Hebrew King Arthur and Its Contents - An Introduction

A 13th Century Display of Perception and Appropriation

In the 13th century, to stave off madness, a certain Jew, well-versed in the Bible as well as traditional Jewish literature, decided to introduce the legend of King Arthur to the Jewish audience of Italy. It was popular enough that eventually, it was translated into Hebrew in 1279 to appeal to all Jews all over Europe who shared Hebrew as a common language. This unique piece of Medieval romantic literature is fascinating to the modern reader from several perspectives. The translation gives us a glimpse into the cultural exchange occurring between English legend and the mostly reclusive Jewish population in Europe. Consequently, it illustrates how audience influences a storyteller’s editorial decisions, even to the extent of what stays in and gets left out. Cultural and religious symbols are appropriated, and the legend’s inherent English perspectives on cultural norms and expectations are transformed into Jewish cultural terms and concepts. It also placed the context of King Arthur in a biblical mode, which changes its features to references, explicitly and implicitly, of the biblical tale, include its style, cadence and tone.

Early translations of Arthurian legends into another language are far from uncommon. One of the most famous collections of the legends of King Arthur is Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte D’Arthur. As the publisher Caxton explains, “Wherefore, such as have late been drawn out briefly into English I have after the simple conning that God hath sent to me, under the favour and correction of all noble lords and gentlemen, enprised to imprint a book of the noble histories of the said King Arthur, and of certain of his knights, after a copy unto me delivered, which copy Sir Thomas Malorye did take out of certain books of French, and reduced it into English.” As opposed to our Semitic fellow’s attempt to appropriate English culture in the hue of Jew, Le Morte D’Arthur takes a French appropriation of English culture and reappropriates it back to English ideals.

While the legends of King Arthur were prominent in European society as a whole, the pull of the tales simply do not obtain to a community that has self-contained legends of their own. For what purpose could these stories have in the Jewish community? Additionally, the study of the Torah and Talmud were placed much higher than outside culture in the Jewish religion. Our anonymous scholar was obviously well-aware of his audience, the potential critics in the Jewish community, to this work. In order to obviate the possible umbrage taken for such a project, he provides precedent in Jewish literature, especially that of the Talmud. For example, Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 38b refers to a sage who didn’t disapprove of fables and other tales. In fact, Mishnah Yoma 1:6 reports that entertaining books like Chronicles were used on the holiest day of the year, Yom Kippur, to keep the High Priest awake for the service. And even the Bible references the need for prophets to relax through entertainment in order to receive divine prophecy.

His reference to the literature for the High Priest and the needs of the prophet places this text in a religious frame, a holy book. To provide purpose for his work in the Jewish community, he further declares that the stories herein are meant for “sinners to learn the paths of repentance” through the good deeds and ethical ideas inherent in the stories. This is similar to Caxton’s claim in his preface that the purpose of his publication of Malory’s book on King Arthur is “that shal see and rede in this sayd book and werke, that they take the good and honest actes in their remembraunce, and to folowe the same...” It should be noted that by doing this, both Caxton and our author are resolving a pressing problem, that there are many aspects to the stories that are troubling to the modern reader. Dishonest acts, adultery, and more, play prominent roles in both works. By casting the purpose of the works as primarily for moral rectitude, they are assuring the reader of the advantages in the good parts of the books. This was important not just for Christians, but perhaps even more so for religious Jews who would not otherwise see value in such a work. Again, we find a culture-clash, a reappropriation and change of perception toward literature in medieval Europe.

There is a certain irony here, of searching for precedent among Jewish authoritative texts for the power to create new Jewish texts. Beyond this, indeed, is the creation of a new Arthurian text. The choices of what was put in the translation and what remained on the cutting room floor are fascinating. Certain details are left out in this book in a biblical method, “Are these not spoken about in such-and-such a book?”, a constant refrain in histories and genealogies like Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, but also in the Pentateuch itself to a certain extent. By brushing off extraneous detail as a mere reference to another tale, the author is dismissing its importance for his audience. In our edition, we find such an example on page 12-15, where were are told that the reason behind Lancelot’s name of “del Lac” is something made known in other books.

There are also other methods the author employed to brush off corollary storylines he wished to skip. On page 17, we find a description of the Duke, Til Tomeil who falls in love with a duchess. He finally declares his love for her, but our author wishes to spare us from such talk by cutting it out saying, “Now these matters are lengthy.” Why was this description shortened? This may have been for religious reasons, as courtship at the time was not a Jewish value. Jews, then as now in some communities, placed greater importance on family lineage and scholarship than in romance and love. However, this would not explain another similar statement on page 20, in which the King comes to the Duchess, and the conversation is removed, with only a, “these matters are lengthy” in its place. These are important discussions, perhaps of narrative interest, but our author removes them. It seems that religious reasons do not suffice to explain this phenomenon. Instead, I would suggest if the two major reasons for the author to have embarked on this project was 1) to entertain himself and the reader for relaxation purposes, and 2) to teach good traits and inspire repentance, the answer becomes clear. To the author, conversations are boring and uninspiring. It is action that speaks louder than words, and our author decided to skip the parts that would not serve his purposes as a writer.

This may indeed explain another aspect of Arthurian authorial change. Religious imagery and objects, so crucial to many of Arthur’s stories, are converted into Jewish symbols. Two examples of this should suffice. Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost are Christian holidays that feature prominently in legends of Arthur. Usually, they give pretext to some feast and collection of all the important people in the kingdom. Knights, dukes, and princes join the king for a holiday celebration. Our author’s choice, as can be seen on such pages as page 17, is to remove any reference to these holidays, and allude to gentile kingly feasts such as one found in the book of Esther. In this way, he could avoid mentioning Christian festivals, while providing a feasting context to the story. Additionally, one of the most famous legends of Arthur is the quest for the Holy Grail. However, since the Holy Grail is a wholly Christian symbol, this was changed to the “Quest of the Dish” on page 25.

Again, we might incline toward religious self-censorship as the cause here, meant for a religious-Jewish audience. However, if we again harken back to the purposes of his writing the work, we find this can understand better why he altered these tales. Realize that he could have simply taken out these details. The feasts as events could have been removed and simple eating dinner could have taken its place. The Holy Grail could have been removed and replaced with a different quest, or even just altered to a simple goblet or cup. Instead, each example I have shown is where the Christian symbol isn’t only altered, but altered to have particularly Jewish significance. The feasts, far from Christian symbolism, take on biblical references to the process of saving of Jews, as in the story of Esther. This takes on an added significance to a Jewish audience. The grail, turning in a dish called a “tamchuy”, is a reference to rabbinic literature and the term for a dish specifically meant for the poor. The point is that the author made the choice not only what needed to be changed, but also to what it needed to be changed. This indicates that our author was more than just religiously sensitive about his audience. It was more - he was pushing for Jewish interest in the stories. He knew it had to take on deeper Jewish cultural ties to be successful.

To this end is the intense mix of Hebrew language and English culture throughout the story. This was a way to tighten the ties between the two cultures. Hebrew, as a unique and strong cultural tie for the Jewish people, becomes combined with an English cultural legend, and converted to be a new creation. The very explanation of Arthur’s name, written in Hebrew and unique to this tale, relies on knowledge of the English language in order to understand it. In Hebrew, it is hard to understand. Literally translated (from page 20): “When you give birth, the child should be given to Merlin, who knows the wisdom of the demons, and his name will be called Artusin, for he was born through the power of art.” In explanation of Merlin’s powers, it refers to it in the Hebrew, “wisdom of the demons” in reference to sorcery. But because in English this would be called, “the art of sorcery”, only then does the explanation of Arthur’s name as “Artusin” obtain. The fusion of these two important aspects is the real method at which our author sought to create this work.

The Hebrew and English character is not far from the author’s mind. Embedded in this work is something about the Jew who was reading the legends of King Arthur in the 13th century. We must note that the author chose to focus more than half his work simply on the birth of Arthur. Through deception, witchcraft, and desire, the Duchess is impregnated, and the identity of her lover remains hidden to her. In fact, through some sheer luck, her lover, the King, manages to marry her, and even has a conversation with her about her knowledge of the identity of the father. She expresses her knowledge that the man was not in fact her husband, but simply took on the image of her husband. If Arthur, as we stated before, takes on the characteristics of Hebrew and English even in his name, it is the identity of the lover, hidden in plain sight, that is making a mark about the Jewish person in an age where being Jewish was not an easy task. The ability to synthesize the two system in one personality was something Arthurian, a legendary feat.

Our author was placing Arthur as the Jew, into his own time and place in the Jewish community. Italy, where this work originated, was at that time quite receptive to Hebrew secular literature. The community was thirsty for this interaction with the outside world, with foreign knowledge and culture. Arthur is a hero. While the events leading up to his birth signify the mysterious circumstances that Jews found themselves in in Italy and Spain, he takes charge of his fate and of his legend. The Jew is being asked to do the same.