40 Popes and Jews, 1095–1291
JEwiSH CHroNiCLES: protECtioN FroM
CHriStiAN VioLENCE
other important Hebrew sources—chronicles—point in the same direction.
Although some were written long after the circumstances they described, many
were contemporary, and in these we would expect to find more concrete and abun-
dant evidence for papal–Jewish interaction. Chroniclers—unsurprisingly since
their aim was to provide a narrative chronology dealing with important people and
major events—were sometimes interested in how the papacy’s pronouncements
immediately affected their communities; hence they do refer, if infrequently, to
popes. Admittedly there are problems in knowing how to read these texts. it has
recently been argued that, except for times of messianic fervour when there might
be a sudden renewal of interest in contemporary history, writers of medieval
Hebrew chronicles usually absorbed what they recorded into ‘old and established
conceptual frameworks’ rather than recognizing ‘novelty in passing events’.60 Be
that as it may, chronicles, composed and re-composed by different individuals with
a variety of agendas and perspectives, were united by the common goal of attempting
to ensure the defence of Jewish communities and Judaism.61 Hence, the issue of
papal authority and the papacy’s ability to give adequate protection resurfaced at
times of conflict and crisis. Even such occasional references to the papacy, whether
direct or indirect, are thus useful to the historian who attempts to understand how
Jewish communities perceived particular pontiffs.
At times, chronicles exhibit hostility to the papacy; at others, they are well disposed.
two texts in particular, The Terrible Event of 1007, often referred to as the ‘1007
Anonymous’ and the First Crusade chronicle of Shelomo bar Shimshon provide
insights not only on what Jews thought about individual popes, but on their views
of the papacy as an institution. The anonymous chronicler, probably writing after
1220, detailed an outbreak of violence against Jews in 1007 during the reign of
Duke robert the pious/King robert ii of France (972–1031).62 He records how
the king, the queen, and their ministers were swayed by popular demand that the
Jews should be exterminated since ‘this people’s laws and beliefs are different from
those of all other nations’.63 Accordingly, the king summoned the Jews of his
60 Yerushalmi, Zakhor, p.36.
61 For discussion of the role of chronicles in the study of Jewish history and the complex combin-
ation of history and myth in the fifteenth and sixteenth century, see Ephraim Carlebach, ‘Between
History and Myth: the regensburg Expulsion in Josel of rosheim’s Sefer ha-miknah’, in Jewish History
and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honour of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, ed. E. Carlebach, J. M. Efron,
D. N. Myers, pp.40–53.
62 Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, pp.19–21; Kenneth Stow has discussed the text
in great detail in Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’ and Papal Sovereignty, where he argued for a thirteenth-
century dating and therefore i give only a brief summary of it here. The debate on the dating of this
text is very complex. See robert Chazan, ‘1007–1012, initial Crisis for Northern European Jewry’,
Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 39 (1971), 101–17; Stow, The ‘1007 Anonymous’
and Papal Sovereignty, p.26. i am grateful to Stow who has also very recently discussed with me the
idea that the chronicle was written after 1220. See also robert Chazan who disputed Stow’s dating of
the text in robert Chazan, ‘review of Kenneth Stow, The “1007 Anonymous” and papal Sovereignty’,
Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies 62/3 (1987), 728–31.
63 Sefer gezerot sarfat ve-ashkenaz, ed. Habermann, p.19.