The Family Chronicle of A?ima?az ben Paltiel is a fascinating piece of medieval Hebrew literature. It is an eleventh-century prose composition, written in rhymed prose, that relates stories about the wondrous deeds of A?ima?az ben Paltiel and others. Bonfil’s book gives a facing page translation and edition of the Hebrew text in addition to a long introductory essay concerning the work.
Though Bonfil refers to the work as a chronicle, the author of the work opens with a statement of what the book is and his purpose in writing it was, which undermines the idea that this is a simple historical chronicle—the author says that he is attempting to write an “ordered pleasant book-of-tales, a book of collected stories of the forefathers; to expound matters and recite in tunes, seeking to collect, to seek the genealogy, without being snared by [my] seeking” (226–228). The difference is important, as it changes what can and cannot be expected of the work. Bonfil takes this remark and tries to write a history based on the “chronicle,” but the actual text of the The Family Chronicle of A?ima?az ben Paltiel is really something different than a historical chronicle, but just as interesting.
Rather than reading The Family Chronicle of A?ima?az ben Paltiel as a historical chronicle, then, it would be better to understand this work as hagiographical romance. It is stylistically the same as other works that would be considered hagiographical romances, and internal comments, such as when the author writes that he will “utter my knowledge to relate the wonders performed by R. ?ananel” (282), also suggest that the author is not trying to write history in the factual sense, but rather is writing hagiography and exempla. This is also supported by the often folktale-like and legendary sequences in the work.
Bonfil is, however, a historian, and even though he does pay attention to the folkloric aspects of the work in his introduction and notes, his primary goal is to read it as history, which weakens his introduction considerably. Any instance of possible historicity in any episode in the chronicle is read as being factually true, and thus the episode, Bonfil believes, can be aligned with historical events and persons. The text of the chronicle simply does not bear out Bonfil’s historical reading. Though he includes a considerable amount of interesting material in his introduction, his arguments about the historicity of the text are far too often introduced by question-begging comments like “it stands to reason,” which leave considerable doubt about the arguments concerning the meaning of the stories in the chronicle and the historical comparisons he makes.
Bonfil’s translation reads well and his notes are usually helpful, though they too tend toward the misplaced historicizing of his introduction. I only saw one place where his note was clearly wrong, note 325 (page 293). Bonfil glosses a passage where two demons are discussing stealing and eating a child: “the women whom R. Shephatiah heard talking, presumably near the bed of a dead child, were demons. Hence ‘the one above’ should probably be understood as incubus and the one below as succubus.” There are demons in both Christian and Jewish folklore who would steal and eat children, but these are not incubi and succubi. The situation described in the chronicle does not support this proposal at all: that one demon is above the child and one below does not point to them being an incubus and succubus. Bonfil in this note has clearly misunderstood the traditions about incubi and succubi.
Although Bonfil’s introductory essay and notes are often flawed through their misplaced historicizing, and thus must be used with caution, students of medieval folklore, hagiography, and Jewish studies will nonetheless find Bonfil’s book to be a very useful edition and commentary on The Family Chronicle of A?ima?az ben Paltiel.
--------
[Review length: 636 words • Review posted on May 21, 2010]