Dominion Built of Praise. Jonathan Decter

The Language of Jewish Political Legitimacy

      At various points, historians have tried to discern tidbits of biographical data, the “kernel of truth,” from the broadly conventional representations of medieval Jewish panegyric. Regarding TS 16.68r, a panegyric by Shemuel ha-Shelishi Ben Hosh‘anah for Shemariah Ben Elḥanan of Fustat, Jacob Mann wrote: “There is undoubtedly much flattery and exaggeration in all these praises of our Egyptian scholar, as was the fashion of the time in Muslim countries. Yet a genuine substratum remains which was certainly true to the Rabbi’s great merits.”¹ Menaḥem Ben Sasson makes a similar conclusion concerning a panegyric by Yiṣḥaq Ibn Khalfūn in honor of Avraham Ben ‘Aṭa, specifically that the mamdūḥ was respected in his community, showed concern for students and the poor, and protected the community against enemies.² On rare occasions, praises refer to highly specific roles performed by the mamdūḥ; a letter from the Palestinian gaon Shelomoh Ben Yehudah (1025–51), likely to Ephraim Ben Shemariah of Fustat, includes: “[God] bestowed upon you patience and forbearance, a fearing heart to serve the people in all their needs, and to save those who were caught in the matter of taxes or in court. You seek the great ones in their homes and know how to make peace and a just settlement.”³ Such details as knowing trial procedures, assisting the tax-burdened (probably referring to those who owe the jizya), and working with specific officials are atypical in comparison with being patient and forbearing and likely refer to actual communal functions.⁴ The same letter goes on to contrast the mamdūḥ’s qualities with the deficiencies of a rival, also given in detail: “[He is] impatient, does not know how to scrutinize in legal matters, and does not know how to work with the police, the ruler, the scribe, or the tax collector, though he does have other virtues that are esteemed and respected by the community. Not every man merits all the virtues of praise apart from him in whom they are all encompassed, none other than Moses our Master for he was ‘exceedingly humble.’”⁵ Such specific points suggest that authors did not use a one-size-fits-all model when representing mamdūḥs.

Figure 8. Panegyric for ‘Adaya Ben Menasheh Ibn al-Qazzāz / Peraḥiah. TS 32.4v. Reproduced by kind permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library

      The precision with which panegyrists modulated hyperbole is demonstrated richly by the fascinating Geniza document TS 32.4v (Figure 8), which actually presents two panegyrics: an original, beautifully calligraphed and vocalized poem in honor of ‘Adaya Ben Menasheh Ibn al-Qazzāz, Karaite military governor of Palestine (a role he probably inherited from his father);⁶ and a later poem, a rewriting of the first, written interlineally by ‘Eli he-Haver Ben ‘Amram, now dedicated to a certain Peraḥiah.⁷ Many lines are left unchanged, but some are modified in minor yet interesting ways.⁸ The opening of the poem for ‘Adaya calls the mamdūḥ “mighty among ministers, son of a minister elevated above other ministers, captain of captains” (rosh ha-rashim).⁹ In the later poem for Peraḥiah, the verse is altered, “mighty among leaders, minister elevated above other ministers, head of the pure ones” (rosh ha-barim); a verse in the original poem recalling ‘Adaya’s deceased father, Menasheh, “His banner is made precious with the majesty of sovereignty, an army captain like Yoav Ben Ṣeruya” becomes “He possesses a reputation and a strong hand according to his measure like Yoav Ben Ṣeruya.” Yoav Ben Ṣeruya was King David’s nephew set in charge of the army who attained the rank of captain (rosh) when he conquered Mount Zion from the Jebusites (2 Sm 8:16, 20:23; 1 Chr 11:4–6). The set of associations was ideally suited to Menasheh but was apt for Peraḥiah only insofar as it conveyed power in general. The poet certainly sensed that the hyperbole of the model poem was fitting for a military commander’s function and status, whereas praise for Peraḥiah, who was of a lower but nonetheless significant rank, had to be modulated accordingly.¹⁰

      Still, it does not seem, for the most part, that mamdūḥs desired personalized, individualized portrayals of themselves; in fact, it was not uncommon for poets to praise several mamdūḥs within a single poem without differentiating among them whatsoever (e.g., [Avun and Yosef are] “shepherds of faith, perfect in wisdom and kindness, forever a choice offering to God from among all His beings”).¹¹ Instead, mamdūḥs sought idealized depictions of social types that they were said to embody.

      The problem of recovering realia from panegyric belongs to the general topic of discerning convention from reality, of finding details that might be considered reliable within a sea of undifferentiated representations. Dan Pagis argued in the case of medieval Hebrew love poetry that one might first establish convention and consider what diverges from it to be reality.¹² This seems a reasonable but not foolproof method in the case of panegyric. However, the purpose of this chapter is not to sift through panegyric in search of morsels of truth but rather to use convention itself as a historical source that yields not biographical data but the broader values of medieval Jews. The chapter thus steers a course away from the “convention versus reality” issue to explore a different set of questions pertaining to the construction of political legitimacy. What resonances were evoked when a panegyrist called a mamdūḥ the epitome of humility or a shepherd to his flock? What was the value of portraying a mamdūḥ’s wisdom, generosity, and eloquence when these very characteristics were predicated of so many mamdūḥs before him? What can we learn about Mediterranean Jewish society that such characteristics were repeated so frequently in connection with political figures? How did references to archetypal figures and offices relate to claims of power in the present?

      * * *

      This chapter reviews some of the more dominant and ubiquitous elements of the language of Jewish political legitimacy that emerges from the panegyric corpus. The chapter is thus primarily interested in constructions of legitimacy for figures who held some position of authority, from gaons and exilarchs to their appointees, local leaders, judges, scribes, and even literary patrons, when they also held a political function.¹³ Most of the discussion deals with particular traits (e.g., wisdom, generosity, discretion), metaphors of political office (shepherd), and the evocation of biblical ranks (kings, priests) and sacred objects (Ark of the Covenant, Tablets of the Law). There is also a brief discussion of portrayals of Jewish mamdūḥs in their roles vis-à-vis non-Jews. Throughout, the chapter explores resonances of images of legitimacy within Islamic and Jewish literatures and demonstrates that Jewish political discourse combines traditional Jewish and contemporary Islamic idioms of power. Using insights from anthropology, especially the work of Victor Turner and Judith Butler, the conclusion of the chapter considers the significance of conventional, repetitive representation not only for the mamdūḥ and the author but also for the audience. In medieval Jewish panegyrics, mamdūḥs are largely presented as instantiations of certain ideals of leadership that become more ingrained for the community each time a given man is praised for possessing them.

      Dominant Images