﬂuenced by the German expression niederzwingen. 448 In the manuscript there is a mark above the name. 449 In the street of the Jews ( Judengasse). (Comment by Yaacov Guggenheim.) 450 After Jeremiah 31:12. 444

THE LETTER OF CONSOLATION

Historical Background R. Joseph turned his attention to the developments in Hesse after the publication of proposals made by the Reformer Martin Bucer (1491–1551) to the ruler of Hesse, Landgrave Philip, respecting the status of Hessian Jewry.1 In 1524, Landgrave Philip “the Magnanimous” issued an expulsion edict against Hessian Jewry.2 However, in 1532 he renewed the residence rights of the Jews for an additional six years, with restrictions on usury or excessive interest and illegal business transactions of other kinds (das sie sich wuchers enthalten vnd vnsere vnderthanen . . . mit vnzimlichen contracten vnd gedingen nit beschweren sollen).3 At the end of 1 This account is based mainly on the following works: M. Bucer et al., Judenratschlag, in: R. Stupperich (ed.), Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften, 7, revised by E. W. Kohls, Gütersloh 1964 (hereafter: Bucers Schriften), pp. 319–93; W. Holsten, “Christentum und nichtchristliche Religion nach der Auﬀassung Bucers”, Theologische Studien und Kritiken (Gotha), 107 (1936), pp. 105–94; W. Maurer, “Martin Butzer und die Judenfrage in Hessen”, Zeitschrift des Vereins für hessische Geschichte und Landeskunde, 64 (1953), pp. 29–43, and reprinted in a collection of the author’s articles: Kirche und Geschichte, Gesammelte Aufsätze, 2, Göttingen 1970, pp. 347–65; S. Salfeld, “Die Judenpolitik des Landgrafen Philipp des Großmütigen”, in: Philipp der Großmütige—Beiträge zur Geschichte seines Lebens und seiner Zeit, Marburg 1904, pp. 519–44; H. Eells, Martin Bucer, New Haven 1931, pp. 240–41; idem, “Bucer’s Plan for the Jews”, Church History, 4, pp. 127–35; E. W. Kohls, “Die Judenfrage in Hessen während der Reformationszeit”, Jahrbuch der hessischen kirchengeschichtlichen Vereinigung, 21 (1970), pp. 87–100, and the detailed preface to vol. 7 of Bucer’s Schriften, p. 321 onwards, which likewise is written by E. W. Kohls (hereafter: Kohls); F. Battenberg, Judenverordnungen in Hessen-Darmstadt— Eine Dokumentation, Wiesbaden 1987. The laws for Hessian Jewry that were issued between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries have also been published by L. Munk, “Die Judenordnungen in Hessen-Cassel”, Judaica—Festschrift zu Herman Cohens 70. Geburtstage, Berlin 1912, pp. 377–88; C. Cohn, “Martin Butzer and his Inﬂuence on the Jewish Situation”, Yearbook of the Leo Baeck Institute, 13 (1968), pp. 93–101. This article does not add much to clarify matters. See also S. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 13, pp. 214–42 and the detailed bibliography there, note 41, pp. 435–36. 2 Decree dated 18 July; it was not intended solely for Jews but also for beggars and other undesirable groups. See Battenberg, Judenverordnungen, no. 1, p. 59, and Salfeld, “Die Judenpolitik des Landgrafen Philipp”, p. 523. It seems that with respect to the Jews it was never enforced, or at all events not fully. 3 Decree of 28 May, printed in full by Kohls, in appendix (Anlage) 1 of the edition of Bucers Schriften, p. 377. See also Salfeld, p. 524, who ﬁnds a direct

the letter of consolation

341

that period, Philip faced a dilemma regarding the future of the Jews under his rule. This was in 1538—a short time after the expulsion of the Jews from Saxony and following Luther’s publication of his tract Against the Sabbatarians. In 1536, Philip asked the advice of the statesman Jacob Sturm of Strasbourg 4 as to the correct manner in which a Christian ruler should treat the Jews, and requested to know how Strasbourg was contending with this question.5 The Landgrave forwarded Sturm’s reply, which did not include a recommendation that the Jews be expelled, to the Reformer Martin Bucer, likewise of Strasbourg. This was not the ﬁrst time that Bucer had been involved in Hessian aﬀairs; previously, he had attempted to solve the problem of the radical Protestant sects—particularly the Anabaptists and Sabbatarians— that began to proliferate in Hesse from 1536 onwards. In 1538, Bucer was in Hesse and drew up a plan to regulate the aﬀairs of the Protestant church there and to restore the Anabaptists to its ranks.6 Thus, it was only natural that he should be consulted also on the question of a Christian ruler’s duty with regard to the Jews.7 At that point, a proposal was submitted to the Landgrave from an unknown quarter. It consisted of seven articles regulating the relationship between the positive attitude of the Landgrave towards the Jews and R. Joseph’s activities at the 1530 Diet. 4 Jacob Sturm was a close conﬁdant of Philip of Hesse and collaborated with him throughout the Reformation period in Germany. The Landgrave’s letters to Bucer inviting the Reformer to Hesse were conveyed through him. (Kohls, introduction, p. 324, note 12). The preeminent status enjoyed by Strasbourg among the cities in Germany during that period, particularly with the various Protestant sects, can be accredited in no small measure to Sturm. 5 Philip was apparently unaware that Strasbourg had not permitted the residence of Jews within its walls since as far back as the late fourteenth century. 6 For Bucer’s struggle with the secessionist Protestant sects, see Eells, Martin Bucer, chapter VI, p. 54 onwards; for his involvement in the reorganization of the church in Hesse, see ibid., chapter XXIII, p. 238 onwards. See also W. Diehl, Martin Butzers Bedeutung für das kirchliche Leben in Hessen, Halle 1904. 7 It was standard practice in Protestant states to solicit the opinions of theologians on religious questions. Philip behaved in a similar manner when confronted with the problem of the Anabaptists. See W. Sohm, Territorium und Reformation in der hessischen Geschichte, Marburg 1914, p. 144. This study shows (especially pp. 17–20) how a state that became Protestant owing to the direct inﬂuence of Luther’s doctrine came to consider itself responsible for the religious life and education of its citizens. This explains the intolerance towards any other religion or sect in the state, and also the basic attitude towards the question of the toleration of the Jews in the state. For the importance of the mission in Bucer’s doctrine and, in particular, with respect to the Jews, see Holsten, “Christentum und nichtchristliche Religion”, pp. 105 and 181.

342

historical background

status of the Jews. The proposal included: (1) the right to buy and sell and engage in handicrafts without detriment to the Christians, but not in cities possessing artisan guilds, as they strongly objected to the Jews being granted these privileges; (2) a prohibition on unfair business practices; (3) a prohibition on the lending of money at excessive interest rates ( jüdischer such [= gesuch] oder wucher), but permission to lend small sums on condition that such transactions took place in the presence of a government oﬃcial or with the knowledge and consent of the city council, and according to its terms; (4) special oﬃcers to be appointed by the Jews themselves, in addition to the government representative, to supervise compliance with these stipulations and penalize transgressors; (5) the payment of protection fees (Schutzpfennig), either the customary amount or as the Landgrave would determine. Two additional articles were appended to the original proposal: (6) attendance at Christian sermons to be made mandatory for Jews; (7) a prohibition on Jews from debating with Christians on religious matters.8 Some scholars, including Lenz,9 believe that this proposal, apart from the last two articles, was submitted to the authorities on behalf of the Jews, and that the economic articles in the document are essentially the same as those in the Artikel und Ordnung presented by R. Joseph of Rosheim to the imperial princes at the close of the Augsburg Diet.10 Some researchers even speculate that it was R. Joseph who drafted the articles for the Jews. Salfeld, however, believes it unlikely that the Jews themselves composed any of the seven articles.11 The articles were submitted to six leading theologians in Hesse, including Bucer, so that they could express their opinion on the 8 The articles of the proposal are printed in the edition of Bucers Schriften, pp. 432–33. On the back of the document ﬁle from which the proposal was printed is written: How to Tolerate the Jews. Submitted on Behalf of the Jews to His Excellency the exalted Prince Philip, Landgrave of Hesse”. This is evidently based on Bucer’s words in his letter to an anonymous friend, in which he describes the original proposal as: “die Artickel, so die Juden, wie man sie halten sol, ubergeben”. 9 Lenz was the ﬁrst to publish and analyze the correspondence between the Landgrave and Bucer: M. Lenz (ed.), Briefwechsel Landgraf Philipps des Großmüthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, I, Leipzig 1880, pp. 55–60. 10 See introduction to section 15 of the Chronicle, p. 179 onwards, and in the General Introduction, p. 24. 11 Salfeld, “Die Judenpolitik”, p. 527, opines that it was a simple mistake by Bucer that he thought that these proposals originated from the Jews. He surmises that several of the articles may have been based on proposals submitted at some stage by the Jews, but it is impossible that the document in this form was actually proposed by them.

the letter of consolation

343

question: “Whether it is proper for a Christian government to permit the Jews to reside amongst the Christians, and if so, in what manner and on what conditions”.12 Most of the theologians believed that the Jews should be expelled from the land, as they did not consider that any arrangement, even one proposed by the Jews themselves, would actually be implemented in practice. Only Bucer submitted a separate opinion (Ratschlag),13 and it was eventually endorsed by the other theologians. In his view, the Jews could be tolerated in Hesse, but only on certain very speciﬁc conditions. In this proposal, his attitude to the Jews is shown quite clearly, as it is too in his theological writings.14 In Bucer’s opinion, it is the government’s duty to ensure that there is no false religion in the land. Those refusing to adopt the true faith should be penalized until they either agree to accept the religion of the land or leave the land. As for the Jews, writes Bucer, they undoubtedly merit special treatment, for they are the stem of the olive tree, onto which has been grafted the branches, the Christians. Moreover, God’s special relationship with His people has not ceased. However, the Jews must receive God’s punishment on account of their refusal to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. This should be done not from hatred or a desire to injure them, but out of compassion and a regard for their own good, in order to save their souls. So long as the Jews’ situation remains good, they will not reach salvation. Christianity too will only have fulﬁlled its mission in its entirety when the Jews convert. In addition, the Christians have to be protected 12 “Ob Christlicher Oberkait gebüren müge, das sye die Juden undter den Christen zu wonen gedulden, und wa sye zu gedulden, wölcher gstalt und maß”. As remarked, the relevant documents were ﬁrst published by Lenz, and recently in the edition of Bucers Schriften, p. 342 onwards. 13 Ibid., pp. 343–60. 14 Salfeld is of the opinion that Bucer changed his attitude towards the Jews as a result of his meeting with Luther in Wittenberg at the end of 1538. However, Maurer (“Martin Butzer und die Judenfrage in Hessen”) and following him Kohls (“Die Judenfrage in Hessen”, pp. 91–94, and in the introduction to his edition of Bucer’s writings, pp. 325–28), believe that Bucer expressed similar views to those we ﬁnd in his Ratschlag already in his treatise Dialogi, which was published in 1535, and in his commentary of 1536 on The Epistle to the Romans 11:24, only that in those works his arguments are more theological, and in the Ratschlag they are more legalistic, and he invokes Roman law and the Scriptural law concerning “strangers”. See also J. Müller, Martin Bucers Hermeneutik, Heidelberg University, Dissertation, 1955, p. 154, who determines that in Bucer’s opinion it is possible to preserve true Christian love towards the Jews while at the same time meting out severe punishment to them.

344

historical background

from the Jews, and this will only be possible if severe restrictions are placed on them. As for the actual question of the continued toleration of the Jews, writes Bucer, it would be appropriate to expel the Jews totally from the Christian state. Yet, he admits, there have been bishops and emperors who found ways of retaining them. If it is decided to tolerate them, the following conditions have to be be laid down: Jews will have to swear (1) not to curse the Christians, and to follow only the teachings of the Torah and the Prophets and not those perverse fabrications of the Talmud; (2) not to build new synagogues; (3) not to discuss their faith with any Christian, apart from preachers specially appointed for that purpose; (4) that they, together with their wives and children, will attend sermons to be given for their beneﬁt. These four stipulations refer to the last two articles of the original seven-point proposal. With regard to their legal status and economic rights, Bucer opines that the Jews should be forbidden to engage in commerce or usury, since, as he puts it, the Jews, by their very nature, are wont to defraud the Christians, and it would be unjust to protect the wolf at the expense of the sheep. The Jews, he writes, should be treated according to the words of rebuke in Deuteronomy 28:43–44: “The stranger in your midst will rise above you higher and higher and you will sink lower and lower. He will lend to you but you will not lend to him; he will be the head, and you will be the tail”. He recommends that the Jews should be barred from respectable lucrative crafts and permitted to engage only in the hardest and most menial work, such as woodcutting or coal-mining, chimney sweeping or the removal of excrement. The Jews’ money should be “loaned” to the government and lent to the poor at a low interest rate, after which it should be returned to them. As for the protection fees paid by the Jews, Bucer considers that they should be determined according to their wealth, since, up to this time, the authorities have permitted the Jews to charge exorbitant interest, and have then extracted money from them for their own needs. The idea that the Jews themselves should supervise the observance of these conditions is, in Bucer’s opinion, a foolish one, for ‘’who will supervise the supervisors?” However, Bucer does allow that the Jews should be enabled to enforce their right of excommunication (Bann). Finally Bucer emphasizes that while the best solution would be to expel the Jews, they could be tolerated under the aforementioned conditions,

the letter of consolation

345

with the aim of inﬂuencing at least some of them to convert to Christianity. The Ratschlag was presented to Landgrave Philip by the Statthalter (the governor) and the city council of Kassel on 17 December 1538, and Philip responded on the 23rd of the month with a letter to his advisers.15 In it, he gives a detailed reply. He has not found it written in any place, he stresses, either in the Old Testament or in the New, that the Jews should receive such treatment. He knows that many of his Jewish subjects do more good by their loans than do many Christians, and charge less interest than them. He answers the quotation from Deuteronomy 28 with a quotation from Romans 11, in which the Jews are compared to the natural olive tree on which is grafted the wild olive branches, the Christians,16 and he emphasizes that although the branches of the original olive tree have been broken oﬀ, it is possible that one day they will sprout anew. He cites the prophecy of Jeremiah (31:34–35) that the bond between God and His people has not been severed, and that God will make a new covenant with the Jews in the future. In addition, he is of the opinion that the Jews would be unable to subsist under the conditions proposed for them by Bucer, and thus it would be far better to tell them to leave the land. The Landgrave goes on to propose that there should be a twoyear extension of the Jews’ residence permit, during which time their conduct could be assessed. Towards that end, he attached to his letter an 11-article document17 setting out the terms under which, in his view, the Jews could temporarily be tolerated. In this document the Landgrave adopts the theologians’ religious proposals. The Jews will have to swear: (1) that they do not in any manner whatsoever 15

Printed in the edition of Bucers Schriften, appendix (Anlage) 4, pp. 380–82. “Ob aber nun etliche von den Zweygen geprochen seyn vnd du, da du ein wilder ölbaum warest, bist vnder Sy gepropfet vnd theilhaftig worden der wurtzel vnd ([des] Safts im ölbaum, so rüme dich nitt wider die Zweyge . . .”. This image of the original branches of the olive tree, i.e., the Jews, in contrast to the wild olive branches grafted onto it, i.e., the Christians (see above, p. 343, and note 14 there), also appears in Capito’s letter of recommendation for R. Joseph. See introduction to section 22 of the Chronicle (p. 234), and Salfeld, p. 534, note 33. As remarked, Bucer too relies on this image, when he explains the diﬀerence between idolaters and the Jews, whom the church and rulers were accustomed to tolerate in Christian lands. However, he does not draw from it any conclusions as to the conditions on which the Jews should be tolerated. Compare Bucers Schriften, p. 349, lines 15–19. 17 Ibid., appendix 5, pp. 383–85. 16

346

historical background

curse or deride Jesus and Christianity; that they will conduct their lives according to the Holy Scriptures given to them by Moses and the Prophets and not in accordance with the laws taught to them by the Talmudic sages, for the ungodly fabrications of the Talmud distance them from the true faith; (2) that they will not erect new synagogues in any locality; (3) that they will not enter into any kind of disputation on matters of religion, save with preachers specially appointed for this purpose; and (4) that they and their wives and children will attend sermons to be given for their beneﬁt. With regard to economic matters, the Landgrave basically adopts the ideas contained in the original proposal: (5) the Jews are permitted to engage in honest commerce, but only in cities where there are no artisan guilds or where the latter give their consent. Their trading activities are to be under the supervision of the authorities, who will be authorized to decide, in each and every case, whether the Jews are permitted to trade in the goods in their possession; (6) Jews who do not follow honest business practices, or take interest, will promptly be penalized by the local authorities, the Landgrave’s oﬃcials or the cities; (7) the Jews are forbidden to lend money at interest (Wucher), except for small sums. The loans are to be transacted in the presence of a public oﬃcial at an annual interest rate of 5%, or the standard rate charged to Christians; any Jew who lends money without the knowledge of the authorities will lose the principal and also be sent to prison; (8) the Jews are required to swear that they will not bribe government oﬃcials or their wives or children in order to persuade them to connive at illegal transactions; (9) the government oﬃcials and city leaders will be responsible for ensuring that the Jews scrupulously comply with these articles; (10) the Jews will be permitted to appoint their own supervisors, who will see to it that these articles are observed and will themselves punish oﬀenders; (11) the protection fees will be paid by the Jews to the Landgrave, the amount to be agreed upon with him, each Jew according to his means.18 Bucer responded to the Landgrave’s letter with a letter of his own dated 27 December.19 The Jews ought not to be harmed, he concedes, and should be treated a little better than idolaters. However,

18 19

On this point too the Landgrave adopted Bucer’s proposal. Bucers Schriften, appendix 7, pp. 388–90.

the letter of consolation

347

God’s mercy should be restricted in accordance with the Scriptures themselves, and the wolves should not be given preference over the sheep. The Jews are enemies of the Christians and they are the wolves, although it is possible that, in the future, a few sheep might be raised among them. He is convinced that there is no contradiction between the Landgrave’s attitude and his own, since both of them have the same objective in mind—the conversion of the Jews. The Landgrave’s recommendations were conveyed to the Jews through their representative, Lazarus the Jew, and in a letter to the authorities, they respond to his proposals point by point.20 After having consulted the said Lazarus, write the Jews, they wish to bring their response to the proposals to the attention of the authorities. Some of the articles would be extremely onerous for them, and they ask that their petition be taken into consideration and those articles altered. They are ready to undertake not to curse Jesus and Christianity, but are not able to swear that they will conduct their lives solely according to the Bible and Prophets and renounce the Talmud, unless they receive an express divine command to do so. In the entire principality of Hesse, they aver, there is not a single Jew who is capable of understanding the Talmud [!], and, certainly, no Jew who possesses a copy of it. However, they ask for time to ascertain whether there is a Jew who, nevertheless, does own a copy of the Talmud, and then they could submit it for examination by Christian scholars, so that the latter could scrutinize it for any improper material, and if such were found, the Jews would ﬁnd it easier to repudiate it. They are prepared to undertake not to build new synagogues or engage in religious discussions; however, they ask to be released from the obligation to hear sermons, since this would be diﬃcult for them for reasons they cannot go into in this letter. They request that attendance at such sermons be on a voluntary and not obligatory basis. They are prepared to abide by the economic articles, but appeal to the authorities not to discriminate against them as compared to the Christians, and ask that Jewish oﬀenders not be penalized more severely than others. They are asking permission to practice usury; however, the conditions proposed to them are so stringent that Christians too would be unable to abide by them; they ask that

20

Ibid., appendix 6, pp. 386–87.

348

historical background

the conditions be relaxed, and undertake that there will be no complaints against them in respect of usury. If, nevertheless, a complaint were brought against any Jew, he would be punished. They are prepared to promise not to pay any bribes to the authorities; however, they ask to be released from the oath, since, according to the Jewish faith, it is not customary to swear oaths so lightly on matters of this kind. The other articles are acceptable to them, but they express the hope that the Landgrave will not increase the amount they are paying in protection fees. At the beginning of 1539, while negotiations between the Jews and the authorities were still in progress, Bucer’s Ratschlag and the Landgrave’s reply were published in Strasbourg. It seems that as a direct result of this R. Joseph raised the subject at the Frankfurt assembly of Protestant princes, which met in February 1539. He writes {in the Letter of Consolation} that at the assembly he complained bitterly to Bucer that a Jew had been attacked on the road to Friedberg and robbed of his possessions, and that the assailants had taunted their victim saying: “Jew, have you not heard of Bucer’s book that was published? He writes that it is permitted to take away your money and distribute it among the poor”. Bucer was incensed at the publication of the documents and accused the Jews of being behind the matter. He claimed that they had printed his Ratschlag without his knowledge in order to prevent the implementation of his proposals. He also complained that he had been obliged to defend himself in a disputation with a Jew—he was apparently referring to R. Joseph—who wished to prove to him from the Jews’ holy books that the Jewish attitude towards the Christians was the exact reverse of what he claimed. Bucer wrote down all his grievances in his “Letter to a Good Friend” in Strasbourg—it is not known whether this “friend” was real or ﬁctitious.21 The “Letter”, which bears the date of 10 May 1539, along with his Ratschlag, Bucer had printed in Strasbourg—this time on his own initiative. In this tract, Bucer lashes out furiously at the Jews. He again denies that there is any disagreement in principle between the Landgrave and himself; he is sure that the Landgrave, like himself, undoubtedly desires the conversion of the Jews. He also attacks the Jews’ customs, religion and beliefs. 21 The letter Brief an einem “guten Freund” was printed as the second part of his Ratschlag, ibid., pp. 362–76.

the letter of consolation

349

The Jews’ petition to the authorities had no eﬀect and in mid1539 the Jewish ordinance ( Judenordnung) was published.22 It was one of a series of laws designed to regulate and consolidate religious life in Hesse that were issued during the years 1538–1539, and should be seen in this context.23 Scholars are divided in their opinions as to whether this ordinance constitutes a victory for Bucer’s doctrine or whether it expresses the more moderate attitude adopted by the Landgrave. Bucer’s extreme social proposals were not included in it, nor was the total prohibition on Jewish commercial activities that he had demanded. All the same, its stringent regulations caused great distress to Hessian Jewry. The ordinance consists of 14 articles and essentially included all 11 of the Landgrave’s proposals cited above, although the division of the articles is slightly diﬀerent and there is a detailed description of the penalties to be meted out to Jewish oﬀenders. There are three additional points in it that were not among the Landgrave’s proposals: (1) the imposition of the death penalty for sexual relations between a Jew and Christian women; (2) the imposition of the death penalty for trading in stolen goods [!]. The Jews are advised to take precautions and carefully ascertain the source of all goods they seek to buy or accept as pledges; (3) a prohibition on non-resident Jews from trading in the state. The most problematical article was that requiring Jews to attend sermons by Christian preachers, in order to expedite their conversion.24

22 The text has been printed by Munk, “Die Judenordnungen in Hessen-Cassel”, and also in the edition of Bucers Schriften, appendix 8, pp. 391–93, and, recently, by Battenberg, Judenverordnungen, pp. 59–61. 23 A contemporary chronicler refers to the Jewish ordinance in the framework of the general religious reforms in Hesse. See W. Lanze, Leben Philipps des Großmüthigen, I (Zeitschrift des Vereins für hessische Geschichte und Landeskunde, 1), Kassel 1841. Battenberg, in contrast, in his preface (ibid., pp. 2–3), emphasizes rather the trend towards instituting a system of permanent laws for the Landgrave’s territorial domain, and does not stress the connection between this ordinance and the laws that regulated religious life as a whole in the state. 24 On this point there is some similarity to the treatment of the Anabaptists. The various proposals for regulating religious life in Hesse and also the ecclesiastical ordinance, which was established with Bucer’s assistance, all emphasized the duty of pastors to deliver sermons to the Anabaptists and preach to them concerning the true religion. See Sohm, Territorium und Reformation, p. 162 onwards, especially p. 167. And not only to them: every Christian child was required to hear sermons and to learn the basic tenets of the Christian religion. See Diehl, Martin Butzers Bedeutung für das kirchliche Leben, pp. 50–51.

350

r. joseph and the “letter of consolation” R. Joseph and the “Letter of Consolation”

At this stage the Jews turned for help to R. Joseph. From R. Joseph’s response we learn that, in their appeal to him, the Jews complained that as a result of Bucer’s proposals they had fallen out of favour with the Landgrave, and that they were being compelled to hear Christian sermons and were being pressed to respond to Bucer’s charges regarding the nature of their Jewish religion. In 1541, in response to this appeal by Hessian Jewry, R. Joseph composed his “Letter of Consolation” (Trostschrift). He most probably wrote it in Hebrew, or possibly in Judeo-German, so that it could be read on the Sabbath in the synagogues.25 At the same time, he had the “Letter” translated into German and the translation presented to the Strasbourg city council, in order to prove to its members that he could not be accused of harming the Protestants. The Hebrew or Judeo-German original is no longer extant and the German translation has been preserved only in part: whole sections of it have been lost and of some paragraphs only the titles remain.26 An abstract or summary of the German translation was also prepared, apparently by the city chancellory.27 R. Joseph wrote his “Letter of Consolation” to provide Hessian Jewry with an immediate answer on how to behave in the face of the harsh decrees enacted against them. His “Letter” was designed to equip them with the fundamental principles of their faith, thus enabling them to respond to questions on religious matters during polemical debates with Christians. It also contained a general survey of the status of the Jewish people among the gentiles and advice on how the Jews should comport themselves vis-à-vis the gentiles. These are the three subjects with which the “Letter of Consolation” is principally concerned. 25 R. Joseph makes this point in his letter of 9 March 1541 to the city of Strasbourg, ArchMun Strasbourg, III, 174, 23, and there is a note to this eﬀect in the same archives, Conseil des XXI Annee 1541, 86v, 92v. 26 The fragments of the translation are deposited in the Strasbourg City Archives, in the Wenker collection: Argentoratensia Historica politica, Tom. I–II, no. 17. These fragments have been published by Feilchenfeld, Beilage XVI, pp. 180–84. 27 The abstract too is incomplete; at times it only has the titles of the sections. It is extant in two copies that are almost identical, apart from some variations in the spelling. One copy is in the Wenker collection and is a continuation of the larger fragment containing the translation. It is entitled, Anonymi Judicium etc. The other is catalogued as ArchMun Strasbourg, III, 174, 24, and is entitled: Ein summarischer Extract etc. It has been published by Bresslau, ZGJD, 5 (1892), pp. 329–30.

the letter of consolation

351

The ﬁrst part (folios 1–8) is devoted to a polemic against Bucer,28 although R. Joseph repeatedly stresses that he does not wish to injure or oﬀend anyone. He is concerned about Bucer’s bitter and angry attitude and about the fact that the Reformer has found it necessary to reprint his Ratschlag. He avers, with reference to Bucer, that words spoken in anger cannot be regarded as expressing the will of God. In this context, he recalls that he himself had spoken to Bucer about the serious consequences arising from the publication of his tract, that the common people had concluded from its contents that it was permissible to assault Jews and rob them of their possessions. On the burning question of how to react to the order to attend Christian sermons, R. Joseph states that the actual hearing of Christian sermons cannot of itself be harmful in a religious sense to any Jew who is steadfast in his faith; however, he is ﬁrmly opposed to compulsory attendance at such sermons.29 He himself—he clearly means in his younger days—had of his own free will attended Capito’s sermons in Strasbourg, on account of the latter’s great erudition; however, he had left after a while when Capito began to preach on matters of faith, since that did not please him. No Jew, he declares, should be compelled to listen to sermons on matters of faith, since this might be interpreted as implying that the Jews possess doubts about their beliefs.30 In the second part of the “Letter of Consolation” (fols. 9–17), R. Joseph discusses the principles of the Jewish faith. For most of these sections only the titles have survived; however, it is possible to more or less reconstruct their central themes. Although R. Joseph warns the Jews not to enter into disputations on religious issues— this was also prohibited by the ordinance under discussion—he furnishes them with something like a Jewish declaration of faith, in accordance with which they can respond to their questioners.

28 The “Letter” is not always evenly divided into topics; for example, there are also polemics against Bucer in the second part, and the discussion on matters of faith, while conﬁned mainly to the second part, can also be found at the end of the treatise. 29 I have been unable to discover any evidence to corroborate C. Cohn’s assertion that R. Joseph advised Hessian Jewry to attend the Christian sermons. See his article, “Martin Butzer and his Inﬂuence on the Jewish Situation”, p. 97. 30 For the sake of his argument, R. Joseph here disregards the fact that the order itself to hear Christian sermons was intended for the purpose of converting the Jews.

352

r. joseph and the “letter of consolation”

He aﬃrms that the Jews believe in one God; he may also have discussed additional principles of faith. Further on (on fol. 9) he emphasizes, citing Malachi 3:22, that in the same way as God does not change, so also the Jewish religion cannot be altered; it has eternal validity. Here he challenges the Christian belief that with the coming of Jesus the laws of the Torah no longer have any force. His argument: since Malachi was the “last of the prophets”, it is impossible that another prophet could come after him and introduce changes in the Jewish religion. R. Joseph emphasizes that in the future God will once again gather the Jews together. This is in answer to the repeated claims by Christians that there is no hope for the Jews unless they embrace Christianity. Bucer had also claimed, basing himself on the New Testament, that the Jews of his time were descended not from Isaac but from Hagar, and that it was the Christians who were the progeny of Isaac.31 R. Joseph avers that the Jews are the descendants of Jacob, one of the proofs being that they annually mourn the destruction of Jerusalem—the historical memory of a people attests to its lineage. R. Joseph continues with a discussion of Judaism’s economic tenets as he sees them, and this in the context of the economic articles of the ordinance. He clariﬁes his basic attitude to Jewish usury (fol. 15). The Jews, he states categorically, are permitted from the Torah to charge interest on loans to “strangers” {but not to their own brethren}. The fact that the taxes imposed on the Jews are much heavier than those levied on other imperial subjects is evidence that Christian society views the Jews as strangers in its midst. Therefore, it is only legitimate that the Jews should regard their non-Jewish neighbours as “strangers” in biblical terms, namely as persons with whom it is permissible to make usurious transactions. However, he continues, if the yoke on the Jews were lightened, they would be ready to give up their usury much more easily than would other nations.

31 In his “Letter to a Good Friend”, Bucers Schriften, vol. 7, p. 364, lines 28–29, and p. 368, lines 17–19. Bucer’s words are based on the Epistle to the Galatians, 4:22–31: “For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by his slave, and the other by his free-born wife. The slave-woman’s son was born in the course of nature, the free woman’s through God’s promise. This is an allegory. The two women stand for two covenants. The one bearing children into slavery is the covenant that comes from Mt. Sinai. That is Hagar . . . And you, my brothers, like

the letter of consolation

353

According to the Torah, R. Joseph opines, Jews are only permitted to make those proﬁts that are absolutely necessary for their subsistence.32 However, among the Jews are some foolish people, who make gains beyond what is essential for them at that particular time, out of fear that their property will be taken from them. This attitude betokens insuﬃcient faith and a lack of trust in God, who will provide enough for their subsistence also in the future. It is because of conduct of this kind that there is such an outcry against the Jews as a whole, and against the very fact that they are usurers. The trait of avarice is not characteristic only of the Jews; on the contrary, those people, who are not content with the requisite minimum, have been contaminated by the greed that is prevalent in the whole world, on account of the unclean spirit exuded by the venom of the primeval serpent.33 R. Joseph can only exhort his Hessian brethren to make do with little (fol. 16). R. Joseph rebukes Hessian Jewry for the disunity that prevails in the Jewish community (fol. 19); this too he regards as one of the root causes of the calamities that befall the Jews.34 In one of the sections, he states that in his day idolatry no longer exists. This observation may have been prompted by allegations by the Protestants, and by Christians in general, that the Jews curse the Christians in their prayers and that the Talmud contains oﬀensive remarks about them. The Jews’ rejoinder had always been that the curses and vituperation in Jewish holy books were directed against idol-worshippers and not against the Christians, who are not idolaters. R. Joseph’s general advice to Hessian Jewry (fol. 17) is based on Isaiah 26:20: “[Come my people, enter into your chambers and shut your doors upon yourselves] hide yourselves for a little while, until the danger is past”. This apparently was intended to put heart into the Jews; they should wait a short time, for undoubtedly this ordinance and the other anti-Jewish decrees would soon be revoked. He may have given this advice from experience that stringent decrees Isaac, are children of God’s promise . . . You see, then, my brothers, we are no slave-woman’s children; our mother is the free woman.” 32 This belief, that business proﬁts should not exceed essential requirements, was generally held throughout the Middle Ages. See, for example R. H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, fourth edition, New York 1952, p. 43. 33 For the primeval serpent, with a slightly diﬀerent emphasis, see also Sefer haMiknah, p. 25, line 2. 34 He expresses similar views in Sefer ha-Miknah. See the introduction, p. 60.

354

r. joseph and the “letter of consolation”

of this kind were enforced for only a short period, and also, possibly, because of his faith in the integrity of Landgrave Philip.35 In the third part of his “Letter”, R. Joseph evolves an entire theory regarding the nature of government and its representatives (fol. 19). According to him, God endows the great rulers with wisdom and a sense of justice, with which they govern their lands. The greater the ruler is, the more ethical his conduct and the more merciful his treatment of the Jews. He gives examples of various instances when he encountered such rulers and was treated justly by them.36 In this context, he notes the positive attitude of Wolfgang Capito, who had declared that the Jews should be treated mercifully, for they were the root of the true olive tree (fol. 19), and also of Strasbourg, whose leaders had protected the Jews during the Peasants War, as well as other cases in point. An entire section is devoted to various false accusations against the Jews that R. Joseph succeeded in foiling. One of these is the charge, frequently levelled against the Jews, that they had taught the Lutherans their faith. R. Joseph points out that there is a positive side to Bucer’s virulent writings, for they prove conclusively that there is no truth to this allegation (fol. 21). He also rejects the charge that the Jews pray for the downfall of Christendom. In fact the reverse is true: the Jews are required to pray for the welfare of the realm. At this point he mentions the calumnies of Antonius Margaritha, who had asserted that the Jews curse the government under which they live, and his (R. Joseph’s) appearance before the Emperor at the 1530 Diet, where he refuted Margaritha’s allegations.* He also mentions a blood libel against the Jews of Landau, and writes that had it not been for the wise conduct of the authorities, that aﬀair would have ended in a serious catastrophe (fol. 23). At the conclusion of the “Letter” there are some additional points concerning the Jewish religion. In response to Bucer’s calumny against Jewish prayers,37 R. Joseph states (fol. 26) that they are taken mainly 35 Perhaps R. Joseph could not conceive how great was the change of attitude towards the Jews in the territorial principalities in precisely that period. 36 For this, see the General Introduction, pp. 15 and 37–38. * {On the spread of Margarita’s accusations among the populace, see Stephen Burnett, “Distorted Mirrors: Antonius Margarita, Johann Buxtorf, and Christian Ethnographies of the Jews”, Sixteenth Century Journal, 25 (1994), p. 279. AS} 37 He is apparently referring to Bucer’s allegation that in the synagogue the Jews pray without devotion or faith, they sing and recite and perform all manner of external rites. See Bucers Schriften, p. 363, lines 28–30. Or he may be referring to

the letter of consolation

355

from the Book of Psalms, implying that the Jews cannot be accused of reciting inappropriate prayers, since the Psalms are perfectly acceptable also to Christians. Further on, R. Joseph refers to charges against the Talmud, and there is a section of which only the title “On 70 Elders” is extant. However, from what he wrote on the subject to the city of Strasbourg in 1543,38 it is possible to reconstruct the lost contents of this section.* In the 1543 letter, he discusses the development of the Oral Law and explains that 70 Elders sat in the Temple and it was they who taught the people the correct interpretation of the Torah. This led to the compilation of the Talmud, without which it is impossible to correctly comprehend the Torah. The Talmud is the authorized commentary on the Torah; however, contrary to what has been imputed, it does not contain any vituperative remarks about anyone. The Bible itself aﬃrms in Deuteronomy 17:11: “According to the law that they will teach you, and the judgement that they will tell you, you shall do; you shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you, to the right or to the left . . .”. Therefore, the Jews are required by the Torah to hearken to the words of their teachers. What R. Joseph apparently wished to say was that, contrary to Christian allegations, the Talmud is not an arbitrary invention that the Jews have appended to the Written Law. The concluding section, of which only the title has survived in one of the abstracts, is devoted to R. Joseph’s defence of the Jewish tradition of lighting candles, which Bucer had attacked.39 I cannot fathom what Bucer had in mind when he scoﬀed at the Jews that they light Sabbath candles in the synagogue in the daytime. Was he referring to the actual lighting of candles or to the fact that Sabbath candles are lit while it is still daylight? Unfortunately there is no parallel source that might enable us to reconstruct R. Joseph’s comments on the subject. R, Joseph closes his “Letter of Consolation” by advising Hessian Jewry to follow the path of righteousness and to wait patiently, and then they will assuredly be saved from Martin Bucer’s evil counsel. Bucer’s accusation that the Jews curse the Christians and direct their prayers against them in the synagogue, ibid., p. 347, lines 6–7. 38 See below, Appendix 2, pp. 404, 413. * {It is not entirely clear which source C. Fraenkel-Goldschmidt relied on when reconstructing the contents of this section. The German text below (p. 363) resembles but is not identical with that of R. Joseph’s letter to Strasbourg of July 1543 (below, p. 404). Translator} 39 In “Letter to a Good Friend”, Bucers Schriften, p. 364, line 6.

356

r. joseph and the “letter of consolation”

In conclusion, it ought to be said that although R. Joseph warns Hessian Jewry against entering into debates on matters of religion, the “Letter of Consolation” does contain a considerable amount of polemical invective against Bucer, as R. Joseph adduces arguments to strengthen the Jews in their refusal to abandon their religion. With the aid of this “Letter”, Hessian Jewry could consolidate their position and religious faith, although it did not provide any immediate solution for the religious and economic oppression resulting from the new ordinance of 1539. The “Letter” permits us to speculate about the arguments R. Joseph might have used in his debate with Margaritha, or on that occasion when he proved, “with the Book”, that sundry charges and slanders against the Jews were baseless. As remarked, only parts of the “Letter of Consolation” have survived from various sources (see notes 26–27 above). In order to reconstruct the document to the greatest possible extent, the text printed below is a combination of passages from the various sources. In spite of this, it was at times impossible to interpret the allusions, and there are still titles alone of sections without their content. The numbers of the sections (as they are in the source material) have been noted as well as page and folio sheet numbers (pag, “fol.”). The sources are marked as follows: In the German text: Regular [square] print = the translation in the Wenker collection. Cursive [italic] print = copies of abstracts. Variations in the text between the manuscripts are noted in brackets in the text, thus: A = ArchMun de Strasbourg III 174, 24 B = Wenker Collection (the abstract) Regular [square] print with brackets ([ ]) = R. Joseph’s letters to the Strasbourg city council (after sections 28 and 35). In the translation: Unmarked sections = the translation in the Wenker collection. Sections headed by + = copies of abstracts (variations have not been translated) found in ArchMun de Strasbourg III 174, 24 and the Wenker collection. Sections headed by ++ = R. Joseph’s letters to the Strasbourg city council. The footnotes have been appended to the translation.

the letter of consolation

357

The Letter of Consolation: Text Archives de la ville de Strasbourg: 1. Wenkersche Collection, Tom. III, n. 17 pag. 1–7 2. III 174, 24 1A. Anonymi Judicium unnd Anmerckung über diese Schrift—III 174, 24 2B. Ein Summarischer Extract auß Jößlin oder Joselin Juden zu Rosheim Trostchrift ahn seine Brüder wider Buceri büchlein—Wenkersche Collection, Tom III n. 17 Pag. 1–7

Josephi od. Jesels Juden Trostschrift ahn seine Brüder wider Buceri Buchlin, sine die et consule. Der frid von Gott dem almechtigen sey bey euch und bey allen die uß irem gewißen zu seiner Genad und Barmherzigkeit begern und hoﬀen. Lieben und guten freundt, auch Brüder uß Jsrahel, als ir mir vil großer Beschwerung und Ellendt, clagsweyse zuschreiben, welches euch durch die Disputation endgegen gott, Do von Martino Butzeri Ratschlag in truck komen, damit Jir von solchen seinen pittern Worten bey ewer Oberkeit zu ungnaden komen und euch zulegen will sachen, die Jr nie ime synn gehapt haben, auch widder unsern glauben und gewißen mit vil seinem schreiben, zu jrer predigung dringen will, als ob jr ein Zweifel bey ewern gewißen unsers glaubens der alten ehe, die wir seyth Abrahams zeiten, bitz uﬀ disen tag gehapt, und noch mit mehr beschwerung, ewers schreibens jch empfangen, mit sambt gemelten Butzers letzten truck, nach der leng vernommen etc. Nuhn aber Lieben und guten freundt, wievol Ich jetzunt mit gescheﬀten, die gemein betreﬀen beladen bin, dannocht umb der ehr Gottes willen am fordersten, und euch noch zu einer guten Erbarn meynung weysen will, damit euch kein unrath hievon entsteen mocht, sonder zu friden, sovil mir Gott der allmechtig gnad vnd vernunft verleihet, in der H. geschrift, euch daßelbig zum theyl nit zuverhalten etc. Uﬀ dem ersten Artickel, Ir euch so hart beclagend als durch des Butzers schreiben in truck zum anderen mal ußgangen, darumben das gemain Volck widder euch angereitzet worden daß jr an ettlichen orthen mit thatlicher schmach beschwert und beschediget werden,

358

the letter of consolation: text

alß dann hievor auch geschehen dwail ich noch zu Franckfort was, uf der Strahßen bey Fridpurg ein armer Jud geschlagen worden und das sein genommen, die thater gesprochen: “sehe, Jude, den truck an so Butzerus erlaubt hat, mann soll euch euer gueter nemen, und die theylen under arme”, und damit hingelauﬀen etc. Lieben Bruder, wiewol solches schwer genugsam, dorumben ich auch zu Franckfort mit Butzer rede gehalten und ime under anderm angezeigt, solche ergernus uß seinem Schreiben vervolgt. Dweyl ich nun sahe, daß er sich mit demselbigen noch nit settigen laßt, und understeet uns alle mit sampt andere große stennd zu beleydigen, wie es dann hienach daßelbig folgen wirt, dorumb (so vil mir gott gnad gibt) will ich mit der H. geschriﬀt euch berichten und sein schreiben verantworten, was unseren glauben belangt etc. pag. 3. Sehet jetzt auf nechst gehaltenem tag zu franckfort durch den hochgelerten Dr. Philippum Melancton ißt dem Hochgebornen fürsten und Herren, Marggr. Joachim von Brandenburg Churfr. glaubhaftig fürgepracht worden, wie von Tyrannen die armen Juden, bey seines Vattern seligen leben zu unrecht verbrannt worden, und wiewol der alt Crfst nit so lauter den ufsatz gewißt, dannocht wurden 48 uﬀ das unwahr gegeben verbrannt, und der denselbigen ubelthater der sie zu unrecht angeben müßt, sein beucht gehort, der lebet noch und ist warhaftig bey Wüttemburg. solches hat gehört Martin Butzer, auch beide Herren und Edellewt von Straßburg, Hr. Batt von Duntzenheim, und der Ernvest Hr. N. Böckel von vorgemeltem Hochgelerten. Auf solches fürpringen, hab jch mit der hilf Gots bey Hoch-gedachtem Churfrt der Gemainen Judischeit allenthalben erlanngt, in Jren Churfrt. Gnaden Landen zu handeln und wandeln, das uns nun Dreyßig Jar verpotten und versperret gewesen etc. Pag. 7. Nun will ich solchs mein schreiben diß Buchs, keinem zu schmach oder bosem reden oder seine meynung dahin gleichen, sonder uns zu verantworten. Aber es befrembdet mich von dem Butzero dieweil er im anfang vor einem Hochgebornen fürsten schriftlich vernommen, daß ire fürstlich gnaden seinem Ratschlag nit angenommen, sonder durch die Gnad Gottes miltigkeit bewisen, und darüber Butzer on noth oder gezwang, wider ein hertere disputation, wider uns armen zugericht, und nit das er sollichs seinem freundt zugeschickt, wie er dann solche Meynung dargibt, sonder oﬀentl. trugkt, uns

the letter of consolation

359

armen gar hinzulegen; dorumben sprich ich, thut er das uß der liebe Gottes und ime ein wolgefallen davon (ist es gar gut). do er aber feelt, und Gott kein wolgefallen doran hat, sollich seine geschwinde urtheilen, so er über uns armen schreibt, würt Gott nach seinem Willen das wol oﬀenbar machen welcher Rathgeber uß Gott oder us vergiftem gemieth etc. Pag. 8. Wie ich dann einem zu Franckfort, uf seine heftige und zornige wort geantwort, da er uns trawet und sprach: Ich will euch sagen, was es geschlagen hatt; Da ich sahe, daß er nit ußer dem geist Gottes redet, sprach ich: seyt Ir ein gelerter Mann, trewen uns armen Leuten, Gott der Herr hat uns erhalten, seyth Abrahams Zeyten, wirt uns on Zweyfel mit seiner gnad, vor euch weiter zehalten. damit schied ich von ime. Ist er nun demselbigen seinem Zorn nachkomen, so ist es kein Geist Gottes, dann wo Zorn ist, da wonet Gott nit etc. Auf den dritten Artikel, wie euch die Oberkeit durch Butzers schreiben und truck zwingen will, in ir predig zu geen, und Ire newe Leer zehoren, als ob wir ein Zweifeln an unserem glauben solten haben, dorumben nun, die Oberkeit von euch wißen will, was ir wider Butzers letzen trugk sprechen könten, daß jr noch also lang in diser gefengknus bey unserm glauben beharren, und was ewer gewißen ist im glauben. Darauf jr mich umb sondern Rath bittendt, nach unserm glauben anzuzaigen, damit jr wißten antwort ze geben etc. Lieben Bruder Uf dem ersten puncten der Predigen halben, sag ich, on gezwang mocht ein jeder frommer Jude wol zu horen, wie ich selbs zu Straßb. ettlichemal den hochgelerten Doctor Wolﬀen Capito umb seiner großen leer willen gehort, aber wann er der glauben halben predigen, das mir nit angenem gewesen, so bin jch abgescheiden. Darumben so gepurt keynem Juden durch gezwang in die predigen zu gan, als ob er ein Zweifel solte in seinem glauben setzen etc. pag. 9. et sqq. Confeßion der Juden. pag. 9. Sie sollen sich mit keinem einlaßen zu disputiren des glaubens halb. ibid. [B] 9. Wie sie sollen der Oberkeit antworten so von des glaubens wegen von inen bescheydt begerte. Einem Gott vereren etc.

360

the letter of consolation: text

Ex 3 C. Malach. probat religionem Judeorum perpetuo duraturam. Ego sum Deus et non mutor etc. Et in ﬁne Malachiae qui fuit ultimus propheta. 10. Ex omnibus nationibus colligendos Judaeos. Ne judicent alios aut damnent. 12. Bucerum arguit pugnantia scripsiße. 13. Ex Jacob Judaeos venire probat contra Bucerum. Die Juden traurend järlich um dye Zerstörung Hierusalems. Decem argumentis probare conatur Judaeos qui hodie sunt vere Jacob posteros esse. contra Bucerum; Ezechi. 39. [in marg. B] pag. 15b etc. vom Wucher. Aber (inter alia) der vergift Luft, der under der gantzen Welt regiert uß der ungetrewen schlangen, seith Adams Zeyten, der weyhet uns auch an, davon der greyt, untrew Hoﬀart und alle laster entspringen etc. 15. De usura etc. Ein Zinz oder Nutzung wie das nach bewilligung der Frembden mit seinem guten Wißen vorgedingt, hievon haben wir von Gott erlaubnis, dwyl wir auch so hart under den Völckern mit Zoll, gleyt und Jarl. tribut auch Schatzung getrungen werden, mehr dann kein Volck uﬀ der erden wonende. Darumbe sie sich selbs gegen uns verursachen, müßten sie wir fur die selbigen frembden achten [sie . . . achten: B omit] wol unser Leybßnarung auch billichen haben. Aber so man uns daßelbig schwer Joch abthät, wolten wir leicher von solchem laßen, dann ettliche Völcker die kein spruch oder Fug haben zu wuchern. Nun ist nit weniger, Es seint vil ungelerten und unverstendige, die sich nit mit der kleinen maß laßennd benügen, und förchtenn es werde inen gebrestenn [gebreßn: B; gepreßn: A], darum sie nun weiters handlen, dann unser gesatz selber vermag, darum nun solche disputation und schreiben wider uns alle geschicht, volgt uß solchem die ursach, daß sie under den Volcker wonen, unnd sehen den greyt under der Welt, und haben den Verstand nit der h. geschrift nachzufolgen, daß ein yder sein vertrawen zu Gott setzen soll, und nit weyters solte handln dann was im von Gott vergönet, Aber der vergift Luft, der under der gantzen Welt regiert, uß der ungetruwen Schlangen seyt Adams Zeitten, der weyhet uns auch an, davon der greyt, untrew, hofart unnd alle laster ertspringen und von

the letter of consolation

361

dem weg Gottes verstoßen werden, die da Gnad von Gott haben werden beschirmt, aber die nit sonder gnad haben strauchlen. als da im Außgang Osee spricht er, Gerecht sind die Weg Gottes, die fromen gond an im, und die mißthätter strauchlend an im. 16. Hortatur pros autarkeian 17. Tractat locum Esa: 26. Bis da übergeet der Zorn etc. 18. Vellem exponere, quod hodie desyßet Idolatria. 19. Je großer die herren sind, je milter die gegen den Juden etc. 19. Von der Fürgeschrift Capitonis pro Judeis ad Saxonem. Interrogetur Capito ita sit nec ne. pag. 19. Dann ich hab vernommen, jr halten euch gar weltlich mit Reutery und Hochmut, auch einer dem andern nit holdt, und umb sonst feyndtschaft tragen. ibid.b Aber dargegen gibt Gott den großen Heuptern, solchen verstanndt, daß sie auch versteent die h. geschrift, dardurch sie uns wider solche gnediglich erhalten, und keren sich nit an alle giftige geschrey über uns; Je großer die herren seint, so großer sie auch gnad von Gott haben, die selben seint auch gegen meniglichen millt etc. Wie jr jetzunt zu augenplick sehend da ich in Sachsen zoch, zu dem hochgeb. fürsten Hertzogk Hanns Friderichen Churfrt. zeugt ich euch (auch?) die großen fürschriften, so ich von dem hochgelerten Doctor Wolf Capito hab, der mit wißen und willen vilgemelts Butzers geschriben worden, Man solt uns lieben, und mitleyden tragen, dann wir weren die Wurtzel des rechten Olbaums, wie jr hiebey derselbigen Abschriften zuvernemen habt. etc. 20. Laudat Argentinen. etc. pag. 20. In der peurischen Ufrur, waren die lobl. Reichsstett allenthalben nit gewesen, und sonder die Herren von Straßb. one alle gaben und geschenk, gnediglich bey Inen erhalten, werrn wir zu grundt gangen; darzu in kurtzem jre gnedige fürschriften an hochge. Curft. auch zugestellt, wie Ir hiebey auch zuvernemen haben etc.

362

the letter of consolation: text

pag. 21b. Lieben Freundt behuet uns Gott, das wir mit jme stymmen wolten, so er uns zu Leib und seel understet zu verdammen. Aber ich sage, durch sein schreiben kompt unser warheit an tag, solliche meynung, Ir wißen, daß im dreyßigsten Jare wir hart zu rede gestellt worden, wie wir hetten den Luterischen Iren glauben gelert, mit mehr zugelegten sachen, darumb ich von unser aller wegen vor unserm Allergn. Herren und Konig unser entschuldigung furbracht, daß man uns belogen hab etc. Solches tragt gut wißen mein gn. Herr der Bischof von Str. der under solchen Hendeln vor Hochgedachtem Römischen Keysern und Königen behort worden, die Warheit zu erofnen. Ist aber nye erhort worden, daß wir ein ußschlag haben geben, sonder pleyben bey unser alten Ee. 22. Ne disputetur adversus quemquam, sed orent pro pace. Die Juden sind schuldig für die Oberkeiten zu bitten. Negat Judaeos imprecari mala Christianis. 23. Contra Marganetham baptizatum Judeum. Pag. 23. Doch durch die gnaden Gottes, hab ich zu Augspurgk vor unserm allergn. Herren Rom. Keyser und Konig, auch allen Stenden des Reichs im dreißigsten Jar, dem tauften Juden Margaretha genant, drey Artickel uns armen benachlaßart, die ich jme hingelegt. was das der Artickel einer uß den drei, sie bitten um den friden der Königen etc. uns zu leidt werden von ettl.unverstendigen oder von den abtrünnigen lügen ufgeredet. Als ob wir verﬂuchen solten die frembdling dorunder wir gefangen weren. darumben er die Stadt Augspurg verschweren muest, Wie das E. Ers Rath zu Augsprug wißen tregt, dartzu der hochgelert Doctor Mathias Helldt, Ro. Keys. Mt. jetziger Cantzler, und Doctor Brandtner solche disputation uﬀgeeben mußten. ibid. b Wie dann jetzunt nechst zu Straßb. im XXXIX Jare des Brachmonats, ungeverlichen einem Gartner daselbst, (ein Kind?) in einem heimlichen gemach versunken, und daßelbig von den armen Juden zu Landaw wollen haben, und so die verstendig Oberkeit nit dafur weren gewesen, weren die Judischeit daselbst todt geschlagen worden, von der unverstendigen gemeynen Hauﬀen, in dem es funden ward in dem selbigen gemach, und wo das nit geschehen were so were es uns übel gangen etc. Herr Moises saepius occurrit.

the letter of consolation

363

28. Der Juden Bett und Gesang, der merer teyl uß den Ps[almen]. Daniel 9.3. Reg. 22 Wie die Juden betten. [. . . Dor umb biten mir alle gmeinlich jn unsserem gbett got sol sich uber unß und alli krautauren erbarmen, daß er unß seine geist jngeben Domit mir jn worhaﬀtig erkenen Mogen seinen willen zu thon Jn gots namen Amen.] Legatur fol. 31 et sequens ubi Micheam citat. 34. Seind Fromm unnd leidend auch so werdend ir vor Martin Butzers rathschlag wol bleiben. 35. von den 70 Eltisten. [wir Juden haben die zehen gbot und dasz gisatz Dor zu die proﬀetan Doran wir unß lenen und wi unß auch got gboten hot Jm Xvii Ditro nomens uﬀ wordt: Daß gisatz Daß sie werden weissen Dich und uﬀ Daß gricht Das sie werden sagen zu dir Du solts thon, nit Du solt abkern von der sachen Daß sie werden künden zu Dir recht oder linck. Dor umb wir usz bifelch got den selbigen hoch lerer wie sie dasz gisatz unsz glert haben Do von nit zu weichen. nun haben die sibenzick eltern jm Temppel uszlegung Der heilgen gischriﬀt ﬁl gischriben Den der texst ist nit all mol leicht zu versten noch den selbigen eltstan heilgen menar Daniel und esaries und ﬁl hoher lerer Do von der talmtt gistiﬀt ist, wie man die ey halten soll und gricht und grecht Ordenung und gbett mit Demutt halten sollen. Aber wider nimandt dorinn begroﬀen wie dan etliche Den talmut vor werﬀen wolln] 36. Defendit ir Liechter brennen, vom fasten in sequentibus.

The Letter of Consolation: Translation + Summary40 of the Letter of Consolation by Joselin or Joseph the Jew of Rosheim to his brethren against Bucer’s booklet.

40 The German text begins with the archival signatures of the sources and the titles of the two copies of the abstract.

364

the letter of consolation: translation

The Letter of Consolation of the Jew Joseph or Josel to his brethren, against Bucer’s booklet, undated. The peace of the Almighty God be with you and with all those who in their faith hope for and desire His grace and mercy. Dear and good friends and brethren of Israel. In your letter, you complain about the great oppression and aﬄiction that you are suﬀering due to the polemics [generated] by Martin Bucer’s Ratschlag, which was published so that41 his bitter words would cause you to lose favour with your authorities. He attributes to you things that you would never have dreamed of doing, and that, moreover, are contrary to our religion and our faith; and with the many things that he wrote, he wishes to compel you to [hear] their sermons, as though there was any doubt in your hearts of our belief in the Old Testament,42 which we have had from the days of Abraham till the present time. There are also additional complaints that [you have written] in your letter, which I received together with this latest publication of Bucer’s, and I have studied it in depth. And now, dear and good friends, although I am very busy at present with public concerns,43 all the same, ﬁrst and foremost for the honour of God, and also because I wish to give you good and important advice, so that no danger but only peace will stem for you from this, therefore—inasmuch as the Almighty God grants me grace and understanding of the Torah—I cannot deny you this {request for advice}. Regarding the ﬁrst paragraph, in which you complain so bitterly that as a result of Bucer’s writing, which has been printed a second time,44 the common people have been incited against you to such a

41 “So that”—he wishes to imply that Bucer published his Ratschlag with the intention of damaging the status of the Jews. 42 In the Old Testament—the word “Ehe” denotes a covenant, testimony. The Christian translator evidently chose this expression as a contrast with the New Testament; and perhaps in the original it may have been something like “the covenant of our fathers”. 43 With public concerns—at that time R. Joseph was occupied with the Sappenfeld blood libel aﬀair; see the introduction to section 24 of the Chronicle (p. 244 onwards). 44 In early 1539 there were two printings of his Ratschlag, in Kassel and in Erfurt. It was only afterwards that the edition printed at Bucer’s request, which included his “Letter to a Good Friend”, was published in May of that same year in Strasbourg. Bucer accused the Jews of circulating printed copies of his Ratschlag, and from that

the letter of consolation

365

degree that in some places they have assaulted you and caused you injuries, as happened also recently, while I was still in Frankfurt.45 On the road near Friedberg, an unfortunate Jew was beaten and his property seized. And the assailants said, “Jew, take a look at Bucer’s book. He writes that it is permitted to take your possessions from you and divide them among the poor.” And with that they ﬂed. Dear brethren, truly it is a very diﬃcult {situation}, and for that reason I also had a conversation in Frankfurt with Bucer,46 and, among other things, informed him that such troubles were the result of his writing. And since I see now that he is still not satisﬁed, and that he dares to insult us, together with other worthy estates,47 as will be shown below, therefore (inasmuch as God gives me grace) I wish to teach you the correct way according to the Torah and to respond to his writings where they concern our faith. Fol. 3. Behold, in recent days, during the assembly in Frankfurt, the most learned Dr. Philip Melanchthon brought to the knowledge of that most excellent and well-born lord, Margrave Joachim of Brandenburg, the Elector, deﬁnite proofs of how the unfortunate Jews were burnt unjustly by tyrants in the days of his departed father, and although the old Elector did not know the exact details of the libel,48 nevertheless, 4849 were burnt because of lying testimony. the editor of Bucer’s writings concludes that the ﬁrst two editions were not printed on his initiative. 45 At the assembly of Protestant princes and imperial representatives in Frankfurt in 1539. 46 For this conversation we also have Bucer’s testimony; he writes (in his “Letter to a Good Friend”) that a Jew held a discussion with him in Frankfurt and claimed that the Christians were making unjust accusations against the Jews. Compare above, p. 348. 47 This assertion, that Luther and Bucer are attacking not only the Jews, but also other important estates among the Christians, is repeated in R. Joseph’s letter to the Strasbourg city council from 1543. See below, Appendix 2 (pp. 399, 403, 411); and see H. H. Ben Sasson, “Ha-Yehudim mul ha-Reformatsiyah” (The Reformation in Contemporary Jewish Eyes), Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 4, 5 (1969/70), p. 33. 48 Namely, the ruler was not all that guilty, for he did not follow the developments at ﬁrst hand. This conforms to R. Joseph’s belief that the great rulers are generally benevolent. Or, possibly, he wishes to say that the aﬀair occurred only because the ruler knew nothing about it, otherwise he would surely have prevented it. See also introduction to section 5 of the Chronicle, p. 112. 49 Forty-eight—should read 38. And compare section 5 of the Chronicle. This may be an error of the translator or transcriber.

366

the letter of consolation: translation

The man who heard the last confession of that criminal (who had been forced to give false testimony against them)50 is still alive, and can be found near Württemberg.51 All this Martin Bucer heard from that said learned man,52 as did two noble lords from Strasbourg,53 Lord Batt von Duntzenheim and the esteemed Lord St[ephan] Böckel. On the basis of this disclosure, I obtained from the said honourable Elector for all the Jews in every place, [permission] to traﬃc and travel in His Excellency the Elector’s lands, which for some thirty years had been forbidden and denied to us.54 Fol. 7. I do not wish that this letter of mine should cause any person oﬀence, or bring a bad name upon anyone, or prejudice anyone; my sole intention is to show our righteousness. However, it pains me that Bucer, who was informed in the ﬁrst place by His Excellency the Prince in writing that His Grace had not accepted his proposals but, by the Grace of God, had shown compassion, that he has for that reason—without any need or compulsion—resumed the incitement and {has written} an even harsher polemic against us. And not only has he sent it to his friend, as he asserts, but he has had it printed publicly in order to wholly oppress us unfortunate ones. Therefore, I say, if he does this out of love of God, and the matter is right in God’s eyes, then good; however, if he is mistaken, and God is not content with the hasty judgement he pronounces on us, then He will make known His Will—which counsellor comes from God [and which from] an unclean spirit. Fol. 8. It so happened that when I was in Frankfurt I responded to a man’s55 harsh and angry words, when he threatened us, saying: “I tell you what will happen [to you]!” When I saw that he did not have the spirit of God in him, I said: “Would you, a learned man, threaten us, unfortunate people that we are? The Lord [God of Hosts] has preserved us since the days of Abraham; he will surely

50 He knows that the criminal who denounced the Jews was subjected to severe tortures, until he gave his false testimony. 51 Possibly this should read Wittenberg. 52 Bucer was present when Melanchthon made his disclosure regarding the Brandenburg aﬀair. 53 He is referring to the Strasbourg city delegates at the Frankfurt assembly. 54 For this, see introduction to section 5, p. 110. 55 Evidently he is not referring to Bucer, for the latter he expressly mentions by name. Therefore, in 1539 in Frankfurt, R. Joseph faced an entire array of disputants.

the letter of consolation

367

continue to protect us in His Mercy from such as you.” And with that I left him. If he [Bucer] is consumed by his wrath, then it is not the spirit of God {that moves him}, for God’s presence does not dwell in a place where there is anger.56 {You write} in the third paragraph, that the authorities, in the wake of Bucer’s writing and its publication, wish to compel you to attend their sermon{s}, and to hear their new doctrine—as though we entertained any doubts about our religion. And, in addition, that the authorities wish to learn from you what answer you can give to Bucer’s recent tract, since57 for so long a time you have been bound to our faith, and what the principles are of your faith. Accordingly, you have requested that I give you special counsel, and instruct you concerning our faith, so that you will know how to respond. Dear brethren, on the ﬁrst point, regarding the sermons, I say that any pious Jew is permitted to hear them voluntarily, in the same way as in Strasbourg I myself several times heard {sermons by} the most learned Dr. Wolf Capito, on account of his great erudition. However, when he preached on matters of faith, this did not please me, and I left. And therefore, it is not proper that any Jew should be compelled to go to these sermons, as though he entertained doubts about his faith. Fol. 9 et sqq. The Religion [Confeßion] of the Jews. + Fol. 9. They should not agree to enter into a disputation on matters of faith with any person. + Ibid. How they should respond to a governing authority that requests answers on matters of faith. That they serve one God, etc. He brings proof from Malachi 358 that the religion of the Jews will endure forever: For I God did not change, etc. And, at the end of Malachi, that he was the last of the prophets.59 56 There are various rabbinic sayings in condemnation of anger; I was unable to ﬁnd one that gives precise expression to this concept, but only a similar idea, such as: “A man who is angry, if he is wise—his wisdom leaves him” (B.T. Pesa˙im, 66b); or: “A person who is angry does not take into account even the Divine Presence . . .” (B.T. Nedarim 22b); or: “In three places Moses became angry and the Holy Law departed from him . . .” (Midrash Vayikra Rabba 13, 1). 57 Since, despite Bucer’s words, you are still (bound to our faith). 58 He is referring to Malachi 3:22: “Remember the law of Moses My servant, etc”. Contrary to what the Christians assert, the Mosaic Law will not be annulled in the future. 59 Therefore there is no other prophet who can deny his words.

368

the letter of consolation: translation

+ 10. That in the future the Jews will be gathered together from all the nations.60 + [11.] Not to judge other [nations] or curse them. + 12. Claims that Bucer wrote [his words] in a pugnacious spirit. + 13. Proves, contrary to Bucer, that the Jews are descended from Jacob.61 The Jews annually mourn the destruction of Jerusalem.62 Attempts to prove with 10 arguments that today’s Jews are the true descendants of Jacob, contrary to Bucer’{s opinion}. Ezekiel 39.63 Fol. 15b. On usury. However, (inter alia) the poisonous spirit that rules in the entire world, the source of which is the treacherous snake from the days of Adam, possesses us too, and from it come avarice, treachery, vanity and all the other vices. + 15. On Usury. For usury or beneﬁts {from a gentile} that are conditional in advance on the gentile’s consent and with his clear knowledge, we have God’s permission, as we are heavily burdened by the nations with dues, safe-conduct fees, annual payments and taxes, to a greater extent than any other people on earth. Thus, they have brought this upon themselves,64 that we are obliged to regard them as strangers

60 He is apparently alluding to Ezekiel 37:21: “. . . Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations into which they have gone, and will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land”. See also Ezekiel 39 (mentioned below in para. 13), 25–27: “. . . Now I will bring back Jacob from captivity . . . when I have brought them back from amongst the peoples and gathered them out of their enemies’ lands . . .”. 61 In his “Letter to a Good Friend”, Bucer had alleged that the Jews of his day were not descendants of Isaac but Ishmaelites from the seed of Hagar. See Bucers Schriften, p. 364, lines 28–29. 62 This historical memory of the Jews is proof of their direct descent from the Jews of the Second Temple period and afterwards. 63 This reference is printed in the margin in the abstract that is in the Wenker collection. See above, note 60. 64 They are responsible for the fact that we have to regard them as strangers, and is it not the case that only to strangers are we Jews allowed to lend money at interest. In the view of many commentators, and also of R. Joseph, usurious transactions were permitted with gentiles, for they themselves treat the Jews as strangers.

the letter of consolation

369

and to take appropriate action in order to make a living. However, if they were to remove this heavy yoke {of taxes} from us, we would cease [to practice usury] more readily than some other nations that have no explicit Scriptural instruction or permission to take interest. Yet no less [important]: There are many foolish and ignorant people who are not content with a small portion [of the proﬁt] and fear lest they should not have enough [afterwards],65 and therefore they make more {proﬁt} than our Torah itself permits. This is what gave rise to such polemics and writings against us all.66 The reason {for their conduct} is that they live among the nations and see the avarice that there is in the world, and they do not possess the wisdom to follow the path of the Torah, whereby every man should place his trust in God and not make greater [proﬁt] than that with which God favours him.67 However, the spirit of uncleanliness that rules in the entire world, the source of which is the [primeval] deceitful serpent from the days of Adam, possesses us too, and is the cause of avarice, treachery, vanity, and all the other vices, and the rejection of God’s way. Nevertheless, God extends His Grace to them, they are protected, but those who have no special favour come to grief.68 Namely, as is written at the end of Hosea: “The ways of the Lord are right, the just walk in them but transgressors stumble in them”.

65 It is not only out of avarice that they take more than the permitted interest, but also from a feeling of insecurity that the Jew always has with regard to his money. 66 Namely also against those who are scrupulous about taking only the appropriate amount of interest. The author believes that if foolish and ignorant people had not transgressed Jewish law and taken too much interest, then the polemics would not have started. 67 Although he has just displayed understanding for their feelings of insecurity, R. Joseph rebukes the Jews for their lack of faith in God. Despite their vulnerability in a Christian environment, the Jews are not allowed to make proﬁts beyond what is permitted, but they should trust in God, for He will supply all their needs also for the morrow. This particular idea was prevalent in the economic world during the Middle Ages also among Christians. See R. H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, p. 35. 68 His meaning here is that righteous people do not adopt these evil vices, and that those people who do are corrupt by nature. The German text, which is a translation of the original that was lost, appears here to echo the Christian doctrine of divine grace (especially the Lutheran version), as though there are some individuals who enjoy God’s grace and therefore do not go astray, and others who fall into erring ways because they are denied His grace. It is hard to believe that R. Joseph would have phrased the idea in this manner.

370

the letter of consolation: translation

+ 16. Exhorts to make do [with little].69 Fol. 19. As I am informed that you conduct yourselves in a worldly, boastful and conceited manner, that there is no peace between man and his fellowman and that there is senseless hatred between you.70 + 17. Relates to a passage from Isaiah 26:[20: “Come my people, enter into your chambers and shut your doors upon yourselves] hide yourselves for a little while, until the danger is past, etc.”71 + 18. I wish to explain, that in these days there is no more idolatry.72 + 19. The greater the rulers, the more merciful they are towards the Jews.73 + 19. Regarding Capito’s recommendation to Saxony in favour of the Jews,74 they should ask Capito if this is the case or not. 69

The Greek expression in the German text, autarkeian, denotes an ethical-economic idea, derived from Greek philosophy; most medieval Christian thinkers subscribed to it. See Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, I, Darmstadt 1971, s.v. Autarkie. 70 This fragment is marked in the Wenker copy as belonging to fol. 19. However, it seems to ﬁt more appropriately here, as it accords well with the injunction to be satisﬁed with little, which is in the abstract. So as to relieve any doubts, it is repeated (in brackets) after no. 19. 71 He implies that the troubles that befall Israel are tokens of God’s wrath, as is written in Isaiah 10:5: “Oh Assyria, the rod of My anger; the staﬀ in their hand is My wrath”. However, the prophets had also foretold that this anger will ultimately cease, and in the meantime it is necessary to “hide”, namely, to wait patiently during this diﬃcult period and anticipate that it will pass. In his letter to Strasbourg, R. Joseph gives a lengthy dissertation on the subject of God’s “wrath”, which is turned not only against the Jews but also against the nations that subjugate them, and he cites as proof the prophecy in Jeremiah 50:25 on Babylon: “The Lord has opened his armoury and has brought forth the weapons of His wrath”. Compare, Appendix 2, below, pp. 407, 416. 72 He evidently wishes here to respond to the charge that the Jews curse the Christians in their prayers. The Jews have always claimed that the prayer against heretics and slanderers {contained in the Amidah prayer recited on weekdays} is intended for idolaters, and if idolatry no longer exists then this curse is quite meaningless. Or perhaps he wishes to imply that there is no truth to the claim that the Jews worship the golden calf, or that their faith is not pure, as the Protestants alleged, or he may be saying that in his day Jews do not commit the sin of idol worship (as they did in the days of the First Temple) and therefore they will merit redemption from their exile. 73 This idea is enlarged upon below (fol. 19b). 74 This is a reference to the letter of recommendation Wolfgang Capito gave R. Joseph for the ruler of Saxony. Bucer knew about this letter and approved of its contents. R. Joseph’s main argument: moreover, one of the leading Reformers

the letter of consolation

371

[As I am informed that you conduct yourselves in a worldly, boastful and conceited manner, that there is no peace between man and his fellowman and that there is senseless hatred between you.] Fol. 19b. However, in spite of this, God gives the great rulers such intelligence that they also understand the Holy Scriptures, and, therefore, they protect us in their grace from [schemers] such as these, and do not hearken to all the venomous clamour against us. The greater the rulers, the greater the grace with which God endows them, and they are benevolent towards all men. As you can see at the present time, when I journeyed to Saxony, to that honourable prince, the Elector, Duke Hans { Johannes} Frederick, I displayed the important letters of recommendation that I had received from the most learned Dr. Wolf Capito, written with the knowledge and consent of the said Bucer, [according to which] it is incumbent to love and have mercy upon us for we are the root of the true olive tree. You can see all this from the enclosed copies.75 + 20. Praises the Strasbourg burghers. Fol. 20. At the time of the peasants’ uprising, had it not been for the imperial cities in every place,76 and, in particular, the leaders of Strasbourg, who without any payment or gift graciously kept us in the city,77 we would have been lost. In addition, they wrote short letters of recommendation to the said noble Elector, as you can verify here. Fol. 21b. Dear friends, God preserve us from justifying the one who presumes to curse us [to judge and pronounce us guilty] in body and spirit; however, I say that his writing proves our innocence. What I mean is this: You know that in the year (15)30 there were harsh accusations against us; it was alleged that we had taught the has declared that Jews should be treated mercifully. Below (19b) the subject is addressed in more detail. 75 The author apparently enclosed with the “Letter of Consolation”, which he sent to Strasbourg, a copy of both Capito’s and the Magistrate of Strasbourg’s letters of recommendation of 1537. The words “you can see this, etc.” are evidently not part of the “Letter of Consolation”, but were added in the translation made for the Strasbourg city council. 76 This too is proof that the great rulers show benevolence towards the Jews. 77 Compare above, introduction to section 11 of the Chronicle, p. 147, and note 245 there.

372

the letter of consolation: translation

Lutherans their faith,78 and also additional charges were raised against us. Consequently, I submitted in the name of us all to our lord and most merciful King {Charles V}, our words of apology, that they had lied about us etc. His Eminence the Bishop of Strasbourg knows this well; he was asked about the matter by His Majesty the Roman Emperor and King, to reveal the truth. However, it was never heard that we made decisions for others {regarding their faith} [or: it was never heard that we turned away from the right path];* we abide by our ancient Law. + 22. Not to dispute with anyone79 and to pray for peace.80 The Jews are obliged to pray for the authorities.81 Denies that the Jews utter imprecations [in their prayers] against the Christians. + 23. Against the Jewish apostate Margaritha. Fol. 23. And behold, by the grace of God, I stood up at Augsburg in the (15)30’s before His Majesty the Roman Emperor and King, and before all the Imperial Estates, against the Jewish apostate known as Margaritha, who had libelled us unfortunate ones on three counts. Because he had alleged that we curse the stranger under whose yoke we reside, ignorant people caused us harm and renegades circulated calumnies about us. One of the three arguments [I advanced] was that they [the Jews] pray for the peace of the kings, etc. Consequently, he {Margaritha} was expelled from Augsburg, as the honourable city council of Augsburg knows, and for that reason, the present chancellor of His Majesty the Emperor, the learned Dr. Matthias Helldt {Held}, and Dr. Brandtner, were obliged to end the disputation.

78 This assertion is not mentioned either in the Chronicle for 1530 or in Sefer ha-Miknah, where the author lists Margaritha’s allegations. * {There is a contradiction here between the German text and the Hebrew translation. In my humble opinion, the German text appears the more logical. Translator} 79 This directive is contained in Bucer’s Ratschlag and is also R. Joseph’s personal opinion. See General Introduction, p. 36. 80 In response to Bucer’s allegation that the Jews pray for the downfall of the Christians. 81 He is referring to the words of Jeremiah 29:7: “And seek the peace of the city into which I have caused you to be carried away captives, etc.”, in response to Margaritha’s charge that the Jews curse the gentiles, under whose yoke they live.

the letter of consolation

373

23b. It happened in recent days, in Strasbourg, in June of (15)39, that a [child?] of a gardener82 disappeared inside a hidden room, and they demanded his {return} from the unfortunate Jews of Landau.83 And had it not been for the opposition of the authorities in their wisdom, all the Jews there would have been slain by the brutish common rabble; indeed, had he not been discovered in that room, our fate would have been bitter. Our master, Moses, [the prophet] is mentioned many times. + 28. The Jews’ prayers and songs are taken in the main from the Book of Psalms. Daniel, 9:3, Kings 22.84 How the Jews pray. ++ Therefore we all entreat in our prayers that God will have mercy on us and on all human beings, that His spirit will rest upon us so that we may truly recognize him, to do His Will in God’s Name. Amen.85 + They should read page 31 onwards, where Micah is cited.86 + 34. Be pious and long-suﬀering and then you will not be harmed by Martin Bucer’s Ratschlag. + 35. Concerning 70 Elders. ++ We Jews have the Ten Commandments and the Torah. In addition, we have the Prophets, and on them we rely, as God has 82 A Gartner is a cultivator of fruits and vegetables and also a gardener. See Grimm, DW, IV, 1, s.v. Gartner II 1c. 83 This incident is not known to us from any other source. 84 He is saying that since the Jews’ prayers are taken mainly from the Book of Psalms, it is inconceivable that they contain lies and vituperation, as Bucer alleges. It is written in Daniel 9:3 and in 2 Kings 22:19 that the Jews pray with humility, and that their prayers are heard from On High. 85 In this extract from his letter to Strasbourg, the author stresses that the Jews’ prayers also have a universal content; namely, the Jews pray also for non-Jews. This statement too is intended to counter Bucer’s attack on Jewish prayers. 86 An apparent allusion to pp. 31–33, omitted by the editor of the abstract. It may be a reference to Micah 6:5: “Oh my people, remember now what Balak king of Moab devised and what Bilam the son of Beor answered him . . . that you may know the righteous acts of God”. In the same way as the King of Moab’s advice came to nought, so too will Bucer’s advice (Ratschlag). Possibly legatur should be translated as “turn to”; and compare Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary, s.v. lego, 6, 2.

374

the letter of consolation: translation

commanded us in Deuteronomy 17:[11]: “According to the law that they will teach you, and the judgement that they will tell you, you shall do; you shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you, to the right or to the left”. And, therefore, in accordance with God’s command, [we follow] the sages as they have taught us the Torah, from that we will not deviate. Now, 70 Elders sat in the Temple and wrote many commentaries on the Torah, for the text is not always easy to comprehend. According to the {commentaries} of these elders, and of holy men, Daniel, Ezra and other great sages after them, the Talmud was compiled, {and it teaches us} how to keep the Covenant (die ey), how to administer justice, law and order, and how to pray with humility. However, the Talmud does not contain anything derogatory about anyone, despite what some claim against it.87 + 36. Defends their candle lighting,88 (followed by) on the fasts.89

87 In this paragraph, which too is taken from the letter to Strasbourg city council, the author expounds his views on the nature of the Oral Law and the Talmud. Bucer had charged—and this is a well-known Christian allegation—that the Jews had added on to their Torah and that the Talmud contains all manner of horrors. To this R. Joseph responds: (1) The Talmud is not an addition to the Written Law but the correct interpretation of it, for without it the Written Law cannot be comprehended; (2) The Torah itself stipulates that the Jews must heed the words of the sages who will compile the Talmud; (3) There is nothing in the Talmud that can harm or oﬀend anyone. 88 In response to Bucer’s gibe that the Jews light Sabbath candles in the synagogue while it is still daylight. See Bucers Schriften, p. 364, line 3. 89 The remainder of the text has been lost.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1A

The 1530 Economic Document The 1530 economic document (Artikel und Ordnung) and the question of usury in general have been addressed in the General Introduction (above, pp. 20–26), and in our discussion of the 1530 Augsburg Diet (above, pp. 179–182). A certiﬁed copy of the Economic Document with R. Joseph’s signature is preserved in the Government Archives in Stuttgart; additional copies are in Strasbourg (ArchMun Strasbourg III 174, 19) and in Oberehnheim City Archives (ArchMun Obernai). The text of the document has been published by Feilchenfeld, Appendix III, pp. 153–59. In the text printed below only conspicuous changes in style and spelling between the diﬀerent copies are noted; the German text is followed by an abridged translation.

Artikel und Ordnung so durch Josell juden von Rossheim gemeiner jüdischer regierer aufgericht und beschlossen worden, gehalten im reichstag zu Augspurgk im jar 1530. Haupstaatsarchiv Stuttgart (beglaubigte Abschrift mit eigener Unterschrift des Verfassers) [a]; Strasbourg, Archives de la ville, III 174, 19 [b]; Archives Municipales de Obernai, BB 12 [c]; Durchleuchtigisten, hochgebornen, wolgebornen, erwirdigen, gestrengen, edlen, vesten, ersamen, al alß mein genedige heren! Euer Durchleuchtigkaiten und furstlichen Gnaden und allen andern meinen gnedigen und ginstigen heren sei mein underthonig, gehorsam, wyllig dienst [denst a] zu voran alzeit berait. Gnedigen Heren und Stend des Hailigen Reichs! Mir als gesanter von gemeiner judischhait gnediglich under andern angezaigt, wie sich etliche von der judischait im Hailigen Reich, auch furstenthomen und landen der ungebur [ungepurt b] haltent in villerlai weg, das [des b] inen und iren underthanen unbullicher weiß

378

appendix 1a

[unpillicherweiß b] zu schaden und nochtail raichet. Und so ain gemaine judischhait nit in sollichem wider solliche juden ain gehorsam und ernstlich [erstanstlichs a] ain sehen wölten haben, damit sollichs furzekomen und [und om. b] abstellen, musten ire Gnaden sampt oder sonder strenglich und dreﬀenlich [treﬀentlich b] selbs ain einsehen und weg zu machen, damit solliche gemelter Juden beschwerung nit so grosslich wider ire Gnaden underthanen beschech [bevelch b]; mit mer clag mundtlich und geschriftlich. Ich als gehorsamter darauf der gemainen judischhait allenathalben [allenteilen b] verschriben und zu wissen gethan sollichs beschwer und clag, wie gehört, mit erstanstlicher [ernstlicher] meiner beger, das si samt und sonder selbs oder durch ir volmechtige anwalt [anwelde b] zu mir gen Augspurcg im Reichstag erscheinen sollen. Das sie nu gehorsamlich von vil orten und enden ire gesanten und [om. b] gewalthaber zu mir gesant, damit ich mit inen von wegen gemelter Judischhait ain zemliche [zimbliche], und [om. b] erbere [erbare b] ordnung und satzung der gedachten judischhait in stetten merckten und dörfern aufgesatzt und entschlossen [inschloßen a], wie hienach volget item [item om. b]. [Item add. b] Erstlich [Zum ersten b] wo ain Jud oder Judin ainem cristen aincherlai zu borg zu koﬀen gibt, so sol er kain bedeckten wucher in die borg schlagen, damit er den kaufer ubersetzen und bedritzen [betriegen b] möcht [mocht b], sonder nach zemlich und billichkait [zimblicher pillicheitt b], ob er schon sollichen borcg jar und tag derwarten muß, soll in alweg kein zins oder wucher darvon verfallen sein. Und welcher jud sollichs ubertret und das vor seinen parnossen der juden ires ordt, da si nun gesetz seind, angezeigt [angezeugt b] und furgebracht [furpracht b] wurt, sollen dieselbigen parnosen ernstlich denselbigen straufen [straﬀen b], nemlich 3 goldguldin, 2 guldin der oberkeit da der jud gesessen ist, und den dritten guldin gemeiner judischait parnosen, und in alweg denselbigen betrug des kaufs, wie der derfunden [erfunden b] wörden möcht, widerkören und bezallen. Zum andern. So ain jud ainem cristen litzil oder vil gelt auf zins ausleuchen wert, sol er das doch umb zemlichen wucher nach vermugen und lauth [luth b] unser kaiserlichen und lobliche hergebrachten freihaiten und gnaden, und nit gleuch [gleich b] viertal [vierteil b] oder halb jar zu rechnen den wucher umbzeschlagen und zum haupt gut rechnen, sonder wie vor alter guter gewonhit gehalten worden; damit der arm nit zu ubersezen und einer bei dem

appendix 1a

379

andern sein leibisnarung durchainander handlin und neren mugen on alle besonder belestug und aufsatzung. Wo aber ainer oder mer solliches ubertret und erfunden wurd, sollen sie vor gemelten parnosen ires ordten dasselbig abwerden nach gestalt der sachen straf verfallen sein, wie anfencklich [anfenglich b] angezaigt [angezeugt b]. Zum dritten: Wo ein jud oder judin ire schuldner von iren schuldner zu gemelten zilen oder jaren nit bezalten möchten [mochten b] werden, sollen si [die add. a] dieselbigen schuldner nit mit auslendischen gerichten furnemen, sonder er sol vor und ee bei des gemelten schuldners Amptman oder Schulthaissen gutigclich [gutlich b] erfordern und sein gerechtigkait furbringen, damit si verschaﬀen in monatzfrist, das obgemelter jud bezalt mog werden, oder im ein willen sunst [sonst b] beschechen [beschehen b] möcht. Wo aber solichem juden nit deuchen möcht [gedeuen mocht b] damit der jud geursacht wurd, auslendische recht [ußlendische rechte b] zu suchen, so sol er doch kein ungeburlichen costen und schaden wider die gemelten schuldner zutreiben, sonder was der noturft und billichhait erfordert; und wo sollichs nit beschech [beschehe b], vorgemelte parnosen ain jud oder judin erfunden wurden, sollent si sollichs abstellen und straﬀen wie vorangezaigt ist. Zum vierten: wa ein jud oder judin auf pfand leuchen wurd, sol er auf kain argkwenig pfand leuchen oder kaufen. So es [er b] aber durch das gesandt [gefend a, geverdt b] oder ungevar [ungever b, ongefar c] geschet [geschet om. a b] zu zeiten widerfur, sol er doch ferter in kein weg mit demselbigen reuplichen oder dieplichen personen kaufen, leuchen [leuhen b, leihen c] noch handlin. Und wa er sollichs ubertret und mit argwenischen lautbarn personen handlete, abkauft oder auf pfand liche [lihe b], und es gestolen oder geraupt wer, sol derselb jud oder judin das vergebenlich und on alle entgeltnus [galtug a] widergeben. Und dergleuchen [dergleichen b] wa einer pferd kauft, kue oder schaf und das sich befend in jar und tag, dass das gestolen wer oder geraubt [gerupt a] wer, da sol der jud dem beschedigten in alle weg sollichs auch vergebens zustellen; und ob ers schon verdauscht und verkauft hat [hett b c] sol er dem beschedigten das gelt darfur geben, und ein nemliche pen, 6 goldguldin, 4 der oberkeit, da er seshaft ist, und 2 den parnosen, die dan das nach furtrag clag und antwort nach gestalt der sachen zu erkennen macht haben un all gevar und list [argelist c]. Zum funften: es sol auch kein jud oder judin kein burger seins ledigen suns [gesend a], dochter, knaben, knechten oder megten

380

appendix 1a

aincherlei abkaufen oder inen gelt zuleuchen [ze leihen b], sonder mit wissen ires heren vater oder mutter. Und wa sollichs geschech, soll dem juden fur solich gelt nichts nichtz derstatt werden, und in bei der ersten pen wie oben angezaigt, der parnoss strafen soll. Zum sechsten: wa es sich zutrugt das ain abgestorbne person auben Jude oder judin zuthun schuldig weren auf verschreibungbrueﬀ oder on brieﬀ, wie das wer, und die erben im sollichs grüntlich seines vornemens gstenedig wern oder nit wissen trügen, so soll der gedachte jud oder judin mit keinerlei rechtens zwang, geistlich oder weltlich, gedachten erben furzunemen oder zu bekeumern, sonder bor und ee sin sollent darnach gestalt der sachen warhaftig besichtigen und verhorn, und was si in dan seisse, vor geistlichen oder weltlichen rechten mit seiner gerechtigkeit fuzefaren, Ider gar von seiner vermeinten ansprach abzusteen, sol der jud oder judin gehorsmlich nachkomen. Und wa einer oder mer erfunden wurden, die nach absterben, wie gehort, erben oder witfrauen unwissent der parnosen ires orts solliche ire schuld mit bezwang einbrechten, sol der jud oder judin zu einer strauf 12 goldgoldin geben, 8 seiner herschaft und 4 gemelten parnosen witfrauen an solicher bezalung senes gdrichzwangs eingefurt hat, beschwerung mangel herren, mugen si dieselbige urtel oder rechtung wider dargeben vorgemelten parnosen. Un nach clag und verher beider theil, gedachte parnosen erlantheit ergangne urteil rechtung zu handen stellen, dieweils er im anfang, wie gehort, sein parnosen nit angezeigt. Zum siebenden: wa ein jud oder judin von cristen gelt, war oder pfenwert aufnem, wie das wer, bertunglicher weis sich gleuch hinnach aus dem land vereusert, damit ainer, mehr betrogen möchtent werden, und sollichs warhaftig von den beschedingen beclagt und angezaigt wurd, solle gedachten parnosen ires ordts, da solchs [selbs a] geschehen [beshechen a], dieselbigen juden oder judin in unsern höchsten bann und maledeiungen ausrufen und einschreiben als verachter, obgescheiden von al unser kaiserlichen freuhaiten und gnaden. Es soll auch kein jud oder judin mit demselbigen verheuraten [verheiren a, verhiren c], auch nit mit im essen noch trinken, noch zu herbergen. Und welcher daß mutwillig mit wissen ubertret, mit sollichen abgewichen weltbetriegern gemeinschaft haben wirt, der sol gemelten schuldner oder beschedigter außrichten und bezalen, so lang seine guter reichen mugen, und ein gemelte pen, wie erst angezeigt, verfallen sein.

appendix 1a

381

Zum achten: wa auch ain crist, frau oder man, jung oder alt, vorgemelten unsere obersten parnosen und richter in des ordts da si wonent, uber einen juden oder judin clagent und furbrachten [furprechten b] was das wer, so sol der parnos alwegen vorderlich dem pﬂeger auf ire clag zu recht verhelfen und des [das b c] gottlich recht ergen laussen gegen den beclagten juden wie recht, als dan auch cristen das recht gegen ainen juden ergen laussen, wie billich und alle erberkait, auch das naturlich gesatz ausweist und kain underscheid zwischen den menschen auf erden. Zum neunten: es sollen auch jeder jud oder judin, die aincherlai hörten oder vernemen von ihren umbsessen der judischait, pﬂichtig und schuldig sein, iren obersten parnosen und richter sollichs anzuzaigen ob ein betrug oder unbillich gespurt oder vermerkt wurd, sollichs furzekomen [zufurkomen a]. Und welche ubertreten und verhalten, von einichen fraund oder mögt nit anzeigen wurden, sollent bei auch in anfenklicher strauf gestrauft [gestraft b c] werden. Item zum zechenden und beschluss obgemelter Artikel sollent die gemelten parnosen richter der judischhait jedes orts da sie wonen, allermenclicken und grosen ﬂeus anwenden wa si ain ungeburlichen unbgezembten handel umb oder bei inen, in stetten, merckten, oder dorfern von ainem juden oder judin herten oder gewarnemen, ob schon die Clager nit zugegen sein wurden, sollen si nict dester weniger in alweg sollichs oder desgleuchen gruntlich erfarn und nach gestalt der sachen was sich zutragen möcht weiters dan die obbemelten [obgemelten b c] ernante artikel straufen und abwenden, mit erenstlichen Vleis die besse [bose b c] arqwonige wa die erfunden werdent zu vertreiben und verjagen, kain zu beherbergin als dan unser judischer gebrauch und gemeiner Canonen ordnung und gesatze von alter her und unser hailige geschrift ausweist und vermag gerechtigkait und erberkait zu brauchen und nit betruglicher weis wie dan von etlichen gespurt beclagt wurde, wie [weil b c] ain comon der judischhait dhain schuld oder nachtail haben. In tröstlicher hoﬀnug, fursten, herrn, auch die stend des Hailigen Reichs, aus angeborner miltikait unsere gehorsame allezeit verbitung [verbitrung b] gewesen gnedigelich ansechen, zu hertzen fassen, und uns auch dargegen aus gerechtikait, erbarmblich [erbarmenlich b] natur, andere bechwerung so groslich mit [so groslich mit om. b samt b] villerlai zöl, neue glait an vil orten drungen und [noch b] beschweren mer dan alle kaisern freihaiten ausweisent [ußweisen b], darzu

382

appendix 1a

on alle wucherliche handel die armen gemainen judischhait durch etliche land zu passieren [basiren a] verspern. damit ain armer sein leubsnarung [ leibsnarung b] mit seinem kram oder aufruchtige handtierung durch die land in die mesen franckfurcht hin und wider, oder andere notturft noch brauchen oder werben kan, ist hierauf an alle obgemelte fursten und hern, auch stenden der Hailigen Reichs, als unsere allergenedigiste hern ainer gemeine arme underthenische judishait demuttigelichen bit und begeren, die weil die Romisch kaiserlich Mt. als unser aller genedigister her alle unsere Freihait conﬁrmirt und erneuert [ernurt a] und das man uns gnedigelich an allen orten wie wir itzo sitzen und wonen, handhaben [handgeben b] und nit vertreiben sol. auch das man uns in allen landen passiren und ziechen zulasen unbeschwert. Und wir uns dasselbigen darumb nit gantz begen zu ubergeben, sonder menschlich und frauntlichweis understen bei der cristenhait also wir vor alter her gehalten worden ze wonen, handlin und wandlin, wollent auch dermasen E[ure] F[ürstliche] G[naden] und andern in was wurden [wirden b] stands die stend gegen uns armen wie angezaigat gnedigelichen trösten und riebiglichen [ruenglich b?] handlin und wandlin lausen unverletz wie billich und recht an im selbs. ist uns auch der ungezweufelter hoﬀnung des E F G und andere aus hochem verstand die erberkait und gerechtigkait jeder in seinem stand betrachten und erfunden werdent und uns nit weiter beschweren als dan bei weilent geschechen ist. dan wir auch menschen, von got dem almechtigen auf der erden zewonen geschaﬀen, bei euch und mit euch zewonen und handlin, darumb wellent wir arme got den almechtigen umb E[uer] F[ürsftliche] G[naden] auch andern stenden des Hailigen Reichs gesunt und gelickseligen reigierung zebitten nimer vergessen; und insonderhait wir [wie b] obangezaiget artickel ﬂeisig nach datum diser geschrift nachzekommen unerbrechlich stet und vest zehalten. So hab ich Jesel Jud von Rosaim gemainer [genanter b] judischhait regierer in deutzem land aus obangezaigten ursachen mit etlichen mer gesanten der judischhait alhie zu Augspurg solliche articel mit ausgedruckten worten wie angezaigt beschllosen, albenthalben zuverkenden [zuverkinden b] nachzukommen und gehorsamelich understen wie gehört. Zu waren urkund hab ich vorgemelter Jesel jud mein gewonlich [gewenlich B] insigel gedruckt zu end der geschrift obgeschribner artickel und schlus zu gezeugin [gezwickung a]. Datum Augspurg am tag 17. november anno ML in 30.

appendix 1a

383

An Abridged Translation of the 1530 Economic Document 1 [The articles and ordinances prepared and established by Josel the Jew of Rosheim, governor of the Jews, at the Augsburg Diet in 1530.] Illustrious, well-born, noble, esteemed masters, honourable gentlemen, ﬁrst of all, I am the humble and faithful servant of all the honourable lords. Gracious Lords and Estates of the Holy Empire! In my capacity as emissary of all the Jews I have been informed, among other things, that several Jews in the Holy Empire and also in the principalities and various lands are behaving in many matters in an inappropriate manner, thereby causing unfair damage and losses to you and your subjects. Since the Jewish community has no real inﬂuence on these Jews, and cannot prevent or put a stop to such conduct, you yourselves were obliged to ﬁnd a way, collectively or individually, to ensure that the damage from these Jews would not constitute so severe a hardship for your subjects. There were also additional complaints, written and verbal. Consequently, I wrote to the Jews in every place and drew their attention to this complaint and charge that I had heard, and demanded emphatically that they, collectively and individually, or their authorized delegates, come to me at Augsburg during the meeting of the Diet. And, indeed, they sent me their leaders and delegates from many places in order that, together with them, I could decide upon and draw up on behalf of the Jewish community, a suitable ordinance, for the Jews in the cities, the market-places and the villages, as is detailed below: 1. If a Jew* loans anything to a Christian, he shall not add any hidden interest,2 or defraud or exploit the borrower,3 but he shall

1 The following is a translation of the main points in the document; it is not a verbatim rendition of the repetitious idiomatic expressions, characteristic of legal documents of that period. * {These articles applied equally to men and women ( Jud oder Judin). For the sake of convenience, I have used the masculine gender. Translator} 2 The expression Wucher, which in our days means exclusively “excessive interest”, could in the language of that period also mean simply “interest”. 3 The use of the expression Kaufer, “buyer”, derives from the assumption that usury is permitted solely in the form of buying and selling. See J.T. Noonan, Jr.,

384

appendix 1a

conduct himself appropriately and in good faith. Even if he has to wait more than a year for the loan to be repaid, he shall not add percentages or interest. If a Jew violates this stipulation and the parnasim in his place of residence learn about it, they shall impose a heavy ﬁne on him of three guilders, of these two guilders to be paid to the authorities under whose jurisdiction he resides, and the third to the parnasim, and he shall be required to refund the total sum of the transaction. 2. If a Jew lends a Christian a small or large sum of money at interest, the interest charged shall be a just amount, in accordance with our imperial privileges; he shall not reckon quarterly or halfyearly periods for interest purposes nor add the interest to the principal, but he shall conduct himself according to the ancient and good custom. In this way the poor will not be exploited and will be able to maintain themselves side by side with the rest of mankind, without hardship or exploitation. If a Jew transgresses this article, the parnasim must investigate the matter and impose a ﬁne on him, as speciﬁed above. 3. If the debtor of a Jew does not repay his debt at the speciﬁed time, the Jew shall not sue him before a non-local court, but shall ﬁrst be so good as to approach the local bailiﬀ or mayor in the debtor’s locality and demand his due, so that they can see to it that within a month the debt to the Jew will be defrayed or an amicable settlement reached between the parties. If no agreement can be reached and the Jew nevertheless is compelled to institute proceedings in a non-local court, he shall not cause the debtor any unnecessary expenses, but only what is necessary and fair. If a Jew violates this stipulation, the parnasim must invalidate his action and penalize him as speciﬁed above. 4. If a Jew lends money against security, he shall not accept a pledge of dubious origin. If he does so by mistake and it transpires that the pledge is stolen property, he shall never again have any business dealings with such a thief. If a Jew violates this stipulation and traﬃcs with men of bad reputation, buying from them or lending them money against a pledge, and it transpires that it is stolen The Scholastic Analysis of Usury, Cambridge, Mass. 1957, p. 11 ﬀ. {However, the German text can be read diﬀerently, and it is possible that this article of the Economic Document concerns the sale by Jews of goods on credit. Both Feilchenfeld (p. 28) and S. Stern (p. 116) are of this opinion. Translator}

appendix 1a

385

property, he shall return it immediately without compensation of any kind.4 Similarly, if a Jew purchases a horse, cow or sheep, and it transpires within one year and a day that it is stolen property, the Jew shall return it at once to its rightful owners without compensation; if he has already exchanged or sold it, he shall pay the injured party its value in money, and also a ﬁne of six guilders, of these four guilders to be given to the authorities under whose jurisdiction he resides and two to the parnasim, who must investigate the matter upon receiving a complaint, without any trickery or deceit. 5. It is forbidden for any Jew to lend money to a minor son or daughter, or to the attendant, manservant or maidservant of any citizen, or to buy goods from them, without the knowledge of the master or lady of the household. If this should happen, the Jew’s money shall not be refunded to him, and the parnasim are required to penalize him with the ﬁrst penalty speciﬁed above. 6. In the event that a debtor of a Jew dies, whether there is a promissory note or not, and whether the heirs know about the debt or not, the Jew must not inﬂict hardship on the heirs by suing them before any court, be it ecclesiastical or secular. Instead, he shall request that the parnasim investigate the case thoroughly, clarify matters and decide whether or not it should be brought before an ecclesiastical or secular court; he must obey all their instructions. If it is discovered that a Jew has forcibly extracted debts from the widow or heirs of his debtor, he shall be ﬁned 12 guilders, of these eight guilders to be paid to the authorities and four to the parnasim. The case should then be brought for judgement to the said parnasim, as he did not inform them about it in the ﬁrst place. 7. If a Jew borrows money or items of monetary value from a Christian and promptly goes abroad in bad faith, and the injured party lodges a complaint, the local parnasim must place the oﬀender under our severest ban and proclaim that he is excommunicated and divested of all our privileges. No member of the Jewish community shall marry him, eat or drink with him or shelter him. Whoever wilfully violates the above and has dealings with an absconding swindler of this kind shall pay the injured party damages, so long as his means suﬃce, as well as a ﬁne as in article 1.

4 From here, it can be inferred incidentally that if the item is bought or accepted in good faith, the Jew will receive payment even if it is stolen property.

386

appendix 1a

8. If a Christian man or woman, young or old, complains to our parnasim against any Jew, they must assist the complainant to obtain his just due according to divine law against the aforesaid Jew, for the Christians too dispense justice in favour of the Jews against the Christians, as is just and proper also according to natural law, and there is no diﬀerence between human beings on earth. 9. Any Jew who learns from his neighbours that a fraud or illegal act has been committed is obliged to inform his parnasim and dayanim, so that they can redress the matter. Whoever does not do so shall pay a ﬁne as in the ﬁrst case. 10. Finally, the parnasim and dayanim of the Jews in all their places of residence must take prompt and ﬁrm action if they receive information about any irregular transaction by any Jewish man or woman in the cities, market places or villages. Even if the complainant does not reside in that locality, they should still investigate the aﬀair with the same diligence, and impose ﬁnes even above the amount stipulated in this document. Thus, {this evil} shall be rooted out and not harboured, in accordance with our Jewish custom and our common corporate laws, for our Torah instructs us to act justly and with integrity, and not deceitfully as many have complained, but [or: for] Jewry as a whole is not blameworthy. Princes, lords and Estates of the Holy Reich, we comfort ourselves in the hope that, out of inborn grace, you will graciously see and take to heart our humble appeal, and that, in return, you will ease all manner of taxes, impositions of all kinds, and safe conduct fees in many places that burden us beyond what is stipulated in the privileges of all the emperors. Moreover, passage through many lands has been denied to Jews who do not practice any kind of usury. Thus a poor man cannot travel back and forth in order to take his wares to the Frankfurt fair so as to earn his daily bread through honest commerce, or sell his merchandise or purchase essential items. Therefore, we submit to all the aforesaid princes and lords, and to the Estates of the Holy Reich, by virtue of their being masters, this humble petition of all obedient Jewry, that since His Majesty the Emperor has renewed all our freedoms, we should therefore be permitted to remain in all the places in which we presently reside, and not be expelled. Furthermore, that we should be permitted to pass through all the lands without diﬃculty, {and} to dwell, travel and traﬃc in a humane and amicable manner among the Christians in the same manner as we have been tolerated [by them] from time

appendix 1a

387

immemorial. {We ask} that Your Graces and others of all Estates will treat us compassionately and permit us to travel safely, as is proper and just for our people. We express the hope that Your Excellencies and others will, in your great understanding, show and display such honour and justice as to preserve the status of every one of us, and will not burden us more than in the past. For we too are human beings, whom God created to live on earth, to dwell side by side with you and to traﬃc with you. Therefore, we shall not neglect at all times to pray to the Almighty God on your behalf and on behalf of your government and of the other Imperial Estates. And, in particular, as mentioned above, we shall observe and faithfully abide by these articles after submitting this document. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, I, Josel, the Jew of Rosheim, governor of all Jewry in German lands, together with other delegates of the Jews here in Augsburg, have resolved, explicitly and clearly, to publish these articles in all the localities, and to observe them as is ﬁtting. In witness thereof, I, Josel, the said Jew, have aﬃxed my usual seal at the bottom of this document of the aforementioned articles. Given at Augsburg on the 17th of November in the year 1530.

APPENDIX 1B

The 1536 Economic Document The practice of usury, by which the Jews made their living, came up for debate at almost every session of the Diet. There were always calls to forbid the Jews the practice of any kind of usury, or for there to be a ﬁxed ceiling on their interest rates. The reason given for every expulsion of Jews was their “detestable usury”. An additional complication was that the Jews preferred to sue their debtors in imperial courts and, in particular, the Imperial Court of Justice at Rottweil, which specialized in cases concerning loans and debts.1 At the same time, the cities received privileges stipulating that their citizens were not to be tried before courts that were foreign and far from their places of abode. There was constant tension over this question between the Jews and the cities, whose residents were accustomed to take loans from Jewish moneylenders. A second issue that cast a pall over business transactions between the Jews and their debtors was that of the stolen goods which the Jews accepted as pledges or even bought outright for the purpose of their commercial dealings. According to an age-old privilege of theirs, the Jews were permitted to request payment for items even if these were found to be stolen. This right was reconﬁrmed in the 1530 privilege, on condition that the items were bought in good faith and from reliable persons.2 However, time and again the Jews were accused of encouraging thievery by traﬃcking in stolen goods. In order to forestall a general imperial prohibition on usury and also to resolve the painful issue of the non-local courts, R. Joseph drafted the Economic Document of November 1530 (Appendix 1a, above). In the same year, the city of Strasbourg, which was particularly sensitive about its freedoms and about the fact that its citizens were being sued in out-of-town courts, forbade all commercial

1 2

See above, General Introduction, p. 23. See Appendix 1a, article 4 (pp. 384–385), and note 4 there.

appendix 1b

389

transactions with Jews. However, it appears to have deferred the enforcement of this order until it would become apparent whether the Jews were honouring their obligations in accordance with the 1530 document. When it became clear that Strasbourg residents were still being sued before non-local courts, the city placed a total prohibition on traﬃcking with Jews. R. Joseph made strenuous eﬀorts to have this order revoked. At an assembly that convened at Rosheim in 1536, he drew up another economic document, in which the Jews of the Hagenau region promised not to sue Strasbourg citizens, or persons connected with the city, in any other courts save those of the city; in addition, they undertook that in a case in which stolen goods inadvertently came into their hands, they would return them without receiving any compensation. Thus, Jewry in the Hagenau region waived the famous privilege that all of imperial Jewry had possessed until that time. It seems that any Jew requesting an entrance permit to Strasbourg or wishing to engage in a monetary or commercial transaction with one of its citizens was required to make a declaration that he would observe these regulations in all their particulars. Hence the oﬃcial letters conﬁrming the declarations that many Jews made before an authorized representative of the city, letters that were appended to the 1536 document in subsequent years. In 1543, the Jews of Ensisheim in Upper Alsace, led by a man named Chaim, engaged to observe the articles of this document (ArchMun Strasbourg, III 174, 25). Extant are three copies of the document: the original, in Strasbourg City Archives (Arch-Mun, III 174, 22), which includes the names of Jews, members of various communities in Alsace and even further aﬁeld, who, during the years 1536–1564, pledged themselves with a handshake (bey Handt-gebend) before the city authorities to abide by its stipulations. A certiﬁed copy is preserved in the Central Archives in Strasbourg (ArchDep Bas-Rhin, C 78 (for variations in the text, hereafter: B), and there is an additional copy in the City Archives in the above ﬁle (for variations in the text, hereafter: C). The text below is copied from the original in Strasbourg City Archives; signiﬁcant variations only have been noted in brackets. Unclear words are followed by a question mark. The German text is followed by an abridged translation. The following is a translation of R. Joseph’s remarks written in his own hand on the cover of the document (on the outside):

390

appendix 1b What {the Jews} of the German Empire resident in the Landvogtei of Hagenau are required to observe {on pain of } a ﬁne of 10 pounds to the leaders and burghers of Strasbourg, from the ﬁrst of Av, 5296 {18 July 1536}; with great diﬃculty I have secured, with the help of God, blessed be He, the agreement {of the Jews}.

The following is written on the cover of the ﬁle: Archives de la ville, III 174, 22 Die Judenschaﬀt im Undern Elsaß obligiret sich, der Stadt Straßburg Underthanen kunﬀtig hin nicht mehr mit außländ. rechten fürzunehmen und wann einem under ihnen gestohlen guts zukauﬀen gebracht würdt, solches demjenigen so es entwendet worden ohne entgelt wiedrumb zuzustellen. 18. July 1536.

The 1536 Economic Document: Text Ich Josell Jud zu Roßheim und die gemein Judischeit der Landtvogtey Hagnaw in underelsaß Bekhennen samentlich und unuerschiedenlich fur unns unnser erben und nachkhomen in gemelter Landtuogtay und thundt khündt meniglich mit disem Brieﬀ: Als sich nuhn zum oﬀtermall zugtragen und begeben das etliche Juden und Judinen vnpillichen unleidlichen und verpotnen wücher und gsüch uf der Edlen Gestrengen vesten fursichtigen ersamen und weisen Herrn Maister und Ratz der loblichen Stat Strasburgk unnserer g[nedinge] Herren burger burgersbürger hindersassen zu und angehorigen und die jenigen so inen zuversprechen standt, in stat und landt getriben und noch gendt, die selbigen wider gedachter herrn Maister und Ratz der stat Strasburgk habende freiheitten mit ußlendischen gerichten furgenomen und mit noch schwereren costen unpillichen umbgetriben haben, derhalben gedachte Herr Maister und Rath mitwoch den sechzehenden Martii verschinen dreissigsten Jars durch ein oﬀen mandat iren burgern, burgers burgern, hindersassen, angehorige und verwandten in stat und landt, bey schwerer straﬀ gepietten und verpieten lassen hinfürter mit kheinem Juden weder wenig noch vill gar nichtz zu schaﬀen haben, endtlehent oder ufnement, und die jenigen so biß zur selben Zeit bey den Juden verhaﬀt gewesen wiederumb alsbald sich ledig machen solten und aber nit deßweniger die jren durch Jüden und Jüdinnen hindergangen mit unpillichem wucher beschwert und wider mhergemelter einer stat Straßburgk auch unnser der Jüden gegebnen Kay. freiheiten und

appendix 1b

391

angenomnen Jüdsche ordnungen mit ußlendischem gericht fürgemomen bekhombert und zu schweren costen getriben worden. (das unns dan wider und leid is). Derweil [derowegen b] dan etlichemall und sonderlich jetzo als Schmull [schmuel b] Jud zu Espasch iren underthonen Mur (?) Clausen zu Marlehein. deßgleichen Blamell [Bluemell b] Jüdin Abraham Juden von Hochfelden tochter iren bürger Petterr Haman abermals ungepürlicher weiß mit Rotweillischem Recht angelangt und beschwert, uber das sy die selben züuor mit ordenlichem Recht nit ersücht mhergdachte herr Maister und Rath furgenomen das wir die gemeine Judischeit Ir stat und oberkeit nit mher geprüchen noch sy unns darein lassen oder vergleiten wollen, damit die Iren sollichs unpillichen costen verhoben und vermitten bliben. Damit aber sollichs alles abgestelt wurde, So haben wir alle samethaﬀt und unnser jeder jnsonders wie wir jetzo nach unnserm pruch und herkhomen in der gemelten Landtuogtey Hagnaw namblich zu Roßheim versamelt gewesen zugsagt, globt und versprochen sagen zu begeben unns globen und versprochen auch fur unns, unnser erben und unnsere nachkhomen in der mherbemelten Landtvogtey Hagnaw in underelsaß hiemit und in kraﬀt diß briefs, das unnser kheiner mans oder weibs personen nuhn hinfuro ewiglich kheinen der stat Straßburgk burger, burgers burger, hindersassen, zu und angehorige noch die so der stat Straßburgk zuversprechen sond, nymerumb kheinerley sachen oder ansprochen, es sey wesserley oder warumb das wolle nichtz ußgenomen, verbrieﬀt oder unverbrieﬀt, so wir jetzo mit jnen oder harwiderümb sy mit uns allen oder unnser jedem insonders, haben oder khonﬀtiglich uberkhomen werden oder mochten, in was weiß oder weg das wer oder beschehe, Obsich aüch gleich einer der stat Straßburgk burger oder die jren obgemelten Juden verschreibüngen sich jrer der stat Straßburgk oder aller anderer freiheit insonderheit oder gemein verzigen, begeben oder verschriben hetten, in was maß oder weg das imer beschehen were oder noch beschehen mocht, mit kheinem ußlendischen Rechten kay[serlichen] oder kon[iglichen] Landt houe [hof c] oder ander gericht wie die namen haben oder khunﬀtiglich uberkhamen mocht, sonder allein vor vilgenanten herrn Maister und Rath zu Straßburgk unnserm gnedigen herrn oder wohin ir gnaden das weisen werden Rechtlichen fürnemen und beclagen. und so wir also der iren einer Rechtlichen furnemer wurden, desselbigen gegenclag und in gegenclags weiß vor inen herrn Mayster und Rath oder wahin syes weysen wie Recht ist

392

appendix 1b

Rechtens zugewarten und was des ortz in der Clag und gegenclag sach Rechtlich oder soes von den partheiyen bewilligt gutlich gesprochen oder endtscheiden wurdt, one aller ferer Appellieren, berueﬀen, bedingen, bitten und suppliciren demselben geleben, volnstreckhen und nachkhomen. Es were dan sach das jetweder teill sich mit solchen urteilen und bescheiden durch gemelte herrn Meister und Rath oder die Jren so es uß Jren beuelch und geheiß thon und geben werden beschwert zu sein vernemen wurde, dem soll unbenomen sein mogen fur die kay, delegierten Camerrichter Jn dem appellation sachen zu Straßburgk, die man die alten dreyzehen nennet zu appellieren. und sonst niergantz anderswo hin noch weitter, sonder was vor oder von den selben Herrn dreyzehen als Camerrichtern in solcher Applations Jnstatz gesprochen wurdet. Darbey soll es auch gelassen werden und bleiben in Massen nechst hieuor von Meyster und Ratz der stat Straßburgk und der Jren urteillen gemeldet und ußgetruckt ist. Wir sollen und wollen auch das alle brief so zwischen unns den Jüden mans und weibs personen und der gemelten von Straßburgk burger, brugers burger, hindersassen underthonen, zu und angehorigen und allen denen so der genante statt Straßburgk zuuersprochen sondt ufgericht weren, so unns in gemein oder unnser einer jnsonderheit besagten oder berürten und wider diß verschreibung und begebung sein oder gelten solten, das die selben alle samenthaﬀt und sonderr jn disem fall doch der hauptsach unappruchig hiemitt tod und ab darzu unkreﬀtig und von eineieder sein, das wir auch khunﬀtiglich kheinen darwider ufrichten wollen. Darzu sollen und wollen wir unnsere ansproch die wir alß wider die burger zu Straßburgk und die jren obegemelt zu haben vermeinenten nit anders ubergeben, verkhauﬀen oder uß unsern handen khomen lassen, anders dan das die Jenigen an die sy also khommen sich diser verschreibung auch also sollen haben und zu haben schuldig und verpunden sein. Wir han unns auch begeben und zugesagt begeben und sagen zu hiemit und jn kraﬀt diß briefs, die weill ein stat Straßburgk bisher jn kriegs not gemeiner Judischeit guten schutz und schirm gethan und bewißen wir uns auch dessen jn khunftigen zu inen ferrer verweisen, das wann einer stat Straßburgk oder jren burgern jn der stat Straßburgk etwas da got vor sey gestolen wurde was das were, und eins Juden oder Judin von uns zukheme, bey tag oder nacht, das soll er oder sy bey dem eid getraulich ufheben unnd vergebentlich an alle endtgeltung dem endtwerten in der stat Straßburgk wider

appendix 1b

393

zustellen. verrer aber das wir oder einer uß unns mans oder weibs personen einer oder mherder stat Straßburgk burger, burgers burger oder die inen wie mergemelth ist, anders dan wie hierbei stat, umb was sich das were gar nickhtz ußgemonnen furnemen bekhennen oder euch verschreibung, dardurch er sich understaende uß diser verschreibung zuziehen, ufrichten oder unser ansproch und vorderung geckhauf, oder etwas wider den puncten algemoh (?) verhelen wurden, dye oder den selben sollen obemelte herrn maister und Rath zu Straßburgk derumben und daruber umb zehen pfund pfenniges zu straﬀen, mag und mocht sie darzu auch jn die stat Straßburgk nit mher khomen, sy oder der selbig haben sich dan mit den selben darumben vertragen. und nit deß mynder dißelbe handlung so diser verschreibung zu wider furgemonnen were nhichtig, kraﬀtloß, tod und absein und durch unnser die gemein Judenschaﬀt one derer von Straßburgk oder der jren costen und schaden abgestelt und abgeschaﬀt werden gannz und gar, wie weit auch die selbig gefürt und gepracht were. Doch soll durch sollich straﬀ und abschaﬀung dem Jenigen so ansproch an deren von Straßburgk burger oder an die Jren wie gemelt ist zu haben vermeint, an der hauptsach nichtz benomen sein die selben jn massen harin begriﬀen zu Rechtfertigen und furzunemen. Und darumben und damit solliches alles deßdo stetter und vester gehalten werden solle, so haben wir unns alle samenthaﬀt und unverschiedenlich, fur unns, unnser erben und nachkhomen jn der mherbemelten landtvogtey hagenaw verziegen und begeben aller und jeder ußzug, schutz schirm freyhaiten und begnadigüngen so wir sampt aller Judischeit in Teutch und andern landen jn gemein oder fur unns selber jn diser Landtuogtey Hagnaw jn underelsaß oder unnser einer fuer sein selbs person oder die seiner allein oder in gemein von Romischen Keissern oder konigen, fursten, herrn landt und stetten haben oder hetten, sie seyen uf unnser aller oder der selben sondern personen ansuchen oder anrueﬀen oder uß eigneer bewegnus, deßgleichen volkhomenheit des gwaltz ußgangen Jetzo oder in khonﬀtigen gegeben oder ußbracht wie die heissen oder genant werden mochten jn enich weiß und weg, das wir all und unnser jeder jnsonders fur unns, unnser erben und nachkhomen obgemelt, unns der selben aller und Jeder Jnsonders, deßgleichen alles desse so wir also wider diß verschreibung khonﬀtig ußpringen mochten, wats das jmer sein khund, sampt dem Rechten so da seyt das gemeine verzeihung nit kreﬀtig sein oder gelten solle. verzihen und begeben haben

394

appendix 1b

wolten. verzeihen und begeben unns derrer allen und jeder jnsonderr. wissentlich und frey willeglich ungetzwangen und ungetrangen jn der aller besten und bestendigsten form, weiß, maß und gestalt ein solliches imer beschehen soll, khan und mag von Recht oder gewonheit wegen, hiemit und in kraﬀt diß briefs alle geneid und arglist ußgeschlossen. und dessen zu urkhund so haben wir mit sonderm vleiß und ernst gepeten und erpetten die fursichtgen Ehrsamen und weisen herrn Maister und den Rath zu Rosheim unserer lieben herrn das sy von unnser aller wegen jrer stat gemein jnsigell zu mein Jesells sigell gehenckt haben an disen brief, unns obgeschriebner ding und punncten darmit zubestegen (zubestetigen?). und wir meister und Rath zu Rosheim erstgemelt bekhennen harmit das wir umb gemeine Judischeit der landtwogtey hagnaw jn under Elsaß pet willen unnser stat Jnsigell gehenckt haben andisen brief der geben Jst zins tage den 18. ten July, (als mann zallt nach der gepurt christi unsres lieben herrn und selig machers dußent funﬀhundert dreissig und sechs jare B) Anno C XXXVI.

An Abridged Translation of the 1536 Economic Document [On the cover of the ﬁle:] All Jewry in Lower Alsace undertake that in future they will not sue citizens of Strasbourg in courts outside the city; furthermore, if any Jew is oﬀered stolen goods for purchase, he will return them to the person from whom they were purloined, without compensation, 18 July 1536. I, Josel the Jew of Rosheim, and all the Jews in the region of Hagenau in Lower Alsace declare, collectively and individually, on our behalf and on behalf of our heirs and descendants in the said Landvogtei, and aﬃrm in this document: it has happened on many occasions that a number of Jews and Jewesses were wont to take excessive interest, which is both illegal and insuﬀerable, from subjects of the Magistrate and City Council of the esteemed city of Strasbourg, and, in addition, they have sued in foreign courts citizens and their dependents and persons connected with the city, in the city and in the villages, thus infringing upon the privileges appertaining to the said city, as well as causing them great and unjustiﬁed expenses. For these reasons therefore, on Wednesday 16 March [15]30, the City Magistrate

appendix 1b

395

and Council3 issued a public mandate to its citizens, their dependents and to all persons connected with the city in any way, in the city and the villages, forbidding them on pain of severe penalty to engage from that time on in any business transactions whatsoever with Jews, or to borrow from them in any shape or form; those already entangled with Jews were to disengage themselves at the earliest opportunity. In spite of this, their citizens are still being sued in non-local courts, in violation of the city’s privileges from the Emperor and of the ordinance that the Jews took upon themselves to observe,4 and this has involved them in heavy expenses—for which we oﬀer our deepest regrets. On many occasions, and particularly at the present time, Samuel the Jew of Eschbach has sued their citizen Mur[?] Clausen in Marlehein, and, likewise, Blamell [or: Bluemell] the Jewess, daughter of Abraham the Jew of Hochfelden, has sued their citizen, Petterr Haman, improperly before the Rottweil Court of Justice, without ﬁrst turning to the regular accepted court. The city authorities have therefore decided that from this time on Jews will not be permitted to traﬃc in the city, and will not be admitted to the city or receive safe-conducts, so that their citizens will be relieved from and spared such unreasonable expenses. (1) In order that all this should cease, we have resolved, assembled as we are in our customary manner at Rosheim, that we, collectively and individually, pledge, conﬁrm and undertake, on our behalf and on that of our heirs and descendants in the aforesaid region of Hagenau in Lower Alsace, in this document, that from this time forth none of us, man or woman, shall bring a lawsuit against any resident of Strasbourg, whether he be a citizen or the dependent of a citizen or any person connected with the city, before out-of-town courts, whether imperial or royal, territorial or the king’s court, or any other court of whatever name, but exclusively before the Magistrate and City Council of Strasbourg, or in any place that they will specify. Likewise, regarding appeals, they shall be made according to the custom of the place and with the agreement of the parties; there shall be no additional appeal or conditions or additional debate. However, anyone who considers that he has been unfairly treated by the court to which he was referred, may appeal 3 In the document the expression “the City Magistrate and Council” always refers to the city leaders. It is omitted hereafter. 4 He is referring to the 1530 Economic Document.

396

appendix 1b

to the judges in the Imperial Court (Camerrichter) at Strasbourg who are known as the “Thirteen Elders”, and take his case to them and to no other place.5 We also request that any letter [agreement] contracted between any of us and a resident of Strasbourg which is at variance with what is written here shall be considered null and void, and we engage not to draw up any agreement of this kind in the future. Moreover, we undertake that the claims that we have against Strasbourg residents, we shall transfer or sell only to persons who likewise will promise to honour these commitments.6 (2) Strasbourg has in times of war accorded the Jews (Gemeiner Judischeit) good protection, and we are conﬁdent that also in the future we can approach the city in this regard. Therefore, we hereby pledge, undertake and promise, by virtue of this document, that if, Heaven forbid, any item, whatever it may be, is stolen from a resident of Strasbourg, and a Jew from among us happens to come by it, by day or by night, he shall be required to swear [that he was not aware that the item was stolen], and to return it to its owners without any compensation. Should anyone of us, man or woman, behave towards a citizen of Strasbourg in a manner other than that agreed to in this document, in any matter whatsoever,7 the city of Strasbourg shall impose a ﬁne on him of ten pound pfennigs, and he shall not be permitted to enter the city gates until he has settled with his debtor. Any transaction whatsoever that is contrary to this document shall be cancelled by us without the involvement of the Strasbourg residents, and without any expenses or injury for them; it shall be null and void at whatever stage it stands. 5

There was a distinguished body of men on the Strasbourg city council called “the Thirteen Elders” (die Dreizen alten), who were responsible for city concerns, particularly in the ﬁelds of security and foreign relations. They also exercised judicial functions, and, among their other duties, served as substitute judges in the Imperial Court of Justice (Reichskammergericht), which was meant to handle appeals. In that capacity, they designated themselves “justices at the Imperial Court of Justice” (delegierte Kaiserliche Kammerrichter), and their seal bore the imprint of an eagle—the imperial emblem. See O. Winckelmann, “Straßburgs Verfassung und Verwaltung im 16. Jahrhundert”, Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins, 57 (1903), pp. 527–32, 616. The term “elders” is a translation of the German expression Altmänner or Die alten Herren, meaning “highly experienced men”. 6 This may refer to promissory notes that are passed from hand to hand, and possibly also to pledges that are sold from hand to hand. 7 In the original there are a number of words here that are diﬃcult to decipher.

appendix 1b

397

However, this penalty and this cancellation shall not impair the right of any person who has a claim against a Strasbourg citizen, to bring a suit against him. In order that all this should be the better observed, we have all undertaken, on our behalf and on that of our descendants and heirs in the aforesaid region of Hagenau, that any privilege, writ of protection or safe conduct and charter of rights, that we, all of Jewry in German lands and in other lands, both collectively or individually, have or will in the future receive from the Roman emperors or from the kings, or the princes, the territorial lords, and the cities, at our request or at the request of any one of us, which contains anything that is at variance with this document, that this shall be annulled in accordance with this document, without any ill-feeling or trickery. In order to certify this document, we have requested from those worthy and wise gentlemen, the Mayor and City Council of Rosheim, our honourable masters, that on our behalf they will attach the corporate seal of the city next to my own personal seal, Josel, so as to verify the document and its said articles. And we, the Mayor and City Council of Rosheim hereby testify that, in accordance with the request of the Jews in the region of Hagenau in Lower Alsace, we did attach our seal to this document, which was given on the 18th of July in the year 1536.

APPENDIX 2

Letter to the Strasbourg City Council, July 1543 R. Joseph’s relationship with Martin Luther has already been discussed in the General Introduction (p. 33 onwards), and in the introduction to section 22 of the Chronicle (for 1536/37) (above, p. 233 onwards). In 1543 Luther published his tracts against the Jews, in which he attacked them in harsh and immoderate language, and also oﬀered advice to the rulers on how to behave towards them. R. Joseph made several attempts to prevent their publication in Strasbourg, and to convince the rulers of Protestant territories and cities not to heed Luther’s advice and not to impair Jewish rights. This was the purpose of the two letters he dispatched to Strasbourg in the course of that year. The second of them appears below1 followed by a translation. In this letter R. Joseph mentions his earlier letter to the Strasbourg city council, of May 1543, which he wrote following the publication of Luther’s ﬁrst tract against the Jews of that same year.2 As a result of this tract, he stresses, it has happened more than once that one or other of the common people has boasted that a person who attacks a Jew in his person or property will not be punished, since he is simply following Martin Luther’s instructions. To his previous letter he had attached the letters of recommendation he received in 1536 from the Reformer Wolfgang Capito and from the Strasbourg city council, at the time when he attempted to obtain an interview with Luther. Strasbourg had responded to his earlier appeal, writes R. Joseph, and had promised its assistance in preventing assaults on Jews. In addition, the city had decided to forbid the printing in the city of Luther’s booklet, for which he expresses his appreciation. R. Joseph continues his letter by reiterating that he does not wish to argue with Luther on questions of faith, nor have his brethren 1 Extracts of it have already been printed by L. Geiger, “Aus Josels Supplik an den Straßburger Rath vom 11. Juli 1543”, ZGJD, 5 (1892), pp. 332–34. The text is preserved in a single copy in the Strasbourg City Archives (Strasbourg, ArchMun, III, 174, 23). 2 Von den Juden und ihren Lügen, published in January 1543.

appendix 2

399

the Jews entrusted him with any such mission. However, he complains bitterly about Luther, accusing him of having judged and condemned the Jews, and charging that he wishes to deny them their natural rights solely on the basis of accusations made by Jewish apostates, and without hearing their side of the story. And he asks: Does Luther know what lies in the heart of every man, that he presumes to condemn the Jews to eternal disgrace and rob them of any hope in this world and the world to come, as though he was sent by God! Why, also the prophets, who rebuked the Jews for their moral failings, did not deprive them of all hope, and even promised that, ultimately, they would merit God’s grace. Indeed, he stresses, no learned man has ever determined that the Jews should be treated in so tyrannical a manner. He advances an interesting argument: If the Jews are to be denied the public peace (Landfrieden) because they do not believe what Martin Luther wishes them to believe, then surely a similar fate awaits the Catholics, whom the Protestant leader is attacking so vehemently. Thus, from this intolerant attitude towards the Jews he concludes that religious persecution can be expected also within the Christian community itself. Luther has now published a new anti-Jewish pamphlet,3 R. Joseph goes on, in which he accuses the Jews of writing a book containing scurrilous remarks about Jesus. He {R. Joseph} personally had never seen this book until he was shown a copy of it in Capito’s house in Strasbourg, in the presence of the printer Ayl {Rihel}, who received it from Constantinople. Capito remarked to him that since he had never found any such crude comments in the Jewish prayer books or other books of the Jews, he assumed that the person who had written those words did not represent the Jews. R. Joseph adopts this point of view, stressing that the Jews cannot be held responsible for everything written in books. The Jewish religion is based on the Ten Commandments, the Torah and the Prophetic writings. The commentary on the Torah was transmitted by God to the 70 Elders (the Sanhedrin) and the Jews are required to obey them and the Talmudic sages, for the words of the Bible are not always easy to comprehend. He is prepared to prove to any person who is interested that the Talmud is essential for the understanding of the true Messiah, and that it does not contain anything derogatory about anyone. 3 This is a reference to Vom Schem Hamphorasch, published in March of the same year.

400

appendix 2

R. Joseph assumes that Luther based his accusations against the Jews on the book by Antonius Margaritha, with whom he (R. Joseph) had disputed during the Augsburg Diet, as a result of which Margaritha had been expelled from the city.4 At the present time too, he is ready to refute Luther’s charges against the Jews. He is prepared to respond to all the arguments and charges with proofs from the Holy Scriptures, and that without questioning the faith of any person or oﬀending Luther. He is convinced that if Luther would only give him a hearing, he too would recognize the truth and would refrain from writing his harsh words against the Jews. Finally, R. Joseph reaches the main point of his letter. In the closing section, he entreats the Strasbourg city council to intercede with the rulers of Saxony and Hesse and request from them that they and their allies show understanding and protect as before the Jews residing in their lands, so that the latter will not be violently assaulted in the cities, marketplaces, and villages or on the highways. He also appeals to the city to endeavour to persuade their other Protestant allies, members of the Schmalkaldic League, not to violate Jewish rights, and to grant the Jews safe-conducts and charters of protection. The Strasbourg city council discussed R. Joseph’s petition, but on this occasion did not accede to his requests. According to the entry in the city protocols, the city advised R. Joseph to petition the Elector Palatine, ruler of Alsace, or other governing authorities. However, with regard to the printing of Luther’s works, there is a note to the eﬀect that the city did not wish to quarrel with Luther, but would also in the future not allow the printing of his tracts within its bounds.

Text of the Letter of July 1543 Strasbourg, Archives Municipales, III 174, 235 Jösel Jud zu Roshaim S. do: (sine dato?) Marthin Luthers büchlin. so er wider die Juden gemaht. 11.7.1543 4 Luther did in fact at that time read at table Margaritha’s book, Der Gantz jüdisch Glaub, and he compared the Jewish customs portrayed in it to the “pagan” customs of the Pope’s followers. See Lewin, Luthers Stellung zu den Juden, p. 79, and note 2 there. 5 The text has been transcribed exactly as it appears in the manuscript, except

appendix 2

401

Strenge hochwolgelerten Eren vesten und Ersamen weissen gnedigen und günstigen Heren. An euern gnaden sey mein unthertenigen ﬂeisigen dinst zu voran breit. G. H. alles ich nest verschinen tagen Euern gnaden von wegen etliche meine brüder und vor mich selbst unsser kumer und Elendt klags weiß unterthenig müntlich und auch schriﬀtenlich E. G. vor gbrocht, wie daß etliche personen vor den gmein man oﬀenbore sagen und rümen so man ein Juden an Leib oder gutt bischedigen würdt im verzihen, dan doctor morti luther het solche meinung in seinem truck lossen uß genn. auch bifolhan zu bredigen. Dor uﬀ E. G. alles die hohe verstendige ich angeruﬀt daß E. G. so ﬁl möglich von gots gesatz und grechtickeit wegen hirin ein gnedige schirm und hülﬀ biweyssen, das durch solchis nit aber ein uﬀ rur und ein gwalt gischihan mocht wider alli lands frieden. Auch K. M. unssers aller gnedigstan hern besunder gigeben6 freihaten und in daß heilig romisch reich schutz und schirm sein. Dor zu auch E. G. fürschriﬀten und brieﬀ mit sampt des hohen glertin tocktor Wolﬀ Kapptor selig eigen schreiben dor wider nit githan würdt mit mer begriﬀ. wie den E. G. die selbigen Cappios noch der leng gnediglich verlessen und bey handen habennd. Dor uber E. G. mir haben lossen sagen wu unß etwiß wider für diß halben wer Euch gitranwlich leit, heten auch itzundt bifolhen an den selbigen sorgveltigen orten, nemlich Hochvelden solchs zu verkümen. Und wolten forter ein gnedig insehans thon so weit E. G. verwaltung on euer gnod weiter biﬀelch nit trucken lossen, do mit nimant durch sich selbst on wissen der oberkeit unß beschwern solt. Daß sich nun die arme Judischheit hoch von E. G. gnedige drost, bedancken. G. H., so hab ich auch dar bey unter anderm mich loßen hoeren wie woll ich der glauben halben mit gdochtem Doctar Marti Lauterir oder anderi nit dispetirn will, mir auch von einer gmeine Judischeit nit befolhen worden, die weil ich aber im CCCVII jor von euern gnoden und von hoch gdochten Doctar Cappter selig zu dem durchlochtigsten hochgbornen Churfürsten Hertzig Hans Friderich etc. Und Hochgdochtem Doctar Marti Luter mit treﬄich fürschriﬀten

for a few minor changes: the abbreviated words have been printed in full; unnecessary capital letters have been deleted, but at times capital letters have been inserted at the beginning of sentences and for important proper nouns as is the rule today. 6 This word may have been deleted in the manuscript.

402

appendix 2

abgiferdigt worden, mich von wegen einer gmeinen Judischeit gnediglich zu horen und noch fermog des gisatz mit leiden mit unß armen zu haben etc. Alles wir daß selbig mol giwar namen daß die abtrünige oder mamlukische Juden gedochten Doctar Marti Lauterir wider unß biwegt mit der unworheit wie er dan sich itzen in anfang seins truck horen lost, habe nie willen gehapt wider unß Juden zu thon, so er aber erfaren habe so loß er solche schreiben uß gen. etc. G. H. so bin ich mit grosser müwe biß uﬀ sieben mayl in Mayssenn kumen zu gmeltem tocktar, aber er mich nit hot wollen vor lossen sunder ein brieﬀ mir gischriben, wie E. G. den selbigen brieﬀ wol wissen, het mich versehan daß gdachter Doctar uﬀ unser miß goner gedauﬀte oder on gedauﬀte iuden anbringung und an raytzung solche unfruntlich und unginedig buch wider unß armen nit hedt lossen uß gen. Den einem daß sein zu nemen oder zu schedigen an seinem leib oder einem sein gleidt zu brechen, kein glaubenn zu halten, on verhordt sein antwort, auch on derkandt Kaysirliche oder natuerliche rechten mag vor got oder der welt numer men noch meinem Verstandt recht werden, den man lost ein iden er sey wie er will zu verhore und antwordt kumen. Den got selbst der alli menschen gdancken weiß wolt Stom und Amorra nicht verfolgen biß er aberham vor wissen liß, sprach ich wil mich erzeigen und ich wil sehan ob ist eß aß daß gischrey daß do ist kumen zu mir allis, dan wolt er sie verderben. Im XVIII exsede.7 Do nun Aberham sach das Got so gnedig und gütig waß daß er im also sagt alles so er ein Zweyﬃll drin setzen wolt, marckt er daß got sie nit stroﬀen wolt biß sie oder ire fürspreche vor und ey antworten, ob durch die frumen erhalten mochten werden. Dor umb stund er uﬀ und redt uß frolichem gmuett und auch demüticgkeit so nit men wen zehan frume funden were wordenn hett got der her in alle verzigen. Wie kan doctar Marti, der keines mensche gdancken weiß ob er an dechtig, no oder weit von got ist, also unferhordt ein gantze Cumon der Jüdischeidt gmeinlich unter stedt zu vertilgen uﬀ disser erden und uﬀ Jenar welt, gegen got Ire hofennung und drost on all forcht absagen alß so er von got uß gisandt were solche biﬀelch zu sagen. Haben toch die proﬀetten selbst einer Camun Judischeid bey all ire sünden nit gantz abgisagt

7

Should read Genesis.

appendix 2

403

sunder allwegen noch der stroﬀ lossen horen und gitrost daß Got der Her zum lesten erleychten und nit verlossen werdt. gdenckt er nit daß noch mer den zehan andechtiger Juden uﬀ der erden sein do got ein gifalns an habenn mocht und an unsseren alt vetir zu vor ab umb der selbige willen er unß arme die uberigen erhalten wie er dan in allen proﬀezeyen iisaies und Hirmies gitrost hot er will unß zu letst erlaüchten und auch selig machen daß wir seinen willen thon werden. Dor umb is vonn keinem glerten nie derhoert worden daß mit unß armen Juden also thiranischer weiß mit gwalt handeln, solt man unß kein glaubenn oder Landt friden halten, umb daß wir nitt glauben wolten waß Marti luter glaubtt, würdt sich daß gar weit ein rayssen, denn er verwürﬀt noch vil groseri und hoheri in gwaldt den wir arme vertrückte sein, die er dan auch urtilt sie beten daß kalb vonn Aron an, würd in auch ubelir gen dan unß juden. wie er daß selbig gmeindt loß ich bleibenn, will in die selb dispetatz und zwitracht gar nit schlagen. Ich werdt aber verursacht desse zu gdencken, do mit E. G. und alle hoche und nider stendt vor solche geschwinde truck ire unterthonenn zu verhüten daß sie mit der thot wie er anzeigt nit nachkumen solle. Den er schreibt klorlich so die Oberkeit nit drin wolt sehan soll ein ider pﬀarher dem gmein Man sein vor nemen wie ghordt predigen und verkünden. gib ich E. G. und alle hohe verstendigen weß standts oder wirdenn ider ist unthertheniglich zu erkenen, ob unß armenn nit von noten ist solchs zu klagen und umb schirm und hülﬀ an zu ruﬀen. G. H., E. G. muß ich auch weiterß unterthenig vor bringen daß sich gmelter Doctar Marti mit solchi groß laster so er unß zu mist nit besetigen lossen sunder itzund weiter ein buch lossen uß gen gnant Schem Hamforasch, dorin er nun schreibet wie unsser eltern grob ding wider euern moschiha und Glauben gischriben habe. Do von itzundt on zweyﬀel nit ﬁl Juden wissen. Auch ich als ein alter bey meinem glauben nie glessen habe. sunder bey des hochgdochten Doctar Capptor selig ein mol zu Strosburg in bey sein des wol glerten her windlin ayl trucker mir vor ghalten, wie im ein bichel mit andern hebrayschen bücher von Kunstadtinoppill were zukumen dorinen het einer geschriben von dem Mosies solche grosie schmoch die ich nun nit nenen oder schreiben wil, Sprach also: ich habe euern talmudt durch lessen, ich hab auch alli eueri bücher und glossen durch sehen dor zu euer bedt bücher, so ich hett bifunden solche laster daß sich gmelts bichel verglichen hett, welt ich mich euer nitt mer so hart

404

appendix 2

an nemenn mit leiden mit euch zu haben, so ich aber solchs nirgends funden, kan ich gdenckenn, mag etwen bey alten Zeiten ider geschriben hon noch seinem kopﬀ, alles dan wie eß itzt auch gett, mancher schreibt ist ein Cumun nit lieb. Nun ist mir daß bichel gestollen worden ist mir ser leidt, den es mocht ein mol einer euch mit solchem buch bileidigen so wer eß ein spot daß man solche schmoch (daß)8 vor den gmein man ließ kumen. Disser wordt zihe ich mich kuntschaﬀt uﬀ obgmelten worhaﬀtigen man, daß E. G. bey im solches moge erkundigen. G. H., waß künen mir Arme dor zu wie moncher vor XV C Joren bücher wie die weren noch seinem willen geschriben hetten get uns nicht an; wir Juden haben die zehen gbot und dasz gisatz dor zu die proﬀetan doran wir unß lenen und wi unß auch got gboten hot im xvii Ditre nomens uﬀ wordt: “Daß gisatz daß sie werden weissen dich und uﬀ daß gricht das sie werden sagen zu dir du solts thon, nit du solt abkern von der sachen daß sie werden künden zu dir recht oder linck”. Dor umb wir uß dem9 bifelch got den selbigen hoch lerer wies sie daß gisatz unß glert haben do von nit zu weichen. Nun haben die sibenzick eltern im Temppel ußlegung der heilgen gischriﬀt ﬁl gischriben, den der texst ist nit all mol leicht zu versten; noch den selbigen eltstan heilgen menar Daniel und Esaries und ﬁl hoher lerer do von der talmutt gistiﬀt ist wie man die ey halten soll und gricht und grecht und Feyertagen halten soll, und unssere Ordenung und gbett mit Demutt halten sollen. Aber wider nimandt dorinn begriﬀen wie dan etliche den talmut vor werﬀen welln, will ich itzundt vor E. G. müntlich biwernn oder wer daß von mir hon wil, daß die uß legung vom talmudt zu dem woren moschiha dinstlich ist, aber itzund zu lang dor von zu schreiben hab ichs unterlossen. Dor umb Doctar Marti solche schmoch bichell wol het mogen do hinten lossen, denn wissiglich ist ein schmoch brieﬀ von einem uber nander ern man, so dan noch ein anderir kem, und ieß den brieﬀ trucken, wirts dan der selbig eren man dem trucker, mer für ergirnis grecht dan dem ersten der solchs erdocht hot. Dor umb befrombt mich daß ein solcher glert man solchs in truck hot lossen kumen, toch habe ich in nitt umb solchs zu besprechen sunder 8 A number of words are deleted in the manuscript. The word das should also be omitted. 9 The word is written in the margin.

appendix 2

405

daß ich mich und meine brüder verantwort wil haben der sachen halben itzt in der eyll wie ghordt etc. G. H., uﬀ die anderi grosi schmoch und laster mir solten euch ﬂuchen, mir solten euch euerin mosies lastern, mir solten euch von euern glauben breden10 wie erß dan mit grauseman schmoch wordt unß zu messen wi als dan vileicht von antunies margnetta vor geben hot, den ich dan zu Augschpurck uﬀ ghalten reichs tag im xxx Jor vor K. M. unsser aller G. H. verordenten Comesarien und retten umb solchi drey punten von aller Judischeidt wegen verantwort, und gmelter gedauﬀter Jud gifangen worden die stadt hot mussen verschweren. Zich mich kuntschaﬀt uﬀ hoch gedochten Cumesaren und ein ersemer rot zu Augeschpurck. G. H. ich hab itzundt nit weil uß der heilgen schriﬀt solchs zu erklerenn, aber so mir Got leben und zeit vergundt will ich das worhaﬀtig clor uß viel gmelten heilgen geschriﬀt biwern dasz solches nit is wie [von] ﬁl gdochtem Doctar Marti angizeigt worden. in hoﬀnung so er selbß zu gegen wer würd die worheit nit widerfechtenn. Den er schreibt selbst er habe itzen erfarn daß er for xx Joren von unß nit gewust habe, so mocht er itzundt mer erfarn daß er dor vor auch nicht gewust. Dor umb biten mir alle gmeinlich in unsserem gbett Got sol sich uber unß und alli krautauren erbarmen, daß er unß seine geist ingeben, domit mir in worhaﬀtig erkenen mogen seinem willen zu thon in gots namen Amen. G. H. die weil aber nun itzundt meine brüder umb solche uß gangene truck an etliche Orten in Mayssen und in brunswiger oberkeiten und zirckels weiß dor umb an ﬁl orten hart beschwert, brabt, veriagt und an iren leib und güttern gischedigt worden allis ich bericht worden, so langt an E. G. von wegen armer gmeiner Jüdischheit mein untherthenige bit, weln so gnedig sein und bey dem Durch lochtigsten hochgborne Chur fürsten und fürsten, Sachsan und Hessen, di weil sie und ire Chorfürstliche und fürsten gnoden eltern seliger gdechtniß all wegen milti hoche brümte und grechtickeit lieb ghapt und noch haben, daß ire F[ürstlichen] G[naden] ein gnediges insehans weln mit sampt andern punds gnossenn haben oder ider for sich selbst, der mossen daß man unß arme itze in disse geschwinde lauﬀe bey ire for gigebne Drost und schirm gnediglich lossen bleiben, on alli Naüerung, do mit mir arme nit wider alt

10

The words mir breden are written in the margin.

406

appendix 2

herkümen in steten mercken und torfern oder uﬀ dem landt vergweltigt werden mochten. So aber itzundt oder konﬀtlich von hoch oder nidern stenden were die werenn etwiß mangel oder brost (?) gegen unß armen zu haben vermeinten, wie dan in docktar Marti druck vil gmelt ist wil ich selbst als ein Alter uß der (der) ghorsem11 forcht und lieb gots und alle mennschen zu gutem guet willig früntlich den selbigen sten vor E. G. als ein lobliche stat Strosburgk oder wie sich das gbüren will uﬀ ides stück und puntan zimlich antwort gebn toch wider keine glauben zu dispetirn, auch doctar Marti oder seine mit verwanten keins zu schmoch sunder unsser verantwerung und unschuld do ﬁl mir Got gnod gibt, domit iderman bey gotlichem und gmeinen lantz friden gnediglich bleiben nit ver gweltigt werden mochten. wil mich auch mit disser schriﬀt vor E. G. gegen meniglich gprotistirt haben daß ich vor mich selbst als ein alter ni ghordt gut wilg erbeten und nochkumen wil. Dor umb ich itzundt E. G. mit aller unterthenickeit biten und anruﬀen weln bey andern euern nochbaren und puntgnossen uß erberkeit gnediglich mit iren gnaden sampt und sunder zu schreiben und verhelﬀen, daß sie die arme Judenscheidt in gnoden bedencken, solcher mossen ein frey sicher gleit und trostung allenthalben in iren gnoden oberkeiten, gnediglich sampt und sunder lossen uß gen wie biß alher gnediglich geschehan. Daß selbig mir oder meinem Anwalt itzundt gnediglich zu kumen lossen, domit die Armen nit also von den unverstendigen thiranscher weiß brabt und bischedigt werden. Dan die barmhertzickeit die hot got nirgentz verpoten, aber bey der Hertickeit so leß einer daß Capitel im XXXVI Isaieß wiwol dem konig bauill von got bifolhen waß kinder isroel sibentzick jor zu stroﬀen, denocht spricht er hernoch: “ich hon gezornt uber mein folck, ich han gischwecht mein erb, ich hon geben sie in dein handt, nit du host githon zu in erbarmung, uber den alten du hast bischwertt dein joch” etc. deß gleichenn im zehanden do selbst bey konig asirion Spricht er, owe aschur rutenn meines zorns, wie woll di rutten von got uber das volck vor giurtelt waß, denocht ward got erzürntt uber den stroﬀer daß in sein eygen kindt thot schlug wie daß clor in cwarto regum etc. Dar zu noch ﬁl bosser ist eß die solchs

11

The words der ghorsem are written in the margin.

appendix 2

407

erwecken und anreitzen. merck einer waß denen begegendt di den konig anreitztenn er solt esaries und seine mit gisellen von irem gwissen, glauben und Zerimonie dringen, biß er sie in kalch Oﬀen warﬀ, wordent sie im kalch oﬀen von got bischirmbt, und die anreitzer vor dem oﬀen verbrandt, im driten Daniel etc. Sech einer waß dennen begegendt die den konig bewegten Daniel fon seinem gwissen und gots lob gibot dringen, biß er in leben grub warﬀ, bischloß Got den leben ir mundt und die in dor zu biwegt hattenn zermullen die leben ire gbein etc. und dernn geschichten noch vil mer, umb der leng willn unter lassen. Aber der selbig gweltig ewig Got hot all wegen und noch di kraﬀt uß ﬁl seiner mitel und barmhertzickeit allen hohe und nidern stenden augenbligs innen oﬀennan seine großen schatz, daß ist die milte und forcht Gots wie wir daß ﬁnden im XXXII esaies: die forcht got ist sein schatz etc. und dorgegen den thiranen anreitzern oﬀendt er den schatz seines zornß zang, als mir ﬁnden Im L Jermaies klor daß got gegen den anreitzer seinen schatz des Zorn Zang gegen in oﬀendt. etc. uber welchen schatz ider wirdig würdt mag wol ein ider got den hern mit grosser andacht biten dasz er im nit zu vil oder zu bitzel thutt, hir umb waß unß arme von solche bigegendt sollen mir in alle weg geduldt tragen, sunder Got umb seine barmhertzickeit ersuchenn, das er seinen Zorn Zang nit zu hart uber uns loß kumen. und so wir daß mit gantzen ﬂeiß biten und ruﬀen, wie ich dan bey disser stundt vil armer meiner bruder auch witfrauen und weissen kem und weiß das sie kein anderi hoﬀnung dan alein zu der ewige barmhertzickeit des almochtigen etc. In trostlicher hoﬀenung E. G. und all die ienigen hoch und nider stend so solchs vorbrocht werdt werden uß ﬁl irem hohen verstandt und erzalten ursachen unß arme gnediglich schirmen und bleiben lossen und gar kein Nauerunng wider unß armen vor zu nemen wie dan alle K[aiser], konige, Chor fürsten und fürsten alte lobche gdechtniß und itzige auch der selbigen noch volgenden gnediglich ghalten und halten, daß selbig auch zu gnissen. Wie daß selbig E. G. und allen hoch gdachten usz angebornar grechtickeit selbst zu thon woll wissen werden. Bit umb gnedige Antwort und abfertigung. Das wil ich vor mich und auch meiner brüder wegen den almechtigen umb euer gnoden und der selbigen mit verwanten glück selige und fridseme lang regirung zu biten nimer vergessen.

408

appendix 2

Uß gangen in zehandtn tag des eylﬀtan mondt dem jor als mir Juden zallen fünﬀ dausent drey hundert und drey jor seidt bescheﬀnis der weltt. E. gnoden untherteniger Josel Jud zu rosheim von mein und meiner mitbrüder wegen.

Translation of the Letter of July 1543 Josel the Jew of Rosheim Responds to Martin Luther’s Booklet Against the Jews, 11.7.1543. Most erudite, honourable, exalted, wise and gracious masters. In the ﬁrst place, I humbly oﬀer my services to Your Honours. Honourable Sirs, very recently I submitted to your Honours, both verbally and in writing, on behalf of many of my brethren and also of myself, a complaint expressing our grief and distress that various individuals are openly and complacently telling members of the common people that when they injure a Jew in his person or property they will be forgiven since Dr. Martin Luther has expressed this view in print [in his booklet], and has also instructed to preach to this eﬀect [in the churches]. Consequently, I solicited your Honours,12 requesting that, insofar as possible, you would in accordance with divine law and justice extend to us protection and assistance in this matter, so as to ensure that there will be no further outbreaks of disorder and violence against all the laws of the public peace in the land.13 [And that moreover {such outbreaks}] contravene the freedoms which our lord the Emperor, may he be exalted, has accorded us, [whereby we are included under] the defence and protection of the Holy Roman Empire. I also attached {to my letter} Your Honours’ letters of recommendation and the one written by that most learned

12 An apparent reference to his letter to the Strasbourg city council of 28 May 1543, written following the publication of Luther’s tract, Von den Juden und ihren Lügen. 13 In text—Landfrieden, meaning the obligation to keep the peace and the prohibition of violence, private wars, and feuding.

appendix 2

409

man, the late Dr. Wolf Capito, with his own hand,14 and additional {documents?}. Your Honours have read the said Capito’s [letter] with attention; you have that {letter}. And therefore, you have informed me that if anything should befall us, as a result {of Luther’s tract}, you would be most distressed; you have also sent instructions to the potential danger spots, namely to Hochfelden, to prevent this from happening. In addition, you wished to show understanding, and therefore, for the meantime, without a new decree on your part, [the tract] is not to be printed within your jurisdiction, so that no person will oppress us on his own initiative, without the knowledge of the authorities. For this encouraging action, the unfortunate15 Jewish community expresses its heartfelt gratitude. Your Honours, among other things, I made it clear that I have no wish to enter into any disputation whatsoever with the aforesaid Dr. Marti(n) Luther or with other persons on matters of faith, and that no such duty has been laid upon me by the Jewish community. However, in the year 307 {sic} {1537}, when you and the late aforesaid Dr. Capito gave me excellent letters of recommendation to the Elector, Duke Hans { Johannes} Frederick etc, and to Dr. Marti(n) Luther, [which included] a request that he should graciously hear my words on behalf of the Jewish community, and that in the framework of the law [the Torah?]16 he should deal compassionately with us unfortunate ones, we understood at that time that Jewish apostates or Mamelukes17 had turned the heart of Dr. Marti(n) Luther 14

There are a number of additional words here but I do not know their meaning. The expression arme, “unfortunate, unhappy”, always appears in conjunction with “the Jewish community” or “the entire Jewish community”. This is the conventional language of the period, and is not necessarily peculiar to the Jews. In the translation, I have at times omitted the word. 16 In the original—Gesetz, generally meaning “the Written Law”. 17 Mamelukes—This is undoubtedly a reference to the “converts’ aﬀair”, of which the Jews were accused. A Turkish Jewish emigrant, who according to one of the sources converted to Islam, acted as informer and denounced the Jews of Poland and Russia for allegedly converting Christians to their faith and moving them to Turkey. R. Joseph described these events in Sefer ha-Miknah (p. 16). See the introduction there, pp. 29–31. The expression “Mamelukes” hints either at the informer’s Turkish origin or his conversion to Islam. However, in Sefer ha-Miknah, R. Joseph does not know about his conversion to Islam, and writes “hishtamed ” (“he became an apostate”), an expression he generally uses to describe conversion to Christianity. The expression abtrünnige {in the German text} refers to those who have deserted the Jewish camp, and he may well mean Margaritha, since he was aware of his inﬂuence on Luther. See Sefer ha-Miknah, p. 15, line 13: “went to Luther . . . and became a thorn in our ﬂesh {lit.: thorns in our sides}”. Note 24 there needs 15

410

appendix 2

against us with lying words. Indeed he writes at the beginning of his booklet that he had never intended to work against us, but that after he was informed [of the aforesaid calumnies about the Jews], he proceeded to publish his booklet against us. Honourable Sirs, and so with much toil and travail I journeyed up to seven miles into the [territory] of Meissen to the aforesaid Doctor; however, he did not wish to receive me but wrote me a letter, as you well know. I had indeed thought in my innocence that the aforesaid Doctor would not publish so hostile a book against us unfortunate ones, on the basis of tale bearing and incitement by those who wish us ill, apostates or Jews who are not apostates. I ﬁrmly believe that to seize a person’s property or injure him bodily, or annul his rights and break his contract, without hearing his case and in violation of imperial or natural law before God and the world can never be considered just. Every person, whoever he is, should be granted the opportunity to have his claims and answers heard. Indeed, God himself, who knows the thoughts of every man, did not wish to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah until he had ﬁrst informed Abraham of his intention. As He said: “I will go down and see whether they have behaved altogether according to the cry of it, which has reached me”. [Genesis] 18:{21} etc. And when Abraham saw that God was so merciful and good, he spoke to Him as follows, as though he was not certain what He would do; he felt that God did not wish to punish them before they or their advocates would ﬁrst receive an answer, whether they might yet be preserved through the {merits of the} righteous. He therefore arose and spoke cheerfully but also humbly, {and asked} whether if there were to be found in the city just ten righteous persons, would the Lord God pardon the whole city for their sakes. How diﬀerent is the conduct of Dr. Marti(n). He does not know the thoughts of any man—whether he is a believer, whether he is close or far from God—and yet, without giving them a hearing, he would dare to annihilate all of Jewry in this world and in the world to come, and would without hesitation deny them all hope or comfort in God—as though he was sent by God to preach these words.

correction: there is no evidence that Margaritha left the Catholic faith, and Feilchenfeld has already pointed out (p. 119) that the words “went to Luther” do not necessarily mean that he went over to the Protestant faith. See also my article, “BeShulei ha-Óevra ha-Yehudit”, p. 647, and n. 111.

appendix 2

411

Howbeit, the prophets themselves, in spite of all their [the Israelites’] sins, did not condemn them for eternity, but after each punishment addressed them with words of comfort, {saying} that God in the end would alleviate {their suﬀerings} and not abandon them. Does he [Luther] not consider that there are even more than 10 righteous Jews on earth, and that God may possibly derive satisfaction from them, and from our ancient forefathers in the past, for whose sakes He has preserved us the remaining ones? He has comforted us in all the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, that ultimately He will redeem us and also deliver us that we may do His will. And therefore, no learned person has ever contended that we unfortunate Jews should be treated brutally, in such a tyrannical manner. If no faith is to be kept with us and the public peace (Landfrieden) does not include us because we do not wish to believe what Marti(n) Luther believes, there will be far-reaching consequences, for he {also} condemns persons who are far greater and more eminent and powerful than we unfortunate and persecuted ones; against them, too, he has hurled accusations that they serve the golden calf of Aaron, and that their fate will be even bitterer than ours.18 I do not intend to discuss what he meant by this and I do not wish to poke my nose into this dispute and quarrel.19 However, I am compelled to mention this in order that Your Honours and all the higher and lower Estates will protect their subjects from such rash publications, and that they will not actually carry out his instructions, for he writes quite explicitly that if the authorities will not wish to see what is written in them, then every cleric will preach and acquaint the common man with this said program of his. I humbly ask the opinion of Your Honours, and of all discerning persons of whatever estate or rank, whether we unfortunate people are not obliged to complain about this and request protection and assistance. I would also humbly bring to Your Honours’ attention that the said Dr. Marti(n), not content with what he has already accused us of in the way of great iniquities, has now published another booklet, entitled Shem Hamephoras, in which he states that our forefathers wrote insulting things about your Messiah and your faith, things that 18 A reference to Luther’s attacks on the Pope and on the Catholic princes, which were commensurate in their crudeness with those on the Jews. 19 This is in line with his policy: not to intervene in internal Christian religious aﬀairs.

412

appendix 2

undoubtedly these days only a few Jews know about. I myself—and I am an old man—can truthfully say that I have never read such things, save one time in Strasbourg, when I was at the home of the late Dr. Captor [Capito], in the presence of that learned printer Master Windlin Ayl.* [Capito] told me that he had received a small book, along with other Hebrew works from Constantinople, in which someone had written such oﬀensive things about the Messiah that I do not now wish to repeat them or write them down.20 He21 said: I have read through your Talmud, and have also perused all your books and commentaries as well as your prayer books, and

* {He is presumably referring to Wendelin Rihel, a major printer in Strasbourg in the years 1535–1554. Rihel is known to have been on friendly terms with Capito. Translator} 20 He is clearly referring to the book Toldot Yeshu (History of Jesus), which contained legends and lampoons about Jesus, and was known in diﬀerent versions among German Jewry. Christians too were acquainted with it and attacked the Jews because of its caustic comments about Jesus. R. Joseph’s testimony that the book is not to be found in his vicinity shows that evidently it was not well known in Alsace. However, it should be noted that in MS Oxford-Bodleian Opp. 712, fol. 157a, which is the continuation from Sefer ha-Miknah, R. Joseph copied extracts concerning Jesus under the title: “This is the book of the condemnation of Jesus, son of Pantira, which I found in an old collection. Although it cannot be come by nor is it to be found in our possession in the vicinity of Germany (ke-dorei Ashkenaz), I have nevertheless copied it because of its originality, and who can blame me for what was done in ancient days, and for the other stories about great people that were written down by {our} forefathers, each as he heard it and as it was transmitted orally from one to another. I have faithfully written down exactly what I found. I have not hesitated to write the truth, so that {these words} will be preserved for a long time”. R. Joseph is in eﬀect reiterating his words in the letter under discussion here—that the Jews are not to be blamed for words written long ago. Nevertheless, he ascribes to them a certain authenticity, for he transcribes them for later generations. The book is discussed by S. Krauss in Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen, Berlin 1902, p. 8 ﬀ., who cites the above fragment from MS Oppenheim 712, although he does not know the identity of the writer. He brings the testimony of another German Jew, who claims during a disputation with a Christian that he has never seen such a book. Apparently this was the standard reply of German Jews when faced with accusations concerning this book. Krauss (p. 10), quotes yet another passage from a manuscript, which advises, in veiled language, that the book be kept a close secret, and that on no account should it be printed, lest it fall into the hands of Christians who are familiar with the German language. Krauss infers from this passage that the book was originally written in the German vernacular, and that the Hebrew versions are poor translations of the original, which also explains the numerous errors in the Hebrew versions. Krauss shows that despite the Jews’ eﬀorts, the book was indeed known to Christians in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, who found ways of purchasing it from Jews. For the expression “ke-dorei Ashkenaz”, with which Krauss has diﬃculty, see Sefer haMiknah, p. 15, line 13, and note 23 there. 21 Capito.

appendix 2

413

had I found calumnies of the kind that there are in this booklet, I would not now support and aid you nor have such compassion for you. However, as I did not ﬁnd anything like this in any place, I can only assume that perhaps in ancient times some person wrote whatever he pleased, as indeed it happens also in our days that people write things which are not to the liking of the community as a whole. This booklet has now been stolen from me, which I regret very much, since, one of these days, some person might insult one of you on account of it, and it would be a disgrace if such libelous writings were to fall into the hands of the common people.22 I rely on the words of this same trustworthy man, and Your Honours could have veriﬁed the matter with him. Honourable Sirs, are we to blame that some person 1500 years ago wrote books as the spirit moved him. That does not obligate us; we Jews have the Ten Commandments and the Torah. In addition, we have the Prophets, and on them we rely, as also God has commanded us in Deuteronomy 17: “According to the law that they will teach you, and the judgement that they will tell you, you shall do; you shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you, to the right or to the left”. And therefore, in accordance with God’s command, [we follow] the sages as they have taught us the Torah, from that we will not deviate. Behold, 70 Elders sat in the Temple [in lishkat ha-gazit, “the Chamber of Hewn Stones”] and wrote many commentaries on the Torah, for the text is not always easy to comprehend. According to the {commentaries} of these elders, and of holy men, Daniel, Ezra and other great sages after them, the Talmud was compiled, {and it teaches us} how to keep the Torah, how to administer justice, law and order, how to observe the festivals and our laws, and how to pray with humility. However, the Talmud does not contain anything derogatory about anyone, despite what some claim against it. I would like to prove to Your Honours in person, or to anyone who wishes to hear me, that the Talmudic commentary is valuable for {its description of } the true Messiah; however, at this point this is too lengthy a subject to set down in writing and therefore I have abandoned the idea. It would have been preferable if Dr. Marti(n) had refrained from {writing} so libellous a booklet, since it is known that a scurrilous

22

Here, apparently, end Capito’s words.

414

appendix 2

tract by so respected a man will undoubtedly be printed by someone, and then that same respected man will vent his wrath more on the printer than on the person {i.e. himself } who conceived the work. Therefore, I ﬁnd it strange [I am amazed] that so erudite a person permitted something of this kind to be printed; however, I am not criticizing him for this, but I want now speedily to respond to the said charges [that he made] against me and against my brethren. Honourable Sirs, these calumnies and the other false accusations— as though we curse you, or insult your Messiah, or turn you away from your faith—these cruel slanders that he makes against us may have been taken from Antonius Margaritha. I refuted his {Margaritha’s} words in the name of all Jewry at the Imperial Diet of Augsburg in [15]30, before our lord, His Majesty the Emperor, and all the delegates and counsellors, with respect to these three aforesaid points. And that Jewish apostate was arrested and expelled from the city. I refer you for conﬁrmation of this to the aforesaid delegates and to the Strasbourg city council. Honourable Sirs, I have no time at present to explain this from the Bible; however, if God grants me life and years, I intend to prove truthfully and clearly from the Holy Scriptures that things are not as the said Dr. Marti(n) has asserted. I am hopeful that were he present he would not reject the truth, for he himself writes that he is now cognizant of things that he did not know 20 years ago, and therefore it is possible that he may learn additional things which likewise he did not know previously. Thus we all entreat in our prayers that God will have mercy on us and on all human beings, that His spirit will rest upon us so that we may truly recognize him, to do His Will in God’s Name. Amen. Honourable Sirs, my brethren have now been assaulted in a number of localities, in Meissen and within the jurisdictional authority of Braunschweig and its vicinity, on account of this booklet that was printed. In many places they have been cruelly oppressed, plundered, expelled, and injured in their persons and property, so I have been informed. Therefore, in the name of all the unfortunate Jews, I direct to you my humble request, that you will graciously consent to approach their Excellencies, the elector-princes of Saxony and Hesse. They and their fathers, the late elector-princes, were always famous and esteemed for their benevolence and love of justice, and still are. Intercede with them, that they and the other members of the

appendix 2

415

[Schmalkaldic] League, or each one individually, will show understanding, so that now, in these troubled times, they will continue to protect and deal mercifully with us unfortunate people as they did in the past, without any innovations, so that, contrary to former practice, we shall not be violently assaulted in the cities, market places and villages, or in the open ﬁelds. However, if at the present time or in the future some person of high or low estate considers that he has charges against us, of the kind so extensively aired in Dr. Marti(n)’s booklet, I myself, the old man, am ready, dutifully and out of fear and love of God, and for the good of all mankind, to put myself willingly and gladly at the disposal of Your Honours, who are the delegates of the honourable city of Strasbourg, or in whatever way that will be appropriate, and give a suitable response to each and every point. This {I will do} without disputing anyone’s belief and without oﬀending Dr. Marti(n) or his followers, but solely, inasmuch as God gives me grace, to prove our righteousness and blamelessness, so that every person will remain in the divine and territorial peace and not be harmed. I wish also in this letter to declare before all men that I, who am an old man, have never heard of these matters.* I therefore humbly beg and entreat Your Honours to graciously consent to write and intercede with your other neighbours and allies, that they should treat the unfortunate Jews compassionately; namely, that they should accord a charter of safe-passage and protection in every place under their government, as was the case until now, and that it should be transferred to me or to my representatives. This is in order that ignorant persons will not ruthlessly molest and rob these unfortunate people, for nowhere {is it written} that God forbids compassion. But with regard to cruelty, see Isaiah 36 [should read 47] on the King of Babylon, who was commanded by God to punish the Israelites for 70 years, and, notwithstanding this, He said afterwards: “I was wroth with My people, I profaned My inheritance, and gave them into your hand; you showed them no mercy, you laid your yoke very heavily upon the aged, etc.” And likewise there, in chapter 10, concerning the King of Assyria, He says: “Oh Assyria, the rod of My anger . . .”, and although the rod was ordained for them {the Jews} as a punishment from God, nevertheless, God was wroth with * {Presumably he is here again denying that there is any truth in Luther’s accusations against the Jews. Translator}

416

appendix 2

the chastiser and he was slain by his sons, as is written explicitly in 2 Kings [19: 37]. And with those who stir up incitement He is even more incensed. Witness what befell those who incited the king that he should make Azariah and his companions abandon their religion and customs, until he threw them into the ﬁery furnace and God protected them there. But the instigators were burnt to death in the furnace, {see} Daniel, chapter 3. Witness what befell those who inclined the king to make Daniel abandon his religion and God’s commandments, and he threw him into the lions’ den, but God sealed the mouths of the lions; however, they ripped apart the bones of the men who had given {the king} the advice. There are many other stories that I will not mention on account of their length. However, this same mighty, eternal God still has the strength to open instantly in His mercy before the higher and lower Estates his great treasure trove—which is loving-kindness and fear of God, as we ﬁnd in Isaiah 32 [= 33], “The fear of the Lord is his treasure, etc”. In contrast, for the tyrannical inciters He opens the armoury of the weapons of his wrath, as we ﬁnd explicitly in Jeremiah, chapter 50, that God opens for the inciter the armoury of the weapons of his wrath, etc. Concerning these two repositories, it behoves every person to entreat God with the utmost devotion that He will not allot him either too much or too little from each of them. Therefore, whatever may befall us unfortunate people, we must bear it patiently in any event, but we appeal for God’s mercy, that He will not inﬂict the weapons of His wrath upon us too harshly. We pray for this with all our strength, and cry out, for I myself know full well at the present time, that many of my unfortunate brethren, widows and orphans too, have no other hope than for the mercies of God on High, etc. In good hope, that your Honours and all those whom these words reach, higher and lower Estates alike, will, out of their great intelligence, and for the reasons I have enumerated, protect us in their benevolence and let us unhappy ones be, and not institute any new measures against us, just as all the former emperors, kings, electors and princes of esteemed memory, and also the present ones and those who will come after them, upheld and do uphold {our privileges}, and [that {you will} permit us] to enjoy the same {rights}, as indeed Your Honours and all those mentioned above, out of your inborn sense of justice, know yourselves how to do so well.

appendix 2

417

I request your Honours’ kind response and attention to this matter. I shall not neglect to pray for you and for your said people, in my name and in that of my brethren, that God will grant you a long, happy and peaceful rule. Sent on the 10th of the 11th month, in the year that we Jews reckon 5303 after the creation of the world.* Your humble servant, Josel the Jew of Rosheim, in my name and in that of my brethren.

* {10 Av 5303 = 11 July 1543. AS}

APPENDIX 3

A Hebrew Fragment About the Events of 1551–1552 This fragment, which the author devotes mainly to the events of 1551–1552 in Alsace and to the story of the saving of Hagenau Jewry at that time, diﬀers from the Chronicle in its general structure. It was written in 1552 (5312), ﬁve years after the Chronicle, and is included at the end of a collection of sources compiled by the author.1 In its form it resembles more the section in Sefer haMiknah (pp. 73–75) that describes the preservation of Frankfurt Jewry during the Schmalkaldic War, rather than the Chronicle, where each section begins with the year in which the events took place. What is particularly striking about this short piece is that although its opening and concluding words deal with the deliverance of the Jews, its overall character is more general and R. Joseph displays great interest in the political developments of his time, from the nonJewish point of view as well. One gets the impression that the author’s sense of history impelled him to write also about other matters in addition to the “miracles and wondrous acts that He has performed . . . for the people of Israel”. R. Joseph comments on the complex relationship between Emperor Charles V and Francis I of France, who “was envious of his kingdom” and claimed the imperial crown. His orientation is wholly “Habsburg”; he lays the entire responsibility for the wars with France at the door of the French King. The ﬁrst part of the fragment deals with some of the wars between Charles and Francis, and the Emperor’s capture of the French King during the battle of Pavia in 1525. In addition, R. Joseph refers to the Emperor’s victories in the Mediterranean war, a subject which he had already addressed in section 19 of the Chronicle. He mentions the Council of Trent, which, according to him, convened “after the Emperor arranged and came to an agreement with all the princes of the realm, and with the Pope and bishops, that a ruling should be given . . . in respect of their 1 On these passages, see Sefer ha-Miknah, introduction, p. 11, where this section is termed “continuation of the manuscript”.

appendix 3

419

religious diﬀerences”. R. Joseph credits the Emperor with the convening of the Council of Trent, although actually it was the Pope’s doing. He also makes an interesting connection between the Council of Trent and an assembly of rabbis, about which there is no reference in any other source. The second part of the fragment is devoted to the Protestant princes’ rebellion, in alliance with the new king of France, Henry II (1547–1559), against the Emperor in 1552, which is known as the “Evangelical War” or “the Princes’ Conspiracy Against the Emperor”.2 Maurice of Saxony, who was accorded the title of Elector after John Frederick’s crushing defeat in the Schmalkaldic War,3 and Margrave Albert of Brandenburg-Kulmbach joined forces with Henry of France against the Emperor in the years 1550–1552, and held negotiations also with Henry VIII of England, with the professed aim of ﬁghting “for German freedom” and vanquishing the Emperor. They demanded reforms in the administration of Germany and the release of John Frederick of Saxony and Philip of Hesse, who had both been in the Emperor’s custody ever since the Schmalkaldic War. In return for the French King’s support for the rebellious princes, Maurice promised him control—albeit in the framework of the Reich—of a number of cities and regions in Lorraine that had formerly been under {French} rule, including the bishoprics of Metz, Toul and Verdun. At the head of the French armies stood Schertlin von Burtenbach of Augsburg, the commander of the Protestant forces in the Schmalkaldic War, who had ﬂed to France after the defeat of the Schmalkaldic forces. In the course of the war, the French captured Toul, Verdun and Metz, and then moved from place to place in Alsace wreaking havoc and destruction. The Alsatian cities, headed by Strasbourg, refused to collaborate with the French King and strengthened their fortiﬁcations in the face of the French forces. The rebel army reached Innsbruck, where the Emperor had been staying all this time; however, at the last minute, he managed to ﬂee to the Tyrol. The war, the conclusion of which R. Joseph does not describe, was oﬃcially ended by an agreement between King Ferdinand (the Emperor’s brother) and the rebel princes, drawn up at a meeting in Passau; however, it had its sequels in subsequent years. 2 For this entire episode, see J. Janssen, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, 20th edition, III, p. 807 ﬀ.; L. v. Ranke, Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation, p. 1123 ﬀ. 3 Compare, introduction to sections 28–29 of the Chronicle, above, p. 292.

420

appendix 3

One of the immediate consequences of the war was the freeing of the two princes—John Frederick was released during the war itself and Philip of Hesse, after its conclusion. The Emperor also acceded to some of the other demands of the rebel princes. The collusion of the German princes with the French enemy is perceived by R. Joseph as treachery, almost in the same manner as it is regarded by the nineteenth-century German national historian, Johannes Janssen, who terms the step taken by Elector Maurice, “Reichsverrat”—treachery against the German Reich.4 As R. Joseph writes: “In any event, an evil wind blew in from the north, the two princes . . . went up and conspired with the King of France to bring him to {invade} the German lands”. We are left in no doubt as to where his sympathies lie—they are wholly with the Emperor. This is true, in spite of the fact that, according to him, King Henry of France displayed the same benevolent attitude to the Jews as the Emperor had shown them during the Schmalkaldic War. And R. Joseph employs almost the same words as he does in the case of that war, to describe the French King’s decree prohibiting attacks on the Jews, by virtue of which Hagenau Jewry was saved. R. Joseph does not disclose who it was that interceded with King Henry to secure the royal proclamation of protection for the Jews; however, the impression is that he himself was active in this regard. It is worth mentioning that we have another Hebrew account of the same episode. It was written by a member of the Jewish community of Frankfurt on Main, and, as is natural, deals mainly with the fate of Frankfurt during that war.5 While much more detailed, it is generally along the same lines as R. Joseph’s description of the events.

Translation of MS Oxford-Bodleian Opp. 712, fol. 293 Who is wise and discerning and will recall to memory the miracles and wondrous acts that the God of Mercy, in His kindness and compassion, has marvellously performed, and increased for the people of Israel, day by day, that our eyes have seen. These are in addition 4

Janssen, Geschichte, p. 807. The original is in the Biblioteca Rosenthaliana in Amsterdam, MS Ros. 385. It has been published in Hebrew and in German translation by J. Kracauer in: R. Jung, Frankfurter Chroniken und annalistische Aufzeichnungen der Reformationszeit, nebst einer Darstellung der Frankfurter Belagerung von 1552, Frankfurt on Main 1888, pp. 427–31. 5

appendix 3

421

to the favours He has bestowed in every generation, including deliverance6 [from?] the tumults,7 confusion and panic, which have prevailed and increased from the day that our lord the Emperor Charles, may he be exalted, was appointed in the year 5280 (1520), and to this day +.8 The land was not at peace because of the King of France, who was envious of his {the Emperor’s} kingdom. Although he was unable to defeat him, for the Emperor vanquished [him]9 and captured him in the year 5285 (i.e., 1525);10 however, on a number of occasions, {the French king} went out to harass and do battle with him {the Emperor}. Until the day of his death11 France was not able to hold up {her} head. And not only that but12 all the princes, dukes, and the imperial cities conspired to wage war against him [the Emperor] in the year 5306 (i.e., 1546).13 {However,} they could not stand up {to him} and fell into his hands. Furthermore, two or three times, the Emperor crossed great seas and captured lands and strong cities such as Coron and Patras and the great city of Tunis,14 where some of our own people were to be found. For our many sins, some of them perished—they were plundered and put to the sword—and God came to {our} aid [?], in that many of the captives were redeemed by charitable men for huge sums of money15 in the year [ ].16 And after all these things, the Emperor arranged and came to an agreement with all the princes of the realm, and with the Pope and bishops, that a ruling should be given in the city of Trent in respect of their17 religious diﬀerences,18 at what is

6 7 8

In text, ha-hatsliot, should read ha-hatsalot, “the deliverance(s)”. In text, ha-mehumot, should read me-ha-mehumot. + Empty space in the manuscript; the author may have intended to insert a

date. 9

In text, nats˙uhu, should read nits˙ahu, “vanquished him”. At the battle of Pavia, on 24 February 1525, the French King was taken prisoner by the Emperor. 11 King Francis I of France died in March 1547. 12 The author goes on enumerating the Emperor’s successes, not only against the King of France but also in his struggle with the German princes. 13 He is referring to the Schmalkaldic War between the Emperor and the Protestant princes. 14 Compare section 19 of the Chronicle (p. 325). 15 In text, atik, should read atek, “enormous”; at the end of the word is an additional letter, which was evidently deleted by the author. 16 In the manuscript there is an empty space and the year is not speciﬁed. 17 In text, she-lahem, of them—of the Christians—in contrast to the meeting he describes below. 18 Be-˙ilukei—be-ma˙loket, “the diﬀerences of opinion”. He is referring to the Trent 10

422

appendix 3

known as a council. And our rabbis in German lands decided to hold an assembly19 in the holy community of Frankfurt20 in order to discuss matters and, in addition, to preserve our privileges, fearing that the nations would make accusations.21 In any event, an evil wind blew in from the north;22 the two princes and dukes, Duke Maurice and Margrave Albert, went up and conspired with the King of France to bring him to {invade} the German lands. He advanced23 towards us, capturing the city of Metz24 in the province of Lorraine and the region of Argov25 surrounding Lützelburg.26 He laid waste and made havoc on the hills,27 until, with a mighty28 force {of } 125,00029 armoured horsemen and armed foot-soldiers, hired soldiers,30 he entered the city of Hagenau on Sunday, 14 Iyar 5312 (1552).31 Who will hear this and not weep: {in the city} there were 17232 poor,33 hapless34 souls who endured this trial; {they were} Council, which met in 1545 and sat with long intermissions for a number of years. It was convened for the purpose of ﬁnding a solution to the schism in the church. 19 Be-kibuts—be-asefa, possibly inﬂuenced by the German Versammlung. The author draws an analogy between the Trent Council and the assembly of rabbis. 20 For this assembly of rabbis, which apparently met in Frankfurt in the late 1540’s or early 1550’s, we have no information from any other source. It is not mentioned by Kracauer (see above, note 5) or by E. Zimmer in his book Jewish Synods in Germany. 21 In text, yekatregu ha-umot. He may be referring to the various German territories, or to Germany and Austria. The “accusations” may have concerned usury, or residence rights. 22 In text, rua˙ ra etc., “an evil wind”—according to Judges 9:23 and Ezekiel 1:4. 23 In text, hikriv, should read karav, “drew near”. After Exodus 14:10: ve-Pharaoh hikriv, “And Pharaoh drew near”. 24 The city of Metz was captured in March 1552. 25 According to Deuteronomy 3:4: “All the region of Argov”. He may be alluding to the Saar region, through which the forces of the rebel princes marched. 26 Lützelburg, on the border of Lorraine. 27 In text, ve-dileg al he-hari(m), after Song of Songs 2:8. 28 In text, kavod—should read kaved, apparently inﬂuenced by the Ashkenazi pronunciation. 29 King Henry of France invaded Lorraine with an army of 25,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry. The number speciﬁed by R. Joseph may refer to the entire armed force that fought against the Emperor, including the rebel princes’ armies, and also mercenary forces (Landsknechte) and Swiss mercenaries that the French king had pledged to take into his army. 30 In text, rokhvei barzel . . . marei levav, literally, “riders of iron . . . rebellious of heart”. For this expression, see above, p. 125, note 184. 31 On 8 May 1552, about two weeks before the meeting in Passau. 32 This evidently was the total number of Jews in the Hagenau community. 33 In text, aniyi(m), here meaning “unfortunate”, equivalent to arme in German. {See above, Appendix 2, note 15.} 34 In text, ve-umli’, should apparently read ve-umlalim.

appendix 3

423

within a footfall of death. And God, blessed be He, manifested His power, so that they found favour in the eyes of our lord the King of France through the commander of the forces35 and his secondin-command—the connétable.36 The King commanded that it be publicly proclaimed in the entire city and among his soldiers, “Anyone raising a hand against the Jews will be put to death”, and this was done. Blessed37 be God who has not failed us in His loving kindness. May He continue and do more also.

35 A possible reference to Schertlin von Burtenbach, who commanded the Landsknechte. 36 Anne de Montmorency, who captured Metz. 37 In text, yevarekh . . . yosif—“Blessed . . . May he continue . . .”. This is also a typical ending for many sections of the Chronicle.

AFTERWORD*

How should we understand the life and work of R. Joseph, or Josel, of Rosheim, one of the most important Jews in Germany in the sixteenth century?1 Was he typical of Jewish leadership in the late medieval Holy Roman Empire? Shall we see him as an extraordinary ﬁgure doing his best to protect Jewish communities in a time of increasing persecution or enmity? Should we view his activities as part of the normal give-and-take of politics within the medieval corporate state? It may seem that aﬃrmative answers to all three of these questions would be mutually exclusive. Yet it seems that R. Joseph was typical in some respects and extraordinary in others, and he represented a community that was both like and unlike other groups in early modern Germany. From his own writings and from the archival material unearthed by researchers over the last 150 years, we know a great deal about R. Joseph’s activities. The work of Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt here and in her edition of his Sefer ha-Miknah is perhaps the most valuable of these contributions. Thus, her rather pessimistic conclusion is noteworthy: It seems that at the end of his life R. Joseph had not achieved even one of the objectives he had set for himself. Expulsions that he had succeeded in preventing or delaying soon came up on the agenda once again, and the struggle to protect the Jews’ means of livelihood continued endlessly.2

As Fraenkel-Goldschmidt understands, however, this morose conclusion is only available in hindsight. A sense of satisfaction pervades the Chronicle, and the Deutz Yizkor book refers speciﬁcally to his successes.3 Mordechai Breuer, in his summary of medieval * I am grateful to Naomi Schendowich, Debra Kaplan, and Naomi FeuchtwangerSarig for their helpful critical comments on this afterword. 1 Although most English-language publications refer to him by his “German” name, Josel, I refer to him in this essay as “R. Joseph” to maintain stylistic consistency with Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt’s Hebrew edition and Naomi Schendowich’s English translation published here. 2 See above, General Introduction, p. 48. 3 Ibid. Fraenkel-Goldschmidt notes the relative paucity of references to R. Joseph

afterword

425

German Jewish history as a prologue to a series of books on modern German Jewish history, paints a more positive picture of R. Joseph’s achievements.4 Certainly, the ability of R. Joseph to obtain any measure of success in protecting the interests of the Jewish community in a period in which the majority of the population was deeply hostile to Jews and Judaism is evidence of his capabilities and character. Thus we are perhaps justiﬁed in speaking of his “success” or “failure” in any given situation. At the same time, however, R. Joseph’s career is also a reﬂection of the complex situation of Jews in this period. A number of recent studies of Jewish-Christian relations in R. Joseph’s time and place suggest that we can examine R. Joseph’s activity and his historical writings using a lens that emphasizes Jewish agency within this dangerous world. Debra Kaplan, in her recent study of Jewish-Christian relations in Strasbourg, frames R. Joseph in a diﬀerent light that avoids both lachrymose and anti-lachrymose conclusions. Her comment is worth quoting at length: These various court cases before the Reichskammergericht and correspondence between diﬀerent levels of authority demonstrate the intricate ways in which Jews were a part of the larger politics of the empire. Far from being the chattel of the emperor, dependent solely on him, the Jews were active participants in various aspects of government. Not only did diﬀerent authorities seek to control their Jews as an assertion of power, but Jews sought to improve their daily lives by manipulating these competing forces. The ways in which various authorities collaborated with one another highlights the ways in which economic policies and questions of minority participation were often issues that transcended traditional lines of jurisdiction and confession. The fact that Jews also collaborated with diﬀerent governments in securing their needs underscores their understanding of the complex workings of the empire, for though at times, siding with the emperor was prudent, at other times, the territorial princes were the champions of the Jews. Alsatian Jews, with their distinctive communal structures, and under the leadership of Josel of Rosheim, were part of a general trend which encouraged both competition and alliances with various levels of authority. These Jews displayed knowledge of imperial hierarchical and legal structures, which they used to facilitate the everyday mechanisms aﬀecting their lives. The ability of the Jews, as individuals and as a among later generations of German Jews. But the memorial book entry that she does quote suggests that those who did remember him, remembered him as successful. 4 “Prologue: The Jewish Middle Ages”, in: German-Jewish History in Modern Times, (ed.) Michael Meyer, volume 1, New York 1996, pp. 61–66.

426

afterword community, to engage with both the legal structures and bureaucracies of the Holy Roman Empire and with the magisterial government of Strasbourg can help the historian to understand what forces led these Jews to remain in Alsace after the expulsion, and what tactics enabled them to survive there.5

The Jews were certainly the minority group that faced the most severe persecution in Latin Christendom. At the same time, they were active participants in early modern political life as one of the many corporate groups that constituted pre-modern European society.6 R. Joseph’s activities can thus be seen as exemplary not only of the response of persecuted Jews in a hostile Christian society but also of “normal” politics in the imperial situation. Although R. Joseph’s role as a representative of the interests of his corporation before the imperial authorities was itself not atypical, the scope and duration of his activities—as well as the high stakes for his community—render him an outstanding example for the historian. His literary work in recording his career appears somewhat exceptional within the early modern Jewish context. As Fraenkel-Goldschmidt demonstrates, his Chronicle bears little resemblance to other works of Jewish and non-Jewish historiography in the same period.7 And his other major work, the Sefer ha-Miknah, is an interesting combination of discussion on contemporary German-Jewish life and excerpts from the philosophical writings of Rabbi Abraham Bibago and other Sephardic Jews.8 The hybrid nature of these works disturbs our neat categorizations of genre.

5 “Negotiating Boundaries—Jewish-Christian Interactions in Strasbourg, 1530–1648”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 2003, p. 137. For another recent study that uses R. Joseph as a source to tell this complex story of Jewish-Christian relations, see Dean Philip Bell, Sacred Communities—Jewish and Christian Identities in FifteenthCentury Germany, Boston 2001. 6 See, for example: Hartmut Lehmann, preface, In and Out of the Ghetto—JewishGentile relations in Late Medieval and Early Modern Germany, (ed.) R. Po-Chia Hsia and Lehmann, Cambridge 1995, p. x; idem, “The Jewish Minority and the Christian Majority in Early Modern Central Europe”, in: ibid., pp. 305–10; and Hsia, “Between State and Community: Religious and Ethnic Minorities in Early Modern Germany”, in: Germania Illustrata—Essays on Early Modern Germany Presented to Gerald Strauss, Kirksville, MO 1992, pp. 169–80. 7 See above, General Introduction, pp. 51–53. 8 On this work, see Fraenkel-Goldschmidt, introduction, in idem, (ed.) Sefer haMiknah. Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson sees R. Joseph’s interest in the thought of Abraham Bibago as one of the pieces of evidence for an Ashkenazic scholarly sub-culture at

afterword

427

In the case of the work translated here, the combination of memoir and historiography has led to some discussion of the proper way to refer to the text.9 But historiography and autobiography are not mutually exclusive categories. Certainly, memoirs of political leaders often double as histories and histories of their own era by famous men often serve as memoirs.10 R. Joseph’s text here is plainly not an autobiography in the modern or even in the early modern sense. Yet, it constitutes a record of his own involvement with the events as they unfolded (or at least as he looks back on the events some years later). As such, it can certainly be described as an “ego-document”, a broader term that can encompass a wider array of texts in which pre-modern individuals speak to us in their own voices.11 One of R. Joseph’s clear emphases in his writing is the notion of memory and memorial.12 Elisheva Carlebach’s description of Sefer haMiknah applies as well to the Chronicle: “a complex layering of Josel’s

the beginning of the sixteeenth-century that was “strongly inﬂuenced by Sephardic cultural elements.” (“Jewish-Christian Disputation in the Setting of Humanism and Reformation in the German Empire”, Harvard Theological Review, 59 [1966], pp. 369–71). A full discussion of the role of philosophy in early modern Ashkenazic culture is beyond the scope of this essay. For a brief historiographical survey, see Joseph Davis, “The Cultural and Intellectual History of Ashkenazic Jews, 1500–1700: A Selective Bibliography and Essay”, Yearbook of the Leo Baeck Institute, 38 (1993), pp. 343–86. 9 See above, pp. 39–42. I should note that I agree with Fraenkel-Goldschmidt’s conclusions here. 10 Any number of examples could be oﬀered but the most famous of our own era is Winston Churchill’s The Second World War. Closer to R. Joseph’s time, we can point to Guicciardini’s History of Italy. 11 For the general concept of “ego-document” and its usefulness to Jewish history, see J. H. Chajes, “Accounting for the Self: Preliminary Generic-Historical Reﬂections on Early Modern Jewish Ego-documents”, Jewish Quarterly Review, 96 (2005), pp. 1–15; and Marcus Moseley, “Jewish Autobiography: The Elusive Subject”, ibid., pp. 16–59. It is important to point out that the use of the term “ego-documents” is not meant to connote the selﬁshness associated with the term “egoistic” in contemporary popular speech. Gabriele Jancke treats R. Joseph’s text as an “egodocument” in Autobiographie als soziale Praxis: Beziehungskonzepte in Selbstzeugnissen des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts im deutschsprachigen Raum, Weimar 2002, pp. 35–43. An earlier version was published as “Autobiographische Texte—Handlungen in einem Beziehungsnetz. Überlegungen zu Gattungsfragen und Machtaspekten im deutschen Sprachraum von 1400 bis 1620”, in: Winfried Schulze (ed.), Ego-Dokumente—Annäherung an den Menschen in der Geschichte, Berlin 1996, pp. 73–106, especially pp. 78–84. I am grateful to Debra Kaplan for bringing Jancke’s work to my attention. 12 Whether one sees this emphasis on memory as an example of the pre-modern synthesis of collective memory and historiography or as an explanation for why R. Joseph’s text should not be labeled “history” depends on how one reads Yosef Yerushalmi’s Zakhor—Jewish History and Jewish Memory, Seattle 1982.

428

afterword

individual historiosophy with particular forms of Ashkenazic historical memory.”13 Fraenkel-Goldschmidt has already called attention to the memorial aspect of R. Joseph’s writings about martyrdom.14 The invocations blessing God at the end of most sections serve the theological purpose of reminding the reader of divine providence acting in history but they also serve a semi-liturgical function. The reader is meant not only to absorb the details of the events but to meditate on them. For R. Joseph, these “historical writings” may have served several purposes. Certainly the work may have been intended for the information of his own family members. He may also have wanted the work to serve as a guide and reference for future Jewish leaders who would be confronted with similar situations. And certainly he wished to teach his readers (whoever they might be) the theological lessons that history imparts.15 But this anticipated readership was limited: he did not publish his writings in print, although he was certainly aware of the power of printed books to reach wide audiences.16 It seems that he intended the Chronicle for an exclusively Jewish audience as the presence of anti-Christian remarks suggests.17 R. Joseph’s “egodocument” was also an exploration of his own role within the context of his larger community.18

13

“Between History and Myth: The Regensburg Expulsion in Josel of Rosheim’s Sefer ha-Miknah”, in: Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, (ed.) E. Carlebach et al., Hanover, NH 1998, p. 40. 14 See above, p. 42. 15 See above, General Introduction, pp. 46–47, and see as well introduction to section 27, p. 271. This didactic emphasis also accounts in part for his excerpts from philosophical texts in Sefer ha-Miknah. On the intended audience, cf. Jancke, Autobiographie als soziale Praxis, p. 37. 16 As evidenced by his concern about the spread of anti-Jewish works by Margarita and Luther. 17 See e.g. pp. 306, 329. R. Joseph had read and copied a version of the antiChristian counter-gospel, Toledot Yeshu. See above, p. 412 and note 20 there, and Elisheva Carlebach, “The Anti-Christian Element in Early Modern Yiddish Culture”, The Braun Lectures in the History of Jews in Prussia, 10, 2003, Ramat Gan 2003, p. 14. 18 Cf. Natalie Zemon Davis, “Boundaries and the Sense of Self in SixteenthCentury France”, in: Reconstructing Individuals—Autonomy, Individuality, and the Self in Western Thought, (ed.) Thomas Heller et al., Stanford 1986, pp. 53–64. Davis argues that “exploration of self in sixteenth-century France was made in conscious relation to the groups in which people belonged” (p. 53) as a modiﬁcation to the wellknown argument of Jacob Burkhardt that the Renaissance period saw the emergence of individualism. R. Joseph’s consciousness of his role within the community and the way this inﬂuences his method of self-expression dovetails with what Davis has

afterword

429

In this sense, R. Joseph’s literary activity should, as Carlebach suggests, be set in the context of Ashkenazic memory practices more broadly. Although Fraenkel-Goldschmidt is correct to point out diﬀerences between R. Joseph’s text and other memoirs and chronicles of the same period such as the works of Moshe Loans, Asher ben Eliezer Halevi, or the anonymous Prague chronicler, all can be seen as representations of a distinctive Ashkenazic historical consciousness.19 In a forthcoming work, Dean Phillip Bell argues that the historical writing of Ashkenazic Jews in this period can be seen not only in the light of theological constructs but also as in terms of confronting their own “marginalization”. R. Joseph, Bell argues, is an example of such a confrontation.20 It is R. Joseph’s understanding of himself as an individual within a community and of that community within a larger context of the Holy Roman Empire that seems to lead him to write a text that can seem too individualistic for a “chronicle” and too focused on external events for a “memoir”. R. Joseph’s life and his work are rich ﬁelds of exploration for the historian of early modern Germany and early modern Jewry. Naomi Schendowich’s masterful translation of R. Joseph’s texts and of Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt’s introduction and annotations constitutes an important contribution to historical research as it makes this text available to students and researchers of early modern German history who do not read Hebrew. In focusing on any individual or text, we can emphasize uniqueness and speciﬁcity. We can also emphasize exemplarity as we use the individual life or the literary work to illuminate larger themes. If we go too far in the former direction, we are liable to present history as a series of doings of “great men” but if we go too far in the latter direction the individuality of people in the past may be lost. The question is how to ﬁnd the appropriate balance. In a sense, found in her research on sixteenth-century French culture. R. Joseph wrote mainly about his public actions and on his thoughts in relation to those actions. See as well, Jancke’s conclusion to the essay cited in note 11 above, pp. 105–6. 19 This is the term used by Amos Funkenstein in proposing a “mediating category” between “historiography” and “collective memory” in response to Yosef Yerushalmi. See Perceptions of Jewish History, Berkeley 1993, p. 10 f. 20 I am grateful to Dr. Bell for sharing his manuscript, “Beyond Paradigms— Jewish Memory, Power and Community in Early Modern Germany”, with me. Bell’s work constitutes part of the on-going discussion of the relationship between Jewish historiography and collective memory touched oﬀ by Yosef Yerushalmi’s Zakhor.

430

afterword

this afterword pushes a bit in the direction of exemplarity in a plea for the “normalization” of R. Joseph’s political activities in the context of the early modern Holy Roman Empire and of his literary activities in the context of early modern Ashkenazic culture. If this plea causes the occasional dissent from the presentation of Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt, it does not detract from my admiration for her work here. In fact, her exhaustive research detailed in the introduction to this work is a signiﬁcant contribution to on-going historical research. Contemporary academic historians are not used to thinking of their work in the context of memorial practices—whether or not they see a sharp break between historiography and collective memory.21 However, the close critical study of any individual’s life and work cannot help but bring the scholar a sense of deep engagement with that person. Fraenkel-Goldschmidt’s work certainly constitutes a memorial to R. Joseph of Rosheim. And Naomi Schendowich’s translation oﬀers a ﬁtting tribute to the memory of the late Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt. Adam Shear November 2005 (Heshvan 5766)

21 For a perceptive comment on this question, see David Myers, Resisting History— Historicism in German-Jewish Thought, Princeton 2003, p. 212, note 27.

INDEX OF PERSONS

Abarbanel, Isaac, 240–241 Abarbanel, Jacob, 241 Abarbanel, Samuel, 242 Abraham ben Avigdor, of Prague, 221, 225, 227, 253–255, 326–327, 333 Abraham ben Jacob, of Pösing, 166 Agricola, Johannes, 110 Akiva ben Eleazar, 66 Akiva Frankfurter (Neuss), 66 Albert of Bavaria-Munich, 76–77 Albert of Brandenburg, archbishop of Mainz, 282, 285 Albert, margrave of BrandenburgKulmbach, 301, 419, 422 Aleander, Hieronymus, papal envoy, 193–196 Alfonso II of Naples, 241 Altschul, Joshua, of Prague, 224 Amelia, wife of margrave George of Brandenburg-Ansbach, 209–210 Angelus (Engel), Andreas, 104, 109 Anthony, duke of Lorraine, 140–141, 150, 318 Asher ben Eliezer Halevi, of Reichshofen, 52 Auerbach family, 124, 314 Auerbach, Simon, of Schwabach, 175, 206, 272 Bacharach, Yair Haim, 99 Bachur, Elijah (Levita), 32 Balgel, Abraham, 206 Bamis (or Pamsch), Judah, of Mühlhausen, 72, 75, 307–309 Bamis, Isaac bar Yehiel, 309 Banet, of Alsace, 308, 309 Barbarossa, Chaireddin, 214–216 Bathory, Stephan, governor of Transylvania, 157 Beifus Lemle, of Esslingen, 274 Benjamin Nehemiah ben Elnathan, of Naples, 243 Blamell (Bluemell) bat Abraham, of Hochfelden, 391, 395 Böckel, Stephan, Strasbourg notable, 358, 366 Brandtner, Dr., of Augsburg, 362, 372

Bucer (Butzer), Martin, 8, 13, 21, 31, 32, 36, 44, 108, 112–113, 143, 234, 238, 329–330, 340–349; in “Letter of Consolation”, 351–352, 354–374 Buchholzer, Georg, 110–111 Bulgenbach, Müller von, 149 Büren, Maximilian von, 289–291, 299–301, 339 Burgundy, Duke of, see: Charles the Bold Burtenbach, Schertlin von, 53, 288–291, 297, 419, 423 Calixtus II, Pope, 268 Calvin, John, 8 Campeggio, Cardinal Lorenzo, 187–188, 193–194 Capito, Wolfgang, 8, 32, 143, 233–234, 329, 345, 351, 354, 359, 361, 367, 370–371, 398–399, 401, 403–404, 409, 412–413 Carben, Victor von, 115, 312 Chaim of Ensisheim, 389 Charles (“the Bold”), duke of Burgundy, 67–68, 185 Charles V, Emperor, 3–9, 11, 53, 127, 151, 182, 185, 213, 215–218, 264–265, 284–301, 325, 335, 337–339, 418–421; and expulsions of Jews, 12, 15–16, 123, 128–129, 132, 241–243, 275–277, 315–316, 331, 336; Jewish rights, defence of, 38, 280, 296, 338; and Jewish usury, 145, 323; libels against Jews, reacts to, 27, 174, 178, 184, 259–262, 321, 334, 362, 372, 405, 414; privileges to Jews, 14–15, 85, 93, 128, 174–176, 294–295, 315, 321–322, 331, 337, 382, 386, 401, 408; and Solomon Molcho, 189–197, 323–324; taxes on Jews, 92, 132, 265–266, 335 Charles, margrave of Baden, 59–60, 61–62, 64 Clement VII, Pope, 194–195 Cobos, Francisco de los, minister of Charles V, 296

432

index of persons

Cochlaeus, Johannes, 141 Conrad, bishop of Würzburg, 258–263 Dahlheim, Diebolt von, 142 Daniel, archbishop of Mainz, 282–283 Denk, Johann, 173 Diena, Azriel, 218 Doria, Andrea, 214–217 Draconites, Johannes, 32 Duntzenheim, Batt von, Strasbourg notable, 358, 366 Eberlin of Endingen, 59–61 Eck, Johannes, 21, 31, 159, 164, 166, 200–201, 204, 244–248 Eleazar ben Judah of Worms (Ba"al ha-Rokea"˙), 40 Elias (Helya) of Endingen, 58–61 Elias of Rosheim, 147 Elijah Loans, grandson of Joseph of Rosheim, 49 Elisar of Oberhaid, 258 Elizabeth, daughter of Duke George of Bavaria-Landshut, 76, 78 Elya{?} bar Nathan Einveld, 89 Engelein, Pancratz (Würzburg libel), 260 Enoch of Esslingen, 275–276 Erasmus of Rotterdam, 8 Farnese, Alessandro, Cardinal, papal legate in Germany, 19, 238, 248, 268–271, 296, 336 Federico, marquis of Mantua, 193 Ferdinand I, Emperor, 11, 27, 53, 128, 136–137, 151–152, 156, 160–166, 172, 174–175, 178, 182, 205, 210–211, 221–230, 250–253, 255, 286, 289–290, 295, 318, 320, 321, 333, 419 Ferrante (Ferdinand) I of Naples, 240–241 Fleckenstein, Heinrich von, Unterlandvogt of Alsace, 92 Francis I of France, 190, 264, 286, 418, 421 Franck, Sebastian, 9 Franz, count of Saint George[n], 155–157, 163–166 Frederick (“the Victorious”), Elector Palatine, 77, 79 Frederick II, Elector Palatine, 92 Frederick I, Emperor, 187 Frederick II, Emperor, 187

Frederick III, Emperor, 57, 62–63, 68, 77, 79, 98, 158 Frederick, elector of Saxony, 148 Frederick, margrave of BrandenburgKulmbach, 77 Fritz, Joss, 137 Fromm, Paul, of Bergau (Brandenburg aﬀair), 105–106, 108, 330, 358, 365–366 Fugger, family, Augsburg bankers, 20, 288, 291 Fugger, Jacob, 21 Gans, David, 50, 189–190 Gemmingen, Uriel von, archbishop of Mainz, 115 Gengenbach, Peter von, of Basel, 70–71 George (“the Rich”), duke of Bavaria-Landshut, 76–77, 79–81, 310 George, duke of Saxony, 287 George, margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach, 199–213, 324–325 Gerber, Asmuss, 142, 146, 150 Gershon, father of Joseph of Rosheim, 1, 42, 65–66, 88, 303, 305 Gippich, Diebolt von, of Schlettstadt, 59 Gitel bat Abraham, of Pösing, 171 Granvelle, Nicholas Perrenot de, secretary of Emperor Charles V, 291, 295–296, 335, 337 Hagenbach, Peter von, Landvogt, 60, 68 Hahn, Joseph Yuspa, 186, 256, 304 Haman, Peter (Petterr), of Hochfelden, 391, 395 Hannart, Johann, 196 Hassan, Muley, ruler of Tunisia, 215–216 Held (Helldt), Matthias, imperial vice-chancellor, 182, 362, 372 Heller, Yom Tov Lipmann, 191 Hendlin of Oberhaid, 258 Henry II of France, 419–420, 422–423 Henry IV, Emperor, 180 Henry, duke of Braunschweig, 285 Henry, duke of Saxony, 287 Hershalem, Shalem, 229 Hetzer, Ludwig, 173

index of persons Hieronymus, bishop of Brandenburg (in Berlin), 105, 108–109, 330 Hirsch, Abraham, of Leobshütz, 201–205, 207–208, 212–213, 324 Hoﬀmann, Melchior, 8–9 Hoogstraten, Jakob von, 115 Horowitz family, of Prague, 219–220, 225–230, 326–328 Horowitz, Aaron Meshullam, see: Munka, Zalman, 220–224, 228 Horowitz, Isaiah, 219 Horowitz, Seligmann, 220, 224 Horowitz, Shabbetai Sheftel, 220, 327 Hoss, Christoﬀ, 100–101 Hubmeier, Balthasar, 144 Hut, Hans, 173 Hutten, Moritz von, bishop of Eichstätt, 245 Ibn Ya˙ya, David, rabbi of Naples, 217 Ibn Ya˙ya, Gedaliah, 50, 189, 217, 243 Innocent III, Pope, 268 Isaac bar Yekutiel Halevi, of Pösing, 171 Isaiah of Württemberg, 175 Itel, Jorg, 142 Jacob bar Isaac, of Nuremberg, 42, 69–70, 72, 75, 303–305 Jacob bar Judah, of Oberehnheim, 84, 88, 311, 316 Jacob ben Zschech, of Pösing, 165 Jacob of Landsberg, mayor of Niederehnheim, 120 Jacob of Esslingen, 276 Jacob of Pösing, 156–157, 166 Jacob of Worms, 136–137, 229 Jacob, son of Joseph of Rosheim, 90 Joachim I, elector of Brandenburg, 105–106, 108, 112, 330, 358, 365 Joachim II, elector of Brandenburg, 108, 110–112, 330–331, 358, 365–366 John Frederick, elector of Saxony, 35, 232–234, 236–237, 239, 284–292, 294, 328–331, 337–338, 361, 371, 400–401, 409, 414, 419–420 Jonathan Zion, of Frankfurt, 116 Jordan, Hans, functionary of the duke of Brandenburg, 200–205, 209 Joseph Ha-Kohen, 50, 189–190, 216–217, 243

433

Joseph, of Oberhaid, 258 Judah Loew, Maharal, 229 Kolman, in Pösing libel aﬀair, 156 Kolowrat, Albrecht von, Oberlandmarschall of Bohemia, 249 Kunigunde, sister of Emperor Maximilian, 114–115 Lauze, Wigand, 53, 292 Lazarus, of Esslingen, 274–276 Lazarus, of Hesse, 347 Leble (Löble, Löbel), of Marchegg, 165 Leiden, Jan van, 102 Lemlein, Asher, 199 Leo, of Öls, 204 Leo, of Pforzheim, 61 Leoman, of Schlettstadt, 61 Leonrod, Albrecht von, 247 Leopold, Uriah, of Prague, 228–229 Leva, Antonio di: see Levya Levita, Elijah: see Bachur Levya, Antonio de, 194–197 Liebermann, of Ansbach? 210, 324 Linz, Isaac, of Prague, 229 Lippold, court Jew of Joachim II in Brandenburg, 111 Loans, family of Joseph of Rosheim, 1 Lotharingia, Duke of (see Lorraine), 67, 304 Ludwig (Louis) II of Hungary and Bohemia, 220 Ludwig, Elector Palatine, 280 Ludwig, master of Lichtenberg, 59 Luria, Johanan, 74 Luther, Martin, 8, 10, 13, 19, 21, 25, 29, 30–34, 38, 93–96, 110, 114, 117, 121, 123, 131, 202–207, 234, 236–237, 249, 258, 296–297, 310–313, 325, 344–351 Maiszlinger, Hans (Pösing Aﬀair), 155 Manlius, Johannes, 109 Margaret, aunt of Charles V, imperial regent of the Netherlands, 196 Margaritha, Antonius, 43, 173, 177–179, 322, 354, 362, 371–372, 409–410 Maria, daughter of Charles the Bold of Burgundy, 185 Maurice, elector of Saxony, 228–229, 287, 290, 292, 419–420, 422 Maximilian I, Emperor, 7, 11, 15, 43, 63–64, 76–80, 82–85, 97–98,

434

index of persons

114–115, 120–122, 126, 151, 185, 310–311, 313–314 Mayer, of Oberhaid, 258 Melanchthon, Philip, 21, 31–32, 108–109, 112–113, 192, 239, 248, 271, 330, 358, 365–366 Mendel family, of Hungary, 156 Mendel family, of Nuremberg, 230 Mendel, of Hungary, 156–157, 167–168 Merklin, of Endingen, 59–61 Metziger, Hanz, of Endingen, 61 Michel, of Sappenfeld (Tittingen Libel), 244–245 Molcho, Solomon, 42–43, 47, 188–199, 323–324 Mordecai, of Mühlhausen, 75, 308–309 Mörsperg, Jacob Freiherr zu, 86 Moses bar Samuel, of Alsace, 1 Moses bar Jacob ha-Kohen, of Pösing, 171 Moses Loans, son of Joseph of Rosheim, 51, 130 Moses of Esslingen, 272 Moses of Silesia, 132–134 Munka, Israel, 228 Munka, Zalman [= Aaron Meshullam Horowitz], of Prague, 220–224, 228 Münsterberg, Karl von, Margrave, 206 Münzer, Thomas, 149, 192 Mur (?) Claus[en] of Marlehein, 391, 395 Murner, Thomas, 31 Mutianus, Conrad, humanist, 148 Napl of Marchegg, 165 Nartheim, Peter von, 142 Naviagiero, Bernardo, Venetian envoy at the Emperor’s court, 296 Nicholas, count of Salm, 162–164 Obermüller, Hans, of Tittingen, 246 Open{heim?}, Levi Moses, rabbi in Landau, 280 Osiander, Andreas, 31–32, 158–161, 166–169, 244, 246–248 Ostfrankus, Ostrofrancus, Christopher, 124 Otto Heinrich, margrave of Neuburg, 166, 245, 247–248, 332 Pamsch, see: Bamis Pappenheim, Count, Imperial Marshal, 187

Pappenheim, lords of, 245, 248, 332 Parsberg, Haug von, magistrate (Pﬂeger) of Sulzbach, 246 Pfeﬀerkorn, Johannes, 43, 51, 96–98, 111–118, 167, 248, 304, 312 Phal, of Dambach, 84, 87–88, 131, 311, 316 Philip, Elector Palatine, 76, 78–80 Philip, landgrave of Hesse, 36, 53, 140–142, 232–233, 284–294, 337–338, 340–341, 345–347, 349, 353–354, 405, 414, 419–420 Piesenharter, Georg, of Sappenfeld (Tittingen libel), 244 Raphael, relative by marriage of Joseph of Rosheim, of Colmar, 75, 306–307 Reinlin, of Oberhaid, 258 Reuchlin, Johannes, 13, 112, 114–117, 248, 271, 312 Reuveni, David, 188–198 Ricius, Paulus, 167 Rihel, Wendelin, of Strasbourg, 403, 412 Romm, Solomon, of Rome, 243, 331 Rossem, Martin van, of Guelders, 185–186 Rossi, Azariah de’, 190 Rot(h)enburg, Eliakim, of Tannhausen, 323 Roth, Royth?, 322, 185–186. See: Rossem, Martin van Rüdiger, abbot of Weissenburg monastery, 86, 316 Rumpler von Kumbach, 78 Rupert, son of Elector Palatine Philip, 76–81 Samson bar Michael, of Oberehnheim{?}, 89–90 Samuel (Schmull, Schmuel), of Eschbach, 391, 395 Samuel, of Pösing, 166 Samuel, of Worms (known as vom See), Chief Rabbi, 92, 131–132, 135–137, 257, 316, 334 Sanga, Giovanni Batista, papal secretary, 194 Schkaryn, Dorothea, of Jägerndorf, 201–204, 208

index of persons Schlamp, Georgius, 246 Schmul, of Esslingen, 275 Sebastian, archbishop of Mainz, 282–283 Seligmann, of Oberhaid, 258 Seligmann, of Schweinfurt, 258 Seligmann Rheinbach, Judah ben Israel, of Frankfurt, 258 Seligmann? (Selkelin?), 257, 334 Sickingen, Franz von, 73 Sigismund, archduke of Austria, 59–60, 62 Sigismund, Emperor, 175, 321–322 Simon, of Schwabach, 175, 272 Simon of Trent Aﬀair, 61, 71, 122, 245 Sinai ben Bezalel, brother of the Maharal, 229 Sinan, Rais(?), 217 Solomon, of Spandau, 105–106 Sturm, Jacob, mayor of Strasbourg, 5, 341 Szerenscés, Emerich, 206 Tavera, Don Juan de, Cardinal, 215 Teuschlein, Dr. Johannes, 144 Treves, Eliezer, 229 Tsarfati, Solomon, of Rome (see Romm, Solomon), 243, 331

435

Ulrich, duke of Württemberg, 3, 77, 79, 175–176, 273, 275, 277, 291 Usque, Samuel, 240, 242 Vladislas II of Hungary and Bohemia, 249 Wagner, Jacob, mayor of Rosheim, 143–144 Weidener, Wolfgang, 100–102 Welser, Augsburg banking family, 20 Widmannstetter, Johann Albrecht, 191 Wied, Hermann von, archbishop of Cologne, 285, 293 William, bishop of Strasbourg, 119–120 William, duke of Bavaria, 286 William, landgrave of Hesse, 77 Winter, Jacob, 104 Wolf, count of Pösing, 155, 159, 160–162, 163–167, 320 Wolfgang, of Bavaria-Munich, 76–77 Zadok, Rabbi, Aluf, 91, 96, 99–100, 308, 312 Zasius, Ulrich, 13 Zayner, Andreas, of Ingolstadt, 78 Zell, Matthias, 8, 143 Zwingli, Ulrich, 329

INDEX OF PLACES

Aachen, 85, 127 Algeria, 214 Algiers, 214, 216 Alsace, 1, 6–7, 16, 43–44, 67–75, 77–82, 85, 93, 97, 117, 125, 128, 137, 139–144, 146, 148, 150–151, 174–176, 182, 184, 219, 303–305, 311, 317, 322, 325, 389, 394, 400, 412, 418–419 Altdorf (or Altorf ), monastery in Alsace, 37, 142–143, 146, 149, 317 Ammerschweier, 74, 128, 306 Ammerschweiler: see Ammerschweier Andlau, 84–85, 119–120, 313 Ansbach, 200, 205, 207, 209–211, 213, 324 Augsburg, 20, 23, 53, 77, 98, 173, 175–177, 182, 185, 288, 291, 362, 372, 378, 383, 419 Austria, 59, 77, 156, 162, 164, 169, 286, 289, 422 Baden, 59, 195 Bar, 73, 305 Barbary, 217, 325 Barcelona, 215 Bärnau, 252 Basel, 69–71, 144–145 Bavaria, 19, 76–80, 124, 286, 288, 310, 314 Bergheim, 74, 81, 142, 147–148, 306 Berlin, 105–107, 239, 312 Bernau, 105 Bern, 69 Bingen, 115 Bischofsheim, 83 Bizerte, 216 Bohemia, 44, 50, 77, 79, 152, 164, 178, 219–230, 249–253, 255, 286, 288, 326, 328, 332 and see commentary there Bologna, 21, 47, 193, 197, 324 Bona, 216 Brabant, 43, 184, 185, 322 Brandenburg, 44, 97, 105–112, 199, 238–239, 285, 312, 329–330 Braunschweig, 77, 285, 405, 414

Breslau, 200, 203, 211 Brussels, 185, 285, 322 Buda, 156, 165, 251 Burgau, 158, 182 Byrmigkhaim, 282 Cannstadt, 273 Causile? 134 Cherchel, 214 Cleves, 186, 264 Coburg, 201 Colmar, 45, 69–70, 72, 74–75, 82, 98, 142, 147, 304–306 Cologne, 15, 79, 113, 115–116, 128, 178, 182, 185, 259, 285, 293 Constantinople, 399, 403, 412 Coron, 44, 213–214, 216, 218, 325, 421 Crépy, 265, 286 Dambach, 88 Dangolsheim, 83, 93, 121, 125–126, 314–315 Darmstadt, 291–292, 301, 339 Deutz, 48, 115 Dossenheim, 73 Eichstätt, 159, 244–246 Endingen, 42, 57–67, 70, 158, 303 England, 153, 286–288 Enns River, 162 Ensisheim, 7, 69, 142, 231, 306, 328, 389 Eretz Israel, 242–243 Erfurt, 71, 364 Erlick? 282 Eschbach, 395 Eschwege, 49 Esslingen, 175, 182, 264, 271–278, 283, 291, 336 Ferrara, 242 Feuchtwangen, 301, 339 Flanders, 67, 184–186, 322 France, 4, 47, 50, 190, 214–215, 264–265, 286–288, 335, 418–423 Franconia, 144, 259

index of places Frankenstein, 205–207 Frankfurt am Main, 51, 62–63, 66, 71, 95, 97–98, 108–110, 114–117, 145, 181, 236, 238, 257–258, 272, 280, 285, 291–292, 298–302, 312, 329, 338–339, 358–359, 365–366, 382, 386, 418, 420, 422 Freiburg, 57–58, 61 Friedberg, 95, 348, 358, 365 Fulda, 145 Genoa, 214, 217–218 Germany, 3, 10, 16–17, 28, 38, 44, 91, 116, 121–122, 128, 137–138, 150, 152, 173–174, 197, 225–226, 264, 266, 271, 284–293, 295–297, 300, 302, 315, 317, 337–339, 341, 419–420, 422 Ghent, 185–186, 322 Greece, 217, 242 Guelders, 185 Günzburg, 94, 157–158, 182, 320 Hagenau, 1, 6, 24, 44–45, 66–67, 72, 79, 92–93, 95, 98, 119, 125, 130, 143, 146, 150–152, 174, 183–184, 278–280, 283, 303, 305, 315, 318, 328, 389–391, 393–395, 397, 418, 420, 422–423 Haid, 252 Hanau, 49, 94 Heidelberg, 7, 71, 76, 80, 231, 279, 310, 328 Heilbronn, 57, 61–62, 149, 291 Hennegau, 71 Hesse, 2, 11, 14, 21, 25, 36, 38, 232–234, 236–237, 288, 291, 293, 328–331, 337, 340–343, 349, 400 Hochfelden, 49, 152, 319, 391, 395, 401, 409 Hoheneich or Hohenaich, 259–260 Hungary, 4, 27, 152, 157, 166, 172, 214, 220, 249, 251, 286, 288, 320 Ingolstadt, 78, 244, 289–290 Innsbruck, 8, 97, 98, 122–123, 128, 172, 174, 321, 419 Italy, 4, 114, 116, 132, 134, 172, 196, 217–218, 264, 289, 323–325, 327 Jägerndorf, 200–203, 205, 207–208, 211 Jerusalem, 196, 352, 360, 368

437

Kassel, 345, 364 Kaysersberg, 70, 74, 82, 86, 128–130, 142, 149, 306, 315–316 Khorasan, 215 Kientzheim, 306 Knoblauch (or Knobloch), 104–105 Kremsier, 205 Kufstein, 79 La Goletta, 215–216 Landau, 264, 271, 278–281, 336, 354, 362, 373 Landshut, 77 Leobschütz, 201–203, 207–210 Lorraine (Lotharingia), 52, 67–68, 73, 304, 419, 422 Lützelburg, 422 Lützelstein, 73, 305 Luxembourg, 265 Mainz, 84, 114–115, 145, 264, 271, 281–283, 285, 336 Malta, 214, 215 Mantua, 47, 134, 189–191, 193–194, 197, 324 Marchegg, 11, 156, 160–161, 163–165, 167, 320 Mark, see: Brandenburg Marlehein, 391, 395 Mecklenburg, 77 Meissen, 222, 238, 329, 402, 405, 410, 414, Meseritz, 107–108 Metz, 419, 422–423 Mittelbergheim, 1, 31, 43, 81, 118–119, 311–312 Moder, 155 Molsheim, 142, 150 Moravia, 95, 157, 161, 168–169, 205, 320 Morocco, 214, 325 Mühlberg, 292, 298 Mühlhausen, 69, 70, 75, 78–79, 307–308 Münster, 9, 102 Münster-Ebersheim, 147 Nancy, 47, 68–69, 304 Naples, 44, 214, 217–218, 240–244, 331 Neckarsulm, 149 Neuburg, 245, 247–248, 290, 332 Neustadt, 202, 211 Nice, 264

438

index of places

Niederehnheim, 120 Nördlingen, 133 North Africa, 44, 214–216, 218, 242, 325 Nuremberg, 13, 22, 25, 31–32, 42–43, 61, 71, 73, 77, 93, 102, 131–135, 167, 230, 277, 305, 316 Oberehnheim (Obernai), 43, 45, 70, 72, 81–89, 93, 96, 118–120, 126, 129, 131–132, 135, 182, 305, 311, 313–314, 316 Oberglogau, 202, 204, 210–211 Oberhaidt (Oberhaid), 258 Obernheid (apparently identical to Oberhaidt), 259–260 Ofen (Buda), 251 Öls, 200, 202, 204–205 Onolzbach, 211 Oppeln, 202–203, 210–212 Ortenau, 79 Öttingen, 49 Palatinate, 7, 78, 79 Papal State, 242–243 Pappenheim, 187, 245, 248, 332 Paris, 265, 335 Passau, 419, 422 Patras, 44, 213–214, 217–218, 325, 421 Pforzheim, 42, 59, 61–62, 64, 66–67, 303 Portugal, 190, 192–193, 198, 215, 241, 244, 323 Posen, 225, 326 Pösing, 27, 42, 154–171, 320 Prague, 44, 152, 170, 191, 219–230, 239, 249–253, 255–256, 319, 326–327, 332–333 Rappoltsweiler, 147 Ratibor, 200, 202, 210–212 Regensburg, 13, 17, 61, 64, 79, 121–125, 144, 187–189, 191, 193, 196–197, 243, 284–289, 294, 314, 324, 331, 337 Reichshofen, 52 Rheingau, region of, 145 Rhodes, 131 Ries, region of, 297 Rome, 133, 194–195, 243, 331 Rosheim, 1, 9, 16, 43, 45, 82, 84–86, 88, 119, 125, 127–128, 130, 142–143, 149–150, 182, 294, 300, 315–316, 389, 394–395, 397

Rottweil: see Imperial Court of Salm, 162–165 Salonika, 218–219 Sappenfeld, 159, 244–246 Sardinia, 215 Saxony, 35, 38, 77, 232–239, 283, 288, 290, 294, 328–329, 331, 337, 341, 361, 370, 400 Schlettstadt, 59, 61, 69–70, 74, 79, 82, 86, 103, 128, 142, 306 Schmalkalden, 284 Schwabach, 133, 175, 206, 210, 272, 324 Schweinfurt, 258 Schwerin, 107 Sicily, 216, 240–241 Silesia, 108, 199–200, 207–208, 210, 212, 288, 324 Spain, 132, 172, 193, 197, 214–215, 240, 244, 337 Spandau, 105 Speyer, 71, 100, 180, 231, 258–259, 261, 265, 334, 337 Stadtamhof, 124, 314 Strasbourg, 5–10, 15, 78–79, 142–143, 149, 291, 419 Attitude towards the Jews, 24–25, 45, 103, 126, 315 Refuge to in times of war, 37, 146–147, 297, 354, 361, 371 Joseph of Rosheim Fine to, 118 His 1536 Economic Document, 24–25, 231, 388–397 Letter of recommendation to, 233, 236–238, 329 Letters to the city council, 9, 35–36, 38, 99, 178, 267–268, 297–298, 350, 365, 373–374, 398–417 Submits his “Letter of Consolation”, 350 Judicial institutions, 137, 392, 396 Martin Bucer’s Ratschlag published in, 348, 364 Stühlingen, 138 Stuttgart, 115, 176, 273 Sulzbach, 245–246 Swabia, 133, 144, 149, 248, 291, 297, 332 Sweden, 286, 288 Tachau, 252 Thuringia, 149, 329

index of places Tittingen, 27, 44, 244–246, 332 Toul, 419 Transylvania, 157 Trent, 122, 284–286, 288, 421 Troppau, 211 Tunis, 44, 213, 215–218, 325, 421 Tunisia, 213, 215, 216 Türkheim, 45, 72, 74, 82, 99, 128, 294, 306–307 Tyrnau, 11, 27, 155–157, 163, 165–166 Tyrol, 79, 172, 419 Ulm, 133, 182, 291 Upper Palatinate, 79 Venice, 148, 241, 272–273 Verdun, 419 Verona, 194 Vienna, 4, 156, 161–162, 172, 196, 251

439

Wallerstein, 297 Weinsberg, 149 Weissenburg, abbey, 86, 135, 316 Weissenburg, forest, 245, 248, 331–332 Welscherland (= Italy), 132 Winzenheim, 128 Wittenberg, 32, 108, 343, 366 Worms, 1, 71, 98, 111, 115, 136, 158, 257–258, 272, 336 Wortberg, 155 Württemberg, 14, 19, 108, 133, 174–176, 182–183, 232, 272–273, 277, 288, 321, 366 Würzburg, 27, 31, 44, 72, 256–259, 263, 304–305, 334 Young Palatinate, 79 Zante, 217

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Aluf (title), 99 Anabaptists, 9, 27, 102–103, 192, 251, 341, 349 “Apology” of Jews, 157–158, 165, 174, 313, 320–321, 362, 372 Apostates, 40, 43, 46, 113–114, 117–118, 178–179, 206, 312, 362, 372, 399, 402, 405, 409–410, 414 Assemblies of Jewish community representatives, 97–98, 116–117, 131–132, 157–158, 175 Assembly of rabbis in Frankfurt, 419, 422 Badge, ring, Jewish, wearing of, 87, 135, 240, 242, 281, 295 Ban, Jewish (excommunication), 25, 116–117, 181, 265–266, 344, 380, 385 Black Death, 10 Books: “Invalid”, 304 Jewish, conﬁscation of, 114–115, 312 Bulls, papal, 157, 269, 270, 320 Chamber serfdom of Jews, 7, 11, 16, 82, 164 Chief Rabbis, 91–92, 95, 131–132, 135–137, 257, 266, 329 Chiliasm, 192 Chronicles ( Jewish): Crusades, Hebrew chronicles of, 39–40, 50, 307 Divrei ha-Yamim le-Malkhei Tsarfat u-Malkhei Beit Otoman ha-Togar ( Joseph Hakohen), 189, 216–217 Emek ha-Bakha ( Joseph Ha-Kohen), 189, 216–217, 243, 252 Hebrew Chronicle from Prague (anonymous), 52, 106–107, 163, 168–169, 171–173, 249, 251, 267, 320 In Germany, 51, 420 Josippon, 50 Megillat A˙ima"aΩ, 50 Mi-Paulo ha-Revii ad Pius ha-Óamishi (ed. I. Sonne), 243–244

Sefer Zikhronot (Asher ben Eliezer Halevi), 52 Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah (Gedaliah ibn Ya˙ya), 50, 189, 217, 240, 243 Shevet Yehudah, 50 Tsema˙ David (David Gans), 50, 189–190, 252–253 Chronicles, non-Jewish, 22, 52–53, 69–71, 104, 109, 125–126, 190–191, 292, 301, 306 City chronicles, 52 Coin counterfeiting, clipping, 132–135, 250 Community leaders, Jewish ( parnasim), 181, 228–229, 378–381, 384–386 Conversion of Jews to Christianity, apostasy, 13, 32–33, 69–70, 106, 113–118, 156, 171–172, 176, 178, 206, 242, 304, 306–307, 346–347, 349, 351, 359, 367, 409–410 Courts of Justice, Imperial, 94, 122, 221–222, 248, 332 Rottweil, 23, 87, 137–138, 180, 182, 273, 283, 388, 391, 395 Speyer, 100, 231 Strasbourg, 396 Courts, gentile, 224 Crusade, Judeo-Christian, 196 Derekh ha-Kodesh ( Joseph of Rosheim), 186–187, 257, 322–323 Disputations, polemics, religious, 35–36, 43–44, 108, 114, 178–179, 189–190, 238, 329–330, 342, 346, 348, 350–351, 354, 356, 359, 362, 367, 372, 401, 405, 409, 412, 414 Documents: Bavaria Agreement, 1551, 19 Economic Document (Artikel und Ordnung), Augsburg, 1530, 24, 26, 179–182, 184–185, 283, 342, 377–387, 395 Economic Document, Hagenau, 1536, 24, 26, 45, 86–87, 184, 283, 388–397 Letter of Luther to Joseph of Rosheim, 1537, 235–236

index of subjects Letter of recommendation from Strasbourg, 1537, 233, 236–238, 329, 371, 398, 401, 408 Letter of recommendation from Wolfgang Capito, 1537, 32, 234, 236–238, 329, 354, 361, 370–371, 398, 401, 408–409 Letters and petitions of Joseph of Rosheim: Bill of Complaint to Nuremburg Diet, 1522, 84, 86–88, 316 “Booklet”, presented at Innsbruck, 1530, 172, 174, 321 To Charles V, on Esslingen, 1544, 275–276 To Charles V, on Würzburg libel, 1544, 261–262 To Elector Palatine, 1553, 94–95, 98 To Hanau authorities, 1539, 94 To Hagenau city council, undated, 143, 150 To Imperial Court of Justice, Speyer, 1535, 100 Petition on Württemberg, 1530, 175 To Strasbourg city council, May, July, 1543, 35–36, 56, 178, 237, 267, 365, 374, 398–417 To Strasbourg city council, 1546, 268 To Strasbourg city council, 1552, 99 Oberehnheim Agreement, 1524, 43, 86–87, 317 Württemberg Agreement, 1551, 19 Dominicans, 116 Dunkelmänner, 116 End of days, hastening of, 199 Endingen Judenspiel (play), 57–59, 63 Ensisheim authority, 7, 231, 328 Equality of all human beings before God, 37, 146; in Economic Document (1530), 181, 381, 386 Excommunication, see Ban Expulsion of Jews: Attitude of Protestants and Catholics to, 18–19 Causes of, 17–18 Charles V, attitude to, 12, 15–16 Following a blood libel, 30 In the ﬁfteenth century, 17, 232 In Protestant states, 232, 269–270

441

Luther in favour of, 33 Peasants express support for, 37, 144–145 Usury, as reason for, 22 Expulsions of Jews: Germany, 16–17, 44, 132, 268–271, 336 Alsace (various cities), 42–43, 69–70, 128–129 Alsace (villages and imperial cities), 152, 318 Andlau (region), 84, 88, 119–120, 313 Augsburg, 40 Basel (region), 144 Bavaria, 124 Bohemia (and Prague), 173, 229–230, 249–256, 326, 328, 332–333 Brandenburg, 97, 107, 110–112, 238–239, 329 Dangolsheim, 121, 125–127, 314–315 Endingen, 61 Esslingen, 264, 271–278, 336 Hagenau (region), 93, 152, 318 Hesse, 340 Kaysersberg, 70, 82, 128–129, 306, 315–316 Landau, 264, 271, 278–281, 336 Leobschütz, 207, 208–209 Mainz (bishopric), 264, 271, 281–283, 336 Mittelbergheim, 119 Naples, 44, 240–244, 331 Neuburg (region), 246 Niederehnheim, 120 Oberehnheim, 43, 70, 82, 83, 86, 89, 311 Pressburg, 163 Regensburg, 121–125, 144, 314 Rhine-Main, 84 Rosheim, 45, 128, 130, 315–316 Rothenburg, 144 Saxony, 35, 38, 108, 232–239, 283, 328–329, 331, 341 Silesia, various places in, 207, 210–212 Spain, 172, 240 Strasbourg (bishopric), 84, 88, 119–120 Strasbourg (city), 9 Ulm, 40 Württemberg, 273, 232

442

index of subjects

Folksongs, poems, 69, 70, 78, 113–114, 123, 151, 244–245 Geulat Ha-Ger (Eliakim Rothenburg), 323 Guilds, 20, 250, 274–279, 342, 346 Habsburg, House of, 4, 7, 11, 68, 80, 123, 151, 185, 196, 199, 214, 241, 328 Hagenau authority, 7, 66 Óasidei Ashkenaz, 153 Humanists, 13, 31–32, 110, 112, 115–117, 141, 148, 166, 329 Óut ha-Shani (responsa), 99 Imperial Bohemian Chamber, 221–228, 230, 250 Imperial Chancellory, 7–8, 45, 85, 158, 226, 276 Imperial Diet: 4–5 Augsburg 1500, 22–23 Augsburg 1510, 98 Augsburg 1530, 6, 23, 43, 172, 175–179, 182–184, 238, 321, 400 Augsburg 1548, 23, 294 Augsburg 1551, 23, 92 Nuremberg 1522, 13, 86–87, 131–132, 134–135, 300 Regensburg 1532, 187–188, 323 Regensburg 1541, 239–240, 331 Regensburg 1546, 13, 284–286, 289, 294, 337 Speyer 1544, 261, 264–265, 294, 337 Worms 1521, 6, 14, 31, 129 Worms 1545, 19, 38, 173, 238, 264–269, 284, 296–297, 335–336 Informers, 40, 46, 117–118, 231, 327–328, 409–410 Inquisition, 27–29, 31, 192–193, 201, 241, 262–263, 324 Jews, murder of, 84, 88–90, 241, 255, 311, 316, 332–333 Kiddush Hashem ( Jewish martyrdom), 41–42, 46, 64–66, 104, 111, 153, 190, 198, 212–213, 257, 306, 312, 320, 324, 335

Laws for Jewry, 11, 340, 345–346, 349, 356 League of Ten Cities, 8, 68–69 League, Swabian, 77, 102, 140, 332 Letter of Consolation, 2, 24–26, 36, 56, 103, 108–109, 112, 146–147, 150, 176–178, 234, 238–239, 281, 295; Introduction, 340–356; Text, 357–363; Translation, 363–374 Levanim (silver coin), 304 Literature, defamatory, against Jews, 17–18, 22 Liturgical poetry ( piyyut): Kinah, on pogroms against German Jewry, 66–67 Seli˙ah, on Prague expulsion (Avraham ben Avigdor), 253–255 Markets and fairs, 9, 15, 17, 20, 45, 83–89, 181, 207–208, 279–280, 292, 382, 386 Marranos (New Christians), 197–198, 241–242, 324 Me"or Einayim (Azariah de’ Rossi), 190 Mediators, Jews as, between non-Jews, 143–144, 149–150, 299–300 Memorial books, Jewish community: Bavaria (various communities), 169 Cracow, 169–171 Deutz, 48 Eschwege, 49 Hanau, 49 Münden, 103 Niederehnheim, 74–75, 308 Öttingen, 49 Pfersee, 99 Posen, 103 Prague, 170–171 Meshivat Nefesh ( Johanan Luria), 74 Messianism, 188, 192, 196, 199 Moneylending at interest, usury, 15, 17, 20–26, 43, 114, 132, 145, 152, 177–180, 183–184, 188, 266–267, 270, 273, 277, 282–283, 295, 321–323, 330, 336, 340, 342, 344, 346–348, 352–353, 360–361, 368–369, 377–378, 383–384, 388, 390, 394, 422 Oath, relating to usury, 145 Oaths, 95–96, 107, 118, 164, 223, 250, 277, 348

index of subjects Peasants’ “Articles”, attitude to Jews in, 144–146, 148 Permit, departure, 275 Pinkas Friedberg, 95, 99 Pinkas ha-Kesherim, Posen, 95–96 Pinkas Kahal Frankfurt, 95 Plague, 152–153, 244, 319 Pledges, 22, 69, 81, 87, 122–123, 147–148, 175–176, 183, 273, 277, 310, 349 Pledges, stolen, 23–24, 180, 183, 274, 283, 349, 379, 384–385, 388, 390, 392–393, 396 Prayer for the Emperor’s welfare, 298, 338 Prayer for welfare of the realm, 354, 362, 372 Prayers, of Jews, 353–355, 362–363, 372–373 Privileges accorded the Jews: 1, 14–16, 43–44, 85, 110, 269, 275–276 Comprehensive, 85, 128, 174–175, 240, 294–295, 315, 337 Exemption from high taxes, 240 Exemption from wearing the Jewish badge, 240, 295 Permission to attend the Imperial Diet, 97 Protection against ritual murder charges and other libels, 15, 26, 158, 164–165, 167, 203, 295 Residence rights, 15–16, 19, 82, 181; temporary residence rights, 277 Right of legal protection, 261 Right to lend money at interest, 15, 20, 187–188, 378, 383–384 Right of passage, 14–15, 20, 174–175, 181–182 Right to retain books, 114 Right to visit the markets, 15, 20 Special rights in the Prague community, 220, 224–225, 228–229 Stolen goods law, possession of a stolen pledge, 23, 180 Privileges, non-Jewish: Right to have lawsuits adjudicated in the local courts, 273, 388 Privileges, for rulers: To expel Jews, 83, 85–86, 128–129 Not to tolerate Jews, 128, 282 To tolerate Jews, 78–79, 183–184

443

Protection, letters of, 10, 149, 253, 258 Protective lords, 10–12, 126 Protestants (and the Jews): Accused of favouring the Jews, 245 Attitude towards the Jews of, 31–32, 38 Attitude towards the Jews, contradictions in, 239 Disputations, of Joseph of Rosheim with, 329–330, 348, 358–359, 365–366 Expulsions of Jews from Protestant lands, 18–19, 232, 269–270, 340–341 Jews blamed for appearance of radical Christian sects, 27, 33, 102–103, 192, 251 Luther: And the Jews, 18, 33–36, 110–111, 232, 234–236, 328–330, 398–415 On usury, 21, 267 Table Talks, 235 Writings against the Jews, 33, 267, 401–403, 408, 410–411 Messianic ideas among, 192 Princes Assembly at Frankfurt, 1539, 108–109, 236, 238, 329–330, 348, 358–359, 365–367 Princes Assembly at Frankfurt, 1545–1546, 285 Reformers’ attitude towards the Jews, 31–32 Provisioning, of the army, by Jews, 229, 298, 338 Rabbis, appointment of, 226 Ransom of captives, 73, 75, 217–219, 242, 307–309, 325, 335 Ritual murder accusations and other libels against Jews: 1, 26–31, 33, 46, 70–71, 231 Brandenburg, host desecration, 1510, 30, 32, 97, 103–113, 239, 312, 330, 358, 365–366 Collusion with the peasants, in Peasants War, 148 Endingen, blood libel, 1470, 42, 57–67, 70, 158, 212, 303 Mittelbergheim, host desecration{?}, 1514, 31, 118–119, 312–313 Landau, blood libel, 1539, 281, 354, 362, 373

444

index of subjects

Pösing, blood libel, 1529, 8, 27, 30, 60, 154–172, 247, 320 Ravensburg, blood libel, 1429, 60–61 Regensburg, blood libel, 1476, 64, 122 Sappenfeld, see: Tittingen Silesia, blood libel and sorcery, 1535, 27–28, 30, 60, 165, 169, 199–213, 324–325 Spying for the Turks, Jews accused of, 172–173, 250–251, 267, 321 Taught the Protestants their religion, 27, 134, 177–178, 354, 362, 371–372 Trent blood libel, 1475, 61, 71, 122 Tittingen blood libel, 1540, 27, 159, 166, 244–248, 331–332, 364 Witchcraft, 27–30, 201–202, 204, 208 Würzburg, blood libel, 1543–1544, 27, 31, 65, 186, 256–263, 295, 305, 334–335 Sabbatarians, Christian sect, 27, 33, 235, 251, 341 “Sages of the nations”, 32, 112, 271, 312, 329–330 Schock (currency), 222–223, 228 Sefer ha-Miknah, 2, 16, 32, 36, 40, 42, 46–47, 51, 53, 90, 113–114, 117–118, 121, 124–125, 158, 176, 178–179, 186, 230, 293, 299–301, 307, 311, 314, 323, 327–328, 330, 332, 335, 353, 372, 409, 412, 418 Sermons, Christian, 17, 116, 342, 344, 346–347, 349–351, 359, 367 Sexual relations with Christian women, Jews prohibited from, 349 Shtadlan, 96 Synagogues: Bergheim, burning of, 147 Esslingen, 272 Pinkas, in Prague, 191, 220 Prague, quarrel in, 224 Prohibition, on building of, 344, 346–347 Prohibition, on closing down of, 295 Regensburg, razing of, 123–124, 314 Sabbath candles in, 355, 363, 374

Takanot (ordinances): Moravia, 95 Prague, 225–227, 229, 326–327 Worms, 1, 257–258 Talmud, 114, 330, 344, 346–347, 353, 355, 363, 374, 399, 403–404, 412, 413 Taxes and special payments by Jews, 5, 7, 11–12, 62–63, 87, 92, 96, 98, 131–132, 176, 207, 209, 220–221, 227–228, 240, 250, 265–266, 295, 299–300, 335, 339, 342, 344, 346 Teﬁla (prayerbook), 304 Toldot Yeshu, 412–413 Torture, judicial, of Jews, 29–30, 41, 60, 61, 65, 105–106, 122, 155–157, 160, 163, 202–205, 252, 257, 259, 262–263, 295, 303, 320, 334–335 Torture of Jews, to convert to Christianity, 69–70 Travel permits, safe-conduct, letters of, 9, 12, 13–14, 96, 110, 133–135, 175, 182–183, 187, 233, 261, 274–275, 318, 391, 395, 400, 406, 415 Trent, Council of, 284–285, 418–419, 421–422 Usury: see Moneylending Wars: Bavarian Succession, 1503–1505, 3, 42–43, 76–81, 310 Burgundy, 1476–1477, 16, 41–42, 64, 67–75, 82, 129, 130, 303–309 Cleves, 1543, 186, 264 French, 1544, 92, 264–265, 335 Evangelical, 1552, 419–420, 422–423 North African, 1532, 1535, 213–219, 325, 418, 421 Peasants, 1525, 9, 20, 37, 73, 126, 137–144, 192, 267, 317–318; Peasants War and the Jews, 10, 37–38, 71, 144–151, 278, 297, 300, 317–318, 354, 361, 371 Schmalkaldic, 1546–1547, 6, 9–10, 38, 44, 53, 229, 239, 284–302, 331, 337–339, 419–421 Thirty Years, 52, 229 Turkish, 3–4, 131, 172–173, 187, 194–197, 240, 242, 250–251, 264, 266, 284, 288, 323

index of subjects Wine, of Jews, 147 Witchcraft, sorcery, 27–29, 201–202, 204, 208 Wucher, explanation of, 22, 383

445

Yeshiva (talmudical seminary), 74, 225 Yosif OmeΩ ( Joseph Yuspa Hahn Nordlingen), 186–187, 256–257, 263, 304

The Historical Writings of Joseph of Rosheim: Leader of Jewry in Early Modern Germany (Studies in European Judaism)

The Uses of Curiosity in Early Modern France and Germany

Early Rabbinic Judaism: Historical Studies in Religion, Literature and Art

The Reformation in Germany (Historical Association Studies)

Principles of European Constitutional Law (Modern Studies in European Law)

Vanities of the Eye: Vision in Early Modern European Culture

Bacchus and Civic Order: The Culture of Drink in Early Modern Germany (Studies in Early Modern German History)

Redefining Judaism in an Age of Emancipation (Studies in European Judaism)

The Performance of Nobility in Early Modern European Literature (Cambridge Studies in Renaissance Literature and Culture)

Enduring Loss in Early Modern Germany: Cross Disciplinary Perspectives (Studies in Central European Histories)

Cultural History of Early Modern European Streets

Remapping the Mediterranean World in Early Modern English Writings (Early Modern Cultural Studies)

Topics in Early Modern Philosophy of Mind (Studies in the History of Philosophy of Mind, 9)

Remapping the Mediterranean World in Early Modern English Writings (Early Modern Cultural Studies)

From Text to Context: The Turn to History in Modern Judaism (Tauber Institute Series for the Study of European Jewry)

Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity)

Jews, Judaism, And the Reformation in Sixteenth-century Germany (Studies in Central European Histories)

Church, Religion and Society in Early Modern Italy (European Studies)

Church Mother: The Writings of a Protestant Reformer in Sixteenth-Century Germany (The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe)

Early Modern Jewry: A New Cultural History

The Mystical in Wittgenstein's Early Writings (Studies in Philosophy)

State and Nobility in Early Modern Germany: The Knightly Feud in Franconia, 1440-1567 (Cambridge Studies in Early Modern History)

Church Mother: The Writings of a Protestant Reformer in Sixteenth-Century Germany (The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe)

Early Modern European Society

Early Christianity and Judaism (Studies in Early Christianity)

The Early Modern European Economy

Documents of Performance in Early Modern England

The Confessionalization of Humanism in Reformation Germany (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology)

Modern Nature: The Rise of the Biological Perspective in Germany

The Early Writings of Bronislaw Malinowski

New German Jewry and the European Context: The Return of the European Jewish Diaspora (New Perspectives in German Studies)

The Historical Writings of Joseph of Rosheim: Leader of Jewry in Early Modern Germany (Studies in European Judaism)

The Uses of Curiosity in Early Modern France and Germany

Early Rabbinic Judaism: Historical Studies in Religion, Literature and Art

The Reformation in Germany (Historical Association Studies)

Principles of European Constitutional Law (Modern Studies in European Law)

Vanities of the Eye: Vision in Early Modern European Culture

Bacchus and Civic Order: The Culture of Drink in Early Modern Germany (Studies in Early Modern German History)

Redefining Judaism in an Age of Emancipation (Studies in European Judaism)

The Performance of Nobility in Early Modern European Literature (Cambridge Studies in Renaissance Literature and Culture)

Enduring Loss in Early Modern Germany: Cross Disciplinary Perspectives (Studies in Central European Histories)

Cultural History of Early Modern European Streets

Remapping the Mediterranean World in Early Modern English Writings (Early Modern Cultural Studies)

Topics in Early Modern Philosophy of Mind (Studies in the History of Philosophy of Mind, 9)

Remapping the Mediterranean World in Early Modern English Writings (Early Modern Cultural Studies)

From Text to Context: The Turn to History in Modern Judaism (Tauber Institute Series for the Study of European Jewry)

Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity)

Jews, Judaism, And the Reformation in Sixteenth-century Germany (Studies in Central European Histories)

Church, Religion and Society in Early Modern Italy (European Studies)

Church Mother: The Writings of a Protestant Reformer in Sixteenth-Century Germany (The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe)

Early Modern Jewry: A New Cultural History

The Mystical in Wittgenstein's Early Writings (Studies in Philosophy)

State and Nobility in Early Modern Germany: The Knightly Feud in Franconia, 1440-1567 (Cambridge Studies in Early Modern History)

Church Mother: The Writings of a Protestant Reformer in Sixteenth-Century Germany (The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe)

Early Modern European Society

Early Christianity and Judaism (Studies in Early Christianity)

The Early Modern European Economy

Documents of Performance in Early Modern England

The Confessionalization of Humanism in Reformation Germany (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology)

Modern Nature: The Rise of the Biological Perspective in Germany

The Early Writings of Bronislaw Malinowski

New German Jewry and the European Context: The Return of the European Jewish Diaspora (New Perspectives in German Studies)

Recommend Documents