The Torah Ark in Renaissance Poland II Contents Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series

contents I

The Torah Ark in Renaissance Poland II contents Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series

Editorial Board David Golinkin – Alberdina Houtman Marcel Poorthuis – Joshua Schwartz Freek van der Steen

Advisory Board Yehoyada Amir – David Berger – Shaye Cohen Judith Frishman – Martin Goodman Clemens Leonhard – Tobias Nicklas – Eyal Regev Gerard Rouwhorst – Seth Schwartz – Yossi Turner

VOLUME 23

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/jcp contents III The Torah Ark in Renaissance Poland

A Jewish Revival of Classical Antiquity

By Ilia M. Rodov

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2013 IV Bar-Ilan University after thecontents Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies

University of Tilburg: Faculty of Catholic Theology, The Netherlands

Protestant Theological University, The Netherlands

Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, Israel

The editors gratefully acknowledge the fĳinancial support of the Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies.

Library of of Congress Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Cataloging-in-Publication Data Data Binder, Stephanie E. Rodov, Tertullian, Ilia M. on idolatry and Mishnah ‘Avodah zarah : questioning the parting of the ways between Christians The Torah and ark Jews in inRenaissance late antiquity Poland / by Stephanie : a Jewish E. Binder. revival of classical antiquity / by Ilia M. Rodov. p. pages cm. cm — (Jewish-- (Jewish and and Christian Christian perspectives perspectives series ; seriesv. 22) ; volume 23) Includes Includes bibliographicalbibliographical references references and and index. index. ISBN ISBN 978-90-04-24284-5 978-90-04-23478-9 (alk. (hardback paper) — :ISBN alk. paper)978-90-04-23548-9 -- ISBN 978-90-04-24440-5 (e-book) (e-book) 1.1. Tertullian, Torah arks--Poland. ca. 160–ca. 230. 2. De Jewish idololatria. art--Poland--16th 2. Idolatry. 3. Mishnah. century. Avodah 3. Jewish zarah—Criticism, art--Poland--17th century. 4.interpretation, Jewish art and etc. 4.symbolism--Poland. Christianity and other 5. religions—Judaism. Judaism--Liturgical 5. Judaism—Relations— objects--Poland. 6. Judaism--Relations- -Christianity.Christianity. I. Title. 7. Christianity and other religions--Judaism. I. Title. BR65.T349B56 2012 261.2’609015—dc23 BM657.T585R63 2013 296.4'61--dc23 2012031142 2012045779

ThisThis publicationpublication has has been been typeset typeset in the in multilingual the multilingual “Brill” typeface. “Brill” typeface. With over With5,100 charactersover 5,100 characters coveringcovering Latin, Latin, IPA, IPA, Greek, Greek, and and Cyrillic, Cyrillic, this this typeface typeface is especially is especially suitable suitable for use forin the use in the humanities. For humanities. more information, For more information, please see please www.brill.com/brill-typeface. see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSNISSN 1388-20741388-2074 ISBN 978-90-04-23478-9 (hardback) ISBNISBN 978-90-04-23548-9978-90-04-24284-5 (e-book) (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-24440-5 (e-book) Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. CopyrightKoninklijke 2013 Brill byNV Koninklijkeincorporates Brillthe imprints NV, Leiden, Brill, GlobalThe Netherlands. Oriental, Hotei Publishing, KoninklijkeIDC Publishers Brill and NV Martinus incorporates Nijhofff the Publishers. imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDCAll rights Publishers reserved. and No Martinus part of this Nijhoff publication Publishers. may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, Allphotocopying, rights reserved. recording No partor otherwise, of this publication without prior may written be reproduced, permission from translated, the publisher. stored in aAuthorization retrieval system, to photocopy or transmitted items for internalin any form or personal or by anyuse is means, granted electronic, by Koninklijke mechanical, Brill NV photocopying,provided that the recording appropriate or feesotherwise, are paid without directly toprior The writtenCopyright permission Clearance Center,from the publisher. 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. AuthorizationFees are subject to to photocopy change. items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV providedThis book thatis printed the appropriate on acid-free paper.fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper. contents V

Contents

List of Figures and Plates...... VII Note to the Reader...... XVII Foreword ...... XIX Acknowledgements...... XXIX

1. Medieval Synagogues in Cracow and Kazimierz ...... 1 The Jews in Medieval Cracow...... 1 Patronage over Medieval Synagogues: Religious Duty, Collective Project, and Private Enterprise ...... 7 How Old Is the Old Synagogue in Kazimierz?...... 14 The Last Two-Nave Synagogue...... 22

2. The Renaissance Reaches Jewish Kazimierz...... 29 In the Shadow of the Italian Renaissance...... 29 Renaissance Influences on the Jews of Kazimierz and the Isserl Family...... 34 The Establishment of the Isserls’ Synagogue...... 43 The Expansion of the Isserls’ Synagogue...... 49

3. The Isserls’ Torah Ark: Decontructing the Bricolage...... 55 Restoring the Original Structure...... 55 Relics Adopted?...... 57 A Relic Rejected? The Sixteenth-Century Censure of Synagogue Sculptures...... 61 Imitating the New Style...... 73 Creating the New Style...... 75

4. The Isserls’ Torah Ark: Recontructing the Unity...... 81 Triumphal Gate: An Architectural Model from Padua to Kazimierz...... 82 Imitation of the Temple...... 90 The Crown of the Torah ...... 94 The Shield of the Messiah ...... 99 The Tree of Life...... 108 A Message Encrypted...... 113 VI contents 5. Developments of the Isserls’ Model in Kazimierz...... 115 The Old Synagogue: A Renaissance Renovation of a Gothic Building ...... 116 The New Torah Ark in the Old Synagogue...... 124 The High Synagogue: An Italian Jewish Patron in Kazimierz?. . 128 The Torah Ark in the High Synagogue: Refitting the Puzzle’s Pieces...... 131 The Kupah: A Collective Patronage over the Synagogue...... 137 The Torah Ark in the Kupah Synagogue: A “Folk Renaissance” in the Baroque Age...... 139

6. From Kazimierz to Pińczów and Szydłów...... 143 The Jews of Pińczów under the Protestants and Catholics...... 144 The Pińczów Synagogue: A Protestant Influence or a Bequest?. . .148 Szydłów: A Synagogue in a Royal Town...... 157 The Masonry Workshop in Pińczów...... 162

7. Revivals of Ancient Art in the Design of Late-Sixteenth- to Mid-. Seventeenth-Century Arks...... 165 The Triangular Pediment...... 165 Obelisks and Pyramids...... 173 The Seven-Branched Candelabrum...... 183

Afterword...... 205 Illustration Credits and Sources...... 207 Bibliography...... 209 Index of Names ...... 233 Index of Places...... 239 Figures and Plates ...... after page 240 list of figures and plates VII

LIST OF FIGURES AND PLATES

All figures and plates are placed in separate sections in the back of this volume.

Figures

1. Toledo, Samuel Ha-Levi Abulafia’s synagogue (El Tránsito). Prayer hall, ca. 1357 and later alterations. 2. Toledo, Samuel Ha-Levi Abulafia’s synagogue (El Tránsito). Dedica- tory inscription to left of Torah ark, ca. 1357. 3. John Strożecki, “Cracow and Its Vicinities” in Hartmann Schedel, Liber Cronicarum (Nuremberg, 1493). 4. Worms, synagogue. Prayer hall, 1174/75, and later reconstructions. Photograph, before 1938. 5. Prague, Altneuschul. Southern nave of prayer hall, looking eastward, late-13th century. 6. Albrecht Altdorfer, “Prayer Hall of the Synagogue in Regensburg before Its Destruction.” Engraving, 1519. 7. Abraham Neu, “Interior of the Worms Synagogue.” Lithograph, before 1842. 8. Heinrich Hoffmann, “Interior of the Worms Synagogue.” Watercolour, before 1842. 9. Carl Hertzog, “Interior of the Worms Synagogue.” Lithograph, ca. 1860. 10. Cracow, Wawel Cathedral. Franciscus Florentinus and Jörg Huber, Tomb of John Albrecht, 1501–05. 11. Cracow, Wawel Cathedral. Bartolommeo Berrecci, Sigismund Chapel: exterior, 1517–33. 12. Cracow, Wawel Cathedral, Sigismund Chapel. Bartolommeo Berrecci and his workshop, Chapel’s structure, wall decorations, royal throne and tomb of Sigismund I, 1524–31; Santi Gucci, Tomb of Queen Anna, tomb of Sigismund Augustus and alterations to tomb’s niche, 1574–75. 13. Moses Isserles (the Rema), Torat ha-Olah (Prague: Mordechai ha- Cohen, 1570), frontispiece. VIII list of figures and plates 14. Prague, Pinchas Synagogue: Ground plan (the building of the 1520s is marked in black). Drawing by R. Ječný. 15. Prague, Pinchas Synagogue: Ground plan (the extension of 1535 is marked in black). Drawing by R. Ječný. 16. Neuchâtel, former monastery church. Carved impost, ca. 1170. 17. Rūmī pattern engraved on ivory, Sicily, 11th or 12th century. 18. Worms, Cathedral. Lion sculpture in front of southern façade, 11th or 12th century. 19. Verona, San Zeno. Master Nicolao, Lion sculpture supporting portico, ca. 1135. 20. Lund, Cathedral. Former bishop’s chair and St. Mary’s altar, ca. 1080– 1145. 21. Book of Exodus (Prague: Gershom ha-Cohen, 1518), frontispiece. 22. Rome, Scola Catalana. Torah ark, 1522/23. Rome, Museo ebraico. 23. Cracow, Wawel Cathedral. Bartolommeo Berrecci and his workshop, Sigismund Chapel; detail: capital of pilaster to right of entrance arch, 1524–31. 24. Cracow, Wawel Cathedral. Bartolommeo Berrecci and his workshop, Sigismund Chapel; detail: coat of arms of Sigismund I on southern wall exterior, 1524–31. 25. David ben Solomon Vital, Crown of the Torah (Constantinople: Eliezer Soncino, 1536), frontispiece. 26. Book of Leviticus (Prague: Gershom ha-Cohen, 1530), frontispiece (detail). 27. Prayer Book (Prague: Gershom ha-Cohen and companions, 1512), printers’ marks and colophon. 28. Cracow, Wawel Cathedral. Bartolommeo Berrecci and his workshop, Sigismund Chapel: southern tympanum, 1524–29. 29. Cracow, Wawel Cathedral, Tomicki Chapel. Bartolommeo Berrecci or Gian Maria Padovano, tomb of Bishop Piotr Tomicki, ca. 1535. 30. Cracow, Wawel Cathedral. Gian Maria Padovano and his workshop, tomb of Archbishop Piotr Gamrat, 1545–47. Drawing by Stanisław Cercha, 1899. 31. Cracow, St. Barbara’s Church. Cracow workshop, frame of unknown epitaph, mid-16th century. 32. Prague, Altneuschul. Arboreal relief in tympanum above entrance to prayer hall, late-13th century. 33. Prague, Altneuschul. Pediment of Torah ark, late-13th century. list of figures and plates IX 34. Tarnów, cathedral. Cracow workshop, tomb of the three Jan Tarnows- kis, 1550–ca. 1561. 35. Padua, Scuola Tedesca. Torah ark, ca. 1525. Photograph, before 1901. 36. Florence. Leon Battista Alberti, façade of Santa Maria Novella, 1456– 70. 37. Rome, Arch of Constantine, 312–15 CE. 38. Leon Battista Alberti, drawing of church façade, De re ædificatoria, 1485, fol. 306r, detail. 39. Leon Battista Alberti, drawing of gate, De re ædificatoria, 1485, fol. 374v, detail. 40. Padua, University. Andrea Moroni, entrance gate to Il Bò campus, 1540s. 41. “Weighing Shekels for the Temple,” Worms Mahzor, vol. I, Germany (Würzburg?), 1272. Jerusalem, National Library of Israel, Heb. 40 781/1, fol. 39v. 42. “Moses and Aaron in the Tabernacle of the Covenant,” Book of Num- bers, Lobbes Bible, 1084. Tournai, Bibliothèque du Séminaire, MS 1, fol. 77r (detail). 43. “Christ, Ecclesia, and Synagoga,” Lambert of Saint Omer, Liber Flori- dus, Saint Omer, before 1121. Ghent, Centraale Bibliotheek van de Rijksuniversiteit, Cod. 1125(92), fol. 253r (detail). 44. “The Cantor at the Torah Ark,” prayer book, Germany, ca. 1395–98. Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica, Cod. Vat. ebr. 324, fol. 73v (detail). 45. Pediment of Torah ark, ca. 1451, from a synagogue in Nuremberg. Pho- tograph, before 1927. 46. “Moses Receiving the Law on Mount Sinai,” Second Darmstadt Hag- gadah, Southern Italy, late-15th century. Darmstadt, Hessische Lan- des-und Hochschulbibliothek, Cod. Or. 28, fol. 9v (detail). 47. Pediment of Torah ark, ca. 1543, from the Scuola Grande in Mantua. Jerusalem, Umberto Nahon Museum of Italian Jewish Art. 48. Prague, Pinchas Synagogue. Frieze of portal in prayer hall, 1535. Draw- ing by Svetlana Sirota. 49. “Quincunx Polonia” in Stanisław Orzechowski, Rozmowa albo Dyjalog około egzekucyjej polskiej korony (Cracow, 1563). 50. “Pyramis ex quincunx” in Orzechowski, Rozmowa. 51. “Typus poloniæ regni” in Orzechowski, Rozmowa. 52. Lucas Cranach the Elder, “Altarpiece with the Lamentation, St. Peter, and St. Barnabas,” coloured etching, 1518–20. Berlin, Staatliche Mu- X list of figures and plates seen, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Kupferstichkabinett—Sammlung der Zeichnungen und Druckgraphik, no 387A. 53. Lucas Cranach the Elder, “Allegory of Law and Grace.” Woodcut, ca. 1529. 54. Daniel Hopfer, “Interior of St. Catherine in Augsburg.” Etching, ca. 1517. 55. Cracow, Sukiennice (Cloth Hall). Santi Gucci, roof parapet, 1556–60. 56. Cracow, Wawel Castle. Bartolommeo Berrecci and his followers, entrance portal to courtyard, after 1534. 57. Cracow, Wawel Castle. Courtyard, eastern and southern wings, 1507– 36 and later reconstructions. 58. Cracow, Wawel Castle. First floor of southern gallery, 1530–48; detail: capital of attached column to right of left arch. 59. Cracow, Wawel Cathedral. Bartolommeo Berrecci and his workshop, the Sigismund Chapel, 1524–31; detail: capital of pilaster to left of throne niche. 60. Prague, High Synagogue. Northern façade, 1568. 61. Przysucha, St. John of Nepomuk and St. Ignatius of Loyola Church. Arch and spandrels above the entrance, 1780–86. 62. Łańcut, synagogue. Stucco reliefs on bimah’s northern side, ca. 1761. 63. Przysucha, synagogue, 1780–86: Torah ark, detail. 64. Cracow (Kazimierz), Monastery at Corpus Christi Church, window in western façade, ca. 1612. 65. Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Jewish Cemetery near the Isserls’ Syna- gogue. Tomb of S[...], daughter of Moses Samuel Katz, first half of 17th century. 66. Chęciny, St. Bartholomew Church: central nave, looking eastward, 1603. 67. Klimontów, St. Mary and St. Hyacinth Church: central nave, looking westward, 1617–20. 68. Wodzisław, synagogue: longitudinal section, looking southward; drawing by Tadeusz Bereżnicki, 1946. 69. Wodzisław, synagogue, first half of 17th century: exterior, southwest corner. Photograph, 2007. 70. Cieszkowy, Calvinist church, 17th century. 71. Szydłów, Royal Castle. Knights’ Hall, 14th century, renovated 1528. 72. Pińczów, St. John the Baptist Church: western façade, 1598–1615. 73. Janowiec, St. Stanislaus and St. Margaret Church. Santi Gucci, Tomb of Andrzej and Barbara Firlej, 1585. list of figures and plates XI 74. Lorenzo Ghiberti (carvings) and Fra Angelico (paintings), Tabernacle of Arte de’Linaiuoli, ca. 1433; frame: wood, carved and painted, 270 × 520 cm. Museo di San Marco, Florence. 75. Peretola, Santa Maria Church. Luca della Robbia, Tabernacle, 1443, marble and glazed terracotta. 76. Rome, Sant Agostino Church. Jacopo Sansovino, Martelli Altarpiece (Madonna del Parto). Marble, 1518–21. 77. L’viv, St. Nicolas Church. Christ’s Passions altarpiece donated by Jan Scholz Wolfowicz. Drawing by J. Makarewicz, before 1901. 78. “Portal with Solomonic Columns” in Sebastiano Serlio, Extraordi- nario libro di Architettura di architetto del re christianissimo, (Lion, 1551), fol. 24r. 79. “Church Façade” in Sebastiano Serlio, Regole generali d’architettura (Venice 1537), fol. 175v. 80. Pińczów (Mirów), St. Mary’s Church: western façade, ca. 1615–19. 81. Cracow, Cloister in the Dominican Church. Epitaph of Zofia Czerska, ca. 1584. 82. Cracow, Wawel Cathedral, the Lady Chapel. Santi Gucci, Tomb of King Stephen Batory, 1595. 83. Kraśnik, St. Mary’s Ascension Church. Santi Gucci, Tomb of a son and daughter of Andrzej Tęczyński and Zofia Dembowska, before 1579. 84. Cracow, Cloister in the Dominican Church. Santi Gucci, Tomb of Ga- leazzo Guicciardini, ca. 1557. 85. Raphael, Tomb of Agostino Chigi, 1513–16, altered by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, 1652. Rome, S. Maria del Popolo, the Chigi Chapel. 86. Drawing of Roman coin (?) representing a funeral pyre. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. Lat. 3439, fol. 65r. 87. “Obelisk at St. Peter’s in Vatican” in Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro di architettura di Sebastiano Serlio Bolognese nel qual si figurano e descrivono le antiquita di Roma e li alter cose che sono in Italia, e fuori d’Italia (Venice, 1540), fol. 68 (detail). 88. “Pyramid of Cheops and Sphinx” in Serlio, Il terzo libro, fol. 94. 89. Końskie, Saint Nicholas Collegial Church. Tomb of Hieronim Ko- niecki (d. 1564). Drawing by Maksymilian Cercha, before 1904. 90. “Anthropos-Christ” in Heinrich Khunrath, Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae (Hamburg, 1595). 91. “We Were Pharaoh’s Slaves in Egypt” in Passover Haggadah (Venice: Daniel Zifroni; 1609), fol. 4r. XII list of figures and plates 92. Rome, Arch of Titus. “Triumphal Procession Carrying the Menorah and Other Spoils from the Temple of Jerusalem,” relief, 81 CE. 93. “Worship God in Silence” in Achille Bocchi, Symbolicarum quaestionum de universo genere quas serio ludebat libri quinque (Bologna, 1555), CXXXII. 94. Guillaume Postel, Candelabri typici in Mosis tabernaculo (Venice, 1548), frontispiece. 95. Guillaume Postel, Or nerot ha-Menorah ([s. l.], 1547[?]). 96. “Menorah,” Solomon Luria, Menorat zahav tahor (Prague, 1581), fol. 1v. 97. “The Ark, Menorah and Sanctuary Implements,” Pentateuch, Catalo- nia, 1301. Copenhagen, Det Kongelige Bibliotek, Cod. Hebr. II, fol. 11v. 98. Pakruojis, synagogue. Torah ark, 1801. Photograph, before 1939.

Plates

1.1. Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Northern façade, late-15th century and later reconstructions and additions. Photograph, 1920s. 1.2. Cracow (Kazimierz). Town’s wall and Old Synagogue. 1.3. Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Ground plan. 1.4. Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Prayer hall, looking towards southeast. Photograph by Ignacy Krieger, ca. 1880. 1.5. Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Prayer hall, looking towards southeast. 1.6. Jan Kanty Hruzik, “The Day of Atonement in the Old Synagogue of Kazimierz in Cracow,” oil on canvas, 1875. Cracow, Historical Museum of the City of Cracow. 1.7. Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Torah ark, late 1550s and later reconstructions. 1.8. Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Torah ark. 1.9. Reconstruction of Torah ark of late 1550s in the Old Synagogue. Draw- ing by Anna and Olga Kalantarov. 1.10. Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Torah ark: pediment and attic panel. 1.11. Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Torah ark: column. 1.12. Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Torah ark: capital. 1.13. Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Alms box on eastern side of entrance to prayer hall, 1570. list of figures and plates XIII 1.14. Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Alms box on northern wall of prayer hall, 1638 (?). 1.15. Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Alms box in vestibule, 1626 or 1632. 2.1. Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue. Western façade, 1553, 1557–58 and later reconstructions. 2.2. Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue: a. Cross-section, looking eastward (prayer hall is marked in black); b. Longitudinal section, looking southward (prayer hall is marked in black). 2.3. Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue: a. Ground plan of prayer hall of 1557–58 (marked in black); b. Plan of window level of prayer hall of 1557–58 (marked in black). 2.4. Reconstruction of ground plan of 1553 prayer hall in the Isserls’ Syna- gogue. 2.5. Cracow (Kazimierz). Old Jewish cemetery, founded 1551–52, and the Isserls’ Synagogue. 2.6. Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Jewish cemetery. Tombstone of Rabbi Mo- ses Isserles (d. 1572) at western side of the Isserls’ Synagogue. 2.7. Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue. Israel Isserl’s dedicatory inscription, 1553, and its frame, 1557–58. 2.8. Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue. Prayer hall, looking eastward. Photograph, 1932. 2.9. Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue. Prayer hall, looking towards southeast. Photograph, ca. 1963. 2.10. Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue. Prayer hall, looking towards southeast. Photograph, before 1939. 2.11. Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue. Torah ark. 2.12. Reconstruction of Torah ark of 1557–58 in the Isserls’ Synagogue. Drawing by Svetlana Sirota. 2.13. Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue. Torah ark: pediment and attic panel. 2.14. Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue. Torah ark: capitals. 2.15. Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue. Torah ark: crown relief, 1557–58, and inscription (Deut. 26:15), 1861. 2.16. Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue. Torah ark: dedicatory inscription under doors, 1798. 2.17. Doors of Torah ark from the Isserls’ Synagogue in Cracow (Kazimi- erz), 1648 (?). Painted lead and tin alloy on wood. Jerusalem, Israel Museum, no. 195/5; 3704–9-64. XIV list of figures and plates 2.18. Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue. Reconstruction of Torah ark with open doors. Collage based on Plates 2.12 and 2.17. 2.19. Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue. Doors of bimah (formerly doors of Torah ark in an unknown synagogue), 1654/5 or 1694/5. 2.20. Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Jewish Cemetery near the Isserls’ Syna- gogue. Sculpture of lion, 13th century (?). Photograph, 1998. 2.21. Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Jewish Cemetery near the Isserls’ Syna- gogue. Sculpture of lion on stone supporting tomb of Jekutiel Zelman (d. 1753 or 1766) and Neḥama Ḥayah (d. 19th century). Photograph, 1998. 3.1. Cracow (Kazimierz), Joseph Street (formerly Żydowska Street). High Synagogue, 1556–63. 3.2. Cracow (Kazimierz), House at 36 Joseph Street and High Synagogue: 1. House at 36 Joseph Street (formerly 266/90 Żydowska Street), the western façade; 2. House at 36 Joseph Street, southern façade; 3. High Synagogue at 38 Joseph Street (formerly 267/89 Żydowska Street); 4. Cherub, detail of carved frame around door in southern façade, 36 Joseph Street; 5. Carved frame of window, next to High Synagogue, in southern façade of house at 36 Joseph Street; 6. Traces of old, walled- up windows; 7. Traces of stone mouldings and window frames coloured yellow; 8. Supposed position of the old windows is coloured pink. Drawing, ca. 1869. 3.3. Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue. Keystone of entrance portal facing Joseph Street. 3.4. Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue: a. Plan of basement floor; b. Plan of ground floor; c. Plan of prayer hall; d. Plan of prayer hall at window level. 3.5. Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue: Cross-section, looking eastward. 3.6. Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue. Prayer hall, looking towards northwest. Photograph, before 1939. 3.7. Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue. Prayer hall, looking towards Torah ark. Photograph, 1920s. 3.8. Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue. Torah ark, 1556–63 and later reconstructions. 3.9. Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue. Pediment with arboreal relief above walled-up door in western wall of prayer hall. 3.10. Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue. Panel with crown relief above door in northern wall (detail of Plate 3.6). list of figures and plates XV 3.11. Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue. Prayer hall: alms box near entrance door in northern wall. Photograph, before 1935. 3.12. Cracow (Kazimierz), House at 40 Joseph Street. Alms box from High Synagogue. 3.13. Reconstruction of Torah ark of 1556–63 in High Synagogue. Drawing by Alexander Pechuro. 3.14. Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue. Torah ark, detail: reliefs on inner side of doors, mid-17th century. Photograph, 1920s. 3.15. Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue. Torah ark, detail: reliefs on outer side of doors, late-18th century (?). Photograph, 1920s. 4.1. Cracow (Kazimierz), Kupah Synagogue. Southern façade, 1608–35 and later reconstructions. 4.2. Cracow (Kazimierz), Kupah Synagogue. Northern façade, 1608–35 and later reconstructions. 4.3. Cracow (Kazimierz), Kupah Synagogue: a. Ground plan; b. Plan at gallery level. 4.4. Reconstruction of ground plan of 1608–35 prayer hall in Kupah Syna- gogue. 4.5. Cracow (Kazimierz), Kupah Synagogue. Torah ark, 1608–35 and later reconstructions. 4.6. Reconstruction of 1608–35 Torah ark in Kupah Synagogue. Drawing by Alexander Pechuro. 4.7. Cracow (Kazimierz), Kupah Synagogue. Torah ark: pediment and attic panel. 4.8. Cracow (Kazimierz), Kupah Synagogue. Dedicatory inscription of Holy Society of Cohens and Levites, 1647. 5.1. Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Northeastern corner, before 1586 (?) and later reconstructions and additions. 5.2. Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Northeastern corner. Photograph, before 1939. 5.3. Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Western façade. Photograph by Szymon Zajczyk, before 1939. 5.4. Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Ground plan: 1. Antechamber; 2. Vestibule; 3. Niche; 4. Small chamber; 5. Communal office; 6. Prayer hall. Draw- ing, 1952. 5.5. Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Plan at upper-storey level: 1. Women’s gallery; 2. Prayer hall; 3. Alms box. Drawing, 1952. XVI list of figures and plates 5.6. Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Cross-section, looking westward: 1. Ante- chamber; 2. Vestibule; 3. Door to small chamber; 4. Women’s gallery; 5. Alms box; 6. Prayer hall; 7. Opening in western wall. Drawing, 1952. 5.7. Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Longitudinal section, looking northward. Drawing, 1952. 5.8. Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Prayer hall: vault. 5.9. Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Prayer hall, looking towards vestibule. Pho- tograph by Szymon Zajczyk, before 1939. 5.10. Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Prayer hall, looking towards northeast. Pho- tograph by Komornicki, 1917. 5.11. Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Prayer hall: eastern wall and Torah ark. 5.12. Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Torah ark, around 1600. Photograph by Szy- mon Zajczyk, before 1939. 5.13. Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Torah ark (detail) and remnants of wall painting. 5.14. Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Vestibule: entrance to prayer hall. 5.15. Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Prayer hall: exit to vestibule. Photograph by Cz. Olszewski, after 1945. 6.1. L’viv, Nachmanowicz’s synagogue. Prayer hall, looking eastward. Pho- tograph, before 1906. 6.2. L’viv, Nachmanowicz’s synagogue. Torah ark, 1580–82. Photograph by Janusz Witwicki, 1941. 6.3. Torah ark in Nachmanowicz’s synagogue. Drawing by M. Kowalczuk, before 1901. 6.4. L’viv, Nachmanowicz’s synagogue: a. Ground plan; b. Cross-section, looking eastward; c. Torah ark. Drawing, before 1915. 7.1. T. Chrząski, “Synagogue in Szydłów,” watercolour, 1844–46. 7.2. Szydłów, Synagogue. Southern façade, 1534–64 and later reconstructions and additions. Photograph, before 1939. 7.3. Szydłów, Synagogue. Southern façade. 7.4. Szydłów, Synagogue. a. Ground plan; b. Plan at window level. 7.5. Szydłów, Synagogue. Longitudinal section, looking northward. 7.6. Szydłów, Synagogue. a. Cross-section, looking eastward; b. Cross- section, looking westward. 7.7. Szydłów, Synagogue. Prayer hall: vault. 7.8. Szydłów, Synagogue. Prayer hall, looking eastward. Photograph, before 1939. 7.9. Szydłów, Synagogue. Torah ark. Photograph, before 1939. 7.10. Szydłów, Synagogue. Torah ark. Photograph, 2004. 7.11. Szydłów, Synagogue. Torah ark: doors. Photograph, before 1939. medieval synagogues in cracow and kazimierz XVII

Note to the Reader

Hebrew terms within the text, as well as the titles of the sources in the languages in non-Roman script are, as a rule, given in transliteration, usually followed by a translation in brackets. The transliteration of Hebrew is in accordance with “Transliteration Rules” (“General” format) in Encyclo- paedia Judaica, 2nd ed., eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, vol. 1 (Detroit, 2007), 197. The transliteration of Yiddish and languages in Cyrillic script follow the rules as mentioned in the same source, pp. 198–99. Biblical citations in English are from the Jewish Publication Society Bible (Philadelphia, 1917; hereafter “JPS”), with some small deviations noted ad loc. Talmudic citations in English are from The Babylonian Talmud, ed. Isidore Epstein, vols. 1–35 (London, 1935–52). The terms “Temple,” “Sanctu- ary,” “Tabernacle,” and “Holy Ark” are capitalised when referring to the sacred Jewish shrines mentioned in the Bible and those that existed in Jerusalem. Unless otherwise noted, the Mishnah, Babylonian Talmud, Tosefta, To- safot, midrashim, Mahzor Vitry, Rashi’s glosses on the Bible and Talmud, Eleazar Rokeah’s Perushei sidur ha-Tefilah, Maimonides’s Mishneh Torah, Jacob ben Asher’s Sefer ha-Turim, Joseph Caro’s Shulhan arukh and Moses Isserles’s glosses on this treatise, and rabbinical responsa are referred to according to the Bar-Ilan University Responsa Project digital database, version 20 plus, Ramat Gan 2012. The pseudepigraphic books of I Enoch and II Baruch are referred to the English translation in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. James Charles- worth, vol. 1 (London, 1983). The toponyms are given in accordance with the Getty Thesaurus of Geo- graphic Names (www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/tgn). Com- mon English spelling, when it exists, is preferred (e.g., Cracow instead of Kraków); otherwise, the name is given in its current vernacular spelling (e.g., Pińczów) or—if the vernacular language uses a non-Roman script— in transcription (e.g., L’viv for the Ukrainian “Львів”). The only exception is Candia, as this name is used for the city of Iráklion in several documents referred to or cited below. When during the history of a location, the majority of its residents spoke different languages, one or more additional names follow the preferred toponym in the “Index of Places,” e.g., L’viv (Lwów, Lemberg, Lvov). XVIII chapter one foreword XIX

Foreword

The modus operandi of sixteenth-century imitations of ancient art in Polish synagogues was complex. The Poles did not come across remnants of classical art in their own milieu, nor did the Jews share the nostalgia of Chris- tian literati for the grandeur of the Greco-Roman past. The Jewish historical narrative, rather, depicted the ancient Greeks as pagans who had hampered the observance of Judaism and desecrated the Temple in Jeru- salem; Rome was usually remembered as the empire that had destroyed Jerusalem, dispersed the Jewish people, and given birth to repressive Chris- tian kingdoms. It was only in the mid-sixteenth century, after the Renais- sance style had become a normative form of artistic expression in Poland, that the local Jews adopted the forms and symbolic allusions of this new art for the synagogue and in its liturgy. The Jews of Poland learned about mainstream Italian Renaissance art indirectly, from its marginal branches.1 One of these was the Renaissance art that had been absorbed by Jews in Italy from the late-fifteenth century. The Polish Jews’ knowledge of Italian Jewish culture was scanty; if a Polish Jew had never crossed the Alps, he would probably have seen printed He- brew books or certain minor artifacts imported from Italy but could only have heard about the Renaissance synagogues there from Jewish travelers and emigrants, or read about them in rabbinical responsa and private letters. The elite of Polish Jewry were more familiar with the local Renaissance styles that had been introduced by Italian artists at the Jagiellonian Court in Cracow in the early-sixteenth century and had spread throughout the kingdom during the decades that followed. The Renaissance experience of Italian Jews could have served to legitimise the adoption of this new art in Polish synagogues; however, the main formal models and principal cre- ators of Renaissance synagogue ornamentation in fact came from Itali- anate workshops in Poland. The prevailing function of all’antica art in Poland was the posthumous commemoration of an individual in his or her sculptural monument or sepulchral chapel, and most of the Renaissance artists working on this were builders and sculptors. Their technique of using the columned and

1 See the concise account of the Renaissance outside Italy in Peter Burke, The European Renaissance: Centres and Peripheries (Oxford, 1998). XX foreword pedimented Renaissance frame that consisted of a carved stone wall tomb or memorial tablet was transplanted to the synagogue for the adornment of the Torah (Pentateuch) scrolls’ repository, commonly called “the holy ark” after the Holy Ark of the Covenant in the biblical Sanctuary (cf. Ex. 25:10–22, 37:1–9). In the Renaissance synagogues in Poland, it was the design of the Torah ark that received most of the attention of the synagogue patrons, and, as will be proposed, that design conveyed their pivotal religious ideas. To the best of my knowledge, only six specimens of the Renaissance Torah arks in Poland have survived, and one more, which was destroyed in 1943, is seen in old photographs and drawings. Two nearly untouched arks, and two partially altered ones—all four modeled on the same composition—have been found in the synagogues of Kazimierz, which was then a satellite town of Cracow and is today a district of the city. The spiritual, political, and economic activities of the Jews of Cracow and Kazimierz, one of the oldest and most influential Jewish communities in medieval and Renaissance Poland, left numerous traces in chronicles, official documents, rabbinic writings, communal minute books, dedicatory inscriptions in synagogues, and epitaphs on Jewish tombstones. These sources began to attract the attention of local historians in the mid-nineteenth century. As will be revealed, although the readings and interpretations of certain texts evidenced in these documents are disputable, they introduce a vast corpus of documentary evidence, which, after being critically reread and coupled with the existing corpus of documents on Polish Renaissance art, provides valuable historical data for the analysis of Renaissance synagogue arks in multiple contexts. The case of the Renaissance arks from Kazimierz appears to be paradigmatic of the widespread revival of Classical art by the Jews living on the outskirts of the royal court in the capital city of the Pol- ish Kingdom and who maintained close and diverse connections with the Jewish communities in Italy, Bohemia, and Germany. Two more carved stone Torah arks are extant in Pińczów and Szydłów, neighbouring towns about a two-day walk to the northeast of Cracow. An- other ark, the one now missing, was built further to the east for Nach- manowicz’s Synagogue in L’viv, once a major centre in the eastern lands of the Polish crown and now a city in western Ukraine.2 An examination of the extant arks in situ reveals that several of them are composite works

2 Sergey R. Kravtsov, Di Gildene Royze: The Turei Zahav Synagogue in L’viv (Braunsweig, 2011). On the Turei Zahav and other names of Nachmanowicz’s synagogue, see note 12 on page 168 below. foreword XXI done by different artists and that almost all of them underwent changes caused either by damage or by later repairs; sections of a number of them were moved or rebuilt over time. The Torah arks mentioned above seem to be examples that track the genesis and development of the artistic Renaissance concept of the Torah shrine in Poland. The earliest of those arks, dated to the mid-sixteenth century (the time of the oldest known synagogue arks in Poland), are the first known adaptations of Renaissance art by Polish Jews. The arks made in the late-sixteenth through the mid-seventeenth centuries have Manner- ist and Baroque features. The entire group of typologically interrelated all’antica arks is a unique vestige of Renaissance art in east European synagogues; this is especially significant, since only a fraction of east Euro- pean synagogue art, which suffered irretrievable losses in the disasters of the twentieth century, has survived.3 A number of the lost objects are known to us thanks to the dedicated work of the people who took photographs, made drawings, and wrote textual descriptions of the old synagogues in Poland before 1939, as well as to those who have gathered the pre-war documentation and continued research on the surviving synagogues in more recent times. Among the most valuable contributions to the preservation of documentary evidence on synagogue art is the great number of photographs and measured drawings and plans that are the products of the inventorying of synagogues in Poland by the Polish architect and conservator Oskar Sosnowski (1880–1939), the Jewish architecture historian and photogra- pher Szymon Zajczyk (1901–44), and students of the Department of Polish Architecture at the Warsaw Polytechnic (University of Technology) in the 1920s and 1930s. These and many other images and documents were published by Maria and Kazimierz (1919–2010) Piechotka.4 The photographs and documentation of the surviving synagogues are included in the cata- logues of the architectural and artistic heritage in Poland that have been

3 An inventory of the losses of Jewish ritual art in Poland during the Second World War was published by Jósef Sandel, “Żydowska sztuka kultowa” in Ministerstwo Kultury i Sztuki. Prace i materiały Biura Rewindykacji i odszkodowań, vol. 13, Straty wojenne zbiorów polskich w dziedzinie rzemiosła artystycznego (Warsaw, 1953), 2: 91–124. 4 See Maria and Kazimierz Piechotka, Bóżnice drewniane (Warsaw, 1957), translated into English as Wooden Synagogues (Warsaw, 1959), amended and expanded as Bramy nieba: Bóżnice drewniane na ziemiach dawnej Rzeczypospolitej (Warsaw, 1996); idem, Bramy nieba: Bóżnice murowane na ziemiach dawnej Rzeczypospolitej (Warsaw, 1999), translated as Heaven’s Gates: Wooden Synagogues in the Territories of the Former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Warsaw, 2004); idem, Oppidum Judaeorum: Żydzi w przestrzeni miejskiej dawnej Rzeczypospolitej (Warsaw, 2004). XXII foreword published since 1952 by the Institute of Art of the Polish Academy of Sci- ences.5 The project of the documentation of the remnants of Jewish material culture in Poland launched by Eleonora Bergman and Jan Jagielski at the Jewish Historical Institute of Warsaw in 1991 has yielded rich archives of synagogue art.6 The evidence concerning the synagogues in Kazimierz, Pińczów, and Szydłów enables us to attempt a hypothetical reconstruction of both the original state and the lost sections of the existing Renaissance arks. The Renaissance Torah arks in Poland have not yet been the subject of monographic research. In the studies of east European synagogues, the Renaissance arks have, at most, been mentioned only in passing, whilst emphasis has been placed on the more richly decorated post-Renaissance examples.7 Historians of synagogue architecture employed the prevailingly formal approach to the Torah ark that was expressed, for example, in establishing the relationship of the ark’s design with the common architectural styles or in examining the relations between the ark and another focal liturgical fixture in the synagogue, the bimah (platform with a pulpit for the public reading of the Torah).8 This relative indifference to the meaning of the ark’s design stands in contrast to the interests of other researchers of architecture and sculpture—whose work will be referred to in

5 See Jan Jagielski, “Zabytki żydowskie w katalogu zabytków sztuki w Polsce,” Biuletyn Żydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego 3/4 (1985): 143–53. 6 See Eleonora Bergman and Jan Jagielski, Zachowane synagogi i domy modlitwy w Polsce (Warsaw, 1996). 7 Representative of this approach are Franz Landsberger, A History of Jewish Art (Cincin- nati, 1946), 236–49; George K. Loukomski, Jewish Art in European Synagogues: From the Middle Ages to the Eighteenth Century (London, 1947), 33–42; Rachel Wischnitzer, The Architecture of the European Synagogue (Philadelphia, 1964), 107–47; Aharon Kashtan, “Synagogue Architecture of the Medieval and Pre-Emancipation Periods” in Jewish Art, ed. Cecil Roth (London, 1971): 108–13; Brian de Breffny, The Synagogue (New York, 1978), 105–28; H. A. Meek, The Synagogue (London, 1995), 150–69; Carol Herselle Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning (New York, 1996), 56–59; Die Architektur der Synagoge, ed. Hans-Peter Schwarz (Frankfurt am Main, 1998), 89–156; Dominique Jarassé, “Synagogue: The Community as Unit. The Quest for a Style” in Jewish Art, ed. Gabrielle Sed-Rajna (New York, 1997), 171–72; Maria and Kazimierz Piechotka, Bramy nieba: Bóżnice drewniane, 82–110. 8 See, e.g., Alfred Grotte, “Deutsche, böhmische und polnische Synagogentypen vom IX. bis Anfang de XIX. Jahrhunderts,” Gesellschaft zur Erforschung jüdischer Kunstdenkmä- ler (Eingetragener Verein) zu Frankfurt am Main, 7–8 (Berlin, 1915); Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe, 49–50; Gerhard W. Mühlinghaus, “Der Synagogenbau des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts” in Die Architektur der Synagoge, 115–56; Maria and Kazimierz Piechotka, “Aron ha-kodesz w bóżnicach polskich. Ewolucja między XVI i początkiem XIX wieku” in The Jews in Poland, ed. Andrzej Paluch , vol. 1 (Cracow, 1992), 475–81; idem, Bramy nieba: Bóżnice murowane, 82–100, 237–43, 302–30. foreword XXIII subsequent chapters of this book—in the messages conveyed by the minor architectural forms and sculptural ornamentation. Experts in local history, architecture, and the preservation of monuments in Poland after the Second World War have contributed a great deal to our knowledge of the structure and construction techniques of the surviving synagogues. However, the very fact that the emergence of Renais- sance synagogue arks occurred at a crossroads of different cultures, artistic traditions, aesthetic attitudes, and languages has hampered the comprehensive study of this phenomenon by those who have concentrated on more familiar parts of that composite background. On the one hand, local scholars could hardly include Jewish sources and western publications on Jewish art in the scope of their research because of the language barriers and the paucity of access to foreign literature during the Communist regime; on the other, historians of Jewish art and architecture in the West and in Israel had little access to the synagogues in Soviet Poland, and only a few of them were able to read Polish. These researchers, therefore, were often forced to base their work on information about objects that they had not seen themselves and on sources that they could not trust. That situation sometimes led to the uncritical adoption of certain dates and attributions, as well as to the misidentification of certain objects or images. The fall of the Iron Curtain facilitated the sharing of the respective knowledge and sources between the two schools of research, and enabled me to begin my own study of synagogue art in the early 1990s. Synagogue fixtures will be approached as products of artistic activity that communicate meaning. The revision of the material and documentary evidence offered in this book aims at a hypothetical reconstruction of the original appearance of the artifacts as well as insight, as far as possible, into the process of their programming, production, and early appreciation. In spite of the persistent, popular belief in Jewish aniconism, archaeological and historical evidence attests to the presence of plastic arts in synagogues at least since the Greco-Roman period. Throughout the ages and in different cultural milieux, the varying repertoire of synagogue art either included human and zoomorphic paintings and sculptures, or was limited to non-figurative ornamentation and symbols. However, no explicit instructions for the planning of synagogue decoration and very few recommendations for the choice of particular images or symbols to be displayed in the synagogue are found in pre-modern Jewish sources. It seems that the operative construction, ornamentation, and maintenance of synagogues were not imposed on the rabbis. The rabbinical legislators XXIV foreword usually reacted to the synagogue design only after congregants protested; it was their appeal for arbitration that triggered the discussion of synagogue art by religious authorities. Subsequent rabbinical rulings involved several principal criteria: misconceptions about the images, which can resemble objects of worship and therefore be associated with idolatry; objections to the images and artifacts that may be associated with the symbols or objects of gentile cults; fear that the images may distract the congregants from worship; and concern that the personal donation of a work of art to the communuty synagogue undermined the social accord. If the unacceptable object had been an integral part of the sacred Torah ark or synagogue building, however, the rabbis did not as a rule demand its immediate destruction but rather banned such decorations in the future. Nevertheless, even the liberal Jewish theologians who tolerated the use of certain images in the synagogue neither discussed the purpose of those images nor propagated their reproduction in other synagogues. Rabbinical thought did not extrapolate from the Talmud the concept of the glorification of God through the use of beautiful ritual objects9 on the synagogue building or on its ceremonial items. One might assume that whilst the synagogue artists were creating images (evidence of which has survived), the fear that images may preclude the devoted monotheistic worship of an invisible God prevented Jewish scholars from declarations of or apologies for religious art, such as those of the Christian theologians John of Damas- cus (ca. 676–749)10 and Suger (ca. 1081–1151).11 Indeed, the theory of visual art did not constitute its own genre in the medieval literature of Jews, but their aesthetic preferences, as Kalman Bland has argued, were expressed through biblical exegesis, philosophy, legal writings, mysticism, poetry, and travelogues.12 Similarly, no literary

9 The Talmud postulates, “’This is my God, and I will adorn him’ [Ex. 15:2] that indeed is so! For it was taught: This is my God, and I will adorn him: [i.e.,] adorn thyself before Him in [the fulfillment of] precepts. [Thus:] make a beautiful sukkah [booth for the Feast of Tabernacles] in His honour, a beautiful lulab [lulav, palm branch used in the ritual of that festival], a beautiful shofar, beautiful fringes, and a beautiful Scroll of the Law, and write it with fine ink, a fine reed [pen], and a skilled penman, and wrap it about with beautiful silks” (Shabbath 133b). On the implications of this concept in the design of ritual objects, see Joseph Gutmann, The Jewish Life Cycle (Leiden, 1987), 1–3. 10 See John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images, translated by Andrew Louth (Crestwood, 2003). 11 See the document and commentary by Erwin Panofsky in Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St. Denis and Its Art Treasures (Princeton, 1979) and its re-analysis in Conrad Rudolf, Artistic Change at St-Denis: Abbot Suger’s Program and the Early Twelfth-Century Controversy over Art (Princeton, 1990). 12 Kalman P. Bland, The Artless Jew: Medieval and Modern Affirmations and Denials of the Visual (Princeton, 2000). foreword XXV form had been established in Jewish writings for the prospective ideas on synagogue design which was most likely an imitation of a venerated model and the ad hoc convention of the patron and artist. The combination of traditional Jewish symbols and inscriptions with symbolic forms borrowed from Christian art in Renaissance synagogues in Poland would have resulted from collaboration between the Jewish patrons and Christian craftsmen. Since in most cases any documentation concerning the patrons is very scanty or nonexistent, this information is more readily available in the synagogues founded by individual persons. Fortunately, there is more evidence relating to the founder of a family synagogue in Kazimierz, Israel Isserl, and even more so about his son, the renowned Jewish scholar Moses Isserles. The ark in their synagogue, presumably the first Renaissance Torah ark in Poland, was copied by other synagogues in their town, and most likely promoted the spread of the new style of Torah shrine in the Jewish communities of Poland. Once the patrons and artists had implemented their ideas in the design of the Torah ark, the intended Jewish spectator was able to grasp its meanings when observing the ark within the synagogue, typically during the service. The holiness of the Torah makes the repository of the Torah scrolls the most sacred of the furnishings in the synagogue, and it is located to point towards Jerusalem, the direction to which the worshippers pray. The rectangular, sometimes nearly square plans and single-bay spanning were introduced in Polish synagogues during the sixteenth century instead of the prolonged, single- or double-nave synagogue halls of the type that had spread from Romanesque synagogues in Germany to Gothic synagogues in central Europe and finally reached Kazimierz in the late-fifteenth century. However, as in medieval synagogues, the entrance to the more centralised spaces was traditionally opened near a corner at the eastern section of the prayer hall, the point from which the ark is seen from a distance, at an angle, and is partially concealed by the bimah. The approaching worshipper could grasp the ark’s entire form and details only when advancing towards it. The regular synagogue attendees beheld the ark’s ornaments, symbols, and inscriptions, and observed the worship in which the ark revealed its hidden sacred contents. The worshippers could accept the Torah ark as a visual stage for the spectacle of the liturgy in which they were mentally, verbally, acoustically, and physically engaged. When the Torah scroll was taken out of the ark for reading on the bimah, or was returned to the ark, the congregation rose out of respect whilst reciting prescribed blessings and biblical verses. The liturgy stimulated their mental XXVI foreword imagination concerning the heavenly advent and the earthly presence of the Torah in the Tabernacle and Temple, and expressed their belief in the Torah’s spiritual sustenance and protection over the faithful—meanings similar to those we decode from the ark’s design. Like religion and the pre- established rituals described by functionalist anthropology as the appara- tus by which an individual is able “to cope with the concrete specific problems that face him,”13 traditional art reinforced congregational cohe- sion and furnished a public stage for individual expressions. It seems that in a similar way, synagogue art sustained the faith, inspired the people during times of stress, consoled their grief from loss, assuaged their dread of death, and calmed their worries about the afterlife of the soul. This book begins with a survey of the history, topology, social structure, and spiritual profile of the Jewish settlement in the medieval city of Cra- cow. It traces the process of the forced abandonment of these synagogues during the second half of the fifteenth century, and the move of the Jews of Cracow to the satellite town of Kazimierz, where they built a new community synagogue. The establishment of a synagogue is explored as a religious obligation that was undertaken either by the community or by private patrons. The first chapter then revises the dating of the oldest synagogue in Kazimierz and examines its spatial composition in the context of the tradition of two-nave synagogue buildings in medieval Europe. The second chapter exposes the emergence and spread of Renaissance art in Poland from the early- to the mid-sixteenth century. Jewish financiers visited the Renaissance court of the Polish kings, and the Jews of Kazimierz maintained contacts with the Jewish communities in Italy and Bohemia, which had been influenced by Renaissance culture in their countries. The discourse focuses on Israel Isserl, a financier to the king, and his son Moses Isserles, who founded a synagogue in Kazimierz. Established as a family memorial chapel in 1553, a few years later the synagogue was expanded and equipped with a stone Torah ark, presumed to be the first Renaissance ark in Poland. The third chapter investigates the original structure of this ark, stripped of later additions, and shows that the ark is composed of Romanesque spolia and two kinds of Renaissance carvings: a naïvely rendered architectural frame and skillfully carved plant reliefs. The formal analysis attributes each kind of carving to a particular period and workshop, and is followed

13 Bronisław Malinowski, A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays (Chapel Hill, 1944), 36. foreword XXVII by deductions about the patronage of synagogue art in sixteenth-century Poland. The next chapter construes the semantics of the ark, a structure that imitates the composition of triumphal gates, displays symbols and quotes a biblical verse. Seen in the context of a Talmudic discourse, the structure symbolises the living faith of Judaism and its promise of messianic redemption for believers. This new type of synagogue ark, which was probably initiated by Moses Isserles in his family’s synagogue in Kazimierz, influenced the design of arks in other synagogues in Poland. The fifth chapter discusses the replications of the Torah ark from the Isserls’ Synagogue that were found in other Jewish houses of worship. That composite model was reworked as an integral structure of the Torah ark for the community’s Old Synagogue of Kazimierz during its renovation after the fire of 1557. Remains of another copy of the same model have been found in the High Synagogue founded by a Jewish immigrant from Italy around 1560. One more version of the Isserls’ Torah ark was redesigned in a simplified Baroque style in the Kupah Synagogue, a house of prayer built by public donations on the outskirts of the Jewish quarter in Kazimierz in the first half of the seventeenth century. The sixth chapter investigates the history, form, and style of two synagogues constructed in the mid-sixteenth century in the magnate’s town of Pińczów and the royal town of Szydłów. It examines the concurrent hypotheses about the innovative spatial composition of the synagogue in Pińczów, which was either influenced by the Protestant edifices built in the region in the third quarter of the sixteenth century, or was a former Protestant prayer house adopted as the synagogue after the expulsion of the Protestants from Pińczów in the 1580s. The analysis of the stone-carved Torah arks in both synagogues suggests that they are from the late-sixteenth century and attributes them to the masonry workshop of Santi Gu- cci in Pińczów. The final chapter discusses these arks’ allusions to Greco-Roman, Egyp- tian, and biblical Jewish antiquities. The Torah arks in Pińczów and in L’viv revive a classical pediment as a symbol for the Sanctuary. The pediment of the ark in Szydłów hints at Egyptian obelisks. Depictions of the seven- branched candelabrum from the biblical Sanctuary that was absent from the medieval synagogues reappeared in the Torah arks in Poland. XXVIII foreword acknowledgements XXIX

Acknowledgements

This volume summarises part of the study of European synagogues that I began in 1991. The development of sculptural decoration in Ashkenazic synagogues from the Middle Ages until the mid-seventeenth century was the subject of my doctoral research at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, under the supervision of Professors Ziva Amishai-Maisels and Olga Gold- berg-Mulkiewicz. I am deeply grateful to them for the professional guidance that has enlightened and encouraged me, and always remember their kindness and patience. A number of Hebrew University and Bar-Ilan Uni- versity professors, although not my teachers per se, also provided scholarly inspiration. In this regard, I am indebted to Avigdor W. G. Posèq, Elisabeth Revel-Neher, Daniel Sperber, Saul Stampfer, and to the late Jakub Goldberg. I am grateful to my many colleagues for their friendship, advice, discussions, the generous sharing of ideas and materials, and for their help in my searches in archives, libraries, museums, and in the field. I would like to sincerely thank all those who helped me in Poland: Joanna Brańska, the late Tadeusz Chrzanowski, Eugeniusz Duda, Joanna Galas, Jarosław Gi- emza, the late Jan Górecki, Sławomir Jakubowski, Michał Janocha, Misrosław Piotr Kruk, Ewa Leśniewska, Maria Nitkiewicz, the late Piotr Paszkiewicz, Małgorzata Paszylka, Maria and the late Kazimierz Piechotka, Paweł Sygowski, Paweł Szkołut, Tomasz Wiśniewski, Ewa Wroczińska, Ta- deusz Zadrożny, Danuta Natalia Zasławska, and especially Eleonora Berg- man, Waldemar Deluga, and Jan Jagielski. I am truly thankful to Adreina Contessa, Irina Chernetzky, the late Zussia Efron, Emma Fanar-Maayan, Anastasia Glazanova, William Gross, Reuven Kiperwasser, Katrin Kogman- Appel, Sergey Kravtsov, Shulamit and Paul Laderman, Ilia Lurie, Vladimir Levin, Shalom Sabar, Ilona Steimann, and Bracha Yaniv in Israel; Ida Shen- derovich in Belarus and Yulia Shenderovich in Great Britain; the late Dan- iela Di Castro and Stefania Roncolato in Italy; Rudolf Klein in Hungary; Katrin Kessler and Simon Paulus in Germany; Rickard Bonnevier in Swe- den; Halina Hlembotska in Ukraine; and many others elsewhere whom I cannot mention because of space constraints. I also appreciate the kind help and willing collaboration that I found in the Jewish Historical Institute, the Institute of History of Art of the Polish Academy of Sciences, the National Museum, and the National Library in XXX acknowledgements Warsaw, The University of Warszaw, the Warsaw University of Technology; the National Museum, the Jewish Museum, and the Wawel Archcathedral Parish of Saint Stanislaus and Saint Wenceslaus in Cracow; the Regional Museum in Pińczów; the municipality and the Regional Museum in Szydłów; the Jewish Museum, Archivio fotografico comunale, and Araldo de Luca Photographic Archives in Rome; the Jewish Museum in Prague; the Raschi-Haus Jewish Museum in Worms; and the Israel Museum and the Umberto Nahon Museum of Italian Jewish Art in Jerusalem. I greatly appreciate the assistance of Anastasia Glazanova in rechecking the bibliography and managing the vast correspondence with institutions and organizations worldwide, and I especially thank Tadeusz Zadrożny for his kind help and thorough work of ordering the images from Poland. My in-field expeditions were supported by the Robert and Clarice Smith Research Award, the Rosa K. Rabinowicz Memorial Fund Research Award for the Study of Sculpture, and the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Cul- ture grants, and I am grateful to all of them. This book would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of Lilia, Daniel, Avital and Natali, who allowed me to spend long periods of time abroad and countless days working at my desk. I am happy that this book makes them, as well as my parents, Raya and Mikhail, proud. medieval synagogues in cracow and kazimierz 1

CHAPTER ONE

Medieval Synagogues in Cracow and Kazimierz

The Jews in Medieval Cracow

There have been Jews in Cracow since the twelfth century or perhaps even earlier;1 the local Jewish community was presumably established in the late-thirteenth century.2 As early as 1304, Jews settled in Jewish Street (today Saint Anna Street).3 The first datable mention of a synagogue, however, only goes back to 1356.4 This oldest synagogue, at the end of Jewish Street, near the city wall –northwest of Market Square—is mentioned again in 1370, when a Cracow Jew named Lewko, son of Jordan (d. ca. 1395) purchased one or more parcels of land nearby.5 Documents from the mid-

1 The Jewish merchant and traveler Ibrahim ibn Yaqub of Tortosa mentioned a Jewish presence in Cracow in 965; see Zur Geschichte der Juden in Böhmen, Mähren und Schlesien von 906 bis 1620, eds. Gottlieb Bondy and Franz Dworský, vol. 2 (Prague, 1906), 2. See also Krystyna Pieradzka, “Kraków w relacjach cudzoziemców X–XVII wieku,” Rocznik Krakowski 28 (1937): 185–86. 2 See Bernard Dov Weinryb, The Jews of Poland (Philadelphia, 1973), 24–25; Jerzy Wyro- zumski, “Żydzi w średniowiecznym Krakowie,” Krzysztofory 8 (1981 [in fact, after 1982]): 8–13. 3 Eugeniusz Müller, Żydzi w Krakowie w drugiej połowie XIV stulecia (Cracow, 1906), 11, 13. 4 “[...] Cunadus Hecht sartor resignavit aream unam in Platea Iudeorum, in opposito sinagoge, Iacobo dicto Nowak iure hereditario possidendem” (Cunad Hecht, a tailor, has reassigned a parcel of land at Jewish Street, opposite the synagogue, to Jacob called Nowak into hereditary possession), 13 May 1356. Franciszek Ksawery Piekosiński and Józef Szujski, Najstarsze księgi i rachunki miasta Krakowa od r. 1300 do 1400, vol. (Cracow, 1877), 1, no. 1682; The Jews in Medieval Cracow: Selected Records from Cracow Municipal Books, ed. Bożena Wyrozumska (Cracow, 1995), no. 31. 5 A record from 8 March 1370 reads: “Coram quo iudicio Brathomil aream retro scolam Judeorum circa Cunadum sitam Lewconi Judeo resignavit” (In the presence of the judge Brathomil, the area located behind the Jewish school, near Cunad, has been reassigned to Lewko the Jew), Stanisław Krzyżanowski, Księgi ławnicze krakowskie 1365–1376 i 1390–1397 (Cracow, 1904), no. 474. In ca. 1372, “Nico Wersingi recognovit aream sub muro iacentem ex opposito scole Judeorum Lewkoni Judeo ve[ndere]” (Nico Wersingi [Wierzynek?] has recognised the parcel of land lying under the [city] wall, opposite the Jewish school, [as] sold to Lewko the Jew), the State Archives in Cracow, Ambroży Grabowski’s files, E 23: 795, Majer Bałaban, Historja Żydów w Krakowie i na Kazimierzu, 1304–1868, vol. 1, 1304–1655 (Cra- shul), a Yiddish designation for) שול cow, 1931), 17 n. 8. The Latin “scola” is a translation of synagogue, used as early as the 13th century; see Joseph Jacobs and Schulim Ochser, “Schul,” Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8 (London, 1906), 112–13. 2 chapter one fifteenth century record the presence of another synagogue near a different section of the city wall, opposite the “magnificent house” of Jan of Tęczyn, the Palatine of Cracow, that was found in the area of Wislensis (now Wiślna) Street southwest of Market Square.6 At that time, there were at least three synagogues in the town: the “Old” synagogue on Jewish Street, the “New” synagogue near Jan of Tęczyn’s residence, and a third synagogue in a newer Jewish settlement at Śpiglarska Street (now Saint Thomas Street) to the north of Market Square.7 None of these buildings can be recognised today. The Jewish leadership of Cracow consisted of several officers, known in Hebrew as parnasim (literally, “providers”) and rashim (heads), and in Latin as seniores (elders). The Latin title for the chief rabbi, episcopus Ju- daeorum (Jewish bishop), was the standard term in medieval western Eu- rope.8 Historians have noted that this communal hierarchy was brought into Poland along with the waves of Jewish immigration from the West.9 The customs of Cracow’s Jews and the scholarship of their rabbis were also ingrained in the old communities to the west of Poland that continued to be the foremost spiritual centres of Ashkenazic Jewry until the sixteenth century.10 Rabbi Yom Tov Lipmann Mülhausen exemplifies a person who

6 Cracow, 7 October 1457: “Jan Schultis pileator domum suam sub muro civitatis Cracou- iensis, retro domum magnifici Johannis de Thanczin palatini Cracouiensis, ex opposito scole Judeorum sitam [...]” (The house of Jan Schultis, a hatter, under the city wall of Cracow, behind the magnificent house of Jan of Tęczyn, the palatine [wojewoda] of Cracow, located opposite the Jewish synagogue). Cracow, 19 November 1460: “Mareck hot seyn haus, hinder der Crakischen hern hof bey der Juden sinagogen gelegen [...]” (Mareck has his house located behind the Cracow lord‘s yard near the Jewish synagogue); the documents are cited in Jews in Medieval Cracow, nos. 459, 486. On the location of Tęczyński’s palace, see Bożena and Jerzy Wyrozumski, “Mekorot ḥadashim le-toldot yehudei Krakov be-Yamei ha-Veinayim” (New sources for the history of Cracow Jewry in the Middle Ages), in Kroke-Kazimizh- Krakov: Meḥkarim be-Toldot yehudei Krakov (Kroke-Kazimierz-Cracow: Studies in the History of Cracow Jewry), ed. Elchanan Reiner (Tel Aviv, 2001), 37, 40 (Hebrew). 7 The locations are mentioned in the disclaimer of the Jews from their older settlement in Cracow on 20 January 1469: “Seniores communitatis Iudaeorum Cracoviensium synagogam antiquam et novam cum hospitalibus et cimiteriis a tergo Collegii Aristarum sitas, Ioanni seniori et Ioanni iunioru Dlugosz Canonicis Cracoviensibus pro alia synagoga et areis in platea Spiglarska, coram Iudicio Iudaeorum commutant” (The elders of the Jewish community of Cracow, in the presence of the Jewish court, exchanged the ancient and new synagogue[s]—that are situated behind the site of the Aristus College—and the hospital and cemetery, with Jan Senior and Jan Junior Długosz, the Canons of Cracow, for another synagogue and a plot of land in Śpiglarska Street), Codex Diplomaticus Universitatis Studii Generalis Cracoviensis, vol. 2, 1441–1470 (Cracow, 1873), 262–63 no. 223. 8 Weinryb, Jews of Poland, 27–32. 9 Ibid., 71–78. 10 On various aspects of this culture, see Moses Avigdor Shulvass, Jewish Culture in Eastern Europe: The Classical Period (New York, 1975); Jacob Elbaum, Petiḥut ve-histagrut: medieval synagogues in cracow and kazimierz 3 channeled Ashkenazic cultural influence into Poland. Lipmann allegedly came from Mulhouse (Mülhausen) in Alsace, lived in Lindau and Erfurt, and was active in Prague, where he became a leading Jewish religious authority. He wandered throughout Germany, Austria, Bohemia, and Poland, pursuing the aim of unifying halakhic norms in different Jewish communities. From the early-fifteenth century he remained in Cracow,11 and his spiritual heritage greatly influenced several generations of Polish Jews. Lipmann’s activities suggest that immigrants could bring awareness of contemporary Christian theology to Poland, as well as knowledge of the rabbinical counterarguments that had found an expression in Hebrew illuminated manuscripts in the West.12 Around 1390 he wrote the Sefer ha- Niẓaḥon (Book of the Victory), a polemic against Christianity that was meant to serve the ordinary Jew as a guide to the complicated theological problems he faced during his contacts with Christians. The book reveals the author’s knowledge of Latin, the New Testament, and the writings of the Church Fathers.13 Lipmann participated in theological disputes with the Catholic clergy and—Bernard Mark and Franciszek Kupfer assume— he sometimes preached in the Catholic churches of Cracow,14 probably to defend Judaism in religious disputes. The citizens of Cracow, having been granted rights and municipal au- tonomy by the Magdeburg Law, sometimes displayed hostility towards the “infidels” in the capital of this Christian kingdom, especially as the increasing economic activities of the Jews competed with Christian business and

ha-Yeẓirah ha-Ruḥanit–ha-Sifrutit be-Folin u-ve-Arẓot Ashkenaz be-Shilhei ha-Meah ha-Shesh-esreh (Openness and insularity: Late-sixteenth-century Jewish literature in Poland and Ashkenaz) (Jerusalem, 1990) (Hebrew); Herbert Alan Davidson, “Medieval Jewish Philosophy in the Sixteenth Century” in Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth Century, ed. B. D. Cooperman (Cambridge, 1983), 106–145; Elchanan Reiner, “The Ashkenazi Élite at the Begin- ning of the Modern Era: Manuscript versus Printed Book” in Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry, vol. 10, Jews in Early Modern Poland, ed. G. D. Hundert (London, 1997), 85–98. 11 Judah Kaufman, R. Yom Tov Lipman[Lipmann]-Mulhausen (New York, 1927), 13–26, 90 (Hebrew). 12 On these developments, see Katrin Kogman-Appel, “Coping with Christian Pictorial Sources: What Did Jewish Miniaturists Not Paint?” Speculum 75, no. 4 (2000): 816–58. 13 Kaufman, R. Yom Tov Lipman-Mulhausen, 61–71; Abba Hillel Silver, A History of Mes- sianic Speculation in Israel: From the First through the Seventeenth Centuries (Gloucester, 1978), 220–21; Béla Bernstein, “’Der Sieg’ des Rabbi Jomtov Lipman [Lipmann] Mülhausen” in Jewish Studies in Memory of Michael Guttmann, ed. Samuel Loewinger (Budapest, 1946), 201–20. 14 Bernard Mark and Franciszek Kupfer, “Żydzi Polscy w Okresie Odrodzenia,” Biuletyn Żydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego 6–7 (1953): 3–55. 4 chapter one trade.15 Nevertheless, the Jews were relatively well protected and had opportunities for peaceful and prosperous lives under the aegis of the royal court in Wawel. In the fifteenth century, extremist Catholic clergymen in- cited the townsfolk to violence against the Jews, and persuaded the king to underwrite legislative measures against the presence of Jews in Cra- cow.16 As a result, the Jews were gradually pushed out of the positions that they had held in the city. In 1469 they were expelled from their old settlement near Jewish Street to Śpiglarska Street, and the older “Old” and “New” synagogues passed to Christian ownership.17 The Jews remained in the newer synagogue at Saint Mark Street, located northeast of Śpiglarska Street.18 After the Jewish seniores had been forced to sign a renunciation of trade in Cracow in 1485,19 the financial situation of the community de-

15 Bloody riots broke out in 1407 or 1408, 1423, 1445 and 1448, and in 1463 the mob attacked and robbed the Jews in the city; see Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 33–43. 16 The bishop of Cracow, Cardinal Zbigniew Oleśnicki, reported to the palatine Jan of Tęczyn (whose residence near the synagogue is mentioned in note 6 on page 2), that he, together with the Franciscan monk John Capistrano, who preached anti-Jewish sermons in Cracow in 1453, called on the king to abolish Jewish privileges; quoted in Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 50 n. 22; see also ibid. 47–52. 17 See note 7 on page 2 and S. Gol’dshteyn, “K istorii evreyskoy obshchiny v Krakove 15 veka. Istorik Jan Długosz i evrei Krakova” (To the history of the Jewish community of the 15th century: Jan Długosz and the Jews of Cracow), Evreyskaya starina 2 (1910): 630–31 (Rus- sian); and wider discussion in Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 56–59. For several years afterwards, municipal registers still noted the former synagogue as a landmark that identified the location of properties nearby, e.g., on 7 April 1475: “Stanus Arnsberg domum suam retro curiam dominorum de Thanczin, circa antiquam sinagogam iacentem […]” (Stanus Arnsberg’s own house behind the lord’s court of Tęczyn, lying near the ancient synagogue), Jews in Medieval Cracow, no. 537. The last known mention of the Old Synagogue near Tęczyński’s palace is found in a 19th century excerpt from the registers of the Cracow municipal bench for 1476–1490. A document from 1476 mentions “dy alde synagoge hinder hern Tanczinski hoffe gelegen” (the old synagogue located behind the lord of Tęczyn’s yard), the State Archives in Cracow, Ambroży Grabowski’s files, E 23: 791. Bożena and Jerzy Wyrozumski explain that the municipal bench registered transaction of estates; see their “Mekorot ḥadashim le-toldot yehudei Krakov,” 32. Yet, as the full text of the record has been lost, it is unclear whether in 1476 the building was resold, or the synagogue was mentioned as a toponym. 18 The location of this synagogue is mentioned in a municipal record from 11 January 1471: “Petrus Wyedrzich domum suam in platea Sancti Marci […] iacentem circa scolam Judeorum […]” (Petrus Wyedrzich’s own house at Saint Mark Place […] lying near the Jew- ish school), Jews in Medieval Cracow, no. 528. A record dated 6 May 1474, mentions a private house located near a synagogue, but does not give its precise location: “Jhanek moler hat seyn haws [haus], bey der iudinschulen gelegin […]” (Janek, miller, has his house located near the Jewish school), Jews in Medieval Cracow, no. 536. Bożena and Jerzy Wyrozumski believe that this record also refers to the “Jewish school” at Saint Mark Street; see their “Mekorot ḥadashim le-toldot yehudei Krakov,” 40. 19 “Pacta originalia inter Judaeos & civitatem Cracoviensem quomodo mercari debent, conscripta in anno 1485” after Franciszek Piekosiński, Kodeks dyplomatyczny miasta Kra- kowa, vol.1 (Cracow, 1871), no. 192; the parallel Hebrew text is reproduced in F. H. Wettstein, medieval synagogues in cracow and kazimierz 5 teriorated. The Jews then chose to move their trading activity to the neighbouring royal town of Kazimierz, which de jure did not fall under the renunciation, although in practise it was only a half-hour’s walk from the Cracow market and the royal castle.20 In 1494 a great fire provoked a new wave of anti-Jewish assaults in Cra- cow. In his Chronicle of Poland, Maciej Miechowita (1457–1523) wrote that King John Albrecht transferred the Jews of Cracow to Kazimierz at this time.21 Bożena Wyrozumska noticed that the term “banishment” was not used in any of the surviving documents. She also argued that Marcin Bel- ski, who was born after 1494 (ca. 1495–1575), reported matter-of-factly that the Jews left Cracow for Kazimierz and did not mention that they moved because of the king.22 Wyrozumska thus assumed that “only those Jews whose homes had been destroyed in the fire moved to Kazimierz, rather than [that] the king giving in to the pressure of clergy and citizens [is what]

Mi-Pinkasei ha-Kahal be-Kroke: Le-Korot Yisrael ve-Ḥokhemav, Rabbanav ve-Manhigav be- Polania bikhlal u-va-Kroke bifrat (From the minute books of the community in Cracow: To the history of the people of Israel and its sages, rabbis and leaders in Poland in general and in Cracow in particular) (Wrocław, 1901), 1–2 (Hebrew). 20 Kazimierz, in the 14th century also called “New Cracow,” once an independent sub- urban town and today a part of the city of Cracow, must not be confused with the other Polish towns bearing the name Kazimierz. 21 “Rex Albertus iudeos de Graccouia [Cracow] in Kazimiriam sub murum, iuxta eccle- siam sancti Laurentij, ubi cella pro collegio & lectorijs per Kazimirum secundu[m] regem Poloniæ extructæ fuerant, ubi in hanc die[m] moratur, transtulit” (the spelling is original), (King Albrecht transferred the Jews of Cracow to the [area] down to the [town] wall in Kazimierz, near the church of Saint Laurence, where today the room[s] for the lecturers and the college that had been built by King Casimir II are situated), Maciej Miechowita, Chronica Polonorum (Cracow, 1521), CCCXLIX. The king credited for the building of the college would have been Casimir III the Great (1310–70), the founder of the town of Kazim- ierz in 1335 and the Cracow Academy in 1364, and not Casimir II (1138–94) as appears in the text. On the site alloted for the Jewish settlement in Kazimierz, see Władysław Łuszczkie- wicz, Sprawozdanie Władysława Łuszczkiewicza z wypadku poszukiwań komisyi wyznaczo- nej celem odszukania miejśca i zabytków budowlanych uniwersytetu, zalożonego przez Kazimierza Wielkiego (Cracow, 1865); Eustachy Ekielski, Miasto Kazimierz i budowle akademickie w tem mieście (Cracow, 1869); Stanisław Tomkowicz, “Ślady Uniwersytetu Kazimie- rzowskiego,” Rocznik Krakowski 5 (1902): 183–95. 22 In the section entitled “Zydy prżenieśiono na Kazimierz” (The Jews have been transferred to Kazimierz), Belski writes that after the fire in June 1494, “Zydom nie tak sie stała szkoda wielka przez ogień iako przez złodżieie, ktorzy im domy wyplundrowali: y przetosz od tych czasow przenieśli sie z Krakowa do Kazimirza, gdżie teraz mieszkaia” (The harm caused to the Jews by fire was not so great as that caused by bandits that robbed their houses: and for that reason from those times on [the Jews] left Cracow for Kazimerz in which they are residing now), Marcin Belski, Kronika Polska, ed. Ioachim Bielski (Cracow, 1597), 482. 6 chapter one expelled all the Jewish community, [who were] blamed for the fire.”23 How- ever, the subtitle “Iudei de Graccouia expulsi” (the Jews of Cracow are expelled), added in the margin near the report by Miechowita, or perhaps by the publisher of the book Hieronymus Wietor (ca. 1480/85–1546), refutes this reading.24 An abridged narration by, or the silence of the Christian chroniclers about the expulsion of the Jewish community from Cracow, may be explained by their lack of interest in the lives of the alien minority. In all probability, the economic and political pressure caused the increasing immigration of Cracow Jews to Kazimierz beginning in 1485. It is likely that in 1494 the king turned the resettlement from a free choice of Jewish families to the obligation of the entire community. The transfer might have been presented to the Jews as an act of the king’s concern for their security, whilst the Christians would have understood it to be punish- ing the Jews for the fire. After the Jews left their newer settlement at Śpiglarska Street, their personal real estate and the last Cracow synagogue would have passed into the possession of Christian residents, as had already occurred in the oldest Jewish quarter in Cracow in 1469. A small number of Jews with special royal permission lived or owned shops in the city legally in the early-sixteenth century,25 and perhaps a few more Jews rented shops and managed trade there without such permission. Most of the Jews who conducted illegal business in Cracow probably lived in Ka- zimierz. The few wealthy Jewish families that still resided in the capital city, even if they had adapted rooms in their houses for everyday prayer, could also attend the synagogue service on the sabbaths and holidays in the satellite town. About 150 years after the existence of the first synagogue in Cracow was recorded, there was no longer a Jewish community that was able to maintain a large synagogue. Rather, the exiles from Cracow joined the Jewish settlement in Kazimierz and shared the only synagogue there.

23 Wyrozumska supposed that earlier, in 1485, the Jews had refused to trade in Cracow of their own accord. It is unlikely that the Jews willingly accepted a renunciation of trade that, in Wyrozumska’s own opinion, “would have been disastrous” to them. Furthermore, her notice that Jewish trade in Cracow had never been completely stopped suggests that the Jews opposed this prohibition and thus tried to avoid the agreement that they had had to sign previously. Bożena Wyrozumska, “Did King Olbracht Banish the Jews from Cracow?” in Jews in Poland, 1: 28–31. 24 Miechowita, Chronica Polonorum, CCCXLIX. 25 S. A. Bershadskiy, Russko-evreyskiy arkhiv. Dokumenty i materialy dlya istorii evreev v Rossii, vol. 3, Dokumenty k istorii pol’skikh i litovskikh evreev, 1364–1569 (Russian-Jewish archives: Documents for the history of Russian and Lithuanian Jews, 1364–1569) (St. Peters- burg, 1903), 46–47 no. 27 (Russian). medieval synagogues in cracow and kazimierz 7 Patronage over Medieval Synagogues: Religious Duty, Collective Project, and Private Enterprise

The foundation and administration of a synagogue by a group or individual patrons in medieval Europe entailed complex religious, social, economical, and psychological issues. The establishment of any Jewish settlement was necessarily followed by the founding of a house of prayer to satisfy the principal religious needs of the believers for a place of public worship, performance of religious ceremonies, and study of the Scripture. An early Ashkenazic halakhic legislator, Judah he-Ḥasid (ca. 1150–1217), demanded that the pious Jews whose settlement had been burnt in a fire reconstruct the synagogue even before they rebuilt their own homes. He argued that this is the proper order, because King Solomon established the Temple in Jerusalem before building his palace.26 However, no source proves that the Jews followed this command literally, especially if one ac- cepts it as referring to an edifice comparable to the Temple. The founding of a great masonry building would have been too expensive and complicated a project for a new Jewish settlement to undertake. The halakhah imposes this obligation on the entire community: “the citizens demand of each other to build a synagogue.”27 In practical terms, the community collected money for the building and maintenance of their synagogue. The amount of the contribution of each family usually depended on its size and economic status. Rabbi Meir ben Isaac Katzenellenbogen (known as the Maharam of Padua; 1473–1565), who was born and studied in Prague and then left for Padua, testified that elsewhere a Jewish subject paid one half of the tax for the establishment of the synagogue “per soul,” i.e., in accordance with the number of people in his family, whilst the second half was counted “per fortune,” with the rate increasing as the family’s

26 Judah he-Ḥasid, Sefer ḥasidim (Book of the pious), J. Wistinetzki edition (Frankfurt on Main, 1924), 149 no. 527 (Hebrew). Judah ben Samuel, called he-Ḥasid (the pious), was a leader of the Ḥasidei Ashkenaz (pious of Ashkenaz), a mystical circle of Jewish scholars in 12th- and 13th-century Germany. See a review of the halakhic sources pertaining to the establishment of synagogues in Katrin Kessler, Ritus and Raum der Synagoge: Liturgische und religionsgesetzliche Voraussetzungen für den Synagogenbau in Mitteleuropa (Petersberg, 2007), 78–80 27 Tosefta, Nezikin: Bava meẓia, S. Lieberman edition, 11:23. This rule was elaborated by Rabbi Moses ben Maimon (known as the Rambam in rabbinical tradition and Maimonides in non-Jewish literature; 1135–1204): “Every settlement counting at least ten of the people of Israel must define a house where they will assemble for the reciting of prayers at every service, and this place will be called a ‘synagogue’” (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Hilkhot tefilah u-Nesi’at kapayim, 1:1). 8 chapter one wealth grew.28 His two reasons for the progressive taxation apparently reflected historical realities. First, poor people could leave the town with the synagogue that had been built from their taxes more easily than rich persons, whose businesses bound them to their residences. Secondly, the Maharam believed that the poor may be satisfied even when praying in “a temporary tent and a hut of rush”;29 that is, they were obliged to participate in the funding of public prayer houses, but did not have to pay for luxuries. Rabbi Moses Isserles30 (ca. 1525–72) from Kazimierz (also known by the acronym “the Rema”) reaffirmed the Maharam’s decision that the relative contributions of the wealthy families towards the establishment of a communal synagogue should be dominant.31 He himself served as a rabbi in the synagogue that his father, Israel Isserl, had built in his own home for the whole community. The community heads administered the synagogue as a part of the collective property. The officers of the Jewish community in Cracow signed the contract of 1469, transferring their two synagogues to Christian ownership. The involvement of the secular Jewish elite in the establishment and maintenance of the synagogue was twofold: they made the most sizeable donations for it, and were responsible for the collection of the taxes and execution of the project. Some of the more populous medieval Jewish communities, like that of Cracow, boasted more than one synagogue. An additional synagogue was normally built after the existing one had no more space to accommodate a growing congregation. In medieval Spain, some groups established their own prayer houses concurrently with the communal main “great synagogue.” Neighbours, charitable confraternities, and professional corpora- tions built their own “minor” prayer houses.32 We have no evidence that Ashkenazic Jews followed this practise during the Middle Ages; the first synagogue built by a charitable society in Poland that is known to us is the early-seventeenth-century Kupah Synagogue in Kazimierz. The Jewish refugees from Spain who had relocated to other countries usually established separate prayer houses in accordance with their traditional rites rather than joining the synagogues of the host Jewish community.

28 Maharam of Padua, Responsa, no. 42. .(ibid) אהל עראי וצריפא דאורבנא :Maharam used Aramaic terms here 29 .Isserles) is a Yiddish form for Isserl’s) איסערליׂש 30 31 Moses Isserles’s (Rema) halakhic commentaries, referred to as a Mappah (tablecloth), are normally published as glosses on Caro’s Shulḥan arukh (Prepared Table). See Isserles’s gloss on Joseph Caro, Shulḥan arukh: Ḥoshen mishpat, 163:3. 32 Yom Tov Assis, “Synagogues in Medieval Spain,” Jewish Art 18 (1992): 12–14. medieval synagogues in cracow and kazimierz 9 A different type of patronage occurred when all of the expenses for the synagogue, or most of them, were covered by an individual or a wealthy family. The private patronage of synagogues has been practised since ancient times.33 Dedicatory inscriptions from the synagogues of the Greco- Roman and Byzantine periods disclose the religious and psychological motifs of the patron. The texts recording the patron’s name and often the date of his donation were often followed by the request to remember him for his good deed, a plea for future redemption, and—like prayers—they ended with the statement of solemn ratification, “Amen.”34 The earliest recognition of a family’s contribution to the communal synagogue in medieval Europe comes from Worms. Several inscribed stone plaques from the synagogue of 1034 have now been found in the synagogue built in 1174/75.35 One of them, built into the exterior wall to the right of the entrance to the prayer hall, informs us that the synagogue was established by Jacob ben David and his wife Rachel. It is composed as a rhymed poem in Hebrew, which infers psychological, symbolic, and social meanings for their deed. The composition follows the Talmudic concept that “a man should praise God first and pray [i.e., supplicate for his needs] afterward.”36 The blend of biblical allusions and liturgical citations and the

33 The Greek inscription from Jerusalem states that Theodotos, son of Vettenos, built (most likely actually reconstructed) the synagogue established for the local community as well as for pilgrims by “his father with the elders and Simonidus.” Based on its epigraphy, the inscription is dated to the 2nd or 3rd century CE, Howard Clark Kee, "Defining the First- Century C.E. Synagogue: Problems and Progress" in Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress, eds. Howard Clark Kee and Lynn H. Cohick (Harrisburg, 1999), 7–26. 34 See Gideon Foerster, “Ketuvot mi-Vatei ha-Kneset ha-Atykim ve-Zykatan la-Nosaḥim shel brakhah u-tefilah” (Inscriptions from the ancient synagogues and their relationship to versions of blessing and prayer), Cathedra 19 (1981): 11–40 (Hebrew). Note also Eleazar Lipa Sukenik, Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece (London, 1934), 69–78; Baruch Lifschitz, Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives (Paris, 1967); Samuel Klein, Jüdisch- palästinisches Corpus Inscriptionum (Ossuar-, Grab- und Synagogeninschriften) (Hildesheim, 1971); Lee I. Levine, ed., Ancient Synagogues Revealed (Jerusalem, 1981), 133–51; Rachel Hachlili, Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Diaspora (Leiden, 1998), 401–13; Joseph Naveh, Al psyfas ve-even: ha-Ktuvot ha-Aramyiot ve-ha-Ivryiot mi-Batei ha-Kneset ha-Atykim (On mosaic and stone: The Aramaic and Hebrew inscriptions from the synagogues) (Tel Aviv, 1978) (Hebrew). 35 Böcher reported that a quadrilateral basement (13.8 × 9.6 m) that may be identified as a remnant of the 1034 synagogue was revealed to the west of the prayer hall of 1174/75 during the excavations in 1956–57; Otto Böcher, “Die Alte Synagoge zu Worms” in Ernst Róth, Die Alte Synagogue zu Worms (Frankfurt am Main, 1961), 26–28. The text carved into the slab of yellowish sandstone (54 × 180 cm) lacks several fragments. The complete text copied by a certain Eliezer ben Samuel in 1559 is published in Abraham Epstein, Jüdische Altertümer (Wrocław, 1896), 6. 36 Avodah zarah 7b. 10 chapter one “terminal rhyme” of this text are characteristic of the piyyut (Hebrew liturgical poetry) of tenth- and eleventh-century Rhineland.37 In the dedication, the establishment of the synagogue appears to be a pious act granting Divine mercy to the donors. The phrase that the synagogue is a better monument for them “than sons and daughters” may also express the wish of a childless couple to be memorialised by successive generations,38 or perhaps their plea for children. The definition of the synagogue as mikdash me‘at (“little sanctuary,” Ezekiel 11:16) for prayer that pleases God “more than […] the offering of sacrifices” reveals the significance of this building as a temporal substitution for the destroyed Temple in Jerusalem.39 Playing on the name of synagogue patron Jacob’s father, David, the poem hints at a symbolic analogy between him and Solomon, King David’s son, whom God destined to realise the desire of his father “to build a house for the name of the Lord” (I Kings 8:17-20).40 A paraphrase of the biblical dictum “honour the Lord with thy substance” (Prov. 3:9) inserted into the poem, acknowledges Jacob and Rachel’s wealth as fortune given to them for the sake of glorifying God. In other words, the splendour of the synagogue displayed the piety of its patrons. The Maharam of Padua similarly taught that by adorning the House of God from their own wealth, prosperous people glorify the Creator.41 Sometimes private patrons adapted their private estates into sites for public worship. An ancient precedent for the transformation of a residence

37 Cf. Josef Yahalom, “Piyyut as Poetry” in The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I. Levine (Philadelphia, 1987), 111–26. 38 Another inscription located in the interior, on the eastern wall to the left of the Torah ark, explains that Jacob did not finish the building and requested that the community complete and keep up the synagogue. Jacob’s third inscription, found to the right of the ark, asked the congregation to mention his name during weekly Sabbath services. See Epstein, Jüdische Altertümer, 6–7; Böcher, “Die Alte Synagoge zu Worms,” 99–100. The fact that in 1174/5 the three plaques commemorating the people who lived more than a century ago had been transferred and set in highly visible places in the new synagogue suggests that the community had satisfied the donor‘s will. 39 The interpretation of the Biblical term “a little sanctuary” for the synagogue goes back to Megilah 29a. See Lee Israel Levine, “Mi-merkaz kehylati le-Mikdash me‘at: Ha-Rehut ve-ha-Penim shel beyt ha-Kneset ha-Atik” (From community centre to the Temple: The interior and design of the ancient synagogue), Cathedra 60 (1991): 36–84 (Hebrew); Steven Fine, This Holy Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue during the Greco-Roman Period (Indiana, 1997), 41–49, 79–94. 40 “King Solomon” was a common epithet for the patron of a church elsewhere in the medieval Christian world; see Cahn, “Solomonic Elements in Romanesque Art,” 57–58. 41 See note 28 on page 8. medieval synagogues in cracow and kazimierz 11 into a synagogue occurred in Dura-Europos between 165 and 200 CE,42 although we do not know whether the owner donated his property to the community or the community acquired a dwelling to turn into a synagogue. The donation of private houses to the community in order to convert them into synagogues was a custom in medieval Spain. A number of private synagogues there, and during this era, were simple rooms for weekly prayers that housed the minyan (the quorum of ten Jews required for public prayer) or a slightly larger group of family members and neighbours, all of whom lived far from the community synagogue, which they attended on the sabbaths and holidays. However, there were also large and richly embellished private synagogues. These attracted much larger congregations, sometimes causing attendance at the services in the community synagogues to dwindle.43 The most extensively researched private synagogue surviving from medieval Spain is the so-called Tránsito Synagogue in Toledo (Fig. 1) founded ca. 1357 by Samuel ha-Levi Abulafia (d. 1360 or 1361),44 a royal treasurer and confidant of Pedro I of Castile.45 It appears that the king’s protection would have allowed Abulafia to establish a large, sumptuously decorated building, the dimensions of which surpassed those usually permitted by the church for synagogues in Spain.46 The synagogue adjoining Abulafia’s residence is composed of a single-nave prayer hall, annexes on the northern and southern sides, and a gallery for women on the upper floor of the southern annex, which had a passage to the patron’s private apartments. Abulafia, who was a frequent visitor at the king’s court, in general copied the style of the court architecture in his synagogue. The densely arrayed ornament filling the panels consisted of vegetal and geometrical patterns;

42 Gabrielle Sed-Rajna, “The Wall Painting of Dura-Europos: The Bible in Images” in Jewish Art, ed. Gabrielle Sed-Rajna (New York, 1997), 115. 43 Assis, “Synagogues in Medieval Spain,” 13–14, 17. 44 After the expulsion of the Jews from Toledo, the building was converted into the Chapel of the Dormition of the Virgin (el Tránsito de Nuestra Señora). It was declared a national monument in 1887 and was partially restored in 1880–83; see Francisco Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas españolas (Madrid, 1955), 65–149; Wischnitzer, Architecture, 30–35; Santiago Palomero Plaza, Ana Maria López Alvarez and Yasmina Alvarez Delgado, “Excava- tions around the Samuel Halevi Synagogue (Del Tránsito) in Toledo” and Esther W. Gold- man, “Samuel Halevi Abulafia’s Synagogue (El Tránsito) in Toledo,” Jewish Art 18 (1992): 49–57 and 58–69 respectively. 45 Goldman, “Samuel Halevi Abulafia’s Synagogue,” 59–60. 46 For example, in the early-14th century the church did not permit the Jews in Tarrega and Játiva to build synagogues exceeding 12–16 m long, 8–12 m wide, and 11–12 m high (Assis, “Synagogues in Mediaeval Spain,” 17), whereas the Abulafia’s prayer hall is ca. 23 m long, 9.50 m wide and 17 m high. 12 chapter one the heraldic emblems and Hebrew inscriptions were inspired by the mu- déjar decorations produced shortly after 1350 for the Alcazar Palace in Seville.47 Just as in the king’s palace, the royal coats of arms consisting of the heraldic rampant lions of León and the towers of Castile were inserted into the stucco wall panels in the synagogue (e.g., Fig. 2). The free imitation of the contemporaneous royal style and heraldry showed visitors the patron’s high position at the court. Jews also understood the Hebrew dedicatory inscriptions praising the king and Abulafia, calling for eternal commemoration of the synagogue patron, and establishing a symbolic parallel between his synagogue and the biblical Temple.48 The design of the private synagogue is evidence of the patron’s claim for his extraordinary position in the Jewish community.49 Abulafia’s counterpart from Cracow was his younger contemporary, Lewko, son of Jordan,50 who served as a royal banker to three Polish kings51 and accumulated significant power in the Jewish community and far beyond. His business in the areas of renting, moneylending, and trading property reached far beyond Cracow, and he had debtors in various strata of Christian society. Illustrative of Lewko’s power is his conflict with a Polish nobleman who applied to the Pope for protection from Lewko’s pressure, but for whom even the papal measures against Lewko had little effect. In 1370 Lewko purchased a parcel of land “behind the synagogue in the Jewish Street” in Cracow. He may have wished to live near the synagogue or planned to use this site for expanding the building, as had Jewish philan- thropists in Spain who enlarged a synagogue by donating properties they possessed that were adjacent to it.52

47 The common motifs and stylistic traits of the stucco ornamentation in the Alcazar and in Abulafia’s synagogue are detailed in Goldman, “Samuel Halevi Abulafia’s Synagogue,” 64–69. 48 Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas españolas, 96–124. See also the comparative analysis of the epithets glorifying Abulafia in his synagogue and the dedication of 1364 to Pedro I on the façade of the Alcazar in Seville in Goldman, “Samuel Halevi Abulafia’s Synagogue,” 68–69. 49 It was probably Abulafia’s haughtiness and extravagance that provoked Pedro to suspect his treasurer of the misappropriation of royal funds and to torture him to death; see Goldman, “Samuel Halevi Abulafia’s Synagogue,” 60. 50 See note 5 on page 1. 51 On the Jewish court bankers in Medieval Europe, see Salo Wittmayer Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, vol. 12 (Philadelphia, 1967), 132–97; about Lewko of Cracow, see Müller, Żydzi w Krakowie, 16–18, 45–51; Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 16–23. 52 Note also the practise in Medieval Spain of the donation of private houses to the community in order to convert them into synagogues. See Assis, “Synagogues in Mediaeval Spain,” 14, 17. medieval synagogues in cracow and kazimierz 13 As we have seen, the splendour of the synagogue displayed the generosity of its patrons and congregation. However, a group’s, or a private prayer house that was ostentatious, could also arouse the jealousy of the rest of the community. In Spain, some extravagant private synagogues were known to be an expression of their patron’s disapproval of the authority of community heads and rabbis.53 In Padua, the luxurious synagogue founded around 1500 by Naphtali Hertz Wertheim (d. 1509) provoked the harsh protest of the rabbi of the local Ashkenazic community, Judah ben Eliezer ha-Levi Minz (ca. 1408–1506), and many other Jews in the town.54 Wert- heim, a wealthy banker, planned to build a synagogue with gilded walls and precious ritual objects in his own home. In spite of the protests, he had his synagogue built, began to gild it, and equipped it with a very expensive mantle for the Torah scroll and parokhet (curtain for the Torah ark). As their own objections had no effect on the man, whom the Maharam characterised as powerful and aggressive, the Jews denounced Wertheim to the Doge of Venice, who ordered the synagogue builder to stop half-way through the work. During that time in Kazimierz, a competition between two parties of Jews for the leading role in the community manifested itself in rivalry over the communal synagogue. Each faction claimed that it was the inheritor of the founders of the impressive, old masonry building, which was associated with prestige and rootedness in the town. As in Pad- ua, after the Jewish authorities were unable to settle the conflict, one of the sides applied for arbitration by the ruling political powers. In 1519, the Pol- ish king issued two decrees that dealt with the administration of the “old synagogue,”55 but did not specify how old it was.

53 See ibid., 13. 54 The story was reported by Minz’s pupils, Rabbi Elijah ben Elkanah Capsali of Candia (ca. 1483–1555) and the Maharam of Padua. For the former source, see N. Porges, “Elie Capsali et sa chronique de Venice,” Revue des études juives 79 (1924): 43. The responsum of the Maharam of Padua was sent by Elijah Capsali to Rabbi Joseph ben Ephraim Caro (1488–1575); see Yiẓḥak Ze’ev Kahane, Meḥkarim be-sifrut ha-Teshuvot (Studies in the Res- ponsa literature) (Jerusalem, 1973), 358–59 n. 70; Joseph Caro, Avkat rokhel no. 64. Caro retold the story in his Avkat rokhel no. 65, partially translated into English in Moses A. Shulvass, The Jews in the World of the Renaissance (Leiden, 1973), 193 and 325; Jewish Texts on the Visual Arts, ed. Vivian B. Mann (Cambridge, 2000), 117. See also Kahane, Meḥkarim, 371 (the number of Caro’s responsum in ibid., n. 160 is an error). 55 Bershadskiy, Russko-evreyskiy arkhiv, 3: 150–54, nos. 121–22. 14 chapter one How Old Is the Old Synagogue in Kazimierz?

The town of Kazimierz near Cracow was established in 1335, and Jews were recorded as residents there in the municipal registers as early as the 1380s.56 It may be assumed that the Jewish population of Kazimierz increased significantly after the relocation of Jewish trade there and its cessation in Cracow in 1485.57 The Jews lived around their market square (now Szeroka Street) on the northeast side of Kazimierz. The Jews who were exiled from Cracow in 1494 settled also near the Saint Laurence Church south of the market.58 The latter date is the first year for which a self-governing Jewish community in Kazimierz is recorded.59 The Stara (Old) Synagogue is located on the southeastern edge of the market square (Plate 1.1), adjacent to the eastern side of the town’s wall (Plate 1.2). Leszek Ludwikowski (1925–90), who examined the original masonry and the earliest fragments of the Old Synagogue during its reconstruction in 1956–59, reported that these structures have nothing in common with the building techniques of Polish Renaissance architecture and thus may not be dated later than the early-sixteenth century.60 Later alterations obscured the original appearance of the Old Synagogue so that its current stylistic features do not help to ascertain the precise date of its construction. The founding of the synagogue and its early history are not mentioned in the surviving documents and images. In the pictorial map of late-fifteenth-century Cracow and its vicinity produced by John Strożecki for Hartmann Schedel’s World’s Chronicle of 1493 (Fig. 3), a year before the Jewish exile from Cracow, the Old Synagogue should have appeared in the lower area of the map of Kazimierz, behind the town wall, not far from the Corpus Christi Church (whose high belfry dominates the centre of the area between the bridges leading to Kazimierz) and to the left of Saint Laurence Church (seen behind the town’s wall, to the right of the bridge at the bot-

56 Stanisław Kutrzeba, “Ludność i majątek Kazimierza w końcu XVI stulecia,” Rocznik Krakowski 3 (1900): 190. See also Klemens Bąkowski, Historya miasta Kazimierza pod Kra- kowiem do XVI wieku (Cracow, 1902), 14–16; Bogusław Krasnowołski, Ulice i place krakowskiego Kazimierza (Cracow, 1992), 12. 57 A Jewish bath, most likely a ritual one, and the Jewish market square, appeared in the records from in Kazimierz in 1485 and 1488 respectively; Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 72. 58 See note 21 on page 5. 59 Klemens Bąkowski, Dzieje Krakowa (Cracow, 1911), 202–203, 405. 60 Leszek Ludwikowski, The Old Synagogue of Cracow (Former Kazimierz District) (Cracow, 1981), 11. medieval synagogues in cracow and kazimierz 15 tom right area of Kazimierz).61 However, there is no building that may be reliably identified as a synagogue in that area map. It had either not yet been built or did not differ from the other houses with their typical Goth- ic high-gabled roofs, or, more likely, the artist concentrated only on the Christian landmarks and ignored the synagogues that existed then in both Cracow and Kazimierz. The lack of evidence led to different, sometimes controversial estima- tions of the date of the establishment of the Old Synagogue in Kazimierz; these range from the thirteenth through the early-sixteenth centuries.62 The earliest date, the thirteenth century, was proposed in 1869 by August Essenwein (1831–92), who extrapolated his concepts of German architecture onto medieval Cracow.63 His conclusion most likely stemmed from the similarity of the two-nave Old Synagogue (Plates 1.3–1.5) to the synagogue of 1174/75 in Worms (Fig. 4) and the late-thirteenth-century Alt- neuschul in Prague (Fig. 5). However, this deduction is obviously amiss, for the town of Kazimierz was founded only in 1335.64 Władysław Łuszczkiewicz (1828–1900) and Klemens Bąkowski (1860–1938), cognoscenti of Polish architecture and history, dated the synagogue from the period after the establishment of Kazimierz in the fourteenth century.65 Richard Krautheimer (1897–1994), who did not refer to Polish sources and did not visit Kazimierz, reported the date given by Essenwein, but noted that some “local tradition” dates the building of the Old Synagogue to the time of the establishment

61 The Saint Laurence Church was demolished in 1787. See Paul Crossley, Gothic Archi- tecture in the Reign of Kasimir the Great: Church Architecture in Lesser Poland, 1320–1380 (Cracow, 1985), 148, 323 n. 491. 62 See reviews of the dates for the establishment of the Old Synagogue proposed in scholarly literature in Eugeniusz Duda, “Batei ha-Kneset ha-Atykim be-Krakov” (The old synagogues in Cracow) in Kroke-Kazimizh-Krakov, 263–65 (Hebrew); Simon Paulus, Die Architektur der Synagoge im Mittelalter: Überlieferung und Bestand (Petersberg, 2007), 462–63. 63 “Hier in der Nähe der Laurentiuskrche hatten sie seit alten Zeiten ihre Synagogue. Sie ist mit einigen Modifikationen, so wie sie aus dem 13. Jahrhunderte stammt, erhalten,” August Ottmar Ritter von Essenwein, Die mittelalterlichen Kunstdenkmale der Stadt Krakau (Leipzig, 1869), 136. 64 Perhaps this discrepancy caused Wischnitzer’s mistake in her report noting that Essenwein dated the synagogue to the 14th century; Rachel Wischnitzer, “Mutual Influences between Eastern and Western Europe in Synagogue Architecture from the 12th to the 18th Centuries,” YIVO Annual of Jewish Social Sience 2–3 (1947–48): 26. 65 Władysław Łuszczkiewicz, Zabytki sztuk pięknych Krakowa, vol. 1, Pomniki architektury od XI do XVIII wieku (Cracow, 1872), 59. Bąkowski believed that Jews had lived in Kazimierz since it was established; see idem, Historya miasta Kazimierza, 37; idem, Dzieje Krakowa, 202. 16 chapter one of Cracow University in 1364.66 Majer Bałaban (1847–1942) assumed that the synagogue was built soon after 1386, when the Jews of Kazimierz were first mentioned in documents.67 However, the document of 1386 reports only two Jewish men living in Kazimierz.68 Although this obviously does not include all the Jewish residents in the town, neither does it provide evidence of the existence of a community large and rich enough to build a spacious masonry construction. Alfred Grotte (1842–1943) noticed that the Old Synagogue was modeled on Prague’s Altneuschul, supporting Bałaban’s attribution of the synagogue to Jewish immigrants from Prague in the late-fourteenth century.69 Rachel Wischnitzer (1885–1989) accepted their methodology and the theory of the Bohemian origins of the synagogue in Kazimierz, but stressed the difference between this structure and the Altneuschul. She stated that the well-balanced construction of the walls and the slim columns of the Old Synagogue contrast with the more massive supporting structures of the Altneuschul and therefore must be dated to a later period. Wischnitzer noted that not only Bohemian immigrants who had come in 1389, but also those who arrived during the fifteenth century or even later could have imported the idea of the two-nave synagogue. Consequently, she postulated that the Old Synagogue was erected in the late-fourteenth or the early-fifteenth century.70 Wischnitzer conceded that until 1494 these immigrants settled in Cra- cow rather than in Kazimierz, so that the small community living in Ka- zimierz in the early- and mid-fifteenth century could not have built such a monumental building. Their numbers significantly increased following the growing pressure on the Jews in Cracow in the late-fifteenth century, and especially after they were compelled to cease their trade in the town in 1485 and were expelled in 1494.71 Many other researchers assume that

66 Richard Krautheimer, Mittelalterliche Synagogen (Berlin, 1927), 213. Perhaps the tradition referred to by the author is rooted in Miechowita‘s chronicle mentioning the Jewish settlement in the place of academic buildings; see note 21 on page 5. 67 Majer Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 72–74. 68 See note 56 on page 14. 69 Grotte, “Deutsche, böhmische und polnische Synagogentypen,” 26. In the bibliography (ibid., III–IV), Grotte recorded both Essenwein’s Die mittelalterichen Kunstdenkmäler (1869) and Majer Bałaban’s Skizzen und Studien zur Geschichte der Juden in Polen (Berlin, 1911) and obviously based his dating on the latter, although he did not explain this in the text. More recently, the date “about 1400” was accepted by Hannelore Künzl, “Der Synago- genbau im Mittelalter” in Synagogen in Deutschland: Geschichte einer Baugattung im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (1780–1933), ed. Harold Hammer-Schenk (Hamburg, 1981), 84. 70 Wischnitzer, Architecture, 54–56. 71 Wischnitzer, “Mutual Influences,” 36. medieval synagogues in cracow and kazimierz 17 the synagogue was built after 1494 when the Jewish population of Kazimi- erz suddenly grew,72 rather than espousing Wischnitzer’s own dating of this great masonry building to the earlier period when the Jewish community of Kazimierz was small and the centre of Jewish life was still in Cracow. Many of Bałaban’s followers consider 1519, the year when the king inter- vened in the rivalry about the Old Synagogue,73 as the terminus ad quem for its building.74 In contrast, Mathias Bersohn’s book does not relate the two royal decrees of 1519 to the Old Synagogue in Kazimierz, but rather to an old synagogue in Cracow.75 Stefan Świszczowski and Bożena Wyrozum- ska identified these rulings with the third synagogue in Cracow, which continued to be in Jewish hands also after 1469.76 They both pointed out a royal permit issued in 1537 to build a synagogue,77 although each interpreted it differently. Wyrozumska assumed that the king allowed the Jews to have one more synagogue in the city of Cracow, whereas Świszczowski believed that this was the permission for the establishment of the Old Synagogue in Kazimierz.78 The documents, indeed questionable, must be re-examined in their historical contexts.

72 Ludwikowski, Old Synagogue, 11; Eugeniusz Duda, “Hebrajskie inskrypcje—cytatu ze Starego Testamentu—w Starej synagodze i na zabytkach ze zbiorów Muzeum Histo- rycznego m. Krakowa,” Krzysztofory 8 (1981 [1982]): 82–85; idem, Krakowskie judaica (War- saw, 1991), 72; Carol Herselle Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning (Cambridge, 1985), 200–201; Katalog zabytków sztuki w Polsce, series 4, Miasto Kraków, vol. 6, Kazimierz i Stradom. Judaica: Bóżnice, budowle publiczne i cmentarze, eds. Izabella Rej- duch-Samkowa and Jan Samek (Warsaw, 1995), 1. 73 Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 109–110. 74 See Carol Herselle Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe, 200–201; Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 1; Maria and Kazimierz Piechotka, Bramy nieba: Bóżnice murowane, 48; Duda, “Batei ha-Kneset ha-Atykim be-Krakov“. 75 Mathias Bersohn, Dyplomatariusz dotyczący żydów w dawnej Polsce, na źródłach archiwalnych osnuty (Warsaw, 1911), 29 no. 20, 31 no. 21a. The “Index of Places” there counts the documents under the rubric “Cracow, synagogues,” although a separate rubric for Kazimierz appears as well (see ibid., XII, XIV). This point of view was shared by the publishers, as the book was completed after Bersohn’s death in 1908. 76 Stefan Świszczowski, “Miasto żydowskie na Kazimierzu w świetle nowych badań,” Biuletyn Krakowski 2 (1960): 51–52; idem, Miasto Kazimierz pod Krakowem (Cracow, 1981), 98; Wyrozumska, “Did King Olbracht Banish the Jews from Cracow?” 33–36. 77 Bershadskiy, Russko-evreyskiy arkhiv, 3: 195–97 no. 148. 78 Ludwikowski, who dated the Old Synagogue in Kazimierz to around 1500, accepted Świszczowski’s identification of the two decrees of 1519 as relating to another synagogue in the city of Cracow (Ludwikowski, Old Synagogue, 10 no. 7, 11). For a critique of Świszczowski’s methodology, see Eugeniusz Duda, “W obronie prof. Majera Bałabana, Starej Synagogi na Kazimierzu w Krakowie i języka hebrajskiego,” Folks-Sztyme 12, no. 10 (4568/1982): 10, 12; idem, “Hebrajskie inskrypcje,” 85. 18 chapter one The decrees of King Sigismund I (Zygmunt, 1467–1548), mentioning a certain synagogue in 1519, were intended to settle a conflict within the Jewish community in Kazimierz. The confronting parties were the native “Polish” Jews and the “Czechs” or “Bohemians,” the name for the Jews who had immigrated from Prague and Bohemia as well as from Moravia, Silesia, and the German states.79 During the mass migration of Ashkenazic Jewry, as well as the period after 1492 when there was a much greater flow of Jews from Spain and Portugal, many Jewish communities in eastern Europe, Italy, and the Ottoman Empire faced the challenge of assimilating large groups of newcomers who retained their collective identities for generations. The Jews of Spanish, Sicilian, Levantine, and German origins in Italy continued to pray in separate synagogues according to their hereditary rites. The case of the Jewish immigrants in Cracow and Kazimierz was different. Waves of Jewish immigrants settled in these towns over the course of centuries. Even those who in the early-sixteenth century identified themselves as “native Polish Jews” also had more or less distant family relation- ships with German and Bohemian Jews; as Weinryb summarised, “the Polish Jew of the Middle Ages was either an immigrant or an immigrant’s son.”80 As a result, the new immigrants and local community shared the same rite of synagogue worship. Nevertheless, the first generations of each wave naturally maintained their own separate identity as opposed to that of the established “old” community before eventually blending into it. The “Polish” or “old” group was led by members of the Fishel (Fiszel) family, who had emigrated from Nuremberg in the mid-fifteenth century. In Poland, members of this family had served as bankers to the kings and the aristocracy. In 1485, two Fishel brothers were already seniores of the Jewish community; Moses Fishel (d. ca. 1504) held this position in Kazim- ierz in 1494, when the Jews were exiled from Cracow.81 His son-in-law was Jacob Pollack (1460/70–after 1522), a prominent Talmud scholar in Poland, who came to Cracow some time before 1494 and joined the leadership of

79 See Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 97–118. The conflict between the “Bohemians” and “Poles” in Cracow and Kazimierz is discussed also in Weinryb, Jews of Poland, 91–92. 80 Weinryb, Jews of Poland, 79. 81 Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 69, 112–18, 543; Elchanan Reiner, “Asher kol gedolei ha-Areẓ ha-Zot hem Talmidav: Rabi Ya‘akov Polak, Rishon ve-rosh le-ḥakhamei Krakov” (Rabbi Yaakov Pollack of Cracow: First and foremost among Cracow’s scholars), in Kroke-Kazimizh- Krakov, 43–68 (Hebrew). medieval synagogues in cracow and kazimierz 19 the Poles.82 The “Bohemians” probably came to Kazimierz in a new wave of immigration between 1494 and 1509, and their representative, Abraham Judaeus Bohemus (alias Abraham the Czech, d. 1533), emigrated from Prague to Kazimierz at the very end of the fifteenth century.83 The relations between the Poles and the Bohemians, a group of higher social and economic status, were increasingly tense, until they finally evolved into scuf- fles in 1509. The king had to intervene, imposing a tax on anyone who threatened a member of the opposing party with violence.84 In the 1510s, each group had its own rabbi in the synagogue. Rabbi Asher Lemel, another son-in-law of Moses Fishel,85 served together with the rabbi of the immigrants until about 1516, when a certain “Perets the Bohemian” became the sole rabbi of the congregation.86 When a rabbi was appointed to the great synagogue in the marketplace, this symbolised his party’s ruling position in the Jewish quarter. In 1519, the situation became strained again over arrangements for the next elections for the post of rabbi. The Bohemians demanded that Perets be appointed again as the only rabbi of the whole Jewish community. The Poles were ready to return to the situation whereby each of the two groups appointed its own rabbi. The conflict had to be arbitrated by Sigismund I. In the decree Judeorum Cracoviensium pro doctoribus of 25 May 1519, the king decided that following “the traditional arrangement,” he would recog- nise the division of the Jews into two communities and nominate two rabbis independent of one another.87 Despite the ordinance, Perets attempted to continue his exclusive power, and the opposition again asked the king to intervene. The Judæorum Cracoviensium pro synagoga from 5 November 1519 stated that the Poles insisted that they had already built, repaired, and maintained the building of the synagogue before the arrival of the others, whilst the Bohemians tried to remove the “old” community from there. The king decided in favour of the Poles and confirmed the exclusive rights of the Poles to the synagogue.88 Under threat of penalties, he forbade the Bohemians from enter-

82 Majer Bałaban, “Jacob Polak, der Baal Chillukim in Krakau und seine Zeit,” Monatts- schrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft der Judentums 21(57) (1913): 5, 9–73, 196–210; Reiner, “Asher kol gedolei ha-Areẓ ha-Zot hem Talmidav.” 83 Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 101–102. 84 Bershadskiy, Russko-evreyskiy arkhiv, 3: 91 no. 64. 85 Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 101–102, 110, 112, 497. 86 Bershadskiy, Russko-evreyskiy arkhiv, 3: 150–51. 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid., 152–54. 20 chapter one ing the “sinagoga antiqua” and warned them against enticing the Poles to join their community.89 Both decrees appeal specifically to the Judeorum Cracoviensium (Jews of Cracow) and discuss “a synagogue of Cracow” without mentioning Ka- zimierz at all: the term “sinagoga eorum Cracoviensium” (their synagogue of Cracow) appears in the Judeorum Cracoviensium pro doctoribus, whilst the Judæorum Cracoviensium pro synagoga that refers to the “sinagoga antiqua” ignores its location. This terminology seems to reinforce the hypothesis that the Jews were not expelled from Cracow in 1494. However, the official Polish documents from the first decades of the sixteenth century bestowed another meaning on the distinctions pertaining to the residence of Jews in Cracow and Kazimierz. When a document discussed an individual, it mentioned his actual residence, indicating, for example, “a Jew from Kazimierz.”90 However, when the matter concerned the Jewish community of Kazimierz as a whole, the designation “of Cracow” was used.91 Although Cracow and Kazimierz were independent towns with their own laws, governments, and town walls, in 1527 the Jewish inhabitants of Ka- zimierz were still called “the Jews of Cracow, otherwise the Jews who live in Kazimierz near Cracow.”92 Hence, we must understand the “Judeorum Cracoviensium” to be “to the Jews of Cracow living in Kazimierz,” and read the “sinagoga eorum Cracoviensium” as the synagogue that belonged to the Jews of the former community of Cracow, but which was in fact situated in Kazimierz. Consequently, the “new synagogues built even in

89 Ibid. 90 Note the following excerpts from the decrees by Sigismund I: “Isaac condominanti Izaczek phisici judei nostri Casimiriam” (1507; Bershadskiy, Russko-evreyskiy arkhiv, 81 no. 54); “Moyses et Lewko de Casimiria” (1511; ibid, 98 no. 72); “Francisko Isaac genero Rachlin de Casimiria” (1512; ibid., 102 no. 77); “Iudeo Francisko de Casimiria” (1512; ibid., 106 no. 82). 91 Here are several excerpts from the decrees by King Alexander referring to the entire community: “Consensus Reemptionis Centum florenum Judeo Isaac super Judeis Cracovi- ensibus datus” (1504; ibid., 47 no. 28); and by Sigismund I: “hebreos nostros cracovienses, senioribus judeorum cracoviensium” (1509; ibid., 88–89 no. 61); “Vadium centum marcarum eat vallatum inter Iudeos Cracovienses, Bohemos scilicet et polonos” (1509; ibid., 91 no. 64); “iudeis Cracoviensibus” (1525; ibid., 163 no. 130); “Doctoribus et Rabbis Judeorum tam Cra- coviensium, quam in alijs civitatibus regni nostril” (1530; ibid., 192 no. 146). 92 See examples of this usage in Sigismund’s language: “Judeis Cracoviensibus, seu in Casimiria apud Cracoviam habitantibus” (1527; ibid., 171 no. 135). Note also “judeis nihilo- minus cracoviensibus alias casimiriensibus duntaxat exceptis” (1512; ibid., 106 no. 82); “communitatis judeorum predictorum cracoviensium” (1527; ibid., 180 no. 139). medieval synagogues in cracow and kazimierz 21 Cracow” mentioned at the Piotrków Synod in 1542 would have been located in Kazimierz near Cracow.93 The decrees of 1519 also prove that the sinagoga antiqua had been erected a long time before that year and certainly before the arrival of the Bo- hemians—that is, prior to the end of the fifteenth century, when many Jews from Prague, including the leader of the Bohemians, Abraham Bohe- mus, emigrated to Kazimierz. If the synagogue was built some time between 1485 and the late 1490s, the Fishels, who then held key positions in the community, could have taken an active part in this project. If so, the statement of Moses Fishel’s party in 1519 that they had built the synagogue might literally mean that they were the founders of the building some two or three decades before. This assumption is reinforced by the role that Rachel Fishel, mother-in- law of Asher Lemel, the leader of the Poles, played in the events; she seems to have lobbied for his interests at the royal court.94 She may have convinced the king as an eyewitness to the establishment of the synagogue: between the mid-1480s and 1508, her husband, Moses Fishel, and their son-in-law, Rabbi Jacob Pollack, had held leadership positions in the community and might have taken an active part in the foundation of the synagogue in Kazimierz during the reign of Casimir IV (1447–92) or John Albrecht (1493–1501). Moreover, Rachel had been a creditor to these kings and to their successor, Alexander (reigned 1502–06).95 If the Bohemians had arrived in the late-fifteenth century or in the early 1500s, they would thus have found a masonry synagogue in Kazimierz that had been built and administered by the Poles. After the Bohemians were no longer allowed access to the Old Syna- gogue, they had to have another place to hold their public religious services. This was probably a modest, perhaps wooden prayer house, the founding of which did not demand royal permission. There were at least two Jewish congregations in Kazimierz in 1537, when Sigismund I appointed “two or three persons of each synagogue” to determine the personal

93 See “Uchwały Synodu prowincyjonalnego Piotrkowskiego z r. 1542” in B. Ułanowski, Materyjały do historyi ustawodawstwa synodalnego w Polsce w w. XVI (Cracow, 1895), 68[392]; Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 137, 143. 94 In the royal decree of 25 May 1519, Asher Lemel is specifically identified by his relation to Rachel: “Osszar, Rachle generum” (Bershadskiy, Russko-evreyskiy arkhiv, 3: 151). On her personality and activity, see Hanna Zaremska, “Rachela Fiszel: Żydowska wdowa w średniowiecznym Krakowie,” Jewish History Quarterly (Żydzi i miesczcanie w dawnej Rzec- zypospolitej) 2 (207) (September 2003): 381–90. 95 Zaremska, “Rachela Fiszel”. 22 chapter one taxes of the Jews in Kazimierz.96 In the same year, the king prescribed the allotting of an appropriate parcel of land for a new—likely masonry— synagogue.97 It appears that the directive was not effective, as the king had to issue an additional decree on the same matter.98 Bałaban has interpreted this as a recurrence of the tension between the Bohemians and the Poles, assuming that the latter saw the request as an encroachment on their hegemony and therefore obstructed its realization.99 The other “new synagogues” that caused the protest of the Piotrków Synod in 1542 might also be the smaller wooden prayer houses that groups of Jews established illegally.100 It seems that the second royal decree from 1537 was ignored as well, since the synagogue called “New”—that is, the next masonry synagogue built after the “Old” one—was the room in Israel Isserl’s private house, which he adapted for public worship in 1553. To summarise, the surviving testimony proposes dating the establishment of the Old Synagogue in Kazimierz to the period from 1485 to the late 1490s. It thus appears to be the latest and easternmost of the medieval two-nave synagogues known to us in Europe.101

The Last Two-Nave Synagogue

The medieval Ashkenazic synagogues were usually built as a prolonged or square-plan single hall102 or a double nave. The earliest surviving building

96 Bershadskiy, Russko-evreyskiy arkhiv, 3: 195–97 no. 148 (15 July 1537). 97 An abstract of this decree is included in the Metryka Koronna (1537), fol. 205, no. LIV (published in Bersohn, Dyplomataryusz dotyczący Żydów, 41 no. 41). Concerning this point, Bałaban (Historja Żydów, 1: 111–12) erroneously referred to another royal decree (published in Bershadskiy, Russko-evreyskiy arkhiv, 3: 195–97 no. 148). 98 “Metryka koronna” (August 30, 1537) fol. 244 no. LIV, referred in Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 112 n. 13. 99 Ibid., 1: 111–12. 100 See note 93 on page 21. 101 The other synagogues of this type were built in Worms (1174/75), Regensburg (ca. 1220), Prague (Altneuschul, the last quarter of the 13th century), Vienna (the reconstructions of ca. 1296 and the second half of the 14th century), Cologne (the reconstruction of 1372), Oleśnica in Silesia (the late-14th century), and Budapest (the reconstruction of 1461); see Paulus, Die Architektur der Synagoge im Mittelalter, 99–103, 123, 177–81, 381, 410–12, 441–46, 456–58. The synagogue in Erfurt built after 1310 is known only from drawings (ibid., 262–65, figs. 82–83). Krautheimer, who published one of these, interpreted the buttresses seen on the synagogue’s western side as indicating a two-nave structure (Mittelalterliche Synagogen, 196–98). 102 Paulus, Die Architektur der Synagoge im Mittelalter, 512–17. Rare exceptions are the three-nave plan of the synagogue of ca. 1000 in Cologne, an octagonal plan for the synagogue of ca. 1364 in Jawor (Jauer), Silesia, and the synagogue roofed with an octagonal pyramid medieval synagogues in cracow and kazimierz 23 of the latter type is the synagogue built in 1174/75 in Worms (Fig. 4).103 The explanation that setting columns on the central axis was the only technical solution that provided the necessary support for the vaulting104 is not plausible. In the Cologne synagogue, whose dimensions (9.2 × 14.5 m) are almost identical to those of the Worms Synagogue (approx. 9.6 × 14.3/15.10 m), the same space was first divided into three naves, then became a single- nave hall, and only in 1372 was rebuilt according to the two-nave model.105 The renovators could have merely reinforced the old supports, whereas the removal or relocation of the pillars created another partition of the synagogue’s inner space, thereby altering its former symbolic or ideological connotations. In Regensburg, the single-nave Romanesque synagogue was transformed into two naves ca. 1220 (Fig. 6). The builders raised and reinforced the walls and expanded the hall to the west but did not alter its 9.2-metre width, so that the space could have been re-spanned without the additional supports that obstructed a clear view of the interior. Instead, they made two rows of cross vaults, setting the central abutments of these vaults on massive axial columns. The elongated proportions of the hall necessitated the use of four vaults in each nave and three columns on the axis.106 In Romanesque architecture, axial supports were used in secular and monastic buildings, as well as in small churches.107 Nevertheless, this spatial arrangement proved less church-like than the basilical plan. Simon Paulus pointed out the innovative implication of the double nave in the

built in the 14th or early 15th century in Hainburg an der Donau, Austria; see ibid., 459–61 and 339–48 respectively. 103 In 1938, the Nazis ravaged the synagogue, and the bombings of 1944–45 destroyed the building. See Annelore and Karl Schlösser, Keiner blieb verschont: die Judenverfolgung 1933–45 in Worms (Worms, 1989). In 1961, the German authorities rebuilt the synagogue from its ruins. The reconstruction was preceded by excavations on the site and in-detail research of the finds, inscriptions, and history of the building by Otto Böcher, “Die Alte Synagoge zu Worms” in Die Alte Synagogue zu Worms, ed. Ernst Róth (Frankfurt am Main, 1961), 11–154. 104 Cf. Wischnitzer, “Mutual Influences,” 29. 105 Otto Doppelfeld, “Die Ausgrabungen im Kölner Judenviertel” in Die Juden in Köln von den ältesten Zeiten bis zur Gegenwart, ed. Zvi Asaria (Cologne, 1959), 71–145. 106 Silvia Codreanu-Windauer, “The Medieval Jewish Quarter of Regensburg and Its Synagogue: Archaelogical Research 1995–1997” in Case Studies in Archaelogy and World Religion: The Proceedings of the Cambridge Conference, ed. Timothy Insoll (Oxford, 1999), 139–52. 107 An exhaustive review and ample bibliography of the scholarly literature about the medieval two-nave buildings was recently published by Simon Paulus in his Die Architektur der Synagoge im Mittelalter, 557–75. 24 chapter one Worms Synagogue, where the high naves (7.8 m under the vaults’ peak),108 tall columns, and the bimah in the intercolumnary area (Fig. 7) unify the inner spaces, increasing the viewer’s feelings of solemnity and sacredness.109 The prescription of the medieval halakhic legislators to place the entrance to the synagogue on the western side if the prayer is directed eastwards was difficult to carry out in a double-nave structure.110 In the two-nave hall, the central section of shorter walls supports the junction of two vaults; an opening there would have weakened the whole structure. Consequently, in the two-nave synagogues, the entrance was usually set between the vault’s abutments in the lateral, northern, or southern wall. This arrangement became common in the single-nave synagogues, even if there were no constructive limitations for opening a door in the centre of the western wall, as the rabbis suggested. The side entrance into the prayer hall is a feature of Ottonian and Ro- manesque imperial churches, which have an additional apse at their western side. The western apse and monumental northern gate of Saint Peter’s Cathedral in Worms were nearly completed during the time that the synagogue in that town was built.111 To get a clear view of the main altar on the east, or of the choirs on the west of the cathedral, the visitor entering through the lateral gate had to reach the central nave. In contrast, one entering the Worms Synagogue through the door in the western section of the northern wall would see the bimah between the massive columns and only the left edge of the Torah ark. This view was chosen by Abraham Neu and Heinrich Hoffmann in their paintings of the synagogue interior (Figs. 7–8). In order to show the two columns and the ark simultaneously, Carl Hertzog had to integrate several different angles of view into the same image and sketch the nave in the foreground as enormously wide (Fig. 9). The early-thirteenth century Gothic synagogue in Regensburg that was destroyed in 1519, and the surviving late-thirteenth century Altneuschul of

108 The Romanesque vaults and the upper section of the synagogue walls were destroyed in 1349 and reconstructed by Gothic builders in 1355. Thus one may not exclude the possibility that the original space was lower, although even if so, the difference would not have been great. The building was damaged again in 1615 and 1689, and repaired in 1620–24 and 1699, respectively; see Böcher, “Die Alte Synagoge zu Worms,” 28–46, 52–65. 109 Paulus, Die Architektur der Synagoge im Mittelalter, 575. 110 This prescription is found in the Tosafot compiled by Jewish scholars from France and Germany in the 12th to 14th centuries, Tosafot to Berakhot 6a; Tosafot to Eruvin 18b; Tosafot to Megilah, S. Lieberman edition, 3: 22. 111 Walter Hotz, Der Dom zu Worms (Darmstadt, 1981), 73–76. medieval synagogues in cracow and kazimierz 25 Prague, copied this arrangement, that allows one entering the prayer hall a general view of the bimah and partial view of the ark, then—whilst the visitor advances eastwards—reveals the ark in detail, but never affords a comprehensive symmetrical view of the whole space. The prayer hall is only partially seen from the seats that were arranged as movable benches or chairs or as fixed benches along the walls.112 The depictions of the Worms Synagogue before its reconstruction in 1842 (Figs. 7–8) show a row of movable seats that stood along the northern wall to the east of the entrance, facing the bimah, and several rows of seats that faced the northern wall. A number of seats were located behind the western column, with a few of them directed towards the western wall, away from the direction of prayer and the Torah ark, whilst only one row apparently faced the bimah and ark. Even if the men turned towards the east whilst standing, those seated behind the column and bimah could not see the ark clearly. Some people sat in the row of seats at the eastern wall turning towards the west, in front of the other worshippers. The diversity of the direction of seats was different from that in the Sephardic synagogues, where most of the congregation sat in rows behind each other facing the Torah ark, and the community’s elders occupied the seats along the eastern wall of the synagogue, looking towards the rest of the congregation.113 Judah he-Ḥasid of Speyer and Regensburg, a leader of the Ḥasidei Ashkenaz spiritual movement, which flourished in late-twelfth- and early-thirteenth- century Germany, testified that his contemporaries believed that the closer to the Torah ark the prayer is recited, the more readily it would be answered. However, Judah he-Ḥasid was convinced that effective prayer depended on the worshipper’s proper social behavior rather than on the location of his seat in the synagogue.114 In Worms, a centre of the Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, the eastern row of seats had not been the most valued place

112 A stone step set along the longitudinal walls existed in the synagogue of Cologne until its reconstruction in 1270. See Doppelfeld, “Die Ausgrabungen im Kölner Judenviertel,” 126. A similar step around the prayer hall has survived under the wooden benches in the Altneuschul. See Zdenka Münzer, “Die Altneusynagoge in Prag,” Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Juden in der Cechoslovakischen Republik 4 (1932): 70. 113 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Hilkhot tefilah u-Nesi’at kapayim 11:4. 114 “If you sit near the Holy Ark, the people around you will protest and squabble with you. You are better off sitting in the back and avoiding conflict. Your prayers will be answered more readily if you don’t cause dissension in the synagogue,” translated by Avraham Yakov Finkel in Yehuda HeChasid [Judah he-Ḥasid], Sefer Chasidim: The Book of the Pious (North- vale, 1997), 27. 26 chapter one until at least the 1660s, when the most honourable seat for the rabbi was that near the north side of the bimah.115 Hearing the voices of the liturgy unified the two-nave space even more, in fact, than did having a view of the whole service and congregation. Whilst diminishing the feeling of collectivity, this spatial division created a more mystical and intimate venue for worship. This effect has been discussed by researchers of Christian architecture, who have noticed that the two-nave space in the churches did not lend itself to focusing on the cel- ebration of the Mass. Instead, the axial position of the columns that frus- trated one’s natural desire to comprehend the space of the building, by standing on its axis, may have led the worshipper to a feeling of humility. For this reason, members of Christian mendicant congregations chose the two-nave plan for their churches. 116 Similarly, the German Jews might have adopted the use of the double nave in synagogues, since this structure was seen as elevating one’s faith and encouraging intimacy and individualism in prayer. These values were promoted by the Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, who were active in Worms and Regensburg, the birthplaces of the two-nave type of synagogues. Judah he-Ḥasid’s instruction even implies that the ideal worshipper should be an introverted body blind to his surroundings whilst intellectually communicating with God.117 The surviving synagogues in Worms, Prague, and Oleśnica mark the spread of the two-nave type of synagogues from Germany, Bohemia, and Silesia to Poland. The Altneuschul in Prague is the model closest to the six identical square bays of the Old Synagogue in Kazimierz.118 Here, as in

115 Schlomo Eidelberg, R. Juspa, Shammash of Warmaisa (Worms): Jewish Life in 17th Century Worms (Jerusalem, 1991), 19. 116 On the perceptions and liturgical uses of the two-nave halls, see Karl Simon, “Die Anlage zweischiffiger Räume in Deutschland,” Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 25 (1902): 41–48; Richard Krautheimer, Die Kirchen del Bettelorden in Deutschland (Cologne, 1935); R. K. Donin, Die Bettelordenskirchen in Österreich (Wien, 1935); H. Sedlmayr, “Säulen mitten im Raum” in Epochen und Werke (Wien, 1959), 99–201; Crossley, Gothic Architecture, 213. 117 “When praying, you should place your feet close together; you should cast your eyes downward and direct your heart upward.” In Judah he-Ḥasid’s opinion, an extroverted gaze, even if it is not aimed at objects or images that can distract the worshipper’s concentration on the prayer, is hypocritical and thus damnable: “People who lift their heads and eyes toward the ceiling in a show of piety are ridiculed by the angels, who call them blockheads,” from Judah he-Ḥasid, Sefer Chasidim, 20–21. 118 Note that the pairs of bays in the Worms Synagogue are not the same; the central pair of bays in the synagogue of Oleśnica is shorter that the other two pairs; the bays of the two-nave synagogue in Vienna are not square. The two-nave synagogues in Regensburg, Cologne, and Budapest have eight bays. See Paulus, Die Architektur der Synagoge im Mit- telalter, 174–81, 117–27, 409–13, respectively, and 513. medieval synagogues in cracow and kazimierz 27 older two-nave synagogues, the entrance near the western edge of a lateral wall reveals an angled view of the Torah ark that distinctly differs from the symmetric axial vista of the “high altar” in Catholic churches. The direction of the personal places for prayer was not unified in the Old Synagogue until at least 1875, when Jan Hruzik depicted movable pulpits scattered in the prayer hall (Plate 1.6).119 However, the wide naves—much wider than in any other two-nave synagogue—no longer evoked a sense of introverted prayer and meditation in the worshipper. The old-fashioned double nave erected by the Jews of Kazimierz expressed their self-identification as in- heritors of the time-venerated Jewish communities of the West. The great synagogue also transformed what had recently been a small Jewish quarter in the shadow of the influential Jewish settlement of Cracow into an independent Jewish community that possessed a synagogue as impressive as the Altneuschul or, perhaps, as the old synagogues in Cracow. The next projects of masonry synagogue building in Kazimierz were Israel Isserl’s private synagogue of 1553 and the repair of the Old Synagogue after the fire of 1557. These were undertaken after the ideas and art of the Renaissance had been adopted in Cracow and had made their impact on Polish Jewry.

119 This arrangement was altered by 1898, when rows of long benches facing eastwards were depicted in a drawing of the Old Synagogue published in Die österreichisch-ungarische Monarchie in Wort und Bild: Galizien (Vienna, 1898), 493. 28 chapter one the renaissance reaches jewish kazimierz 29

CHAPTER TWO

THE RENAISSANCE REACHES JEWISH KAZIMIERZ

In the Shadow of the Italian Renaissance

Renaissance art was brought into Poland at the initiative of Sigismund I the Old (1467–1548) and his immediate circle.1 Sigismund was nurtured at the court of his father, King Casimir IV of Poland, by Filippo Buonaccorsi (alias Callimachus; 1437–96), an Italian writer, historian, and correspondent of Lorenzo de’ Medici the Magnificent (1449–92) and Marsilio Ficino (1433–99).2 Since Sigismund, the youngest of the king’s five sons, had never been expected to be crowned king, Buonaccorsi educated him in accordance with the Humanistic ideals of a nobleman educated in literature and arts. Sigismund deepened his Renaissance experience when he went to visit his brother, Vladislas II, the king of Hungary and Bohemia, in Buda.3 Vladislas succeeded to the Hungarian crown after Matthias Corvinus (1443–90), an admirer of Renaissance Humanism and art, who also had contacts with Buonaccorsi in Cracow and Ficino in Florence.4 Captivated

1 The following sources are representative of the vast literature on the beginnings of the Renaissance in Poland: Stefanja Zahorska, “O pierwszych śladach Odrodzenia w Polsce,” Prace Komisji Historji Sztuki 2 (1922): 101–22; Karol Estreicher, “Polish Renaissance Archi- tecture,” Burlington Magazine 86, no. 1 (1945): 4–9; Adam Bochnak, “Problematyka krakowskiego Renesansu” and Józef Lepiarczyk, “Znacenie Krakowa dla sztuki Renesansu w Polsce” in Krakowskie Odrodzenie, Referaty z konferencji naukowej Towarzystwa Miłośników Historii i Zabytków Krakowa z września 1953, ed. Jan Dąbrowski (Cracow, 1954), 106–24 and 125–37 respectively; Kenneth F. Lewalski, “Sigismund I of Poland: Renaissance King and Patron,” Studies in the Renaissance 14 (1967): 42−72; Tadeusz Dobrowolski, Sztuka Krakowa (Cracow, 1971), 211–73; Jan Białostocki, The Art of the Renaissance in Eastern Europe (Oxford, 1976), 9–12; Stanisław Wiliński, “O renesansie wawelskim” in Renesans. Sztuka i ideologia (Warsaw, 1976), 213–25; idem, “Renaissance Sculpture in Poland in its European Context: Some Selected Problems” and Adam Miłobędzki, “Architecture under the Last Jagiellons in Its Political and Social Context” in The Polish Renaissance in Its European Context, ed. Samuel Fiszman (Bloomington, 1988), 281–90 and 291–99 respectively. 2 T. Garbacik, Kallimach jako dyplomata i polityk (Cracow, 1948). 3 Jan Dąbrowski, “Związki początków i rozwoju Odrodzenia w Krakowie z Odrodze- niem na Węgrzech” in Krakowskie Odrodzenie, 138–57. 4 Lech Kalinowski, Speculum Artis: Treści dzieła sztuki sredniowiecza i renesansu (Warsaw, 1989), 473. 30 chapter two by Corvinus’s cultural heritage, Vladislas called his Bohemian architect, Benedict Ried (alias Rejt; ca. 1454–1534), to visit the Castle in Buda in order to replicate its Renaissance style in Prague.5 When Sigismund came to Buda in 1498, he found there the Tuscan Renaissance style, treasures of Renaissance art, and the huge library of Renaissance tractates and illuminated manuscripts collected by Corvinus.6 In 1501, Sigismund returned to Poland, where his enthusiasm for the Renaissance was shared by many young Poles who had been studying in Italy,7 and Italians working in Cra- cow. The strands linking the Polish court and aristocracy with Italy were so numerous that Cracow of the last Jagiellonian kings became a provincial offshoot of Italian Renaissance culture.8 Already as prince, Sigismund gave vent to his partiality for the Renais- sance style by intervening in several projects undertaken at the royal residence at Wawel in Cracow. Sigismund recruited the Tuscan masters who worked at his brother’s court in Hungary in order to give a Renaissance character to the Late Gothic works in Wawel Castle that were in progress at the time. One of the guest masters was the architect and sculptor Fran- ciscus Italus or Florentinus (alias Franciszek Florentczyk; d. 1516), who had mastered the style of the Tuscan Renaissance in his native land. In 1502– 1505, Franciscus, together with his assistants, produced a Renaissance architectonic frame for the Late Gothic tomb of Sigismund’s other brother, King John Albrecht, at Wawel Cathedral, originally sculpted in 1501 by Jörg Huber of Veit Stoss’s circle (Fig. 10).9 Franciscus set the effigy of John Albrecht into a deep niche and spanned it with a coffered arch supported

5 G. Fehr, Benedikt Ried: Ein deutscher Baumeister zwischen Gotik und Renaissance in Böhmen (Munich, 1961). 6 Jolán Balogh, Die Anfänge der Renaissance in Ungarn: Matthias Corvinus und die Kunst (Graz, 1975). 7 Poles studied mainly in the universities of Bologna and Padua. See Giovanni Maver, I Polacchi all’università di Padova (Rome, 1933); Richard Casimir Lewański, Storia delle relazioni fra la Polonia e Bologna (Bologna, 1951). 8 See Anne Markham Schulz, Giammaria Mosca Called Padovano: A Renaissance Sculptor in Italy and Poland, vol. 1 (Pennsylvania, 1998), 89–93. 9 On these works, see Stefan Komornicki, “Franciszek Florentczyk i palac wawelski,” Przegląd Historii Sztuki 1 (1929): 57–69; Helena Kozakiewicz, Rzeźba XVI wieku w Polsce (Warsaw, 1984), 11–19. On the Albrecht tomb, see Feliks Kopera, “Grobowiec króla Jana Olbrachta i pierwsze ślady stylu Odrodzenia na zamku wawelskim,” Przegląd Polski 118 (1895): 1–36; Białostocki, Art of the Renaissance, 10–11; Andrzej Fischinger, “Nagrobek Jana Olbrachta i początki rzeżby renesansowej w Polsce” in Renesans. Sztuka i ideologia, 451–66. the renaissance reaches jewish kazimierz 31 by pilasters. The monumental expression and the all’antica decoration framed the Gothic sculpture with Renaissance splendour.10 In 1506, after the death of his brother, King Alexander, Sigismund was crowned King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. The most important artistic project patronised by King Sigismund was his memorial chapel at Wawel Cathedral. The death of his wife, Barbara Zápolya, in 1515, inspired him to establish his own mausoleum. In 1517, a model of the chapel was presented to the king by Bartolommeo (Bartolo) di Luca Berrecci (1480/1485–1537), a native of Pontassieve near Florence, who had been trained in Giuliano da Sangallo’s circle in Rome and had perhaps already worked at the Hungarian court.11 Contemporaries regarded Berrecci as a learned man of various talents and skills who also loved philosophy.12 Sigismund accepted the model, and, wishing to have it carried out at the highest possible level and as quickly as possible, allowed Berrecci to em- ploy about 30 assistants, mainly Italian sculptors and stonemasons.13 Among them were Giovanni (Jan) Cini of Siena (1490/1495–ca. 1565), Bernardino Zanobi de Giannottis (Gianotis; d. 1541), and Filippo di Bar- tolommeo da Fiesole (1475/85–1540), who sculpted architectonic and ornamental decorations in the Sigismund Chapel’s interior from 1524 to 1529.14 All the work was done under the general supervision of the royal treasurer, Hans (Jan) Boner (born before 1463), and after his death in 1523,

10 Białostocki, Art of the Renaissance, 10–11, figs. 18–20; Helena Kozakiewicz, Rzeźba XVI wieku w Polsce, 14–15, figs. 5–10. 11 Władysław Łuszczkiewicz, Bartolomeo Berecci (Cracow, 1866); Stanisław Łoza, Architekci i budowniczowe w Polsce (Warsaw, 1954), 27–28; Ulrich Thieme, Felix Becker, Hans Vollmer, Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler: von der Antike zur Gegenwart, vol. 3 (Leipzig, 1909), 379; Helena Kozakiewicz, “Z badań nad Bartłomiejem Bereccim,” Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 23, no. 4 (1961): 311–27; idem, Rzeźba XVI wieku w Polsce, 23–79. 12 They called him a man “multis virtutibus, litteris et variis artibus mechanicis ornatus” and “vir philosophiae amator.” See Lech Kalinowski, “Treści artystyczne i ideowe Kaplicy Zygmuntowskiej” in Speculum Artis, 514 n. 224. 13 Stefan Komornicki, “Kaplica Zygmuntowska w katedrze na Wawelu: 1517–1533,” Rocznik Krakowski 23 (1931): 53; Białostocki, Art of the Renaissance, 35. Among Berrecci’s assistants were also several Poles and a few stonemasons from Germany, Hungary, and Scotland. See the list of the stonemasons who worked at the Chapel from 1521 to 1527 in Stanisław Mossakowski, Kaplica Zygmuntowska (1515–1533). Problematyka artystyczna i ideowa mausoleum króla Zygmunta I (Warsaw, 2007), plate I (following p. 56) and plate II (following p. 72). 14 Helena Kozakiewicz explained that most of the non-figurative decorations were produced from 1525 to 1528 and suggested that these sculptors were employed for this. They worked at the Sigismund Chapel from 1524, when Berrecci expanded his workshop, until 1529, when they left the workshop. See Helena Kozakiewicz, Rzeźba XVI wieku w Polsce, 29–37, 81. 32 chapter two under his nephew and successor, Seweryn Boner (1486–1549). The project took much longer and costed more than was expected, and the Chapel was dedicated only in 1533.15 The Sigismund Chapel (Fig. 11) replaced a Gothic chapel attached to the southern aisle of the Cathedral, near the road leading to the royal palace. The new chapel had a square plan, and its arched walls supported an octagonal drum with great round windows. Resting on the drum, a segmented elliptical dome bears a high round lantern with a crown-like superstructure surmounted by a spire with a sphere on which a kneeling putto holds up a large crown topped by a cross. In the interior (Fig. 12), the large arched niche, flanked by aediculae and pilasters on each wall, creates the pattern of a tripartite triumphal arch. The niches enclose an altar, Sigismund’s tomb,16 the royal throne behind the tomb of Queen Anna, and the door to the Cathedral. Berrecci sophisticatedly combined Christian symbolism with a spirit of individualistic laudatio and classical mythology common to contemporaneous Florentine and Roman Renaissance.17 The Chapel was planned as a symbolic imitation of Solomon’s Temple: the sculptures and inscriptions conveyed the typological parallels between Sigismund and the biblical Moses and Solomon who founded the Tabernacle and Temple to house God’s Presence, and between Berrecci and the artists Bezalel and Hiram, who were chosen by God to embody the Divine prescription.18 Likening the Polish king to King Solomon greatly extolled Sigismund’s royal dignity and personal piety, wisdom, and generosity.19 The sepulchral function of the Chapel was symbolically reflected in the structure and sculptural dec-

15 Komornicki, “Kaplica Zygmuntowska,” 47–120; Adam Bochnak, Kaplica Zygmuntow- ska ([Warsaw], 1953). 16 In 1571–75, Santi Gucci remodeled the original arched niche of the western wall into a double niche, inserting the tomb of Sigismund Augustus into it. See Bochnak, Kaplica Zygmuntowska, 23. 17 Jerzy Kowalczyk, “Triumf i sława wojenna ‘all’antica’ w Polsce w XVI w.” in Renesans. Sztuka i ideologia, 293–348;” Lech Kalinowski, “Treści artystyczne i ideowe Kaplicy Zygmun- towskiej,” “Motywy antyczne w decoracji Kaplicy Zygmuntowskiej” and “Trytony, nereidy i walka bóstw morskich w decoracji Kaplicy Zygmuntowskiej” in Speculum Artis, 414–538, 539–76 and 577–600 respectively; Białostocki, Art of the Renaissance, 39–43; Mossakowski, Kaplica Zygmuntowska, 223–83. 18 Tadeusz Zadrożny, “Starotestamentowa geneza relacji między twórcami Kaplicy Zygmuntowskiej, królem i Berreccim,” Biuletyn historii sztuki 67, no. 1–2 (2005): 9–57. 19 Stanisław Wiliński, “Zygmunt Stary jako Salomon. Z listów Erazma z Rotterdamu,” Biuletyn historii sztuki 32, no. 1 (1970): 38–47; Zadrożny, “Starotestamentowa geneza relacji” and Mieczysław Morka, “Kaplica Zygmuntowska. Król Salomon—princeps fundator,” Biuletyn historii sztuki 67, no. 1–2 (2005), 59–96. the renaissance reaches jewish kazimierz 33 oration that express the ascension of the king’s soul from his temporal life within the body to eternal bliss in heaven, the image of which is the cupola. The light streaming through the windows of the drum and the lantern emphasises the contrast between the lit cupola and the windowless hall. The combination of blind walls below upper windows was prescribed by Leon Battista Alberti (1404–72) as an ideal for a church as the worshippers—who see nothing but the sky—detach themselves from everyday life outside.20 Sigismund, and possibly the Renaissance literati at his court, and in the large Italian retinue of Princess Bona Sforza of Milan (1493/4–1557), whom he had married in 1518, advised Berrecci about the sophisticated program of the Chapel’s architecture and decoration, which was better understood by a small circle of their learned contemporaries. Berrecci’s masterpiece influenced the development of Polish art during the reigns of Sigismund I and his son Sigismund Augustus (ruled 1548–72). The celebrated royal memorial chapel prompted a special emphasis on sepulchral sculpture and architecture in Renaissance Poland. By 1530, whilst working for the king, Berrecci himself completed a simplified version of the royal chapel at the southern aisle of Wawel Cathedral for the Bishop of Cracow, Piotr Tomicki.21 Later on, the spatial composition, decorative patterns, and symbols of the Sigismund Chapel were imitated in various combinations in the sepulchral monuments of church dignitaries, nobles, and prosperous burghers elsewhere in Poland. Berrecci often employed Italian architects and sculptors, who assisted him on the Sigismund Chapel, whilst he worked on other commissions.22 They and the Poles, who learnt the Renaissance art during their work with the Italians in Wawel, disseminated the new style both in Cracow and far beyond. After Bernardino de Giannottis and Filippo da Fiesole had completed their part in Berrecci’s projects in 1529, they established their own workshop. That same year, Giovanni Cini, who had worked in Cracow since 1519, left for Italy, but in 1531 he came back to Poland and rejoined his companions.23 Cini was active in Poland until 1562, many years after the deaths of Filippo in 1540 and of Bernardino de Giannottis in 1541. Berrecci’s other assistants in the Sigismund Chapel, Antonio da Fiesole and Wilhelm

20 Leon Battista Alberti, De re ædificatoria, Book 7 (Florence, 1485), r iii. 21 Helena and Stefan Kozakiewicz, Renesans w Polsce (Warsaw, 1976), 61–63; Schulz, Giammaria Mosca Called Padovano, 1: 97. 22 Helena Kozakiewicz, Rzeźba XVI wieku w Polsce, 47–65. 23 Schulz, Giammaria Mosca Called Padovano, 1: 99–100. 34 chapter two (Guglielmo?) of Florence, founded another workshop in Cracow in 1531. After Antonio’s death in the early 1540s, his pupil and son-in-law Gabriel Słoński continued the business. The growing demand for Renaissance monuments in Poland continued to attract sculptors and architects from Italy. Jan Maria (alias Giammaria) Mosca il Padovano (ca. 1493–ca. 1574), who worked as a sculptor in Padua and Venice, arrived in Cracow by 1532 to work for the royal court. In the 1530s, Padovano cooperated with the workshop of Antonio da Fiesole and Wilhelm of Florence. 24 From 1541 or 1543 until about 1550, Padovano worked with Cini, and in the 1550s became one of the leading sculptors in Poland.25 The Italianate workshops were the main contractors offering building and sculptural works in Cracow in the 1550s, when the Jews of Kazimierz build their new synagogue and renovated the old one.

Renaissance Influences on the Jews of Kazimierz and the Isserl Family

Occasional displays of Renaissance thought, such as the discussions that Polish Humanists from Buonaccorsi’s circle purportedly conducted with the learned Jews of Kazimierz,26 could scarcely channel the new ideology. An insight into Renaissance culture was first obtained by a small group of Jews who were closely acquainted with the life of the court of the Polish kings.27 The Fishels, leaders of the “Polish” party of the Kazimierz Jews, were court bankers of the kings for generations, and served Sigismund I and his family. Stefan Fishel, a brother of Moses Fishel, was a court Jew of John Albrecht, Alexander and Sigismund I. Moses Fishel’s wife, Rachel, continued his business activities after she was widowed in 1489. Rachel also served as a retainer to Sigismund’s mother Elisabeth and supplied pearls and jewelry for Sigismund when he was still a prince. Queen Bona

24 Stanisław Cercha and Feliks Kopera, Nadworny rzeżbiarz króla Zygmunta Starego Giovanni Cini z Sieny i jego dzieła w Polsce (Cracow, [1917]), 22–24; Helena Kozakiewicz, Rzeźba XVI wieku w Polsce, 81–85, 110. 25 Feliks Kopera, “Jan Maria Padovano,” Prace Komisji Historii Sztuki 7 (1938), 219–61; Zbigniew Hornung, “Czy Jan Maria zwany ‘Il Mosca’ albo Padovano był klasycystą?” in Księga ku czci Wladysława Podlachy. Wrocławskie Towarzystwo Naukowe. Rozprawy Komisji Historii Sztuki, ed. Władysław Floryan, vol. 1 (Wrocław, 1957), 119–28; Helena Kozakiewicz, Rzeźba XVI wieku w Polsce, 93–127. 26 Majer Bałaban, “Umysłowość i moralność żydostwa polskiego XVI w.” in Kultura Staropolska (Cracow, 1932), 612. 27 For general aspects of Jewish contacts with Renaissance cultural patterns in Poland, see Bałaban, “Umysłowość i moralność żydostwa polskiego XVI w.,” 606–39; Mark and Kupfer, “Żydzi Polscy w Okresie Odrodzenia,” 3–55. the renaissance reaches jewish kazimierz 35 Sforza introduced Rachel’s son Ephraim (Franczek) Fishel as a decent and honest person to Sigismund I, who in 1524 appointed him with his wife Chwała (Falka) as servus regis.28 The king offered his personal protection to his court Jews. In 1504 he granted Rachel Fishel permission to live in the city of Cracow despite the interdiction against all the other Jews.29 The king was the direct suzerain of his Jewish bankers and tax collectors, Abraham Judaeus Bohemus30 and Eliezer (Eleazar or Lazar) of Brandenburg. Eliezer was also subjected to Krzysztof Szydłowiecki, an active patron of Renaissance art.31 The range of business activities of the Jewish bankers and tax collectors would also have put them in contact with Polish court bankers and royal administra- tors, such as Jan and Seweryn Boner, who managed the works at the Sigis- mund Chapel. Whilst routine contacts might have given Jews a very general knowledge of Christian burgher life,32 people such as the Fishels knew enough about the lives of the Polish nobility to merge into it, and the only barrier that separated them from it was their religion. For instance, when Stefan Fishel converted to Christianity, Queen Elisabeth was his god- mother, and he was given valuable presents by the king, including nobility status for himself and his sons.33 Jews were involved in the contacts between the Polish royal court and Italy. Around 1518, Eliezer of Brandenburg, and in 1553, Isaac Schwarz (Ni- ger or Czarny), son of Israel Schwarz, an elder of the Kazimierz Jewish community, visited Venice to purchase precious stones for the queen.34

28 Ephraim and Chwala’s daughter-in-law Esther also served Bona. See Bałaban, Histo- rja Żydów, 1: 103–104, 113. 29 See Adam Bochnak, “Mecenat Zygmunta Starego w zakresie rzemiosła artyctycznego,” Studia do dziejów Wawelu 2 (1961), 133, 237–38 n. 31; Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 101. Zaremska, “Rachela Fiszel,” 388. 30 Bershadskiy, Russko-evreyskiy arkhiv, 3: 128–31 no. 104. See also note 83 on page 19. 31 On Lazar as Szydłowiecki’s subject, see the decree from 14 November 1525, in Ber- shadskiy, Russko-evreyskiy arkhiv, 3: 162–64 no. 130. Lazar left Brandenburg not later than the persecutions and expulsion of the Jews that took place there in 1510. See Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 140; idem, Historja i literatura żydowska, (L’viv, 1925) 3: 90–91. On Szydło- wiecki as a patron of Renaissance art, see Jerzy Kieszkowski, Kanclerz Krzysztof Szydłowie- cki. Z dziejów kultury i sztuki Zygmuntowskich czasów, parts 1–2 (Poznan, 1912). 32 The actions of the Catholic clergy against the routine relationship of Christians with Jews are proof that these contacts indeed took place. See Mark and Kupfer, “Żydzi Polscy w Okresie Odrodzenia,” 6–7. 33 Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 90–91; idem, “Umysłowość i moralność żydostwa polskiego XVI w.,” 615. On Stefan, see also Jakub Goldberg, Ha-Mumarim be-mamlekhet Polin-Lyta (Converted Jews in the Polish Commonwealth) (Jerusalem, 1985), 13–22 (Hebrew). 34 Bershadskiy, Russko-evreyskiy arkhiv, 3: 163; Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 140. The Jews of Cracow were probably sent to buy jewels from the Jewish jewellers in Venice. 36 chapter two An Italian Jew, the physician Samuel bar Meshulam, arrived in Poland as a member of Bona Sforza’s retinue, and continued to serve her at the royal court in Cracow. He acquired a house in Kazimierz and took an active part in the life of the local community.35 Israel Isserl ben Joseph (d. 1568) belonged to the same higher stratum of the Jewish community.36 Purportedly, he and his family emigrated from Regensburg due to the expulsion of the Jews in 1519.37 Probably already as Grand Duke of Lithuania (since 1544), Sigismund Augustus protected Isserl’s activities there, giving him and his companion the right to conduct trade in Vilnius (Vilna) in 1551. The king did it despite the fact that Vilnius had been proclaimed de non tolerandis Judaeis, so that Jews were forbidden to live there.38 In due course, Isserl’s fortune grew and he became one of the lay leaders of the Kazimierz Jewish community. Isserl was renowned as a great Talmudist, having inherited his aptitude for both business and scholarship from his family. Israel Isserl’s father, Joseph, was supposedly a descendant of Israel Isserlein of Marburg and Neustadt (1390–1460), a prominent Talmudic authority in Germany in the first half of the fifteenth century.39 Isserl’s maternal grandfather, Moses Auerbach, was court Jew to the bishop and a leader of the Jewish community in Regensburg in the late-fifteenth century.40 The maternal grandfather of Malka, Isserl’s wife, was probably Rabbi Jechiel Luria (ca. 1470), who came from Alsace to Lith-

35 Jan Warchał, “Żydzi polscy na uniwersytecie padewskim,” Kwartalnik poświęcony badaniu przesłości Żydów w Polsce 1, no. 3 (1913): 52; Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 140–42. 36 The surviving records about Israel Isserl are mentioned in Yechiel Matityahu Zunz, Ir ha-Ẓedek (City of righteousness) (L’viv, 1874), 171 [161] (Hebrew); Joseph Kohn-Zedek, Shem ve-She’erit (Name and remainder) (Cracow, 1895), 64 (Hebrew); F. H. Wettstein, “Noch ein wort über die jüngst in Krakau aufgefunden Grabschriften,” Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, 9(45) (1901): 170; idem, “Le-toldot Yisrael ve-Ḥakhamav be-Folin” (To the history of [the people of] Israel and its sages in Poland), Ha-Eshkol 7 (1913): 147–53 (Hebrew); Hayim Dovberish Friedberg, Luḥot zikaron (Tablets of memory) (Frank- furt am Main, 1904), 49 no. 29 (Hebrew); Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 142–46; Asher Siev, “Hakdamah” (Introduction) in SHUT ha-Rema (Responsa of the Rema), ed. Asher Siev (Jerusalem, 1970), 10 (Hebrew); Meir Wunder, Elef margaliot (A thousand pearls) (Jerusalem, 1993), 237–40 no. 338 (Hebrew). 37 See Myer S. Lew, The Jews of Poland: Their Political, Economic, Social and Communal Life in the Sixteenth Century as Reflected in the Works of Rabbi Moses Isserls (London, 1944), 12 n. 4, 7; Siev, “Hakdamah,” 10 n. 5. Weinryb (Jews of Poland, 31) proposed that the family immigrated to Cracow in the last decade of the 15th century. 38 Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 143. 39 Ibid, 1: 142; Wunder, Elef margaliot, 239–40 nos. 339, 343. 40 Moses Auerbach was still in Regensburg in 1497. See Louis Lewin, “Deutsche Ein- wanderungen in polnische Ghetti,” Jahrbuch der jüdisch-literarischen Gesellschaft 4 (1906): 314. the renaissance reaches jewish kazimierz 37 uania. Through her, Isserl thus became an in-law of Luria’s descendants, Meir Katzenellenbogen (the Maharam of Padua) and Solomon ben Jehiel Luria (the Maharshal of Lublin, ca. 1510–73).41 Israel Isserl’s report of a halakhic decision by the Maharam’s father-in-law, Rabbi Abraham Minz of Padua, that is cited by Isserl’s son, Moses, sounds like a first-hand testimony.42 A note about Isserl’s sailing on a ship on Shabbat confirms that he traveled far from his home.43 Israel Isserl’s son, Moses Isserles (the Rema),44 was born ca. 1525 into this wealthy, scholarly and influential family. His first teachers were his father and probably Malka’s brother, Moses Heigerlich.45 Afterwards, he was sent to study under Rabbi Shalom Shakhna (d. 1558) at the Lublin Yeshiva, the leading scholastic centre of Polish Jewry in that period.46 Mo- ses Isserles was a gifted student whose career was supported by his influential family. In 1547, when he was still studying at the yeshiva, Sigismund I invested him with the authority to perform marriage ceremonies, a function generally conducted by rabbis.47 Moses Isserles completed his studies in Lublin in 1549, married Golda, his teacher’s daughter,48 and settled in

41 In their correspondence, Meir Katzenellenbogen, Solomon Luria and Moses Isserles my kinsman). Their relation to a common progenitor is) שארי related to each other as discussed along with a genealogical tree in Asher Siev, “Maharam mi-Padovah” (Maharam of Padua), Ha-Darom 28 (1969): 160, 195. See also Lewin, “Deutsche Einwanderungen,” 323. 42 Moses Isserles [Rema], Darkhei Mosheh: Oraḥ ḥayim (Moses’s paths: Way of life) (Fürth, 1760), 49r sign 320c (Hebrew). If so, Isserl would have visited Italy before Abraham’s death in 1525, and they could have met in Ferrara, Mantua, or Padua, Abraham’s residences. 43 Isserles, Darkhei Mosheh: Oraḥ ḥayim, 59r sign 404. 44 See note 30 on page 8. 45 Shlomo Tal and David Derovan, “Isserles, Moses ben Israel,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 10 (Detroit, 2007), 770. 46 Majer Bałaban, Die Judenstadt von Lublin (Berlin, 1919), 17–18; Simon M. Dubnow, History of the Jews in Russia and Poland from the Earliest Time until the Present Day, vol. 1 (Philadelphia, 1916), 105. 47 “Metryka koronna,” 72: 382, reproduced in Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 147 n. 25. 48 Yonah Ben-Sasson, Mishnato ha-Iyunit shel ha-Rema (The Philosophical System of R. Moses Isserles) (Jerusalem, 1984), 6 n. 25 (Hebrew). Meir Rafeld raised a doubt as to whether Moses Isserles’s first wife was indeed Shakhna’s daughter Golda and supposed that the only mention of Shakhna as “my father-in-law” in Isserles’s glosses on Caro’s Shulhan arukh could have been a misprint. He argued that the epitaph on Golda’s tombstone that mentions her father ignores her husband, and neither the other numerous references to Shakhna as teacher in Isserles’s writings, nor any other sources of that time, confirm that Moses Isserles and Shakhna were relatives. See Meir Rafeld, “Ha-Zikah she-beyin ha-Rema le-R. Shalom Shakhna” (The relationship of the Rema and R. Shalom Shakna), Sinai 107 (1991): 239–41 (Hebrew). However, the location of Golda’s grave suggests that the Isserls considered her to be a relative, as they continued to bury the members of their family in the same line: her tombstone is found next to the tombstones of Moses Isserles’s grandmother, sister, and father, and of Moses himself (nos. 195–99 in the list in Duda, Krakowskie 38 chapter two Kazimierz. The wealth of the family allowed him to devote himself to the sciences and to perform the duties of a rabbi and a rabbinical judge without receiving a salary from the community.49 In due course, he became renowned as an outstanding scholar and authoritative halakhic codifier, and his reputation reached far beyond Poland.50 His commentaries on two popular codes of halakhah, the Shulḥan arukh (literally, “Prepared Table”) by Joseph Caro and the Sefer ha-Turim (literally, “Book of the Columns”) by Jacob ben Asher (ca. 1270–ca. 1343) became legal precepts for generations of Ashkenazic Jews.51 Moses Isserles confirmed Caro’s permission to use zoomorphic and plant images produced in relief, and his prohibition on making an “image of a man separately” in “protruding form,” or of owning such an image if an idolater made it.52 Following Caro, Isserles distinguished the provenance of an art piece, and somewhat moderated the prohibition: he allowed having such images in one’s possession if “somebody found them.”53 This remark would reflect a situation in which the Jews might want to reuse some old decorations, even if a gentile artist made these objects in a “protruding form.” The Christian origins of Renaissance Humanism did not prevent Isserles from adopting it. His resistance to Christianity was in the religious sphere. Isserles’s general predisposition to Polish culture was positive, as he believed that “by the grace of God, the King and his nobles are favourably disposed toward [the Jews].”54 There was no language barrier between Moses Isserles, who spoke Polish,55 and the surrounding majority. Even if less fully integrated into court life than his father, Moses Isserles could be aware of the main trends at Wawel from the 1550s on, where the second generation of Polish kings and nobles cultivated the Renaissance values. judaica, 91–92). Rafeld conceded that after Moses Isserles remarried, he might have avoided mentioning his first marriage as it could be upsetting for Shakhna (Rafeld, “Ha-Zikah,” 240). This assumption proposes a plausible explanation for the absence of information about the Isserles’s family ties with Shakhna in all but one source. 49 Lew, Jews of Poland, 34–37. 50 Ibid., 39–57. 51 See Menachem Elon, Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles, vol. 3 (Philadelphia, 1994), 1236–66. 52 Caro, Shulḥan arukh: Yoreh de‘ah, 141:4, 6. 53 See Isserles, glosses on Caro, Shulḥan arukh: Yoreh de‘ah, 141:4. 54 Isserles, Responsa, no. 63, cited after the translation in Lew, Jews of Poland, 83; see also ibid., 80–84; Elchanan Reiner, “The Rise of an Urban Community: Some Insights on the Transition from the Medieval Ashkenazi to the 16th century Jewish Community in Poland,” Kwartalnik Historii Żydów 3 (2003): 363–72. 55 See Isserles, Responsa, no. 101, 109; Lew, Jews of Poland, 27, 177. the renaissance reaches jewish kazimierz 39 Perhaps Isserles also had some experience in the arts: it was said that he had tried the professions of poet and scribe.56 His remark that “an adorned king on a chariot on talismans represents the sun” reveals his knowledge of the classical iconography of Helios.57 A notable artistic project in which Moses Isserles was involved is the design of his book Torat ha-Olah (The Law of the Burnt Offering), printed by Mordechai ha-Cohen in Prague in 1570. Its frontispiece is adorned with the images of angels, birds, naked monsters and lions (Fig. 13), and naked putti blowing horns are seen in the frames of the titles of chapters. Isserles’s communication with Prague was fast:58 he had seen the finished book in print59 and obviously confirmed its decoration. Most of the figures listed above are apparently copies and reused woodcuts from Christian books. The flat images, even if made by non-Jews, fell under the category permitted by Moses Isserles. However, it is possible that the combination of all those, plus the printer’s emblem, blessing hands, and a bearded head on the frontispiece, had initially been produced for his book.60 This human head, depicted on the shield in the bottom centre, is unprecedented in several aspects. In his frontispiece woodcut for Martin Luther’s Von den Jüden und ihren Lügen of 1543, Lucas Cranach put in the same location (the bottom centre) the half-figure of a satanic Jewish moneychanger, a personification of alleged Jewish greed.61 Some ornamented frontispieces of Hebrew books from Prague of that time contain a half-figure of Moses holding the Tablets of the Law.62 Yet, the head on the frontispiece of Moses Isserles’s book is different. Given no attributes except for the bonnet and fur-collared coat of a central-European burgher’s costume, the man does

56 Asher Siev, Rabeynu Moshe Iserles (Rema) (Our Rabbi Moshe Isserles [Rema]) (New York, 1972), 180 (Hebrew). 57 Isserles, glosses on Caro, Shulḥan arukh: Yoreh de‘ah, 141:3. 58 Note that the Torat ha-Olah was printed in 1570 soon after the manuscripts had been completed in Kazimierz in the month of Kislev 5330, i.e., between 10 November and 8 December 1569. See Moses Isserles [Rema], Sefer torat ha-Olah (Book of the Law of the Burnt Offering) (Prague, 1570), no. 1:1 (in the unpaginated section; Hebrew). 59 Moses Isserles suggested that his correspondent in Posen buy a copy of Torat ha- Olah. See Isserles, Responsa, no. 121. 60 According to Yaari, the Torat ha-Olah was the first book printed by Mordechai ha- Cohen independently and the one embellished with his own printer’s mark. See Abraham Yaari, Diglei ha-Madpisim ha-Ivryiym me-reshit ha-Defus ha-Ivri ve-ad sof ha-Meah ha-Tesha- esreh (Jewish printers’ marks from the beginning of Hebrew printing to the end of the 19th century) (Jerusalem, 1944), 137 (Hebrew). 61 Heinz Schreckenberg, The Jews in Christian Art (New York, 1996), 317 fig. 13. 62 E.g., the frontispiece of the prayer book Seder yoẓerot (Liturgical hymns) printed by Gershom ha-Cohen in Prague, 1536. 40 chapter two not seem to represent any allegory or biblical hero. The close-up view of his head and its individual countenance create the effect of a personal portrait—assumingly, the author’s. In Italy, portraits of Jews, among them prominent rabbis, were made from the late-fifteenth century on (and some of those will be discussed in the next chapter). If the likeness in the Torat ha-Olah is of Moses Isserles, it is the earliest known portrait of a Jew in Poland. It may also be the earliest non-imaginary portrait of a Jewish author reproduced in his book during his lifetime, the second to which is the portrait of Leon Modena (1571–1648) in the bottom of the frontispiece in his Historia de riti hebraici printed in Venice in 1638.63 The portrait or portrait-like image on Isserles’s Hebrew book addressed to the Jewish reader is even more daring than Modena’s portrait on the book written in Italian for the Christians. Not less audacious was Moses Isserles’s ability to learn the Humanistic philosophy and sciences seemingly by osmosis. He was attracted by Aris- totelian philosophy, conceding that it was secondary to the Jewish sources: he explained that he studied Aristotle from Maimonides’s Moreh nevukhim (Guide for the Perplexed) only during periods of rest on the sabbaths and festivals, whilst on weekdays he perused the Jewish sages.64 Isserles’s Ar- istotelianism echoed the enthusiasm for Classic philosophy of the Italian Humanists and their Polish followers,65 and also the interest in Aristotle of the Jews in Renaissance Italy, who read Aristotle’s works in their Hebrew versions.66 A reference to Plato in Isserles’s Meḥir yayin (Price of Wine) indicates his even wider awareness of Greek philosophy.67 Moses Isserles’s anthropologic views remind us of the teachings of Nicolaus Cusanus (1401– 64) and Marsilio Ficino (1433–99).68 Moses Isserles commented on Abra- ham ben Samuel Zacuto’s historical Sefer ha-Yuḥasin (Book of Lineage) of

63 Richard I. Cohen, Jewish Icons: Art and Society in Modern Europe (Berkeley, 1993), 28–29. 64 See Lew, Jews of Poland, 24. On the impact of the Aristotelian philosophy on Moses Isserles’s writings, see Ben-Sasson, Mishnato ha-Iyunit, 6 n. 25. On Isserles’s views on the primacy of Jewish scholarship, see Abraham Melamed, “A Legitimating Myth: Ashkenazic Thinkers on the Purported Jewish Origins of Philosophy and Science,” Simon Dubnow Institute Yearbook 8 (2009), 300–304. 65 On the Aristotelian movement in Cracow in the early 16th century, see P. Czartoryski, Wczesna recepcja “Politiki” Arystotelesa na Uniwersutecie Krakowskim (Wrocław, 1963). 66 Shulvass, Jews in the World of the Renaissance, 311–13; Roth, Jews in the Renaissance, 35, 74. 67 Moses Isserles [Rema], Meḥir yayin: Biy’ur tov ve-Neḥmad al megilat Ester (Price of wine: A good and pleasant elucidation of the Book of Esther) (Cremona, 1559), commentary on Esth. 1:1 (Hebrew). 68 Ben-Sasson, Mishnato ha-Iyunit, 110–13. the renaissance reaches jewish kazimierz 41 1504 and permitted the reading of history books and other secular literature on the sabbath, if written in Hebrew.69 He also commented on the Hebrew translation of the Latin astronomy treatise Theoricae novae plan- etarum by George von Peurbach (1423–61)70 and recommended the use of an astrolabe.71 Isserles’s studies of history and astronomy were consonant with the rise of Renaissance historiography and the progress of astronomy in Poland in this period.72 His range of interests, clearly fostered by the Humanistic ideal of a universal “Renaissance man,” was unusual among the Ashkenazic rabbis of his time,73 and his devotion to Aristotle was sharply criticised by the Maharshal of Lublin. In his reply, Isserles insisted that a Jew is permitted to refer to Greek philosophers.74 Moses Isserles became a pioneer of the adoption of the Renaissance Zeitgeist by Polish Jewry. Moses Isserles does not appear to have crossed the borders of the Polish kingdom,75 but was well familiar with Jewish culture in Bohemia and It- aly, mainly the Veneto region. He read Hebrew books printed elsewhere, managed trade in Hebrew books from Italy in Poland, and published his own books abroad. His book Meḥir yayin that had been written in Szydłów in 1553 was first printed in Cremona six years later,76 and the Torat ha-Olah appeared in Prague in 1570, shortly after the manuscript had been com-

69 Isserles, glosses on Caro, Shulḥan arukh: Oraḥ ḥayim 307:15. 70 Lew, Jews of Poland, 74, 79. See also Y. Tzvi Langermann, “The Astronomy of Rabbi Moses Isserles” in Physics, Cosmology and Astronomy, 1300–1700, ed. S. Unguru (Dordrecht, 1991), 83–98. 71 Isserles, Darkhei Moshe: Oraḥ ḥayim 307. 72 On the rise of Renaissance historiography, see Aleksander Gieysztor, “Polish Histo- rians and the Need for History in 15th- and 16th Century Poland” in The Polish Renaissance in Its European Context, ed. Samuel Fiszman (Bloomington, 1988), 3–16. On astronomy in Poland at this time and its impact on thought and art, see Ewa Chojecka, “Krakowska grafika kalendarzowa i astronomiczna XVI wieku” in Studia Renesansowe, ed. by Michał Walicki, vol. 3 (Wrocław, 1963), 319–473; Andrzej Wróblewski, “The Cracovian Background of Nich- olas Copernicus” in Polish Renaissance, 147–60; Jerzy Miziołek, “Oculus Mundi... oculus coeli. Prolegomena do studium o kaplicy grobowej prymasa Uchanskiego” in Między Padwą a Zamościem. Studia z historii sztuki i kultury nowożytnej ofiarowane profesorowi Jerzemu Kowalczykowi (Warsaw, 1993), 73–85. 73 See Reiner, “The Rise of an Urban Community.” 74 See S. P. Rabinovich, “Sledy svobodomysliya v pol’skom ravvinizme XVI veka” (Traces of liberal thought in the Polish rabbinical scholarship of the 16th century), Evreyskaya starina 4 (1911): 3–6 (Russian); Lew, Jews of Poland, 24–25 and appendix, “The Prayer of Aristotle,” 182–87. 75 Zunz’s assumption that Moses Isserles visited Italy (Zunz, Ir ha-Ẓedek, 4) has no documentary evidence, cf. Lew, Jews of Poland, 21–22. 76 Meir Benayahu, Ha-Dfus ha-Ivri be-Kremona (Hebrew printing in Cremona) (Jeru- salem, 1971), 209–10 no. 22 (Hebrew). 42 chapter two pleted in Kazimierz.77 Numerous Bohemian immigrants in Poland might have described the synagogues in Prague to Isserles. Among them were Isserles’s teacher and father-in-law, Shalom Shakhna, a graduate of the Prague yeshiva; and Pinchas ben Israel Horowitz (1535–1618), Moses Is- serles’s brother-in-law and also Shakhna’s student. Pinchas was a grandson of Aaron Meshulam Horowitz (1470–1545),78 who in the 1520s reconstructed their old family synagogue, adopting the style of Benedict Ried’s Renais- sance architecture at the Jagellonian court in Prague, and in 1535 Aaron Meshulam expanded the synagogue hall westward.79 The exchange of scholarly, commercial, and personal information between the Isserls and their relatives, the Maharam of Padua and his son Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogen of Padua and Venice, was constant and relatively fast. Moses Isserles assisted the Maharam, who was a business partner of the Venetian printer Alvise Bragadini in the distribution of He- brew books from Italy in Poland;80 and in 1550, the Rema promoted the Maharam’s business interests in Poland. 81 In 1553, the Maharam answered Isserles’s question about the halakhic issues raised after the death of his

77 See note 59 on page 39. 78 Pinchas married Moses Isserles’s sister Miriam Beila. See Isserles, Responsa, nos. 49, 264. Pinchas was already in Poland in 1556, studying under Shalom Shakhna in Lublin, and in 1581 he presided over the Jewish community of Kazimierz; see Hayim Dov[berish] Fried- berg, Toldot mishpaḥat Horoviẓ (History of the Horowitz family) (Antwerp, 1928), 7 (Hebrew); Siev, Rabeynu Moshe Iserles, 12 no. 8, 14, 112; Arieh Bauminger, “Toldot ha-Yehudim be-Kraka be-shnot 5064–5575” (History of the Jews of Cracow from 1304 to 1815) in Sefer Kraka: Ir va-Am b-Yisrael (Book of the Jewish city of Cracow), ed. Arieh Bauminger (Jerusalem, 1959), 20. In the late-16th century, Pinchas’s name was given to the Horowitz Synagogue. 79 Hana Volavková, The Pinkas Synagogue (Prague, 1955), 55, 61. See also Krautheimer, Mittelalterliche Synagogen, 234–39; Wischnitzer, Architecture, 78–81; Arno Pařík and Pavel Štecha, The Jewish Town of Prague (Prague, 1992), 30–35; Milada Vilímková, The Prague Ghetto (Prague, 1993), 114–20. 80 See also David Werner Amram, The Makers of Hebrew Books in Italy (Philadelphia, 1909), 373; Joshua Bloch, “Venetian Printers of Hebrew Books” in Hebrew Printing and Bib- liography, ed. Charles Berlin, Charles (New York, 1976), 71, 84. 81 On August 16, 1550, Moses Isserles prevented the Polish Jews from purchasing Mai- monides’s Mishne Torah published by Marco Antonio Giustiniani in Venice earlier that year. Isserles’s measure was aimed at promoting the Maharam’s concurrent project: another, more expensive edition of the same Maimonides’s book with the Maharam’s glosses, published by Alvise Bragadini at the same place and year. See Isserles, Responsa, no. 10. See also Siev, “Maharam mi-Padovah,” 183–84; Joshua Bloch, “Venetian Printers of Hebrew Books,” 81–82; Isaiah Sonne, “Expurgation of Hebrew Books—the Work of Jewish Scholars: A Con- tribution to the History of the Censorship of Hebrew Books in Italy in the 16th century” in Hebrew Printing and Bibliography, ed. Charles Berlin, Charles (New York, 1976), 235–36. the renaissance reaches jewish kazimierz 43 mother.82 After Moses Isserles’s death in 1572, Samuel Judah Katzenellen- bogen delivered a public eulogy for him in the ghetto of Venice, an homage the likes of which no one was able to offer in his native Kazimierz.83 Information about the Italian synagogues could have been brought to Kazimierz by Jewish immigrants and travellers. Samuel bar Meshulam, Queen Bona Sforza’s physician in Milan and Cracow, was the father of Mo- ses, a classmate of Moses Isserles at the yeshiva in Lublin.84 Isaac Schwarz, who in 1553 bought gems for Bona Sforza in Venice, was a son of Israel Schwarz, who at that time signed the agreements on behalf of the Jewish community in Kazimierz together with Moses Isserles.85 Among Isserles’s acquaintances and students from Poland who visited Italy were Mordechai ben Abraham Jaffe, who traveled to Italy in 1551 and remained there for about ten years, and David Darshan ben Menassiah, who was in Ferrara in 1557.86 These personal skills and qualities made Moses Isserles capable of playing an active role in his father’s establishment and design of the first Re- naissance synagogue in Poland.

The Establishment of the Isserls’ Synagogue

The dedicatory inscription on the southern wall in the synagogue now known as the Rema’s (Plate 2.7) states that Israel Isserl established it in June or July 1553 in memory of his wife, Malka, who died of the plague half a year before. 87 Malka was buried in the illegally established Jewish cem-

82 Moses Isserles [Rema], Darkhei Mosheh: Yoreh de‘ah (Moses’s paths: Teaching knowledge) (Sulzbach, 1692), 106, sign 391b (Hebrew). 83 Elliott Horowitz, “Speaking of the Dead: The Emergence of the Eulogy among Italian Jewry of the Sixteenth Century” in Preachers of the Italian Ghetto, ed. David B. Ruderman (Berkeley, 1992), 144–45. 84 Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 141–42. 85 Ibid., 1: 190, 543. 86 Siev, “Maharam mi-Padovah,” 45. 87 The text reads: האיש ר ישראל בר יוסף ז"ל עוז התאזר: לכבוד הקב"ה ולזכר אשתו מלכה בת ר אלעזר: תנ"צבה בנה מנכסי עזבונה | ב'ה' ]בית הכנסת] זה מקום בית אל לפרט ולפרשת שובה ה רבבות אלפי ישראל 44 chapter two etery for the victims of the epidemic that broke out in Kazimierz in 155188 in the area located west of the Jewish market square next to Isserl’s estate. To distinguish it from the Old Synagogue at the northern side of the square, Isserl’s prayer house was called the “New Synagogue.”89 Hereafter we prefer to call it “the Isserls’ Synagogue,” differentiating it from Israel Isserl’s own properties and reflecting the joint patronage with his son, Moses Isserles. The main section of the existing building is a rectangular prayer hall, somewhat irregular in plan, measuring 5.5 × 10.7 m, with the entrance through a vestibule at the western part of the northern wall (Plates 2.1–2.3). The large windows set high on the eastern part of the longitudinal walls and the annexes were built during the restoration of the synagogue by Antony Pluszyński in 1829.90 Two slightly asymmetric niches flank the Torah ark at the eastern wall, and three half-metre-deep niches differing

“Rabbi Israel, son of Joseph, of blessed memory, ‘girded himself with strength’ [Ps. 93:1]: in honour of the Holy One blessed be He and in memory of his wife Malka, daughter of Rabbi Eleazar may her soul ‘be bound in the bundle of life’ [‘… with the Lord thy God,’ I Sam. 25:29], he built from the property bequeathed by her the synagogue, this place [is the] House of God, to the account and to the chapter ‘Return, O Lord, unto the many thousands of Israel’ [King James Bible, Num. 10:36].” The first word of the last biblical verse designates the date [5]313, i.e., 1553 CE, and the entire citation is taken from the weekly Torah portion B-ha‘alotkha (“When thou lightest …,” Num. 8:1–13:16), that in 1553 was read in synagogues on 21–27 May. 88 Bałaban based his information about the 1551–52 epidemic on records found in the minute book of the Burial Society of the Jewish community in Kazimierz. The parcel of land had been acquired by the Jews in 1533, but the town council would not permit the ground to be allocated for a cemetery. See Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 186; Franciszek Piekosiński, Prawa, przywileje i statuta miasta Krakowa, vol. 1 (Cracow, 1885), 214–15. Notwithstanding the legal status of the place, the community used it to bury the plague victims in 1551–52. The inscription dated from 1801 above the entrance to the cemetery, states that it was בית עלמן הישנה ומקום קברת הגאונים נתיסדה מקופת הקהילה בשנת שי"א :established in 1551 The old cemetery and the burial place of the sages was established from the funds) לפ"ק of the community in 311 [1551 CE]). The earliest tombs there date from 1552. On 30 June 1553, the town council of Kazimierz officially permitted the use of this land for a cemetery, and Moses Isserles signed the agreement on behalf of the Jewish elders. See Piekosiński, Prawa, przywileje i statuta miasta Krakowa, 1: 154; Bersohn, Dyplomatariusz, 52–58 no. 62; Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 190–91. 89 The name “New Synagogue” was in use until at least the second half of the 19th century as is confirmed by the text engraved in 1800 or 1829 above the gate leading from בית הכנסת חדש דרמ"א ז'צ'ל :the market square to the courtyard of the Isserls’ Synagogue (the new synagogue of the Rema, may his righteous memory be blessed). This inscription was destroyed after 1939 and has recently been renovated. During the 19th century, the term “New Synagogue” for this building was also common in Jewish books about Cracow and Kazimierz, e.g., Zunz, Ir ha-Ẓedek, 3. 90 Tadeusz Żychiewicz, “Krakow-Kazimierz. Bóżnica R’emuh. Dokumentacja naukowa, Pracownia Architektoniczna P.K.Z.,” typescript (Cracow, 1953), 13–14; Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 9. the renaissance reaches jewish kazimierz 45 in width are sunken into the northern wall to the right of the entrance. On each of the longitudinal walls (Plate 2.10), a wide fragment of a former pilaster is attached in the centre of the wall, and a narrower fragment of another former pilaster is set half-way between the wide pilaster and each wall’s eastern corner. Tadeusz Żychiewicz, who investigated the building in 1953, assumed that the wider pilasters are remnants of the removed western wall of the old square hall, about 5.5 × 5.5 m, in the eastern half of the building (Plate 2.4).91 Thus the narrower pilasters are situated in the centre of the hall’s original southern and northern walls. Assumingly, these two pilasters supported the springing of two low-pitched vaults with small windows in the lunettes. Indeed, the massive walls that lean on the exterior, from a metre and a half thick at the base to a metre wide in the upper part, could support some form of vaulting inside.92 Żychiewicz’s report suggests that the synagogue of 1553 might have been a room in one of Is- serl’s houses that had been turned into a prayer hall rather than a structure built specifically for public worship. The approximately 30-square-metre space could have held a few dozen worshippers, such as the Isserl family, yeshiva students, and, perhaps, some neighbours. The role of Israel Isserl in the foundation of the synagogue is clearly stated in the dedicatory inscription, the epitaph on his tombstone, and in archival records: he financed the construction, using the property bequeathed by his wife, Malka, in 1553, applied for the permission in 1556, and, as will be seen below, commissioned a mason to do work on the synagogue in 1558. Moses Isserles, who then served as a community rabbi without salary, could not have participated in the financing of the project; Israel Isserl supported him and hosted his yeshiva.93 Neither did Moses Isserles ever claim that he participated in the founding of the synagogue,

91 Żychiewicz, “Bóżnica R’emuh,” 8–11. He also pointed out the bricks mixed with cut stones at the base of the synagogue, and stated that the measurements of the bricks are like those accepted in the Gothic period, and would not have been used for building in the 1550s, ibid., 6–7, 34 n. 17. 92 Żychiewicz raised two other hypotheses concerning the original spanning of the synagogue. According to the first, the hall was spanned by four groin vaults resting on a pillar in the centre of the hall, so that the construction was a smaller variant of medieval two-nave synagogues like the nearby Old Synagogue. However, a central pillar was rather superfluous for the relatively small 5.5-metre span, especially in contrast with the 6.2-metre span versus the 1.2-metre-thick walls of the neigbouring Old Synagogue. The alternative reconstruction proposes that the hall was spanned with timbers. In this case, all the pilasters are remnants of the removed walls of the house and had no constructive function. See Żychiewicz, “Bóżnica R’emuh,” 9–10. 93 Lew, Jews of Poland, 28–29, 34–37. The statement that Moses Isserles himself built the synagogue in memory of his wife in 1553, in Tal and Derovan, “Isserles, Moses ben Israel,” 770, is not correct. 46 chapter two thereby giving all the credit to his father. Two years after his father’s death, Moses Isserles introduced himself as the son of one who built “a lesser Temple, a splendid building, a house of God.”94 It was only much later that the New Synagogue began to be called the “Rema Synagogue” and become a place for the veneration of this eminent rabbi.95 Nevertheless, Moses Isserles could have played a role in founding the synagogue in 1553 and its reconstruction after 1556. Israel Isserl was involved in business rather than in scholarship, whereas his learned son, who in the early 1550s was already a practising rabbi and a promising scholar, might have advised him on adapting a house into a synagogue and participated in its creative planning

אני משה בן לא"א ]לאדוני אבי[ הפרנס הנדיב, אשר נדבה רוחו :Moses Isserles wrote 94 לבנות מקדש מעט בניין מפואר בית אלהים אשר שם נהלך ברגש ישראל שלי"ט ]שיחיה לאורך I [am] Moses, the son of the my father and) ימים טובים[ הנקרא משה איסרליש מקראקא lord—the generous warden whose soul prompted him to build “a little sanctuary” [Ezek. 11:16], a splendid building, “the house of God” that there we “walked with the throng” [Ps. 55:15]—Israel, may he live on for many good days, named Moses Isserles of Cracow), Isser- les, Torat ha-Olah 5r. 95 The authority of Moses Isserles’s halakhic decisions for generations of Ashkenazic Jews and the later custom of pilgrimage and prayer at the grave of a righteous man were apparently the reasons for naming the synagogue after him. In due course, several inscriptions were made in the synagogue and cemetery to commemorate his name. In 1899, שער חצר הפנימי מבה"כ :Tomkowicz recorded a text, now missing, at the courtyard gate ]מבית הסנסת[ הגאון הרמ"א זצ"ל נתיסד מקופת הצדקה דח"ק ג"ח ש"א ]דחברא קדישא גמילת The gate of the inner courtyard) חסדים של אמת[ לפרט שמחתי באומ'רי'ם' ב'י'ת' ה' נ'ל'ך' from the synagogue of the gaon [here a title for an honorable sage] Rema, may his righteous memory be blessed, was established from the alms of the “Sincere Charity” Holy Society [burial society], for the counting [of the date using the numerical value of the letters marked in the following verse] “I rejoiced when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord” [Ps. 122:1]). The marked characters give the total 557, that is 1817 (Stanisław Tomko- wicz, Napisy domów krakowskich [Cracow, 1899], 45). The grave of Moses Isserles was probably a place for Jewish pilgrimage by the second half of the 19th century. A new epitaph enclosed within a portal-shaped frame was engraved on the back of his 1572 tombstone, and the stone was turned around so that the original relief became the obverse. The inscription on the lamp attached to the left pilaster of the Torah ark at the time of its renovation the Eternal Light for the) נר תמיד ע"נ ]"על נשמת" / "עילוי נשמת"[ רמ"א ז"ל :in 1861 reads soul [or “for the exaltation of the soul”] of the Rema, of blessed memory). To the right of מקובל אצלנו אשר על המקום ,the Holy Ark in the synagogue is a tablet with the inscription ,It is accepted by us that the Rema) הזה עמד הרמ"א ז'צ'ל להתפלל ולשפוך שיחו לפני הקב"ה may his righteous memory be blessed, stood at this place to pray and to pour out his heart before the Holy One blessed be He). See Ozjasz Mahler, Przewodnik po Żydowskich zabytkach Krakowa (Cracow, [1932–35]), 27–30; Duda, Krakowskie judaica, 79–84, 92–93 no. 199; Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 9–13, 58, figs. 36, 37, 96, 115, 151, 152. At the bottom צדקה עבור ,of the alms box at the entrance, Drożdziewicz read a memorial inscription ”alms for the soul of [the] Rema, may his righteous memory be blessed“ נשמת רמא ז~צ"ל (Jan Droździewicz, O napisie Hebrejskim w bóżnicy kazimirskiéj Starą zwanéj [Cracow, 1865], 17). Bałaban testified that in 1935 this text was unreadable; see Majer Bałaban, Przewodnik po żydowskich zabytkach Krakowa (Cracow, 1935), 72. the renaissance reaches jewish kazimierz 47 and innovative decoration. It is noteworthy that in his halakhic decisions, Moses Isserles pointed out the synagogues established by individuals in their homes.96 Moses Isserles fully shared the grief that inspired his father, Israel Isserl, to perpetuate the memory of Isserl’s wife and Moses’s mother, Malka. The bereavement was especially heavy since several months later both men lost their wives and mothers. Malka passed away on 27 December, 1552, after the plague had taken Moses’s young wife, Golda, on 3 June, and Isserl’s mother, Gitl, sixteen days later.97 Their deaths suddenly interrupted the halcyon years of the family after Moses Isserles’s return from Lublin and his wedding. Reflections on their grief can be discerned in the subject of Moses Is- serles’s first book, Meḥir yayin (Price of Wine), an exegesis on the Book of Esther.98 He wrote it in Szydłów, where he had gone to escape the plague in Kazimierz in early 1556. The new epidemic must have reactivated Moses Isserles’s memories of the pestilence that took the lives of his kin a few years before. The book’s introduction and conclusion betray the individual aspect of its subject and reveal the close relationship between son and father. Although the manuscript was finished shortly after the festival of Purim (on which the Book of Esther is read), 99 the concluding poem represents the book as a Purim gift that Moses Isserles sent to his father in Kazimierz. The writer confessed that this was a sort of substitute for the customary joy of this festival, which could not be attained under the circumstances. He interpreted the story of Esther as an allegory of a life full of trouble and suffering from birth until death. It is probable that Moses Isserles chose a biblical book in which the hero is a woman, and looked at

96 Joseph Caro forbade making a room into a synagogue if someone dwells above the prayer hall, Shulḥan arukh: Oraḥ ḥayim 150:2. In his gloss on ibid., Moses Isserles took into consideration the urgent situations and non-Jewish laws that forbade appropriate synagogue building. In these cases, he permitted prayer even if someone dwells “above the synagogue,” especially if the dwellers “behave purely” (Isserl’s glosses on ibid.). Caro objected “debasing use” such as “lying [–sexual intercourse?] above the synagogue,” Shulḥan arukh: Oraḥ ḥayim 151:12, whereas Isserles’s gloss on ibid. limited this restriction to the buildings originally erected as synagogues and proposed a more liberal attitude in the cases when a home was later turned into a synagogue. 97 See Wetstein, “Noch ein wort,” 167–71; Friedberg, Luḥot zikaron, 47–49 nos. 28–26. 98 On this book, see Menachem G. Glenn, “‘Mehir Yayin’ (Rabbi Moses Isserles’s Phil osophical Allegory on the Book of Esther),” The Jewish Forum 31 (1948): 48; Lew, Jews of Poland, 34–37, 58–60; Siev, Rabeynu Moshe Iserles, 136–39; Ben-Sasson, Mishnato ha-Iyunit, 12. 99 In 1556 Purim was celebrated on 25–26 February, whereas the manuscript was completed in March. 48 chapter two the duality of a human being who is composed of male and female traits, representing form and matter respectively.100 The feeling of loneliness that is implied in the “Introduction” leads one to assume that Moses Isserles had not yet married his second wife, so that his sorrow had not been al- leviated by a new relationship. His reflection on the indispensable female component of the human being could be a reaction, expressed philosoph- ically, to the sudden loss of three generations of beloved women in his family. The sentiment was obviously even deeper in 1553, shortly after the di- saster. Its expression by the establishment of a prayer house might have been inspired by the Renaissance idea of the memorial sanctuary. The first and foremost model of it in Poland, the Sigismund Chapel, was inspired by the death of Sigismund’s first wife; later it became the mausoleum for its founder, his second wife, and their son. Beyond the royal court, the new art also focused mainly on the design of memorial chapels and relief tombstones in churches and monasteries. Accepting this form of commemoration, the Jewish patrons had only to reject the custom of burying the dead in the sanctuary or its crypt, for graves containing human corpses are considered the main source of ritual impurity in Judaism for those who enter into an enclosed space with them.101 Instead, Isserl offered his house, which was situated just a few metres from the graves of his wife, mother, and daughter-in-law. The first rows of graves next to the synagogue’s back wall became the burial place for Isserl himself, his son, Moses Isserles, and their closest relatives (Plates 2.5–2.6).102 If the reconstruction of the prayer hall of 1553 (Plate 2.4) as an almost cubical space with the windows placed high on the wall is correct, the space resembled the Polish Renaissance memorial chapels that are set on a square plan and illuminated with natural light from above (e.g., Fig. 12). The memorial meaning of the chapels was complementary to their ritual function. The Sigismund Chapel was designed as the patron’s de-

100 See the foreword and the commentary on Esth. 1:1 in Isserles, Meḥir yayin. 101 This interdiction stems from Numbers 19:14; see also “Tum’at met” (Impurity of the dead), Enẓyklopediah talmudit (Talmudic encyclopedia), vol. 20 (Jerusalem, 1995), 463–70 (Hebrew). Although Jewish pilgrimage to graves of biblical figures, famous rabbis, and pious men has a long history, the custom of praying within an enclosed shrine over the grave seems to be a modern custom. Nevertheless, we do not know about any synagogue that was built over a grave or about burial within the synagogue. 102 See Duda, Krakowskie judaica, 91–92. the renaissance reaches jewish kazimierz 49 voted offering to the Lord, God’s house, and imitatio Templi.103 Isserl similarly proclaimed that he established “a place of the house of God” “in honour of the Holy One.”104 Moses Isserles repeated: Isserl’s Synagogue is the “the house of God” and “lesser Temple.”105 The liturgical symbolism was enhanced a few years after the synagogue’s founding, when Isserl expanded the prayer hall.

The Expansion of the Isserls’ Synagogue

Sigismund Augustus granted “Israeli Judaeo” (Israel Isserl) the right to set up a synagogue “in domo eius” (in his house) for both private and communal use on 12 November 1556,106 which was three years after the date of the synagogue’s founding, as recorded in the dedicatory inscription.107 The prayer hall within his house, like the cemetery nearby, could be established and used without official permission. Probably, Isserl applied for legal permission after he decided to reconstruct the prayer hall into a synagogue for a larger congregation. It is possible that he aimed at resolving the short-

103 See Zadrożny, “Starotestamentowa geneza relacji,” 14–15. Note also the biblical definitions of the Temple in Jerusalem as “the house of God” (e.g., Dan. 1:2) and “the house of the Lord” (e.g., I Kings 3:1). 104 See note 87 on page 43. 105 See note 94 on page 46. The record from the Isserls Synagogue minute book, quoted in note 238, on the foundation of the synagogue, also uses the term “lesser temple.” 106 The document is partially reproduced in Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 145 n. 18. Wischnitzer erroneously dated the permit to 1553; see idem, Architecture, 107. A few other sources confirm Israel Isserl’s patronage over the synagogue. The synagogue minute החסיד השלם אשר בנה בית מקדש מעט, הנדיב לכל דבר שבקדושה, המנהיג :book records והנשיא בישראל הר"ר ישראל )המכונה יסרל( ב"ר יוסף וזוגתו הצדקת דינה מלכה בת הר"ר ,see Siev, “Hakdamah,” 10), “The perfectly pious man who built the lesser sanctuary) אליעזר generous in any sacred matter, the leader and prince in Israel, Rabbi Israel (called Isserl), son of Rabbi Joseph, and his righteous spouse Dina Malka, daughter of Rabbi Eliezer.” Isserl’s פה נקבר הר"ר ישראל יסרל :deed was also mentioned in the inscription on his tombstone בנה בית הכנסת לאל נקרא יסרל לאזרש מקראקא, עשה עם ישראל משפט וצדקה, וגודל זכותו יעמוד למתפלל על קבורתו, נתבקש למעלה שנת חשך י"ג אדר הראשון, עלינו לבקש רחמים לפני see Zunz, Ir ha-Ẓedek, 171–72 [161–62]). “Here lies Rabbi Israel) לא ינום ולא יישן, תנצב"ה Isserl [who] built a synagogue for God; he was called Isserl Lazers from Cracow; he was just and charitable to the People of Israel, and his great virtues will be passed on to those who pray at his burial [tomb]; he was invited aloft [in the] year of ‘darkness’ [328, that is 1568], 13 first Adar [12 February]; we must ask for mercy from He Who ‘neither slumbers nor sleeps’ [Ps. 121:4]; ‘may his soul be bound up in the bonds of eternal life’ [paraphrase of I Sam. 25:29].” Isserl’s additional donations to commemorate his late wife are also recorded in the synagogue’s minute book, folio 20a, and in the memorial book of the Hevrah Kadishah (burial society), folio 17a (see Wetstein, “Noch ein wort,” 166–67). 107 See note 87 on page 43. 50 chapter two age of space for public worship in Jewish Kazimierz, a problem that arose as early as the 1500s and would only worsen with the growth of the Jewish population. Even if the references to Isserl’s generosity in the documents from that time are coloured with panegyrics and elegies, it is true that he was indeed benevolent. It seems that the donation of his family synagogue to the community is reflected in Moses Isserles’s later halakhic ruling on the obedience of an individual synagogue patron to the society. He stated that the sovereignty of the patron of a private synagogue is limited, because a place for public worship must serve the entire community. He even declared that a synagogue founded by an individual is considered to be communal property, respecting the donor’s right to impose beforehand his veto on selling the building or to prevent an undesirable person from entering the synagogue.108 Most likely, Isserl began to commission masonry work, new furniture and decorations—which demanded significant expense—only after he had obtained the official permit so that the reconstruction of the interior might be begun immediately. Since it was already an inappropriate season for external mason- and brickwork because water in mortar might freeze, the works would have been continued in the spring. Whilst Isserl was reconstructing his synagogue, a huge fire broke out in Kazimierz. Sigismund Augustus’s decree from 14 October 1557 shows that fire damaged a synagogue: Sigismund Augustus etc., [...]: That, consenting indulgently to the interces- sions made to us by certain of our councilors on behalf of the Jews living in our town Kazimierz, we were brought to agree and consent to them, and therefore we admit and consent to the following series of letters. That they will be able in place of the synagogue built of masonry, which was less damaged by fire, to construct and rebuild it—according with the tradition and custom of the other synagogues—in a location that will be judged by them more convenient, among their other houses, which they possess in our town Kazimierz from ancient times; after their synagogue will be built of masonry, those same Jews of Kazimierz, present and living there according to the circumstances, will hold and keep it for their use, according to their Jewish rite, and possess it quietly and peacefully. We issue this for the information of all and anyone to whom it may concern, ordering that the above-mentioned Jews of Kazimierz take care to act—in rebuilding their

108 See Isserles, glosses on Caro, Shulḥan arukh: Oraḥ ḥayim 153:7, 16. the renaissance reaches jewish kazimierz 51

synagogue as well as in using it—according to the custom of the other synagogues, and worry that it should be kept up by others [...].109 Unlike the permit for the synagogue in Isserl’s house, this decree is addressed to the entire Jewish community and ambiguously describes the location of the synagogue. Bałaban believed that the burnt synagogue was Isserls’, and he claimed that it was a wooden building that Isserl rebuilt after the fire in masonry.110 However, Isserl did not need to apply for permission again, as he had not yet fully implemented the privilege that had been granted him in 1553. Neither does the synagogue mentioned in the decree seem to have been managed by a private patron. It would have been the Old Synagogue, the only communal masonry synagogue in Kazimierz at that time, and the king’s demand to “possess it quietly and peacefully” that was perhaps a way of warning the factions within the Jewish community against continuing their long-lasting disputes over this building. The vague topography may be explained by the remote and indirect way of making the decision. At the time, Sigismund Augustus was far from Cracow—in Vilnius. As the decree reveals, his knowledge of the situation in Kazimierz was based on letters and on the explanations of his advisers. It seems that the king permitted rebuilding the partially damaged masonry synagogue, taking into consideration that for some reason this would

109 “Sigismundus Augustus etc. Significamus etc. Quod intercessionibus certorum Consiliariorum nostrorum pro iudaeis Civitatem nostram Casimiriensem commorantibus nobis factis benigne annuentes, ipsis admittendos et consenciendos duximus, admittimu- seue [–admittimusque] et consentimus harum serie literarum. Ut in locum synagogae ex aedificijs [–aedificis] muri, quae incendio minus obnoxia esset, more et consuetudine aliarum synagogarum, in loco qui commodior eis visus fuerit, inter septa aliarum domorum, quas in Civitate nostra Cazymiriensi antiquitus possident, construere et readificare possint, per ipsos iudeos Cazymirienses, praesentes et pro tempore existentes, synagogam eiusdem postquam e muro constructa fuerit tenentur, habentur, ritu eorundem iudeico [–iudaico] utifruendam quieteque et pacifice possidendam. Quod ad universorum et singulorum quorum interest noticiam deducimus, mandantes et [–ut] commemoratos iudaeos Cazi- mirienses tam in reaedificatione eiosdem [–eiusdem] synagogae quam in usu illius more aliarum synagogarum censervent [–conservent], conservarique ab aliis curent. In cuius rei fidem etc. Datum Vilniuse feria quinta ante festum Sanctae Helvigis proxima. Anno ut supra [1557].” The Latin text is cited after Bersohn, Dyplomatariusz, 64 no. 73; it is also partially reproduced in Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 145–46 n. 20. 110 Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 143, 145, 411. Bałaban’s conclusions were uncritically accepted in Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 9; Bogusław Krasnowolski, Ulice i place Krakowskiego Kazimierza. Z dziejów chreścijan i Żydow w Polsce (Cracow, 1992), 152. Some others also shared Bałaban’s opinion that Isserl’s original synagogue was of wood; see Bauminger, “Toldot ha-Yehudim be-Kraka,” 16; Zvi Karl, Arim ve-imahot b-Yisrael , vol. 2, Kraka (Jewish communities: Cracow) (Jerusalem, 1948), 289 (Hebrew); Wischnitzer, Archi- tecture, 107, 127; Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe, 202. 52 chapter two be impossible or inconvenient, and, if so, that the Jews could build a new synagogue anywhere else in their quarter. The fire occurred most probably after the king issued the permit for Isserl’s Synagogue in November 1556.111 Even if the fire reached Isserl’s private home, it did not destroy the stone walls on which the old pilasters have remained, and perhaps damaged the roofing, which was usually made of wood.112 This might not have necessitated the rebuilding of the synagogue but would only have interrupted the realization of the project and entailed additional work for better protection of the building. Buttresses were added to the exterior of the eastern wall to reinforce the walls, which would bear a more massive new vaulting (Plate 2.1). A stone parapet was built around the roof in order to protect it from future fires. Żychiewicz’s report also proposes that in the interior, the western wall of the former prayer hall (Plate 2.4) was removed so that this space, and an identical room to the west of it, were merged into a double-length hall (Plate 2.3).113 The longitudinal plan of the new hall and its entrance from the western section of a lateral wall were typical of the two-nave synagogues, an example of which—the Old Synagogue—was found nearby. The extension of an existing synagogue to the west is also known from the early-thirteenth-century synagogue of Regensburg (Fig. 6).114 The Isserls’ expanded synagogue even more resembles the composition of the lesser, single-nave family synagogue of their relatives, the Horowitz family in Prague. It was a three-bay hall with the entrance from the southern wall, in the bay furthest from the Torah ark (Fig. 14). In 1535, the owner of this synagogue, Aaron Meshulam Horowitz, added two more bays on its west-

111 The terminus ante quem for the fire is suggested by the above-cited royal decree of October 1557: the letters of Kazimierz Jews and their lobbying of the royal councilors in Vilnius could take several weeks to several months, hence the fire occurred in the spring or summer that year. Bałaban’s dating the fire to the first day of Iyar, i.e., 1 April 1557 (Historja Żydów, 1: 145 and note 19), is thus possible, but his real source for this information is unknown. The source Bałaban referred to is a brochure of F. H. Wettstein, Le-toldot Yisrael ve-Ḥakhamav be-Folin [Cracow, 1909], 24, which corresponds to p. 234 in the reprint “Le- toldot Yisrael ve-Ḥakhamav be-Folin,” Ha-Eshkol 6 (1913), 211–35 (Hebrew). Wettstein discussed the establishment of the Rema Synagogue by Israel Isserl, but did not mention the fire and its date. In recent literature, different dates for this fire sometimes appear in the same publication, e.g., 1556 on p. XVII and 1557 on pp. 1 and 9 in Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6; 1557 on p. 201 and 1556–57 on p. 202 in Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe. 112 E.g., note the wooden roofing, the masonry church and monastery of ca. 1500 at Skałka in Kazimierz discussed by Tadeusz Dobrowolski and Władysław Tatarkiewicz, Historia sztuki polskiej, vol. 1, Sztuka średniowieczna (Cracow, 1962), 251. 113 Żychiewicz, “Bóżnica R’emuh,” 8–11. 114 Codreanu-Windauer, “The Medieval Jewish Quarter of Regensburg.” the renaissance reaches jewish kazimierz 53 ern side and moved the doorway to the fifth bay, which then became the furthest (Fig. 15).115 The expansion of the building by adding extra space on its western side caused the destruction of only one wall and perhaps did not interrupt the worship since the Torah ark and bimah remained untouched. However, in the Isserls’ Synagogue, the rectangular bimah occupies the area of the presumed removed wall, and the large stone Torah ark with a staircase and a cantor’s pulpit in front of it would have been too large for the older, small prayer room. Thus the fixtures would be produced for the expanded synagogue. Two stone-carved frames were built into the wall in the added western half of the synagogue. One of them enclosed the alms box near the doorpost of the new entrance in the westernmost side of the northern wall.116 Another is the frame of Isserl’s dedicatory inscription built into the pilaster in the centre of the southern wall (Plate 2.7). This frame loosely fits the stone bearing the inscription: the mouldings outline a rectangular section of the wall that is larger than the stone plate, and within the frame, the plate is set off-centre and leans to the right. The plate dated from 1553 might have been awkwardly affixed in 1556, when it was reset in the enlarged synagogue and decorated with a newly made frame. The reconstruction of the Isserls’ Synagogue continued at least until 1558, as we learn from a contract discovered by Bogusław Krasnowolski.117 The document states that “Israel the Jew” (i.e., Israel Isserl) commissioned a certain Stanisław Baranek (or Baran) to complete the building.118 In another contract, Baranek is referred to as mistrz rzemiosła murarskiego (a master of masonry craft),119 and several more documents similarly show him to have been commissioned to do masonry work for the middle class in Kazimierz and Cracow rather than an expert architect or sculptor in

115 See note 79 on page 42. 116 Neither traces around the door leading from the vestibule to the Isserls’s Synagogue, nor any surviving documents, reveal whether there was an elaborate stone frame embracing the entrance portal as in many medieval Ashkenazic synagogues. 117 Krasnowolski, Ulice i place Krakowskiego Kazimierza, 152. 118 The contract states that the two sides umorzyły wszelkie pozwy, tak, iż Baranek ma drzwi i okienko do piwnic wystawić i wytynkować około bóżnicę i 4 trety do bóżnice wstawić (settled all the complaints, so that Baranek must set a door and a small window in the basement, plaster the synagogue and insert four steps [leading?] to the synagogue), “Teki Żegoty Paulego, wypisy z akt radzieckich i ławniczych Kazimierskich,” MS 5357/II, VII, 35, the Jagellonian Library, Cracow, cited after Krasnowolski, Ulice i place Krakowskiego Kazi- mierza, 152. 119 “Teki Żegoty Paulego,” MS 5357/II, VII, 36r–36v, cited after Krasnowolski, Ulice i place Krakowskiego Kazimierza, 160. 54 chapter two Renaissance art and working for the royal court and the nobility.120 Ba- ranek’s contribution in the final stages of construction cannot satisfacto- rily explain the Renaissance style and high artistic level of the carved stone ornaments in the synagogue interior, which would have been produced by more skilled sculptors.121

120 In 1556, Baranek worked for someone named Walkier, and two years later he was commissioned to build four stores in the courtyard of Jan Mielecki in Cracow. From 1550 until 1573, Baranek owned a house in Kazimierz, “Teki Żegoty Paulego,” MS 5357/II, VII, 36r–36v and 53r (see Krasnowolski, Ulice i place Krakowskiego Kazimierza, 160). 121 Cf. Krasnowolski, Ulice i place Krakowskiego Kazimierza, 152, who assumed that Baranek built the whole synagogue. The assumption was accepted in Michał Rożek, Żydowskie zabytki Krakowskiego Kazimierza (Cracow, 1990), 25; Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 9. the isserl’s torah ark: deconstructing the bricolage 55

CHAPTER THREE

THE ISSERLS’ TORAH ARK: DECONSTRUCTING THE BRICOLAGE

In the Isserls’ expanded synagogue, the elevated niche for the Torah scrolls was framed by a pedimented façade approximately 5.70 m high. Four steps ascending to the ark’s doors and, on their right, a stone pulpit for the cantor, are flanked by stone parapets (Plate 2.11). The ark is made of three kinds of sandstone; the tint of the central pilasters is slightly lighter than that of the ark’s attic panel with its volutes and pediment, whereas the outer pilasters and the entablature are much darker than the other parts. Since this diversity results from the construction of the ark from parts of different provenance, each of them should be examined separately and then their integration into the compositional and semantic whole will be analyzed.

Restoring the Original Structure

From the time that the Isserls’ ark was built, new inscriptions were engraved on it and several parts were attached to it. A large crown now stands above the pediment, intruding into the space of the window above the Torah ark (Plate 2.13), whereas the early photograph (Plate 2.8) shows this crown to be attached to the window itself. This upper crown, unlike the diadem-like crown carved into the ark’s architrave (Plate 2.15), must have been added later, probably during or after the reconstruction of the vaulting and the opening of the lunette windows in 1829. One more crown situated in front of the ark’s attic and supported by the Tablets of the Law is seen in a photograph taken ca. 1963 (Plate 2.9).1 Both this convex crown and the Tablets were separate parts that could have easily been attached, transferred or removed. The crown is now absent, and the Tablets that once rose from the entablature are now attached to the attic panel (Plate 2.13). In the photographs from the 1930s, there are also decorative friezes with garlands flanking the Tablets of the Law. They have been lost, and the original stone panel with a Hebrew inscription that they concealed is now

1 This crown is absent from the two earlier photographs (Plates 2.8, 2.10) that were taken before the renovation of the synagogue by Hermann Gutman in 1933, when this crown was probably added. 56 chapter three visible. These movable objects, which are not integral parts of the ark, were also later additions. A pair of new doors with reliefs on their interiors was added to the ark in 1648 (Plate 2.17).2 An inscribed stone tablet immured under the ark’s doors (Plate 2.16) commemorates a certain Eleazar bar Mordechai who refurbished the ark in 1798 and the synagogue gabbaim (officials) who ordered the refurbishing.3 The Biblical citation in Hebrew that runs in a triangular outline around the ark’s crown (Plate 2.15) was added in 1861.4 A neo-Gothic container for the Eternal Light was attached to the far left pilaster of the ark (Plate 2.11), probably in the late-nineteenth or early- twentieth century.5 A few metal clinchers reinforce the connection of the stone slabs to the wall.6 The graphical reconstruction (Plate 2.12) shows the ark without the parts, which may not be attributed to the Isserls’ original project.

2 These reliefs will be discussed in Chapter VII. 3 The inscription reads: מלאכת עבודת הקודש נתח'דש]ה?[ ונת[?] ע'י ]על ידי[ האלופים הגבאים דבהכ'נ ]דבית הכנסת[ דר'מ'א' ז'צ'ל'ה'ה' ]זכר צדיק לחיי העולם הבא[ זכרה להם אלהי לטובב]-לטובה?] וז'מ'י ]וזאת מלאכת ידי[ אלעזר ב'ר מהדכי]מרדכי?] (The deed of the holy work was renovated and was [?] by the gabbaim of the synagogue of Rema, the memory of the righteous for life everlasting in the next world, remember [this deed], O God, for their favour, and this work is by Eleazar, son of Mordechai). The points above the letters designate the abbreviations and acronyms, but the sum of the numerical values of the marked letters corresponds to 1798 CE, which may be the date of the mentioned reconstruction. Look“) השקיפה ממעון קדשך מן השמים ובר'ך' א'ת' עמך את ישראל לפק ,The text reads 4 forth from Thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless Thy people Israel” [Deut. 26:15]). -indicate the year 621, which cor ר and א ,ת The punctuation discernable above the letters responds to 1861. Plates 2.8–2.9 also show a wide parokhet (curtain) with a kapporet (valance) hung from a bar supported by two brackets. Remnants of these brackets, two round knobs set slightly asymmetrically on the protruding sections of the architrave, were seen there until the early 2000s (e.g., Plates 2.11, 2.15) and were more recently removed. 5 The metal receptacle for a lamp is enclosed in a stone arch with a glass door. The pointed arch is composed of scrolled leaves on the sides, a small palmette on the top and a Hebrew dedication to Moses Isserles on the bottom. A lighter tint at the right side of the stone frame indicates the section reconstructed in 1958–68; see Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 11. 6 E.g., a clincher nail has been stuck in above the left side of the outer right capital, in the slot between the echinus and abacus. the isserl’s torah ark: deconstructing the bricolage 57 Relics Adopted?

The pairs of pilasters of the Isserls’ Torah ark differ from each other (Plate 2.14). Each of them is composed of a shaft and capital carved on a vertical slab and the capital’s echinus and abacus carved in the lower section of the protruding stone blocks of the architrave, but the two central slabs are of brighter stone. The two outer capitals dovetail the echini with small volutes and the slightly curved abaci, whereas the capitals on the brighter central pilasters are attached to dark echini decorated with a simplified egg-and- dart pattern and straight abaci with dentil-like vertical slits. In both types of pilasters, double annulets divide the capitals from the pilaster’s shaft. The corners of the outer shafts have wide chamfers, whereas the inner ones are rectangular. The three flutes that are carved on their faces seem to be incomplete: on top, each of them is crossed with a small transverse groove, and then continues upwards in the form of a short, shallow, incised line. In contrast, the fluting on the inner pilasters ends in a clean arch. The different design, height, and material of the central pair of pilasters may be explained by the assumption that they were the spoils of another structure. At a glance, the symmetric rounded patterns covering the face of the central capitals look unsystematic, although more careful inspection reveals their remote and schematic resemblance to a Corinthian capital. A massive fleur-de-lis between two heavy leaves embracing the capital’s bottom half take the place of the acanthi, and in its upper half the concentric patterns seem to be a primitive imitation of the volutes. The capitals have no parallels in Polish art of the sixteenth century, but similar patterns were found in much earlier European architecture. Such ornaments, dated around 1170, are found in the former monastery’s church in Neuchâtel (Fig. 16).7 Moreover, a fleur-de-lis with its elongated lentil-like core, such as that carved on inner capitals, has even remoter origins. Jurgis Baltrušaitis traced it back to the so-called rūmī motif (Fig. 17) in Muslim ornaments8 that was copied by Christian artists in regions influenced by Oriental art, mainly in Romanesque Spain, and in the decoration of Sephardic Hebrew manuscripts.9 The stylistic parallels do not propose a clear solution for

7 François Maurer-Kuhn, Romanische Kapitellplastik in der Schweiz (Bern, 1971), 183ff. This motif is also discussed in the section “Rinceaux et palmettes” in Denise Jalabert, La flore sculptée des monuments du Moyen Age en France (Paris, 1965), 75–77, pl. 40 fig. A. 8 Jurgis Baltrušaitis, Le Moyen Age fantastique (Paris, 1955), 88–90. 9 The resemblance of the capitals in the Isserls’ Synagogue and ornaments used in Sephardic Jewish art was noted by Izabella Rejduch-Samkowa, “Die kunsthistorischen Probleme der ältesten Krakauer Synagogen,” Wissenschaftlische Zeitschrift der Martin- 58 chapter three the model for the ark’s pilasters: a Romanesque carved stone from central- or western-European architecture, or a painting in a Hebrew manuscript from Spain. Whatever the case, the obsolete style of the central pilasters attests to a date earlier than that of the rest of the Isserls’ ark and suggests that they were probably brought from an older building. The secondary use of stone parts, which was much simpler and cheaper than producing new ones, was found in architecture from ancient times and is sometimes charged with symbolism.10 The Isserls might not have been indifferent to the possible symbolic associations of the pilasters displayed at the centre of their ark, in closest proximity to the Torah scrolls. Parts of a church appearing here could have been seen by the synagogue’s congregants as a sign of disdain for the Torah. In the Torah ark, the seemingly older pilasters were thoroughly fitted to the whole architectonic structure. If there were spolia, the accurate treatment of them implies the reverence of the past rather than triumph over a destructed structure of an alien religion. Remnants of an old synagogue would have been more appropriate parts for their secondary use in the new synagogue. Halakhah demands treating the Torah and all other books and papers bearing the name of God, as well as ritual articles relating to the Torah scrolls, with utmost respect. When such objects become unusable, they must be kept in a genizah (repository; literally “hidden place”), or be buried—preferably in a cemetery.11 The sacredness of the Torah scrolls kept in the synagogue is usually projected onto its whole building, so that any intentional damage to it is considered sacrilege. If Jews have to abandon or tear down their synagogues for any reason, they must remove the Torah scrolls and other sacred ritual objects in order to save them from neglect, damage, or inappropriate treatment by the new owners. Since the shrine for the Torah scrolls is considered to be holier than the other furnishings

Luther-Universität 37, no. 5 (1988): 60. Indeed, examples of a great leaf with a lentil-shaped core and stems composing a heart-like pattern are found in Passover Haggadah manuscripts illuminated in 14th-century Spain; see Bezalel Narkiss, Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts in the British Isles: A Catalogue Raisonné, vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1982), pl. XLV nos. 151, 152; pl. LVII no. 199; pl. LIX no. 208. 10 See Bryan Ward-Perkins, From Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages: Urban Public Building in Northern and Central Italy, AD 300–850 (Oxford, 1984), 203–29; J. Elsner, “From the Culture of Spolia to the Cult of Relics: The Arch of Constantine and the Genesis of Late Antique Forms,” Papers of the British School at Rome 68 (2000): 149–84; D. Kinney, “The Concept of Spolia” in A Companion to Medieval Art: Romanesque and Gothic in Northern Europe, ed. C. Rudolph (Oxford, 2006), 233–52. 11 See Shabbath 115a; Megilah 26b; Lev. Rabba 21:12, and also Enẓyklopediah talmudit, 6: 232–38. the isserl’s torah ark: deconstructing the bricolage 59 in the synagogue, the congregation may also remove a free-standing Torah ark or dismantle a built-in one.12 If, after being dismantled, the ark or other parts of the synagogue furnishings are no longer in use for any reason, they nevertheless may not be discarded. In the synagogue, a space customarily allotted for storing disused sacred texts and objects is a cupboard, niche, cellar, chamber or similar place. In several medieval synagogues, remnants of sculptural design were revealed in the places that were used for the genizah. In the oldest synagogue in Cologne, the remnants of the carved stone decorations of the 1270s were stored in the genizah cellar under the bimah.13 In the Worms Synagogue, several stone fragments with geometrical, plant, and zoomorphic reliefs were stored above the vaults of the prayer hall.14 A few more carved stones were buried there under the floor of the prayer hall and were found during excavations.15 The location of one more stone inscribed in Hebrew that was revealed among the lower courses of the eastern wall of the synagogue recalls a Talmudic solution for making a genizah between the rows of stones in the synagogue’s walls.16 When possible, the old parts were reused in a new synagogue. In Worms, the dedicatory stone tablets of the patrons of the synagogue of 1034 were built into the walls of the newer synagogue of 1174/75.17 The use of the former synagogue objects principally followed the rule that their sacredness in the new place may not be less than that in their former location.18 Thus the parts of a former Torah ark, the holiest object in the synagogue after the Torah scrolls, may be reused only in another ark. Judging from their form and size, the central pilasters of the Isserls’ ark could originally serve supports in a built-in architectonic frame—possibly,

12 Megilah 3:1 explains the hierarchical sanctities in the synagogue: the most holy object is the scroll of the Torah; then, in decreasing order of holiness, the chest or ark containing the scrolls, and the synagogue building. On the sanctity of the synagogue in Jewish sources and in practise during the Greco-Roman period, see Fine, This Holy Place, 38–41, 67–72. The medieval approach to the sacredness of the synagogue building is reflected in Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Hilkhot tefilah u-Nesi’at kapayim, 11:11–12. 13 Doppelfeld, “Die Ausgrabungen im Kölner Judenviertel,” 113, 116–17, 123, 127; Monu- menta Judaicaca 2000 Jahre Geschichte und Kultur der Juden am Rhein, eds. Konrad Schilling and Kurt Hackenberg (Cologne, 1964), catalogue: B-66. 14 Krautheimer, Mittelalterliche Synagogen, 174–75. 15 Böcher, “Die Alte Synagoge,” 73–74 n. 328–28a; 98 no. II, fig. 78-1; Monumenta Judaica, B–65. 16 Shabbath 115a. 17 Böcher, “Die Alte Synagoge,” 26–28, 100, 123 no. XXXIX. 18 Megilah 25b–26a, based on the Mishnah, Megilah 3:1. 60 chapter three the enclosure of the Torah ark. However, as far as we know, there were no synagogues in Kazimierz that were abandoned before the reconstruction of the Isserls’ Synagogue. If the patrons of the Old Synagogue rescued some parts of their Torah ark damaged by fire in 1557, they would have preferred to reuse them in their own reconstructed synagogue. Moreover, the Roman- esque pilasters might not have originated from any building in Kazimierz because that city was established in 1335, when the Gothic style already predominated in Polish architecture.19 Taking into consideration the history of Jewish settlement in Kazimierz, we can hypothesize that the spolia were brought there from one of the old synagogues abandoned in Cracow. This moves the date of the supposed origin of the Romanesque pilasters to 1356, when the oldest synagogue of Cracow was first mentioned in the surviving historical documents, or to the late-twelfth century, when the newly established Jewish community could construct a house for worship. Even at the earliest possible date, the Romanesque style was already outmoded, and a mix of Romanesque and Gothic elements was found in contemporaneous Ashkenazic illuminated manuscripts.20 The Romanesque might have survived in Cracow if the synagogue decoration were done by masons inexperienced in the mainstream church architecture and continuing their old masonry practises in smaller projects. The style might also have been intentionally chosen as a token of oldness and traditionalism similar to the Romanesque architecture in Christian Gothic book illuminations, which was associated there with the ancient faith and the Old Testament.21 Countering the concept of the old faith as the sinful ancestor of Christianity, the Jewish viewer might

19 Indicative of the emergence of the Gothic style in Cracow is the case of the Domin- ican Saint Trinity Church. It was built in the 12th century, probably in place of a wooden church. When in 1222 the Dominican friars received the church, they rebuilt it, still using Romanesque masonry, whereas in ca. 1241–58 the church was already reconstructed in the Early Gothic style. See Feliks Kopera, “Średniowieczna architectura kościoła i klasztoru OO. Dominikanów w Krakowie,” Rocznik Krakowski 20 (1926): 57–76; Józef Jamróz, “Średnio- wieczna architectura dominikańska w Krakowie,” Rocznik Krakowski 41 (1926): 5–28; Jerzy Wyrozumski, “Kraków do schyłku wieków średnich?” in Janina Bieniarzówna and Jan M. Małecki, Dzieje Krakowa, vol. 1 (Cracow, 1992): 120–22. 20 For example, the arched portals on zoomorphic supports depicted in the Worms Maḥzor of 1272 from Würzburg conflate the general Romanesque scheme with distinctly Gothic patterns and ornamentation. See Bezalel Narkiss and Aliza Cohen-Mushlin, “The Illumination of the Worms Mahzor” in Worms Mahzor: Ms. Jewish National and University Library Heb. 40 781/1 (Introductory volume to the complete facsimile), ed. Malachi Beit-Arié (Vaduz, 1985), 81. 21 Reiner Haussher, “Templum Salomonis und Ecclesia Christi. Zu einem Bildvergleich der Bible Moralisée,” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 31 (1968): 101–21. the isserl’s torah ark: deconstructing the bricolage 61 consider the ancient style to be a sign of the genuineness of Judaism. Nei- ther of the expropriations of the synagogues of Cracow—in 1469 and in 1494—was sudden. Before abandoning the synagogue, the Jews had time not only to remove the Torah scrolls and ritual objects, but also to dismantle the Torah ark. In 1469, the objects from the two oldest synagogues could be transferred to the third synagogue, and when all the Jews were expelled from Cracow in 1494, they would have evacuated the relics to Kazimierz. If our hypothesis is correct, the old stones might not have been reused in the already completed Old Synagogue and they were stored in Kazimierz until Isserl began to build the ark in the next stone synagogue in the town. The display of the old relics in the centre of the new ark celebrated the rootedness of the Jews, and in particular of the Isserls, in the local history and continuity of Jewish tradition despite the exiles.

A Relic Rejected? The Sixteenth-Century Censure of Synagogue Sculptures

The hypothesis of the rescuing of relics from the Cracow synagogues and taking them to Kazimierz suggests a clue for a sandstone lion sculpture from the Jewish cemetery next to the Isserls’ Synagogue (Plates 2.20–2.21). This is the only round sculpture in this cemetery and an exceptional example of the sort in Jewish tombstones in Poland before the early-twentieth century.22 The head and back of the lion are partially worn out, and the front paws and rear legs are lost, but otherwise the figure is in good condition. The lion’s massive head and chest, in contrast to the smaller rear part of its body, the incised linear strokes of the pelage, and several curves of the mane, are typical of Romanesque lions (e.g., Figs. 18–20)23 and look archaic in a cemetery established in 1552. The historians reporting on the remarkable tombstones at the old Jewish cemetery in Kazimierz before the Holocaust do not mention this curious sculpture24—most likely because they had not seen it. The lion might have been covered by dirt together with many old tombstones, some of which had fallen, whilst others were concealed under up to six levels of newer graves.25 Only about 50 tomb-

22 Cf. Monika Krajewska, A Tribe of Stones: Jewish Cemeteries in Poland (Warsaw, 1993). 23 The attribution of the lion to the Romanesque style, assumedly to the first half of the 13th century, was first proposed in Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 72, fig. 282. 24 Cf. Zunz, Ir ha-Ẓedek; Wettstein, “Noch ein wort”; idem, “Le-toldot Yisrael ve-Ḥakhamav be-Folin”; Friedberg, Luḥot zikaron; Bałaban, Przewodnik, 75–84; Mahler, Przewodnik, 31–40. 25 In the late-18th century, the cemetery had become overcrowded, and in 1800 burials there were stopped and the graveyard neglected. 62 chapter three stones of prominent people were renovated between the late 1800s and 1939, but most of them were damaged again during the Nazi occupation. The leonine sculpture was most probably discovered in 1959–60, when about 700 tombstones were renovated or excavated.26 Then it was considered to be an old tombstone and mounted on top of a stone block supporting tombstones of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.27 Visitors to the cemetery also misidentified it as a tombstone, putting pebbles nearby as a traditional Jewish sign of deference to the deceased. In the early 2000s, the lion disappeared and its current location is unknown to me. The speculation that the Romanesque lion is not a tombstone but the remnant of a decoration from a medieval synagogue, raises two questions: what could have been the original function of this sculpture, and why did the Isserls not reuse it in their synagogue? Lion sculptures of similar form and about the same size (or larger), praying animals, or people, bear columns in Romanesque churches (e.g., Fig. 19). In Christian art, lions—as well as dragons or serpents—that are trampled under the feet of Christ, Mary, the saints, and personification of the Ecclesia, and therefore also under the supports of church portals, columns, arches, or beams, symbolised satanic powers defeated by Christianity. The beasts illustrated the biblical vision of the malevolent creatures oppressed by God: “Thou shalt tread upon the lion and asp; the young lion and the serpent shalt thou trample under feet” (Ps. 91:13).28 It is likely that this psalm, along with the ancient Mesopotamian and Anatolian representations of the supernatural powers of gods and kings by portraying them as trampling beasts, influenced the sculptures of lions under ancient Torah arks.29 It is probable that the Jews in medieval Rouen, who adopted the

26 From 1988 until the present, the cemetery is being continuously restored. See Kazi- mierz Radwański, “Odkrycie renesansowych i barokowych nagrobków Żydowskich na cmentarzu R’emuh w Krakowie,” Biuletyn Krakowski 2 (1960): 62–72; Duda, Krakowskie judaica, 84–97; Leszek Hońdo, “Stary cmentarz Żydowski w Krakowie” in Żydzi i Judaism we współczesnych badaniach Polskich. Materiały z konferencji, Kraków, 21–23, XI, 1995 (Cracow, 1997), 337–74; Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 45–72. 27 The tomb of Jekutiel Zelman (d. 1753 or 1766) and Neḥama Ḥayah (d. 19th century). In 1912, the tombstone of was reconstructed by Neḥama’s granddaughter, Frida Teitelbaum. See Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 63–64 no. 172(33), 72; Leszek Hońdo, Inskrypcje starego Żydowskiego cmentarza w Krakowie, vol. 1 (Cracow, 2000), 51–52. 28 Gertrud Schiller, Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst, vol. 3 (Gütersloh, 1971), 131–35. 29 According to Rachel Hachlili’s reconstruction in her Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel (Leiden, 1988), 277 fig. 24b, a slab with a lion’s head carved in round on its shorter side from the 5th- or 6th-century synagogue of Ein Neshut in Israel is a remnant of an orthostat of the aedicula-shaped Torah ark. Resting on a pair of lions, the ark might have evoked in the congregants an allegory of the holiness of the Torah oppressing the evil. The the isserl’s torah ark: deconstructing the bricolage 63 lion and asp on the bases of columns on the façade of the yeshiva that was built ca. 1096–1116, similarly transferred the meaning of triumphant faith onto Judaism.30 The lion sculptures of a size nearly equal to or smaller than that of the lion from the Kazimierz cemetery support or flank royal thrones and bish- opric cathedrae. The lions of the latter group imply the parallel of the thrones with Solomon’s chair which, in turn, symbolised the sedes sapientiae, throne of Divine wisdom.31 In this context, the lions became an element of the Ark of the Covenant that the Bible describes as God’s seat flanked by the cherubs (I Sam. 4:4). The lions are coupled with cherubs and a pair of dissimilar columns—a sign of the two Solomonic columns—in the bishop’s chair built within an arched niche in the Cathedral of Lund ca. 1080–1145 (Fig. 20).32 Beginning ca. 1200, Christian artists had represented Mary instead of Solomon on the throne of wisdom (or depicted her above him) as a typological image of the Sanctuary and a symbol of the wisdom revealed by Christ.33 This composite symbolism explains the association of the lion with evil is borne out by the relief on a long side of the orthostat from Ein Neshut that depicts the lions threatening Daniel (Dan. 6:13–24). The meaning of the trampled lions differs from that of the guardian lions designating the mystical protection of royal palaces, thrones, effigies, and sacred objects in the ancient Near East, Egypt, and Greece. The Bible and Talmud associate the lion with the king’s virtue of strength; see, e.g., Amos 3:8 and Hagigah 13b. The mighty, royal lion also implies the messiah, an offspring of Judah, whose tribal epithet was “a lion’s whelp” (Gen. 49:9). Cf. also II Esdras 12:31, in which it is written that the lion “is the Messiah, [...] who will arise from the posterity of David.” Examples of the guarding lions in ancient synagogue art are the heraldic rampant lion reliefs above a triangular pediment of the Torah ark from the synagogue of Nevoraya (Nabratein) in Galilee (V. E. M. Meyers and C. L. Meyers, “Ark in Art: A Ceramic Rendering of the Torah Shrine from Nabratein,” Eretz Israel 16, no. 1 [1982]: 176–85) and the paired lion statues flanking the bimah in the synagogue in Sardis in Asia Minor (Hachlili, Ancient Jewish Art, figs. II–1, II–6.). 30 See Ilia Rodov, “Dragons: A Symbol of Evil in Synagogue Decoration?” Ars Judaica 1 (2005), 63–84; Jacques-Sylvain Klein, La Maison Sublime: L’École rabbinique et le Royaume Juif de Rouen (Rouen, 2006). “Shapes of lions and snakes” were depicted in the windows— most likely of stained glass—in the north wall of the synagogue in Cologne. See Eliezer ben Joel ha-Levi of Bonn (also Ravi’ah; 1140–1225), Avi ezri, known from its quotation in Or Zaru‘a: Avodah zarah, no. 203; cf. also Kahane, Meḥkarim, 351–53; Jewish Texts on the Visual Arts, 71–76. 31 Francis Wormald, “The Throne of Solomon and St. Edward’s Chair” in De Artibus opuscula 40: Essays in Honour of Erwin Panofsky, ed. Millard Meiss (New York, 1961): 532–39; Andreas Alföldi, “Des Geschichte des Throntabernakels,” La Nouvelle Clio, vols. 1–2 (1949–50): 535–66. 32 Anthony Blunt, “The Temple of Solomon with Special Reference to South Italian Baroque Art” in Kunsthistorische Forschungen. Otto Pächt zu zeinem 70. Geburtstag, eds. Artur Rosenauer and Gerold Weber (Salzburg, 1972), 259. 33 Gertrud Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art, vol. 1 (London, 1971): 23–25. 64 chapter three transformation of the chair from Lund into an altar by setting a statue of the Virgin on the seat. Jews had been familiar with the Christological interpretation of Solo- mon’s chair from at least the thirteenth century, when they restated the direct, not prefigurative correlation of the chair to the Ark of the Covenant and Divine throne.34 The midrashic discourse relates the celestial Throne of Glory to the earthly Ark (Tanhuma: Vayakhel 7) and Solomon’s chair (Song of Songs Rabba 3:4; Exodus Rabba 15:26). The latter source, mentioning that the lions appear in God’s chariot together with oxen (Ezek. 1:10) and on the “bases of brass” in the Temple of Solomon (I Kings 7:29), charg- es the lions of Solomon’s chair with the additional meaning of a Divine attribute. The painting of the judgment of Solomon in the Tripartite Maḥzor (High Holy Days prayer book) of ca. 1320 exemplifies the Jewish reinterpretation of the sedes sapientiae: the enthroned Solomon points at the source of his wisdom—a scroll of the Torah within a tower-shaped post of the chair’s back—thereby turning his seat into a Torah ark.35 The engravings reviving the medieval iconography of the throne of wisdom decorate a number of Hebrew books printed in sixteenth-century Prague. The arched portal flanked by ornate columns, cherubs hidden within the columns’ capitals, and leonine shield-bearers in front of the columns’ bases constitute that iconography in the title page of the Book of Exodus printed by Gershom ha-Cohen in Prague in 1518 (Fig. 21). The reader of the Bible could associate the meshwork torus under the columns’ capitals and the tassels suspended on chains with the “nets of checkerwork, and wreaths of chain-work” (I Kings 7:17) on the Temple’s Jachin and Boaz pillars.36 In 1570, a version of such a gate, with the cherubs on the column shafts and a triangular pediment, was depicted by Gershom’s son Mordechai on the frontispiece of Moses Isserles’s Torat ha-Olah (Fig. 13). The abovementioned lion relief on the façade of the yeshiva in Rouen37 is the earliest of very little evidence on the lion sculptures in medieval Jewish architecture. The “head of a lion standing [sic] in the eastern wall”

34 The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the Nizzahon Vetus, ed. David Berger (Philadelphia, 1979), 166 (English section) and 105 (Hebrew section). 35 Sarit Shalev Eyni, Jews among Christians: Hebrew Book Illumination from Lake Con- stance (Turnhout, 2010), 53–66. 36 See note 44 on page 92. 37 See note 30 on page 63. the isserl’s torah ark: deconstructing the bricolage 65 of the synagogue in Worms was reported by Juda Löw Kirchheim (d. 1632).38 His account is not clear on whether the head was part of a whole lion’s figure or only a head or a mask, and whether it was made in relief or in the round. At the same time, Kirchheim clearly described its use as a “wedding stone,” a carved plaque built into a synagogue outer wall as a target for throwing a glass during the marriage ceremony.39 The description seems to be reliable despite the fact that it conflicts with the decoration and original location of the earliest surviving examples of wedding stones from eighteenth-century synagogues in Germany; these stones bear a star or a cornucopia and were set in the eastern corner on the northern wall of the synagogue.40 In Worms, where most of the synagogue’s northern side is blocked by the prayer hall for women, the lion-shaped wedding stone might have been found on the eastern wall near its southern corner. Kirch- heim explained that the marriage ceremony was arranged in the square to the southeast of the synagogue, at the entrance to the community wedding hall facing northward.41 The groom broke the glass on the head of the lion on the wall and then immediately rushed back to the wedding hall.42 He would have stood at the northern side of the square—in front of the synagogue’s corner, or a couple of steps further away, at the entrance to the

Juda Löw Kirchheim, Minhagot ,ראש הארי העומד בכותל של מזרח ,The original reads 38 Vermaiza (Customs of Worms Jewry), ed. Israel Mordechai Pels (Jerusalem, 1987), 79 (Hebrew). 39 The custom of throwing a glass with wine at the wall in order to break it is described חופה- in the 11th-century Maḥzor Vitry, sign 470. On the wedding stone, called in Yiddish hupeh-shtain), see Joseph Gutmann, “Wedding Customs and Ceremonies in Art” and) שטיין Jacob Z. Lauterbach, “The Ceremony of Breaking a Glass at Weddings” in Beauty in Holiness: Studies in Jewish Customs and Ceremonial Art, ed. Joseph Gutmann (New York, 1970), 313–25 and 340–69 respectively; Joseph Gutmann, “Jewish Medieval Marriage Customs in Art: Creativity and Adaptation” in The Jewish Family: Metaphor and Memory, ed. D. Kraemer (Oxford, 1989), 47–62; David Sperber, “Ha-Ḥupah be-mekorot ha-Halakhah ve-ha-Omanut” (The wedding in halachahic sources and in art) in Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael (Jewish customs), vol. 4 (Jerusalem, 1998/99), 136–78 (Hebrew). 40 For example, see pictures of the Old Synagogue in Fürth: J. A. Bitner of Nuremberg 1705 engraving, reproduced in Helmut Eschwege, Die Synagoge in der deutschen Geschichte (Dresden, 1980), 68 fig. 28, and two scenes of marriage and breaking a glass in P. Chr. Kirch- ner’s Judisches Ceremoniell (Nuremberg, 1724), pl. 22–23, reproduced in Krautheimer, Mit- telalterliche Synagogen, 129 fig. 33, and David Sperber, “Minhagei ḥupah be-Omanut Yehudit” (Wedding customs in Jewish art), Rimonim 6–7 (1999): 60 fig. 14 (Hebrew). 41 The hall for the community events and feasts, now the Rashi House and the residence of the Jewish Museum of Worms, was once also called Klause or Braut Haus; see Moses Mannheimer, Die Juden in Worms (Frankfurt am Main, 1842), 20; Böcher, “Die Alte Synagoge,” 35–36. 42 Kirchheim, Minhagot Vermaiza, 76–79. The wall blocking the shortest passage to the prayer hall through the small door was built after Kirchheim’s time. 66 chapter three narrow Hintere Judengasse—by the edge of the synagogue’s eastern wall. In general, the ritual conformed to the opinion of the Maharil of Mainz (Jacob Möllin, ca. 1360–1427) who demanded that the groom throw the glass to the north.43 This reveals the apotropaic meaning of the ritual: broken glass should ward off evil which, as is suggested in Jeremiah 1:14, comes from the north.44 Even if one may not exclude the possibility that Israel Isserl or Moses Isserles had contacts with the Jewish community in Worms, the lion- shaped “wedding stone,” being still in situ during their lifetimes,45 could not legitimise the adoption of the lion sculpture in their synagogue in Ka- zimierz. The Isserls had not known about the heraldic lion reliefs in the former synagogue (then the Tránsito de Nuestra Señora chapel) in Toledo (Fig. 2). Most probably they had heard neither about the many lions carved into the Torah ark of 1522/23 (Fig. 22) in the Scuola Catalana, a synagogue of Jewish exiles from Catalonia and Aragon in Rome,46 nor about the sculptural lions of another Italian ark of the Catalonian Jews in Italy, which we know about from a description by Rabbi Abraham Joseph Solomon ben Mordechai Graziano (d. 1690): And I remember that in the city of Pesaro in the state of the Duke of Urbino, a righteous gentile, in the synagogue of the holy community of the Sephardim there was a holy ark made of walnut and gilded. And two protruding lions also made of walnut were placed under the [ark’s] legs, and hair-like patterns were carved on their bodies, just like the hair of a real lion. Their mouths are open and seem to roar, and they stand one at the right side of the ark and another at the left with four steps and risers before the holy ark.47 The ark was rescued at the time of the expulsion of the Jews from that town in 1569 by Abraham Graziano’s great-grandfather, Azriel Trabot, who was

43 See Lauterbach, “The Ceremony of Breaking a Glass at Weddings,” 358. 44 Shalom Sabar, “Sẓenot ḥatunah al-gabei ḥitulim le-Sifrei Torah mi-Germaniah” (Wedding scenes on wrappings of the Torah scrolls from Germany), Rimonim 6 (1999): 49 (Hebrew). 45 It is possible that the lion was lost during the pogrom in the synagogue in 1615. Nevertheless, the Jews of Worms continued to call the synagogue’s eastern side the Löwen- seite until the 19th century; see David Kaufmann, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 1 (Frankfurt an Main, 1908): 97. No lion sculpture was discovered in the excavations in the 1960s, Böcher, “Die Alte Synagoge,” 35. 46 See Bice Migliau, “Nuove prospettive di studio sulle Cinque Scole del ghetto di Roma: l’identificazione ed il recupero dell’arón di Scola Catalana,” Henoch 12 no. 2 (1990): 191–205. 47 Translated from the Hebrew text published in David Kaufmann, “Art in the Syna- gogue: The Lions under the Ark in Ascoli and Pesaro,” Jewish Quarterly Review 9 (1897): 259, with references to Jewish Texts, 120–23. See also Kahane, Meḥkarim, 355–57. the isserl’s torah ark: deconstructing the bricolage 67 a rabbi in Ascoli Piceno, some 140 km northeast of Rome.48 Since Trabot, whose ancestors came to Italy from Catalonia, brought his ark to the Ash- kenazic synagogue in Pesaro (approximately 130 km north of Ascoli), the synagogue he abandoned in Ascoli was most likely established by the Span- ish exiles after 1492. Walnut wood adorned with gilding, a common material for Italian furniture of that time, was used for the Torah ark of ca. 1500 from Urbino.49 Italian wooden cabinets, cupboards, chests and similar household objects were supported by lion sculptures,50 but Graziano’s description is vague about the location of the lions that might be either ark supports or sculptures set in front of the ark.51 We thus cannot deduce whether the ark from Ascoli was a ready-made Italian cabinet set on a stepped platform, or—as in the ark of the Scuola Catalana (Fig. 22)—the lions were intentionally produced as a part of the ark’s decoration. What- ever the case, according to Graziani, neither in Ascoli nor in Pesaro did “anybody protest against the presence of those lions in the synagogue.” He urged against possible accusations of those people in impiety or ignorance: “there really were in those days ‘pious men and men of good deeds,’52 and wise men, and great rabbis prominent in [the knowledge of] Mishnah, Gemara, and kabbalah.”53 Graziano wrote his comment in a printed copy of Joseph Caro’s Shulḥan arukh, in the margins of the chapter Yoreh de‘ah 141:4 that restates the halakhic prohibition of depicting the lion as one of the four beings of the Divine chariot (Ezek. 10:14).54 Graziano advocated the liberal attitude per- mitting the representations of the lion only, if it was not depicted together with the other three mystical creatures. In an attempt to settle the conflict between the tolerant attitude of Azriel Trabot to the three-dimensional lions and the contradiction to the lion image in the synagogue of Candia

48 On the community, see Giuseppe Fabiani, Gli ebrei e il Monte di Pietà in Ascoli (Ascoli Piceno, 1942). 49 E.g., see Vivian Mann, “The Recovery of a Known Work,” Jewish Art 12–13 (1986–87): 269–78. 50 Cf. the table-chest on lion sculptures from Venice, ca. 1550, in Frida Schottmuller, Furniture and Interior Decoration of the Italian Renaissance (New York, 1921), 39 fig. 77. 51 Graziano (see note 47 on page 66) describes the lions both as being “placed under and as “standing one at the right side of the ark and the (מונחים תחת רגליו) ”the ark’s legs עומדות א']חת[ מצד ימין של הארון ואחרת מצד) ”other at the left, with four steps and risers in front of the Torah ark, that is, seemingly flanking it on (שמאל עם ארבע מדריגות ומעלות the upper level of the staircase. 52 The titles are quoted from the Mishnah, e.g., Sukkah 5:4; Sotah 9:19; see Jewish Texts, 121, n. 92. 53 See note 47 on page 66. 54 David Kaufmann, “Art in the Synagogue,” 255. 68 chapter three in the rabbinical decisions (which will be discussed below), Graziano argued that since the lions from Ascoli were situated below the Torah ark, they did not fall under the ban imposed on the lion sculpted above the Torah scrolls in the ark in Candia (now Iráklion) in Crete. The case of the sculpted lion ordered by someone named Reuben for the ark in a community synagogue in Candia prior to 1525 had become known by European rabbis through its lengthy discussion in the responsa by four leading halakhic legislators, including Joseph Caro.55 At the time, Candia was a Venetian colony, and the local Jewish community was closely connected with the Jews of the metropolis and of Padua, then also a Venetian domain.56 The chief rabbi of the Candia community and the civil head of Cretan Jewry was Elijah Capsali, who was born in Crete and had graduated from the Ashkenazic yeshiva in Padua, where he studied under Judah Minz.57 When community members asked Capsali about the volumetric sculpture in their synagogue, he avoided deciding alone, probably because his individual opinion could have been interpreted by one of the sides as being personally involved. Undertaking an unusual step in the practise of rabbinical responsa, Capsali appealed to four prominent halakhic legislators for advice. At that time, Rabbi Joseph Caro and Rabbi Moses ben Joseph Trani (known also as Ba‘al Ha-Mabit, d. 1580) lived in Safed. The others were Rabbi David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra (the Radbaz, 1479–1573) of Egypt and the only Ashkenazic rabbi in that group, Elijah Capsali’s fellow from Judah Minz’s yeshiva, the Maharam of Padua.58 All the responders condemned Reuben’s action. Capsali’s letters to rabbis in different parts of

55 Caro, Avkat rokhel no. 65, partially translated into English in Shulvass, Jews in the World of the Renaissance, 193, 325; Mann, Jewish Texts, 117. See also Kahane, Meḥkarim, 371 (the number of Caro’s responsum in n. 160 there is an error). Caro received a report about the event in Candia from the rabbi of the city, Elijah Capsali (ca. 1483–1555); see Kahane, Meḥkarim, 358–59 n. 70; Caro, Avkat rokhel no. 64. Since Caro mentioned Abraham ben Judah Minz (d. 1525) as deceased, the text must be dated after that year and most probably after Caro became a rabbi in 1538, but before 1555 when Capsali died. 56 Like the Jewish population of Italy, the Jews of Candia comprised communities and confraternities of different origins. In 1481 they prayed in at least four synagogues: the Great Synagogue, the Synagogue of the Cohens, the High Synagogue, and the Ashkenazic Syna- gogue; see Simon Marcus, “Crete (Candia),” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 5: 290. It is unclear in which one of them the sculpture of a lion was set. 57 Siev, “Maharam mi-Padovah,” 168. 58 Simon Schwarzfuchs, “I responsi di Rabbi Meir da Padova come fonte storica” in Scritti in Memoria di Leone Carpi, eds. Daniel Carpi, Attilio Milano and Alexander Rofé (Jerusalem, 1967), 112–32; Siev, “Maharam mi-Padovah,” 160–95. the isserl’s torah ark: deconstructing the bricolage 69 the Diaspora could have been the result of his intention to attain a decision indisputable in Candia and equally authoritative for all the local Jewish “nations.” His letters have not survived, but the responsa restate the problem. The Radbaz retold the question addressed to Capsali: The issue occurred in Candia to Reuben who plastered the synagogue, and whitewashed it, and repaired it nicely, and wanted to write at the height of the heikhal [here—“Torah ark”] his name and the name of his father in order to cover and adorn himself with a borrowed tallith [i.e., to bask in someone else’s glory]. Moreover, his heart [had become] extremely haughty, and he wanted to place his family emblem, [which is] called arma [“coat of arms”], which was in the form of a lion with a crown upon its head. Furthermore, he wanted to make an actual volumetric golem [here—“figure” or “sculpture”], and he took to himself a slab of marble and commissioned artists to make him a sculpture of a gilt lion with “a royal crown upon its head” [cf. Esth. 2:17] and created it with a chisel and so on. And he arranged it and gave it [to set] on the top of the heikhal, at its highest point opposite the worshipers. And he also had engraved on the marble stone “so-and-so, son of so-and-so, the gaon.”59 And the community, may its Rock and Redeemer protect it, when they heard about this evil matter, mourned and endeavoured with all their power and strength to prevent Reuben from this bad deed. And since Reuben was a bully and close to the rulers, he did not consent to obey them until they had to spend a lot of money for this and had prevented him by force of the authorities, may God have mercy on him.60 The Radbaz considered the practise of his Jewish contemporaries who drew a crowned and winged lion on the entrance to their homes or on their personal weapons to be sinful.61 If Reuben’s lion also resembled Saint Mark’s, it might demonstrate the patron’s being—in the Radbaz’s words— “close to the rulers,” just as in Samuel Abulafia’s synagogue of ca. 1357 in

59 The title gaon meant a “prominent scholar,” and also a leader of the Jewish community in Ashkenazic circles and in ancient Jewish sources. In Renaissance Italy, this title was not granted to Jewish officials, but used as reverence for prominent rabbis renowned for their erudition. See Robert Bonfil, Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renaissance Italy (New York, 1990), 94. 60 This and the following English translations of quotations from the Radbaz, Responsa, vol. 4: no. 1178 is based on Jewish Texts, 117–20. See also Kahane, Mehkarim, 355–57. 61 Radbaz, Responsa, vol. 4: no. 1178. On Jewish quasi-heraldry, see Cecil Roth, “Stemmi di Famiglie ebraiche italiane” in Scritti in Memoria di Leone Carpi, 165–84; Daniel M. Friedenberg, Medieval Jewish Seals from Europe (Detroit, 1987), 31–35; Shalom Sabar, “The Beginnings and Flourishing of Ketubbah Illustration in Italy: A Study in Popular Imagery and Jewish Patronage during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries” (Ph.D. thesis, Los Angeles, 1987), 271–85. 70 chapter three Toledo, the royal emblem of León (Fig. 2) signaled the patron’s close relations with the king.62 When the lion was depicted in the synagogue, it raised the Radbaz’s concern that it would divert the worshippers’ concentration from prayer63 to idolatry. The Radbaz conceded that the sole likeness of a lion cannot have been put under the Talmudic ban that he considered to be valid only when the lion is depicted together with the other three mystical bearers of the Divine chariot.64 Instead, he accused the patron of the Candia ark with adopting Christian symbols, which, as the rabbi confessed, he himself had learnt from a person “who worships signs or some other idol” (a euphemism for “a Christian”). Stating that Christians adore the figure of a lion, either winged, like “an eagle that flieth toward heaven” (Prov. 23:5), or wingless,65 the Radbaz obviously meant Saint Mark’s symbol, which, as the symbol of Venice, was well known to the Jews in the republic and its dominions of Padua and Candia. Caro’s note that the gentiles drew the lion as one of the four “creatures of the chariot”66 similarly betrayed his knowledge of the symbols of the Four Evangelists. The Radbaz reinforced his charge of Reuben in idolatry by appealing to the kabbalistic “hidden wisdom”: The lion is “a king over all the prideful” [Job 41:26] and “a governor over all the animals and over all the beasts,”67 and it is a hero over everybody, and therefore one might be blessed through him, as it is written, “The lion hath roared, who will not fear?” [Amos 3:8]. And you already knew that over everything there is a prince and ruler, and its exemplar is above [in the heavens]. If so, Reuben, who made an image of a lion and gave [it] a royal crown on its head, [is considered] as if [he] crowned and enthroned this exemplar over the whole world. And this is as if he gives power and domin- ion to another god, and this is the secret of idolatry to those who are intimate with it, may the Merciful One save us [from such a sin].68 The statement of the case in Candia and theological accusations of the patron emphasise his moral misbehavior. For the Radbaz, the synagogue ark is a hierarchical structure in which the higher the part, the more significant it is; thus, one’s personal name and emblem “above the Torah scroll which is in the ark” conveys his pretences for prevalence of human over

62 See page 11. 63 The Radbaz based his argument on the opinion of the Maharam of Rothenburg (Rabbi Meir ben Baruch, ca. 1215–93). See Kahane, Meḥkarim, 357; Jewish Texts, 120. 64 Avodah zarah 43b. 65 Jewish Texts, 118–19. 66 Caro, Avkat rokhel no. 65. 67 Cf. Hagigah 13b. 68 Radbaz Responsa, vol. 4: no. 1178. The translation is based on Jewish Texts, 119. the isserl’s torah ark: deconstructing the bricolage 71 Divine and individual over communal. The Radbaz implies that since the lion is “a king over all the prideful” and “a governor over all the animals and over all the beasts,” the leonine coat of arms reflects the nature of its bear- er as “a bully” with “an extremely haughty” heart. The discourse features the lion as an allegory of individual honour and self-confidence, which the rabbis condemned as a vice but Reuben of Candia considered to be noble- ness and leadership. The hubris was fostered as a virtue in Renaissance society,69 and this approach might have been legitimised by the blessing of the biblical Reuben by his father Jacob as “my might, and the first fruits of my strength; the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power” (Gen. 49:3). At the same time, as in the halakhic discussions of legal cases, “Reuben” is often a pseudonym replacing the name of a litigant,70 it is still possible that the reported name of the patron of the Candia ark is fictitious and his true name bore a traditional association with the lion: Aryeh, Leib, Leone, Leo or other translations of “a lion;”71 or Judah, whose tribal attribute in Jacob’s testament is “a lion’s whelp” (Gen. 49:9).72 Joseph Caro compared the lion on the synagogue ark in Candia to the protruding deer embroidered on the parokhet in the synagogue of Naph- tali Hertz Wertheim in Padua. Caro considered both emblems to be three- dimensional likenesses suspected to be idolatrous, and estimated that the sculpted lion “is much worse because the object was set there on the heikhal permanently and forever.”73 Caro treats Wertheim’s affair as a legal precedent for the case in Candia. All the other rabbis involved in the discussion of Reuben’s lion would have known about the conflict of Judah Minz with Wertheim as well, and Minz’s pupils Capsali and the Maharam might have seen Wertheim’s synagogue in Padua. Their collective disapproval of displaying personal emblems on the synagogue ark and of bor-

69 For pride and insolence reconsidered as nobility and greatness in Renaissance thought, see Quentin Skinner, “Paradiastole: Redescribing the Vices as Virtues” in Renais- sance Figures of Speech, eds. Sylvia Adamson, Gavin Alexander and Katrin Ettenhuber (Cambridge, 1997), 154. 70 The pseudonym is taken from the list of the sons of Jacob; the names of the eldest of them, Reuben and Simeon, are the equivalents of John Doe and Richard Roe in English. 71 An example of a crowned lion as a Jewish personal emblem is found in Saint Mary’s Lod Levi (ליב) Cemetery in Padua on the top of the tombstone from 1545 of a certain Liv ,see Edgardo Morpurgo ;(לייב) whose first name could be a version of Löwe or Leib “L’Università degli Ebrei in Padova nel XVI secolo,” (Padua, 1910; offprint from Bolletino del Museo Civico di Padova 12 [1909, 1, 2 and 3]), 23 and fig. 1. For the heraldic lion as personal insignia of Italian Jews, see Bezalel Narkiss, “Three Jewish Art Patrons in Medieval Italy” in Festschrift Rëuben R. Hecht (Jerusalem, 1984), 296–307. See more sources in note 61 on page 69. 72 A rarer association is correspondence of the zodiac sign of Leo to Simeon in Yalkut Shimoni, pericope Pekudei (Ex. 38:21–40:38), no. 418. 73 Caro, Avkat rokhel no. 65. 72 chapter three rowing images from non-Jewish art into synagogues is at odds with medieval practises of synagogue decoration and with the even more liberal attitude of Italian Jews towards the prevalent Renaissance culture. The general atmosphere of Renaissance individualism explains the shift in the traditional form of written commemoration for a contribution to the synagogue or the disguised insignia of Samuel ha-Levi Abulafia in his private synagogue to the open display of the donor’s personal emblem on the Torah ark as a sign of his exclusive status in the Jewish community. A haughty individual pursuing his independence from public opinion, he undermined the social balance within the Jewish community and contested the authority of its spiritual leaders. As in the case of Wertheim, the rabbis sharpened their criticism of the sculpture on the haughtiness of its patron, and with their accusation of Reuben they went even further: the Radbaz insisted that in placing the lion “above the Torah,” Reuben was stricken by a spirit of heresy, and Caro believed that Reuben fell under the influence of a devil.74 The rabbis were therefore objecting to Reuben’s hubris rather than to the actual sculpture. When a work of art did not cause displeasure among congregants, it was not submitted for halakhic judge- ment. Therefore, Graziano did not condemn the lions of the Ascoli ark and no one has criticised the Scuola Catalana ark in Rome (Fig. 22) from when it was produced, around the same time as Reuben’s lion, until the present. When a particular synagogue design was not mentioned in writings, it was known only to those who saw it. It is noteworthy, however, that not all the rabbis condemning Reuben’s lion and Wertheim’s deer had seen these artifacts, and they had obviously never seen or heard about the lions in As- coli and Rome. The responsa about the lion from Candia would have been known by Moses Isserles, an expert in halakhah, commentator on Joseph Caro, and relative of the Maharam of Padua. When the lions were rendered flatly in print and appeared frequently in the sacred books printed in Prague, Mo- ses Isserles was willing to accept them and even more images for the design of the frontispiece of his book in 1570 (Fig. 13). But neither he nor his father saw any lions in the synagogues in Cracow, even if such sculptures existed there before 1494, and no zoomorphic sculptures appeared in the Alt- neuschul or the Pinchas Synagogue of Prague, about which they would have known. Even if the Isserls heard that the lion sculpture was taken from an old synagogue, there was no local consensus that would have prompted

74 Ibid., nos. 64–65; Jewish Texts, 117. the isserl’s torah ark: deconstructing the bricolage 73 them to break up a wide coalition of their elder ideological accomplices by adopting the lion in their synagogue. Finally, the Isserls do not seem to have had any separatist ambitions within their community or to have expressed any personal aplomb in their project. The absence of zoomorphic sculptures became normative in the design of Renaissance synagogue arks in Poland, except for the only known example of grotesque plants ending in barely discernible animal heads in the High Synagogue of Kazimierz (Plates 3.11–13). Only later, since the late- seventeenth or early-eighteenth century, have zoomorphic sculptures in relief and in the round been widespread in east European synagogues. Nevertheless, the Isserls might not have simply ignored or discarded the lion sculpture if they had known that it was once a part of the Torah ark, since the holiness of the Torah sanctified the objects that were originally made for its housing and protection. Even if such an object has become desecrated or may look idolatrous, it—like worn-out books of the Holy Scripture—may not be destroyed and must be concealed.75 Consequently, the hypothetical explanation for the enigmatic entombment of the Ro- manesque lion in the sixteenth-century cemetery may be summarised as follows: the sculpture was a relic from an older synagogue; its rejection was influenced by the sixteenth-century rabbinical censure of the zoomorphic and especially leonine sculptures; as a sacred object nonetheless, the lion was buried according to ritual at the cemetery near the synagogue. It might have been the intolerance of sculptures on the part of ultra-Orthodox Jews during their pilgrimages to the Rema’s tomb that caused the recent hiding (perhaps, re-burying) of the lion.

Imitating the New Style

The capitals on the two outer pilasters (Plate 2.15) loosely resemble concentric circles in the upper corners, the lateral quasi-acanthi, and a fleur- de-lis on the inner capitals. The relief covering the face and, partially, a side of the outer capitals, is shallower, and its members are smaller and more densely placed so that the fleur-de-lis engraved within a rhombus in the bottom centre is barely discernible. These two are probably newer pieces that were produced to complement the old ones. Copying the Romanesque

75 The halakhic precedent is the story in Yoma 16a about the Hasmoneans, who hid the stones of the Temple’s altar after it was defiled by the Greeks. See also Enẓyklopediah talmudit, vol. 6 (Jerusalem, 1954): 239 (Hebrew). 74 chapter three pilasters, the carver apparently had the Renaissance flattened Corinthian capitals in mind, which were adopted in Poland in the early-sixteenth century and highly varied in the local architecture. For example, the abaci of the Torah ark’s outer pilasters seem to be a simplified interpretation of the concave abaci crossed with a protruding palmette like that on the capitals in the King Albrecht tomb (Fig. 10). A garland of densely placed narrow leaves running from the corner rings down towards an open rose in the centre of the ark’s outer capitals roughly simulating the volute’s calyx was decorated with ascending narrow sharpened leaves like those in several capitals of the Sigismund Chapel (e.g., see Fig. 23). The idea of the rose flower on the central axis of the ark’s capitals could be implied by a few pilasters in the royal sepulchral monuments at Wawel that have a blossoming flower and inverted palmettes on the capital and a double annulet under it.76 Although far from being the high level of the Renaissance architectonic decoration in Wawel, its imitation in the synagogue is touched by a sense of artistry. The carver pursued a certain elegance in the design of the capitals, making the annulets under them stepped, rather than almost identical as those on the older pilasters, and enriched his pilasters with chamfers. Even more visible is his skill in the accurate combination of all the components into the integral whole of the solemn four-columned façade re- cessing to its holiest part, the compartment for the Torah scrolls, marked by a crown relief above (Plate 2.15). By the 1550s, a crown depicted as if seen from below, with its circlet inlaid with jewels and a “wreath” of alternating large and small finials, was a common heraldic image in Catholic Europe. In Poland, it was a royal “open crown” in contrast to the crowns “closed” with a pair of intersecting arches from above. For instance, an “open crown” surmounts the eagle in the coat of arms of Sigismund I on the southern wall of his chapel (Fig. 24). However, the much simpler crown relief on the ark is most probably mod- elled on the schematic engravings of an open crown from printed Hebrew books such as the initial image in David ben Solomon Vital’s Keter Torah (Crown of the Torah) printed by Eliezer Soncino in Constantinople in 1536 (Fig. 25). The Hebrew books from Prague, easily available in Jewish Kazimierz, might be a visual source for the inscription precisely carved in a shallow relief within the wide panel above the ark’s entablature:

76 For example, cf. the inverted palmette and the annulet of the capitals in Albrecht’s tomb (Fig. 10), and the big blossom on the corner capitals in the southern and western walls of the Sigismund Chapel seen in the centre of Fig. 12. the isserl’s torah ark: deconstructing the bricolage 75

-By me kings will reign,” Prov. 8:15, followed by a hexa“) בי מלכים ימלוכו gram; Plates 2.12–2.14).77 For example, the Hebrew characters with starlets or dots on their vertical strokes could be found in the Book of Leviticus of 1530 (Fig. 26) and the hexagram composed of two intersected triangles dominates the colophon in the prayer book of 1512 (Fig. 27). The accurate symmetrical carvings in low flattened relief of the ark’s frame may be attributed to one or more local craftsmen, either Jewish or Polish, who specialised in ornaments and Hebrew inscriptions on Jewish tombstones.78 Their work at the cemetery behind the Isserls’ Synagogue demonstrates a good artistic sense for symmetrical and heraldic compositions. Without having broader experience in Renaissance art, they could have been familiar enough with it for inventive imitations of new sculptural and graphic models. Such tombstone carvers and builders in Kazi mierz—either Baranek, who worked for Isserl in 1558, or anyone else—were able to complete the ark’s frame as a monumental Renaissance structure.

Creating the New Style

The refined quality of the ornamental reliefs above the monumental He- brew inscription (Plate 2.13) differs strikingly from the rest of the stone carvings in the Isserls’ ark. The ark’s triangular pediment bears a symmetric relief of a massive baluster-like trunk spreading delicate scrolling branches that end in flowers and scrolls resembling architectonic volutes. The scrolls in the corners of the pediment hang over the attic’s cornice. The S-shaped volutes flanking the attic are similarly designed as foliate plants; their lower scroll encircles a five-petalled flower that sprouts three scrolling leaves towards the attic and three more leaves outwards. The free spread of the picturesque branches, contrasting with the strict mouldings

differs from the normative biblical ימלוכו in the second syllable of ו The phonetic 77 they] will reign). The future tense of this verb is translated here as “kings]) יִמְ כּו spelling will reign” rather than “kings reign” in JPS Prov. 8:15. 78 Most of the stone carvers who worked at the cemetery near the Isserls’ Synagogue were Jewish, except for at least one who signed the monogram ○ NK○ on several tombstones in the first decades of the 17th century; see Radwański, “Odkrycie renesansowych i barokowych nagrobków,” 72. Leszek Hońdo’s reading of the twirl and following Latin ,amen) written in cursive script is unconvincing; see idem) אמן letters NK as the Hebrew “Stary cmentarz żydowski w Krakowie,” 344. The Hebrew square script on the tombstones signed by NK (see Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 60–61, fig. 210) is of the king found on the dedicatory tablet in the Isserls’ Synagogue (Plate 2.7). If the carver did not know Hebrew, he might have used a stencil, copied a drawing, or traced the lines marked by a Jewish scribe on the stone. 76 chapter three of the attic panel, gives the ark’s superstructure an open and elegant character. Rachel Wischnitzer attributed the handwork to the stone carvers inexperienced in genuine Renaissance art, and assumed that they came to the Isserls from the circle of the Italian sculptor Gian Maria Padovano in Cra- cow.79 The ark’s upper section vaguely resembles the leafy pediments in the stone altarpieces and sculptural tombs of Polish aristocracy. Yet much information in Feliks Kopera’s article of 1938, which Wischnitzer used as her source about Padovano, is not correct,80 and some later attempts to obtain the names of Padovano’s colleagues who might have worked in the synagogue are not convincing.81 The search for the workshop that provided Isserl with the ornamental reliefs may not follow the usual way of attributing the sculptural altarpieces and tombs, which are based mainly on the style and iconography of the figurative sculptures, since the sculptors who specialised in statues were sometimes assisted by the experts in ornamental stone carvings. The relief in the southern tympanum in the Sigismund Chapel (Fig. 28) seems to be the closest precursor to the candelabrum-shaped trunk issuing elegantly scrolling tendrils with pairs of flowers and blossoms in the pediment of the Isserls’ Torah ark. In contrast to the Renaissance sculptural pediments, normally comprising a symmetrical pair of S-shaped leaning volutes which support a small palmetto or other leaf, the triangular pediment of the synagogue’s ark is formed by the great plant, whereas the volutes are reduced to the spiralling ends of its lower branches. Helena Kozakiewicz attributed the arboreal reliefs of the Chapel’s tympana to

79 Wischnitzer, Architecture, 107, n. 2. 80 Wischnitzer, ibid., referred to Feliks Kopera, “Jan Maria Padovano,” 255–56, although the specific works of Padovano that are discussed here are not similar to the carvings on the ark in the Isserls’ Synagogue. 81 Brian de Breffny, who gave credit to Wischnitzer’s Architecture in his Synagogue (New York, 1978), 210, attributes the work in the Isserls’ Synagogue to Padovano’s son Andrea and his colleague Paolo Stella. De Breffny recorded the same article by Kopera (see previous note) as his source but did not refer to any specific pages; see Breffny, Synagogue, 106, note 1, and 111, note 118. Kopera had erroneously stated that Paolo Stella was in Cracow and that the goldsmith Andrea (Andrzej or Jędrzej Moskwa or Mosqua) was Padovano’s son; see Kopera, “Jan Maria Padovano,” 220–21 and 225 respectively. Pietro Paolo Stella da Milano completed Padovano’s unfinished work in Italy in 1529, but as far as is known, he was never in Poland. In 1539, Stella worked in Prague with Zuan (Zoan) Maria Austalis, who is not the same artist as Gian Maria (Giammaria or Jan Maria) Mosca il Padovano who then worked in Poland. See Anne Markham Schulz, “Paolo Stella Milanese,” Mitteilungen des Kunsthisto- rischen Institutes in Florenz 29, no. 1 (1985): 80. Nor was Jędrzej Moskwa a son of Padovano. See also Helena Kozakiewicz, Rzeżba XVI wieku w Polsce, 99–101. the isserl’s torah ark: deconstructing the bricolage 77 Giovanni Cini, Bernardino de Giannottis, or Filippo da Fiesole,82 the sculptors whom Berrecci invited to assist him when he approached the stage of ornamental decorations in the Chapel in 1524, and whom he fired after it was finished in 1529. In 1529–31, whilst producing the stone altarpiece of Saint Dorothy in the southern nave of the Cathedral in Wawel, those carvers introduced the Italian model of voluted pediment,83 and a year later such a pediment was constructed on Tomicki’s tomb (Fig. 29) in another sepulchral chapel at the Cathedral. The effigy of Tomicki is supposedly Berrecci’s work,84 and its frame is attributed to his assistant, Antonio da Fiesole.85 The definite contrast of the heavy, thick relief of the volutes with the background in this pediment clearly differs from the soft transition of the relief to its background in the tympana of the Sigismund Chapel. In the late 1530s, the former Berecci’s collaborators disseminated the style of Renaissance stone altarpieces and wall tombstones of Wawel in their numerous commissions in Cracow and far beyond, employing a great number of local stone carvers and builders.86 After the deaths of Bernardi- no de Giannotti, Filippo da Fiesole, and Antonio da Fiesole, between 1540 and 1542, Padovano dominated the field of figurative sculpture for altarpieces and tombstones, and Cini provided him with carved ornamentation.87 It is likely that Cini made the aedicula for the effigy, which Padovano sculpted for the tomb of Archbishop Piotr Gamrat (Fig. 30) in the Wawel Cathedral in 1545–47.88 The framing of Gamrat’s tomb imitates the aedicula produced by Antonio da Fiesole for Tomicki’s tomb (Fig. 29) in the same church in 1532, except for the different shape of the flowers within the volutes and a small figure instead of the usual plant atop the pediment of Gamrat’s tomb.

82 Ibid., 29–37, 81. 83 Later on, the altarpiece was replaced, and in 1637 its parts were rebuilt in a different order in the chapel in Bodzów near Cracow; see Ignacy Trybowski and Olgierd Zagórowski, “Renesansowy ołtarz Św. Doroty z katedry na Wawelu” in Studia Renesansowe, 3: 202–46. 84 Schulz, Giammaria Mosca Called Padovano, 1: 97. 85 Helena Kozakiewicz, Rzeźba XVI wieku w Polsce, 54–56. 86 Ibid., 80–83, 103, 108–20. 87 Ibid., 87–90, 101, 106, 109. Hornung believed that Cini also made several figurative sculptures, but did not argue his attribution; see Zbigniew Hornung, “Działalnośćsc rzeż- biarska Jana Ciniego ze Sieny w świetle nowych badań,” Sprawozdania Wrocławskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego, 1953 8 (1956): 20–26. 88 Kopera, “Jan Maria Padovano,” 238; Helena Kozakiewicz, Rzeźba XVI wieku w Polsce, 108–109. Cf. Schulz, Giammaria Mosca Called Padovano, 1: 101–102. 78 chapter three The Italian workshops in Cracow continued to use the paired recumbent volutes for the pediments of built-in frames until the early 1560s.89 In the mid-1550s, the scheme was implemented in more refined and soft forms in the pediment of the architectonic frame of the lost epitaph of an unknown person on the exterior of Saint Barbara’s Church in Cracow (Fig. 31). However, even this relief does not resemble the “leafy candelabrum” in the Sigismund Chapel. The artists who were capable of imitating the style of their own sculptures in Wawel around 1530 were Padovano and Cini, who for many years continued working for the court. In 1546 in Cracow, they began to carve parts of the tomb of Queen Elisabeth, who was buried a year before in Vilnius Cathedral; Padovano more likely sculpted the statue, and Cini the frame and ornaments. Shortly after the pieces had been made in 1552, they were taken to Vilnius, and the ready parts of Padovano’s other sepulchral monument (the tomb of the king’s half-brother Jan) were sent from Pińczów to Vilnius ca. 1556–57. Since the beginning of their projects in Vilnius, Padovano and Cini often traveled there and back, but both tombs seem not to have been installed.90 In 1558, Padovano was again employed at Wawel Castle,91 and he continued his professional activities until his death ca. 1574. During almost a decade after 1553, when Cini was occupied with Elisa- beth’s tomb and other projects in Vilnius, he left no trace of his work in the surviving documents. This may be the result of his no longer working for the royal court or nobility, but he might still have fulfilled smaller commissions of provincial or lower-class patrons in collaboration with his old companions, Padovano and Gabriel Słoński.92 The next record relating to Cini dates to 1562, when he employed an assistant, a mason named Bar- tolommeo Krupnik; and later that year Cini traveled to Italy.93 He came back to Cracow in 1564 and worked at the Castle until 1565, the year of the last known mention of him in the archives.94

89 For the development of S-shaped volutes in Renaissance sculpture in Cracow, see Irena Burnatowa, “Ornament renesansowy w Krakowie” in Studia Renesansowe, ed. by Michał Walicki, vol. 4 (Wrocław, 1964), 5–243. 90 See Schulz, Giammaria Mosca Called Padovano, 1: 103–104, 112. 91 Helena Kozakiewicz, Rzeżba XVI wieku w Polsce, 104, n. 89. 92 The information on the collaboration of Cini with Słoński and a suggestion that the same craftsmen assisted both sculptors are found in an archival record on Słoński, who sent one Bartolommeo (likely, Krupnik) to assist Cini in Vilnius about 1554; see Cercha and Kopera, Nadworny rzeźbiarz, 24. 93 Ibid., 20–24. 94 Schulz, Giammaria Mosca Called Padovano, 1: 101. the isserl’s torah ark: deconstructing the bricolage 79 Giovanni Cini seems to have been the most suitable person both to revive the style of the Sigismund Chapel and to bring it to Jewish Kazimierz. From 1542, Cini had remained the only one still alive of Berrecci’s group of Italian assistants who once carved the ornamental reliefs in the Sigismund Chapel. Cini came in contact with the Jews as early as 1537, when he and Filippo da Fiesole built a house adorned with stone reliefs for Jonah ben Abraham in Jewish Kazimierz.95 Looking for a prestigious sculptor for his synagogue, Isserl may have turned to Italians who had already worked for Jews. In addition, he had his own opportunities to meet Cini, Padovano, and their companions: through his business with the court, Isserl would have visited Wawel Castle, where these people worked, and from at least 1551 on, he had his business in Vilnius,96 where Cini and Padovano often visited during that period.97 Cini was back in Cracow together with Pado- vano about 1558, when Isserl expanded his synagogue. If our assumption is correct, Isserl’s commission would have been a boon to Cini’s business, which had declined after he returned from Vilnius. A relief of the kind seen in the tympanum of the Sigismund Chapel (Fig. 28) was inventively recomposed for the ark’s triangular pediment (Plate 2.13) as a peculiar version of great paired volutes supporting a small plant; on the ark, the plant is large and conspicuous and the volutes are designed as its lower branches. There would have been a special reason for the revival of the style after it had become obsolete. If the work was done by Cini, it could have been an opportunity for this elderly artist, at least 63 years old in 1558, to reaffirm his superior professional skills and perhaps remind his former patrons of his contribution to the reliefs in the renowned Sigis-

95 Cercha and Kopera, Nadworny rzeźbiarz, 20–24; Helena Kozakiewicz, Rzeżba XVI wieku w Polsce, 83. The contract is published in Jan Ptaśnik, Cracovia artificum 1501–1550 (Cracow, 1948), 547 no. 1360. Krasnowolski identified Jonah’s house as the Renaissance building at the corner of Żydowska (Jewish) Street (now 36 Joseph Street) and Kierków (Cemetery) Street (now Jacob Street), near the Jewish quarter’s new gate built in 1553. The building was documented by Ekielski in the 1860s and destroyed in the late-19th century. Judging by a fragment of the portal decoration with a relief head of an angel (Plate 3.2 no. 4), Ekielski asserted that the house, although within the Jewish quarter, was originally not in the possession of a Jew; see idem, Miasto Kazimierz, 128. However, Krasnowolski believed that the employment of Italian architects by the Jews of Kazimierz was common, and mentioned several more such contracts from the second half of the 16th century and the early-17th century; see idem, Ulice i place Krakowskiego Kazimierza, 63, 73. With this statement, Krasnowolski contested the argument proposed by Ekielski and shared by Świszczowski, “Miasto Żydowskie na Kazimierzu,” 55. 96 Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 143. 97 See Cercha and Kopera, Nadworny rzeźbiarz, 20–24; Helena Kozakiewicz, Rzeźba XVI wieku w Polsce, 101–103, 106. 80 chapter three mund Chapel after a few years’ absence from Cracow. If the patrons demanded that their new ark, like the Gothic ark in the Altneuschul of Prague (Fig. 33), be crowned by the likeness of a tree, the sculptor could propose them as a fitting Renaissance model of the all’antica stylised relief in the Sigismund Chapel that perhaps explained the symbolism of that image in Christian art. the isserl’s torah ark: reconstructing the unity 81

CHAPTER FOUR

THE ISSERLS’ TORAH ARK: RECONSTRUCTING THE UNITY

The Renaissance aedicula-shaped Torah ark in the Isserls’ Synagogue shows a composition of the heterogeneous components of the kinds that had been used in Polish art beginning in the 1500s. The use of paired pilasters with dissimilar designs and different colours was rare, but not unheard of, and is even found in the frame of the Albrecht tomb (1502–05) in the Wawel Cathedral (Fig. 10), one of the earliest Renaissance works in Cracow. Many sculptural tombs and epitaphs have an attic flanked by volutes and an ornamental pediment of a more-or-less triangular shape surmounting some of them (e.g., see Figs. 31, 34). However, the combination of the four- columned façade, an attic panel flanked by volutes, and a leafy pediment in the same frame, seems to be nonexistent there prior to 1558.1 In the wall tombs, the attic was used to display an inscription or an image, but in the synagogue ark, the text runs in another low panel, whilst the large attic panel remained blank (Plate 2.12).2 The attic panel, a non- functional device in the Isserls’ ark, had no precedent in medieval synagogue arks, but was found in the Renaissance Torah ark from Padua (Fig. 35). That ark, lost during the Second World War, is seen only in the photograph published by Heinrich Frauberger in 1901.3 In terms of general composition, the resemblance between these two arks is striking: in both of them, the pedimented attic panel is flanked by volutes and surmounts a four-columned façade. To clarify whether the Isserls could have been aware of synagogue art in Italy, the specimen from Padua and its history should be examined in more detail.

1 The only known example, the Mateusz and Anna Czarny wall tombstone in Saint Mary’s Church in Cracow, was produced after 1566. See Burnatowa, “Ornament renesansowy w Krakowie,” 104–105, fig. 66. 2 No traces of original decoration on the attic panel of the Isserls’ ark are discernable or documented and, at most, it may have been decorated with painting. Those who later redecorated the ark inserted the great crown (Plates 2.9) or the Tablets of the Law (Plates 2.8, 2.10–11, 2.13) to fill the blank area. 3 Heinrich Frauberger, “Über Bau und Ausschmückung alter Synagogen,” Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft zur Erforschung jüdischer Kunstdenkmäler 2 (1901): 38 fig. 42. 82 chapter four Triumphal Gate: An Architectural Model from Padua to Kazimierz

Jews settled in Padua in the mid-thirteenth century; they had a synagogue and cemetery as early as 1300, and became subjects of the Republic of Venice when the city was annexed to the terra ferma in 1405. During the fifteenth century they were, like the Jews in many other Italian cities, increasingly exposed to Renaissance culture.4 For instance, in the last quarter of that century, wealthy Jews of Padua commissioned illuminations for their Hebrew manuscripts from Renaissance painters.5 It was in that city that the Jewish banker Wertheim placed his emblematic deer on the Torah ark’s parokhet in his synagogue, the walls of which he wished to gild. His opponent, Rabbi Judah Minz, who left Mainz around 1462, was said to be a philosophy professor at the University of Padua.6 In 1467 Minz established a yeshiva for the Ashkenazic Jews, or tedeschi, who predominated among the Jewish communities in Padua.7 It is possible that the yeshiva was housed in or near the synagogue of the Ashke- nazic rite, also called the Scuola Tedesca, Tempio Grande, or Tempio Maggiore, that was first mentioned in 1478 and became the centre of the entire Jewish population.8 The synagogue now occupies the upper floor, built in 1682/83,9 of the building situated between Corte Lenguazza and

4 See Stefano Zaggia, “Gli Ebrei e Padova: Tracce e memorie di una storia secolare (XIV–XVIII sec.)” and Amos Luzzato, “Espressioni culturali della Communitá Ebraica di Padova” in Hatikwá, ed. Claudia De Benedetti, vol. 1 (Padua, 1998): 3–23 and 49–57 respectively; Reuven Bonfil, “Kavim le-demutam ha-Ḥevratit shel yehudei ezor Veneẓiah be-reshit ha-Meah ha-Shesh-esreh” (Aspects of the social image of the Jews in the Venetian area at the beginning of the 16th century), Ẓion 41 (1976): 68–96 (Hebrew). 5 E.g., Bezalel Narkiss attributed a series of illustrations of the Venetian style in the Hamburg halakhah miscellany (Hamburg, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. Heb. 337 [scrin 132]) to an accomplished Renaissance painter from Venice or Padua, who produced them in Padua for the Rapa family in 1477 (Narkiss, Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts, 158). 6 A local mid-19th century rabbi, Mordechai Samuel Ghirondi, stated that he himself most likely a sculptural ,(צלם דמות תבניתו) ”had seen “likeness of the image of his form portrait of Minz dedicated to the university by his students. See Mordechai Samuel Ghirondi and Graziado Nepi, Toledot gedolei Yisrael u-geonei Italiyah (The book of the great people of Israel and sages of Italy) (Trieste, 1853), 122 (Hebrew). 7 Stefano Zaggia, “La Scuola Grande di Padova: vicende storiche e architettura” in Hatikwá, 1: 60; Daniel Carpi, “Ha-Yehudim be-Padovah be-Tekufat ha-Renesans (1369–1509)” (Jews in Padua during the Renaissance [1369–1509]) (Ph.D. thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Jerusalem, 1967), IX (Hebrew); Shulvass, Jews in the World of the Renaissance, 63. 8 Zaggia, “La Scuola Grande,” 60, n. 9; Stefano Tuzzato, “Le trasformazioni edilizie nella storia del monumento” in Hatikwá, 1: 80, n. 4. 9 In 1926 the prayer hall on the upper floor was devastated, and in 1943 bombs damaged the whole building. The remaining parts of the old structure were recently renovated the isserl’s torah ark: reconstructing the unity 83 Contrada San Canziano, now Via delle Piazze. Only the cellar containing the ritual bath can be dated to the period of the establishment of the synagogue in the fifteenth century; the prayer hall on the lower, ground floor with its entrance from Corte Lenguazza was built about 1525, and documents from 1561 and 1587 state that this building already needed to be repaired.10 After the synagogue service moved up to the newer and much larger prayer hall in 1682/83, with the entrance through a staircase from Via delle Piazze (Contrada San Canziano), the hall on the ground floor continued to serve as a beit midrash (house of study). The events in the synagogue and yeshiva reveal that the history of these two institutions was intertwined, and the situation most probably resulted from their common management. Since Judah Minz had founded both synagogue and yeshiva, several generations of rabbis from his dynasty served as both rabbi of the Ashkenazic community and head of the yeshiva in Padua. Abraham held the two positions until his death in 1525, when his son-in-law, the Maharam, succeeded him in both of them. Thus the newer synagogue would have been built toward the end of Abraham Minz’s life or during the first years of the Maharam’s serving as rabbi.11 The photograph from 1901 (Fig. 35) shows the ark on the ground floor— under the Scuola Tedesca of 1682/83—in the hall that served first as a synagogue and later as a beit midrash until it was abandoned in 1892. The ark seems to be a movable cabinet with its top almost touching a massive joist to its right and reaching the ceiling. Jacob Pinkerfeld asserted that and several archival photographs and documents contain information, albeit incomplete, on its earlier interiors. On the history of this synagogue, see Marco Osimo, Narrazione della strage compita nel 1547 contro gli ebrei d’Asolo (Casale Monferrato, 1875), 47; Antonio Ciscato, Gli ebrei in Padova (1300–1800): Monografia storica documentata (Padua, 1901; reprinted: Bologna, 1985), 156 n. 3; Giorgio Romano, “Cimeli di antiche sinagoghe padovane trasterite in Israele,” Padova e la sua Provincia (May 1961): 26–31; Guido Vicentin, Il ghetto vecchio di Padova e le sue sinagoghe: Note storico-urbanistiche (Padua, 1987), 30–39; Umberto Nahon, Aronot kodesh ve-Tashmishei kedusha mi-Italiyah b-Yisrael (Holy arks and ritual appurte�‫ nances from Italy in Israel) (Tel Aviv, 1970), 33–36 (Hebrew). Jacob Pinkerfeld insisted that the synagogue was inaugurated in 1550, but gave no reference for this statement, idem, Batei ha-Knesset b-Italiyah me-Tekufat ha-Renesans ve-ad Yameinu (Synagogues of Italy: Their architectural development since the Renaissance) (Jerusalem 1954), 24 (Hebrew). For recent archival studies and in situ investigations, see Stefano Zaggia, “Il ghetto ebraico di Padova (1603–1797),” (M. A. thesis, Instituto Universitario di Architettura; Venice, 1990), 258ff.; idem, “La Scuola Grande di Padova: vicende storiche e architettura” in Hatikwá, 1: 59–113. 10 Tuzzato, “Le trasformazioni edilizie,” 87. 11 A century after the Maharam’s death and before reconstruction of the building in 1682/83, the Maharam’s nameplate was still affixed to his seat in the Scuola Tedesca, and a cantor at the synagogue reported in the 1670s that “nobody has sat there until this day,” Isaac Hayim Cohen, Paḥad Iẓḥak (Isaac’s fear) (Amsterdam, 1681), 10a (Hebrew). 84 chapter four because of the joist running down the centre of the ceiling, the ark was set off-centre against the eastern wall.12 The style of the ark’s pedimented fa- çade is much more restrained and geometric than that of the Tablets of the Covenant superimposed on the pediment and the vases with lush flowers on both sides of the attic. These upper details are clearly a later addition,13 and without them the ark could have fitted exactly under the joist and thus have remained in its place in the middle of the wall. It is likely that the joists were added under the ceiling to support the upper floor when another synagogue was built there in 1682/83, and the additions to the old ark’s upper part were probably influenced by the late Baroque style of the splendid stone ark that was built for that new synagogue.14 The new decorations enhanced the obsolete ark in accordance with the current style,15 and the new placement of the ark solved the problem of the awkward effect of the joist on top of the pediment. The original ark had a pedestal that supports two double Ionic half-colonettes, each pair of which stands on a joined base and bears a section of the entablature, topped by a small pediment. A vertical double door set between the paired colonettes is decorated with a symmetrical vegetative pattern, perhaps painted, carved, or inlaid in marquetry. Above the broken entablature is the attic flanked by volute screens and supporting a greater triangular pediment. The photograph is not clear enough to enable the viewer to decide whether heavier garland reliefs between the colonettes are a part of the original Renais- sance structure or a later Baroque enhancement.

12 Pinkerfeld, Batei ha-Knesset b-Italiyah, 22–24. 13 It is most likely that the Baroque upper parts suggested dating the whole ark to the 17th century in ibid., 23. 14 The date is encrypted in the dedicatory inscription on the ark, which has been moved from Padua to the Yad Eliahu Synagogue in Tel Aviv; see Nahon, Aronot kodesh, 33, 37. 15 The stylistic “enhancement” of Torah arks was usual in Italian synagogues: e.g., the Renaissance Urbino ark of ca. 1500 that was redecorated in 1624 in the Baroque style; see Mann, “The Recovery of a Known Work,” 274. The contrast between the Baroque decoration of an ark with a more richly ornamented Rococo superstructure can be noticed in the wooden carved ark of Vittorio Veneto from 1700; see Pinkerfeld, Batei ha-Knesset b-Italiyah, 40; Nahon, Aronot kodesh, 20–26; Iris Fishof, “The Vittorio Veneto Synagogue” in Jewish Art Masterpieces from the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, ed. Iris Fishof (Jerusalem, 1994), 32–33. In a similar manner, the 1650 Ark from Conegliano Veneto was renovated in 1710; see Pinker- feld, Batei ha-Knesset b-Italiyah, 39–40; F. Luzzato, La Communità Ebraica di Conegliano Veneto ed i suoi Monumenti (Rome, 1957); Nahon, Aronot kodesh, 4–18; David Cassuto, "The Synagogue of Conegliano Veneto" in A Crown for a King: Studies in Jewish Art, History and Archaeology in Memory of Stephen S. Kayser, eds. Shalom Sabar, Steven Fine and William M. Cramer (Berkeley, 2000), 47–57. the isserl’s torah ark: reconstructing the unity 85 In terms of formal composition, the two-storeyed, columned and pedimented ark repeats the general scheme of church façades of the kind introduced by Alberti during his renovation of Santa Maria Novella in Florence in 1456–70 (Fig. 36). Each of the storeys conveys an allusion to antique models. On the wide, lower section of the façade, the four attached columns supporting the entablature, a large arched entrance in the centre, and two lateral sections with smaller arches revive the layout of the Roman triumphal arches (e.g., Fig. 37). The higher part of the church’s central nave is masked by a panel connected to the lower side sections by the walls with the sloping sides designed as scrolls. Instead of the full-width attic—often with a dedicatory inscription in the attic’s central panel—on triumphal arks, the inlaid pedimented attic panel of Santa Maria Novella imitates a pedimented tetrastyle temple.16 The design gives the medieval concepts of the church as a vision of the ecclesia triumphans, the Gate of Heaven, and the Temple an all’antica expression.17 Alberti also proposed a more compact composition of the only gateway between double columns, no central pair of supports in the attic, streaming sloping scrolls, and an ornamental pediment for either a church façade (Fig. 38) or a triumphal arch (Fig. 39). The scheme retained its meaning of a solemn gateway in the mid-sixteenth century, when it was implemented in the frame of the main entrance to the Palazzo del Bò of the University of Padua (Fig. 40). Here the function of the attic that, lacking the screening purposes (which it had on church façades), became the exposition of a visual message relating to the building. This time it is Saint Mark’s lion, a symbol the Venetian patronage over the university and the university’s loyalty to the state.18 As the University’s gate, the Torah ark in the Scuola Tedesca belongs to the same Albertian type of architectural decorative

16 Anthony Grafton, Leon Battista Alberti: Master Builder of the Italian Renaissance (Cambridge, MA, 2000), 325. 17 See Rudolf Wittkower, Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism (London, 1967), 37–38, 54; Peter Murray, The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance (New York, 1970), 48–49. On the classical tetrastyle as an image of the Temple in Jerusalem in the medieval iconography of the Christian West, see Carol Herselle Krinsky, “Representations of the Temple of Jerusalem before 1500,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 33 (1970): 8–9. 18 The columns and the attic panel were repaired many times but their layout has remained original. They are attributed to Andrea Moroni (1500–60), who worked at the University of Padua in the 1540s; see Adolfo Venturi, Storia dell’Arte Italiana, vol. 11, Architet- tura del cinquecento, part 3 (Milan, 1940), 72. The lion sculpture in the attic was most likely altered, the inscription in the entablature was added in 1591 and the three cartouches on the gate may be from an even later date. See also Lucia Rossetti, The University of Padua: An Outline of Its History (Padua, 1999), 8. 86 chapter four frames comprising paired columns, a broken entablature, and decorative attic panel. It might be that even before the gate was built in the 1540s (in 1525 or shortly later) that a Padovan carpenter adopted that scheme for the synagogue ark, rendering it in heavier proportions and affixing the small pediments above its pilasters, a combination uncommon in Renaissance architecture. And if so, this is the earliest known example of a synagogue ark with an attic panel. Remember) זכרו תורת משה עבדי ,The inscription on the ark’s architrave ye the law of Moses my servant, Mal. 3:22), alludes to the identity of the Torah on the scrolls kept inside the ark with the text given to Moses at Sinai and calls upon the congregation to obey the Law constantly. The attic דע לפני \ מי \ אתה עומד ,panel bears another perlocutionary inscription (Know before Whom you stand), instructing the worshipper to imagine that God’s Presence is before him.19 It is likely that in the synagogue founded by rabbis, one of them—either Abraham Minz or his successor, the Maharam—rather than some other community heads, commissioned the Torah ark from a Renaissance carpenter or at least approved that structure and the inscriptions on it. The Maharam even expanded his halakhic control over other synagogues in Padua: he opposed the display of the embroidered parokhet in Wertheim’s synagogue many years after Judah Minz’s and Naphtali Hertz Wertheim’s deaths. Indeed, the Torah ark in the home synagogue of the Minz-Katzenel- lenbogen family, longtime opponents to the zoomorphic images in the synagogues, demonstrated only modest plant ornaments and indeed no

19 Cf. Berakhot 28b. Cf. a similar demand derived from another source, Psalm 16:8 (I have set the Lord always before me), in Eleazar Rokeah of Worms (1160–ca. 1230), Perushei sidur ha-Tefilah (Interpretations of the prayer book) (Jerusalem, 1992), 315 (Hebrew); Jacob ben Asher, Sefer ha-Turim: Oraḥ ḥayim, sign 98. The same appeal, “Know before Whom you stand,” is engraved in Hebrew on a stone tablet from Padua; paleography and its ornamental border date it to around 1500; see Nahon, Aronot kodesh, 34–35; Mann, “The Recovery of a Known Work,” 272–73 n. 11. A similar ornament of the flowers differing slightly from each other is found on the frieze of a door from the first half of the 16th century a few minutes’ walk from the Scuola Tedesca in the passage from the Contrada San Canziano to the south- western court in the Palazzo del Bò of the University of Padua. The inscription “Know before Whom you stand” was probably dispayed in front of the worshippers in an early-16th- century prayer hall in Padua. Perhaps, when that synagogue was located on the ground floor, the inscription was found above its ark. When the synagogue had been moved to the new hall upstairs and the ceiling joist that was built to support the upper floor had occupied the section of the wall above the old wooden ark, the inscribed stone had been transferred to the upper hall. That stone was built there into the wall, above the Torah ark of 1682/83, where it remained until it was transferred to the Umberto Nahon Museum of Italian Jewish Art in Jerusalem in the 1960s (Nahon, Aronot kodesh, 37). the isserl’s torah ark: reconstructing the unity 87 animal images. However, they were open-minded enough to adopt an all’antica gate-like composition for the Torah ark and did not pursue icono- clasm (the Maharam had been satisfied when Wertheim’s heirs just covered the deer relief on the parokhet with paper).20 The attitude of the rabbis of the Padovan Ashkenazic dynasty to the sculptures outside the synagogue was more liberal. The Maharam’s son, Samuel Judah, allowed the possession of sculptures made not for a cult, arguing that Solomon permitted placing twelve brass oxen in the Temple because they bore a bowl on their backs and there was no risk that someone would worship them as deities.21 Judah Minz would have known about his sculptural portrait that was donated to the University of Padua by his pupils, perhaps, as a customary sign of reverence given by students to the emeriti, and that still stood there in the mid-nineteenth century.22 This sculpture and the painted portraits of the Maharam and Samuel Judah that are mentioned in several sources23 have not survived. Nevertheless, the information about them may be accurate, since many other Italian Jews were portrayed in the late-fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.24 Prob- ably, this very tradition inspired the portrait—perhaps, the author’s—in Moses Isserles’s Torat ha-Olah in Prague in 1570 (Fig. 13), and—68 years

20 Caro, Avkat rokhel no. 56b. 21 See Siev, Rabeynu Moshe Iserles, 34. 22 See note 6 on page 82. Numerous inscriptions, heraldic crests, and portraits memo- rializing the professors and renowned alumni of the University of Padua have survived in the Palazzo del Bò. Although the earliest of those are from the late-16th century, it is possible that the tradition is from much earlier. 23 The records mentioning portraits of these and other Italian rabbis are listed in Shulvass, Jews in the World of the Renaissance, 235–36 n. 3. Mulder vaguely mentioned a portrait of the Maharam and alleged that it was made without the Maharam’s knowledge, S. I. Mulder, Eene zeldzame medaille (Amsterdam, 1859), 3. A letter evidently written by one of the sons of Ishmael Rieti to the Maharam in 1564 suggests that there was an image hung on the wall in the Rieti household. Boksenboim understood the text as referring to a portrait of the Maharam; see Yacob Boksenboim, Iggerot beit Rieti (Letters of the Rieti family) (Tel Aviv, 1987), 305 (Hebrew). Yet Horowitz assumed that the object on the wall was a kabbalistic amulet; see Elliott Horowitz, “Speaking of the Dead: The Emergence of the Eulogy among Italian Jewry of the Sixteenth Century” in Preachers of the Italian Ghetto, ed. David B. Ruderman (Berkeley, 1992), 157 n. 51. 24 On the portraits of Jews in Renaissance painting and coins, see Roth, Jews in the Renaissance, 189–212; Daniel M. Friedenberg, Jewish Medals from the Renaissance to the Fall of Napoleon (1503–1815) (New York, 1970), 42–47; Gardens and Ghettos: The Art of Jewish Life in Italy, ed. Vivian B. Mann (Berkeley, 1989), 52–53. Some of the portrait painters were Jew- ish: Roth cited a Jewish painter and engraver, Moses da Castelazzo, son of Abraham Sachs of Germany, who lived in Italy and advertised himself as producing “portraits of gentlemen and other famous men, so that their memory should remain for all time,” Roth, Jews in the Renaissance, 192. 88 chapter four later—a portrait of Leon Modena (1571–1648), a prominent rabbi and Hu- manistic scholar, in his Historia de riti hebraici in Venice.25 Modena’s teacher and formerly a student of the Maharam, Rabbi Sam- uel Archivolti (1515–1611), praised the portraiture as the art that perpetuates man’s face for eternity.26 The attitude of the Paduan rabbis to the portraits is indicative of the infusion of Renaissance forms of the glorification of a human being into their lives. The pictorial form of a personal perpetuation was adopted along with the rituals relating to death, which memorialised the dead visually, by decoration of funeral processions and tombstones, and verbally, in eulogies and epitaphs. The funeral ceremony arranged by Abraham Minz for his father Judah was so lavish that some considered its pomp excessive.27 With the same predisposition to the Renaissance for- mulae of glorification, Abraham Minz or the Maharam could not only agree to have a newfangled cabinet in their place for prayer, but also utilise its Renaissance symbolism for the glorification of the Torah and Judaism. The new composition imparted the traditional symbolism of the synagogue ark as a sacred shrine and a channel for human prayer with the connotations of the Torah’s triumphal advent and a solemn heavenly gate. The Ashkenazic community in Padua was a harbour for Jewish travelers from Poland in Italy. Imitating the nobles in sending their sons to study in Italy, the wealthy Jewish families of Poland preferred the cosmopolitan atmosphere of Renaissance Padua to Venice or Florence, and especially to Papal Rome. Many of the young Polish Jews came to the University of Padua, the only university that opened its doors to Jews in the Middle Ages and, during the Renaissance, possibly employed Jewish professors. The Jewish students were exposed to the Humanistic atmosphere at the university, and to echoes of the Renaissance in the life of the local Jewish community.28 The Polish Jews would have prayed in accordance with their Ashkenazic rite in the Scuola Tedesca; they may also have studied at the

25 Cohen, Jewish Icons, 28–29. 26 Shulvass, Jews in the World of the Renaissance, 337. 27 Ibid., 336–37; Horowitz, “Speaking of the Dead”, 129–62. 28 Stanisław Windakewicz, “Padwa. Studyum z dziejów cywilizacyi polskiej,” Przegląd Polski 25, no. 99 (1981): 290 n. 3; Morpurgo, “L’Universita degli Ebrei in Padova;” Jan Warchal, “Żydzi polscy na Uniwersytecie padewskim,” Kwartalnik poświęcony badaniu przeszłości Żydów w Polsce 1, no. 3 (1913): 37–72; David B. Ruderman, “The Impact of Science on Jewish Culture and Society in Venice (With Special Reference to Jewish Graduates of Padua’s Medical School)” in Gli Ebrei e Venezia. Secoli XIV–XVIII, ed. Gaetano Gozzi (Milano, 1982), 417–48; Daniel Carpi, Be-Tarbut ha-Renesans u-vein Ḥomot ha-Geto: Meḥkarim be-Toldot ha-Yehudim b-Italiyah be-Meot ha-14–ha-17 (Between Renaissance and Ghetto: Essays on the history of the Jews in Italy in the 14th–17th centuries) (Tel Aviv, 1989), 96–130 (Hebrew). the isserl’s torah ark: reconstructing the unity 89 yeshiva, and some of them may have become rabbis. One of those was Moses Fishel the Younger (d. 1542), a grandson of Rachel Fishel of Cracow. Moses, who was born in Kazimierz, studied under his uncle and the Maha- ram’s teacher, Jacob Pollack. Then Moses graduated in medicine from the University of Padua and later practised as a physician and served as a rabbi in his native community.29 He provides us with an example of a prosperous Kazimierz Jew in whom Humanistic education, secular science, and rabbinical scholarship were merged together, and who was well aware of both medieval Ashkenazic tradition coming to Poland from Bohemia and the Jewish culture in Renaissance Italy. The Maharam had numerous connections with Polish Jews. In his native Prague, the young Maharam studied under Jacob Pollack together with Shalom Shakhna, the future prominent Polish rabbi, Moses Isserles’s teacher and purported father-in-law.30 The Maharam’s daughter lived in Kazimierz with her husband, Solomon Zalman ben Jacob Ronkel.31 The Isserls were related to the Maharam, and Moses Isserles was also the Maharam’s and Samuel Judah’s rabbinical colleague, an ally in their international book trade, and their frequent correspondent. When mourning his mother’s death, Moses Isserles followed the Maharam’s halakhic advice.32 If the same contacts conveyed the information concerning the synagogues, the precedent of the Italian Renaissance style in the Maha- ram’s synagogue in Padua might have legitimised the acceptance of the Italianised Polish Renaissance in the Isserls’ Synagogue. Seemingly, the model was transmitted to the Isserls by its verbal account or schematic sketch drawn by an unprofessional hand rather than by a detailed drawing.33 This may explain the fact that they filled in the gener-

29 Despite his contemporary Humanistic education, professional knowledge and contacts outside the Jewish community, Moses Fishel the Younger was accused of agitating for Judaism among the Christians, and died in 1542 as a result of persecution. See Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 90–91, 127–30; Paul Fox, The Reformation in Poland, Some Social and Economic Aspects (Baltimore, 1924), 33; Mark and Kupfer, “Żydzi Polscy w Okresie Odrodze- nia,” 26; Janina Bieniarzówna, “Kraków pod wpływami reformacji” in Janina Bieniarzówna and Jan M. Małecki, Dzieje Krakowa, vol. 2, Kraków w wiekach XVI–XVIII (Cracow, 1984), 125–27. 30 Siev, “Maharam mi-Padovah,” 162–63. 31 Solomon Ronkel died in 1562 and was buried at the cemetery near the Isserls’ Synagogue; see Friedberg, Luḥot zikaron, 50–51 no. 32. 32 Isserles, Darkhei Mosheh: Yoreh de‘ah, 106 sign 391b; see also Siev, “Hakdamah,” 11. 33 Regarding the verbal and graphical transmitting of architectural models in the Renaissance age, cf. Mario Carpo, “How Do You Imitate a Building That You Have Never Seen? Printed Images, Ancient Models, and Handmade Drawings in Renaissance Architec- tural Theory,” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 64, no. 2 (2001): 223–33. 90 chapter four alised outline of the Albertian triumphal arch with the heterogeneous parts they had attained, both spolia and newly made. The dissimilarities in the components and materials constructing the same composition also resulted from the local traditions of synagogue design and sculptural techniques. Unlike the Paduan free-standing wooden ark, a type usual in the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Italian synagogues, the Isserls’ built-in stone ark shared the tradition of the carved arks in German and Bohemian synagogues. The arboreal relief in the pediment of the Isserls’ ark—an ornament absent from the Paduan ark’s pediment—translated into the Renaissance style the plant carved in the pediment of the Gothic Torah ark in the Altneuschul of Prague (Fig. 32), the main synagogue in one of the most influential communities in the late medieval Ashkenazic diaspora. It is also probable that by enriching the adopted composition with the new, unique combination of symbols and inscriptions, the Isserls expressed their own vision of the Torah ark’s symbolism.

Imitation of the Temple

The Hebrew nomenclature for the synagogue Torah ark associates it with the Ark of the Covenant. In Ashkenazic synagogues, the definition of the aron ha-kodesh; the Holy Ark) was transposed) ארון הקודש biblical Ark as onto the Torah shrine. The association is based on the identity of their contents: the Torah that once was written on the Tablets of the Covenant and placed into the Holy Ark, and now a verbatim copy of the same text on the scrolls, is kept in the synagogue ark. The presence of the Torah ark makes the synagogue a symbolic replica of the Tabernacle in the wilder- ness and the Temple in Jerusalem, both of which contained the most holy place of Divine glory. Although the Bible does not mention the Holy Ark in the Temple built after the Babylonian exile,34 rabbinical literature stressed their equal sanctity by referring to the Tabernacle and the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem using a collective Hebrew definition mishkan: literally, “dwelling place;” also Sanctuary).35 Since the) משכן Greco-Roman period, depictions of the messianic Temple in Jewish art often merged features of different historical Sanctuaries.36

34 According to legend, the Ark was either seized by Nebuchadnezzar and brought to Babylonia or was hidden “in its own place,” in the Temple or its precincts; see Yoma 53b–54a. 35 “Beit ha-Mikdash” (The Temple), Enẓiklopediah talmudit, 3: 124. 36 E.g, see Archer St. Clair, “God’s House of Peace in Paradise: the Feast of Tabernacles on a Jewish Gold Glass,” Journal of Jewish Art 11 (1985): 6–15; Shulamit Laderman and Yair the isserl’s torah ark: reconstructing the unity 91 Nevertheless, the synagogue arks never reproduced the biblical description of the Ark of the Covenant as a horizontal chest with a pair of staves for carrying it (Ex. 25:10–22; 37:1–9). Instead, there were particular details, signs, or inscriptions that conveyed the symbolic relation of the synagogue ark to the biblical one. Such a partial, conceptual imitation of the model— the method of selective copying, which Richard Krautheimer investigated in medieval architecture37—often occurred in ancient and medieval synagogues, and it has survived in traditional Jewish art until modern times. The portal-shaped Torah ark symbolises the celestial gate through which human prayer reaches God’s throne,38 and its location marks the direction of the prayer towards the location of the Temple in Jerusalem. The worshippers observing the synagogue’s ark readily imagine the solemn façade in front of them as a vision that commemorates the destroyed Tem- ple and expresses the hope for its rebuilding in the messianic future.39 When the Isserls decided to reuse the two old pilasters for their ark by adding two new ones to them, they could also have utilised the dissimilar- ity of these pairs to enhance the ark’s symbolic allusion to the Temple. Probably, the old slabs were purposely placed in the centre in order to exploit their lighter tint and thus create the effect of a receding central frame flanked by two pilasters (Plate 2.11). The spatial arrangement of a columned façade projecting against the doors of the Torah scroll niche in its midst imitates the façade of the Temple housing the Holy Ark in its depth. The principle of anchoring the association of the verbal description with the visual representation of an object in their sole, or a few similar, elements, rather than in the overall identity, might be applied to the ark’s columns. The biblical descriptions of Jachin and Boaz are obscure in their terminology, controversial in their details, and do not provide the reader

Furstenberg, “Jewish and Christian Imaging of the ‘House of God’: A Fourth-Century Reflec- tion of Religious and Historical Polemics” in Between Syncretism and Independence: Models of Interaction between Judaism and Christianity, eds. Marcel Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz (Leiden, 2009), 434–56. 37 Richard Krautheimer, Studies in Early Christian, Medieval, and Renaissance Art (London, 1971), 116–30. 38 On the motif of celestial gates in Jewish art, see Rachel Wischnitzer, From Dura to Rembrandt (Jerusalem 1990), 70–75; Bracha Yaniv, “The Origins of the ‘Two-column’ Motif in European Parokhot,” Jewish Art 15 (1989): 26–43. 39 On the retrospective and perspective meanings of the image of the Temple in medieval art, see Elisabeth Revel-Neher, Le signe de la rencontre: L’arche d’alliance dans l’art juif et chrétien du second au dixième siècles (Paris, 1984), 117–18. 92 chapter four with a clear concept of what each member and their combinations looked like.40 As a result, it seems that in the images or buildings alluding to the Temple, Jerusalem, or Solomon, every elaborate column could have been understood in terms of Jachin and Boaz. 41 The viewer, believing in the symbolic ties between the Temple in Jerusalem and the synagogue ark, could also read the quaint capitals of the Isserls’ ark in terms of the Jachin and Boaz pillars in front of the Temple’s porch. The Romanesque pillars of the arch representing the Temple in the Worms Maḥzor, an Ashkenazic rite prayer book of ca. 1280–90 (Fig. 41), exemplify the illustration of particular Biblical descriptions of objects by means of contemporary decorative patterns. These dissimilar pillars42 demonstrate several unusual features that can be inspired by the biblical text. For example, the undulating stem high- lighted with a bright colour on the right column may designate “a line of twelve cubits” encompassing both of Solomon’s pillars (I Kings 7:15), and the knotted pattern on the capital above the bright stem may designate the made “for the capitals which were upon the (מעשה שבכה) ”checker-work“ top of the pillars” (I Kings 7:17). Similarly, the viewer believing in the symbolic ties between the Temple in Jerusalem and the synagogue ark could also have associated the ark’s columns and their design with both location and particular details of the pillars in front of the Temple’s porch.43 On the ark’s two central capitals (Plate 2.14, on the right), the fleur-de-lis may have been understood to be the “lily work” on the top of both Solomonic pillars (I Kings 7:19, 22), and sevakhah,44 I Kings 7:17, 20) on their) שבכה the lateral great leaves to be the capitals. The concentric rings above the fleur-de-lis might easily be associ-

40 I Kings 7:15–22, 41–42; II Kings 25:16–17; Jer. 52:17, 20–23; Ezek. 40:49; II Chron. 3:15–17, 4:12–13. 41 Cf. Walter Cahn, “Solomonic Elements in Romanesque Art” in The Temple of Solomon: Archaeological Fact and Medieval Tradition in Christian, Islamic, and Jewish Art, ed. Joseph Gutmann (Missoula, 1976), 45–72; C. L. Meyers, “Jachin and Boaz in Religious and Political Perspective” in The Temple of Antiquity, ed. T. G. Madsen (Provo, 1984), 135–50. 42 The Bible describes both Jachin and Boaz as having the same form, but their differing names might have influenced dissimilar depictions of each of the two pillars. 43 I Kings 7:15–22, 41–42; II Kings 25:16–17; Jer. 52:17, 20–23; Ezek. 40:49; II Chron. 3:15–17, 4:12–13. sevakhah) with) שבכה In his commentary on II Chron. 3:16, Rashi had associated the 44 בסבך קרניו sevakh), basing its sense as “a dense growth of branches” on the passage) סבך (“[a ram caught in] a thicket by his horns,” Gen. 22:13). He also explained the sevakhah as ;young palm branches) לולבי דקל palm tufts; commentary on II Chron. 4:12) and) חריות שבכים מעשה commentary on I Kings 7:16–17). In contrast, the Latin Vulgate interpreted sevakhim ma’aseh sevakhah, I Kings 7:17) as [et] quasi in modum retis (“nets of) שבכה checkerwork”, or “meshwork”). the isserl’s torah ark: reconstructing the unity 93 ated with the biblical “pomegranates.”45 The belief of Jewish exegetes that the numerous adornments on the capitals of Jachin and Boaz were composed in two tiers,46 as they indeed are here, might make the spectator imagine that such a capital could have a Romanesque hourglass outline of the kind used there. If the Romanesque stone pilasters came, as we suppose, from a medieval synagogue ark, they could have been given this kind of interpretation in their original location. The similar decoration on the outer pilasters of the Isserls’ ark could have actualised the parallel between the ark’s supports and the Solomonic columns. On each of the outer capitals (Plate 2.14, on the left), the unusual interpretation of the classical calyxes with spiral volutes as leafy garlands de- scending from concentric rings towards the rose in the capital’s centre may ”,wreaths of chain-work“) גדילים מעשה שרשרות be an attempt to represent I Kings 7:17) of Jachin and Boaz, which sometimes were understood as branches.47 It is also noteworthy that each “festoon” consists of seven leaves, just as each festoon of the two brass columns has seven chains.48 One may also speculate that the sculptor emphasised this rose but made the fleur-de-lis under it barely discernable, as he (or the patrons) identified the shoshan “on the top of the pillars” (I Kings 7:19, 22) with a rose, and not with a lily. The old pilasters, now designating the Temple’s inner part, might cede their symbolism to the darker pilasters with equally Solomonic elements. Following this assumption, the egg-and-dart echini added to the פקעים central capitals (Plate 2.14, on the right) may have depicted the (peka‘im, “buds” or “knobs,” I Kings 6:18) carved on the walls inside the Temple, which the Ralbag described as “eggs which have both ends pointed.”49 On the new pilasters, the unusual design of the flute’s upper edge is decisively limited by a transverse groove but is then continued further with a short incised line (Plate 2.14, on the left). Such a non-finito execution of the grooves suggests the tradition of a work left incomplete as a token of

rimonim, usually “pomegranates”), adorment of the capitals on Jachin) רמונים The 45 and Boaz (I Kings 7:18, 42; II Chron. 3:16) are translated in the Septuagint, Ex. 28:33 as ροχοισ, the term meaning both knots and pomegranates. See Ioli Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, “The Byzantine Knotted Column” in Byzantine Studies in Honor of Milton V. Anastos, ed. Speros Vryonis (Malibu, 1985), 99. 46 For example, note the Targum Jonathan and Rashi’s gloss on I Kings 7:18. 47 See Rashi on I Kings 7:17. 48 See the commentary of Rabbi Levi ben Gershom (the Ralbag, 1288–1344) on I Kings 7:18. .(the commentary of the Ralbag on I Kings 6:18) ביצים ששני ראשיהם חדים ,Literally 49 94 chapter four mourning for the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, rather than a mere fault of the carver.50 Although as speculative as it remains without any documentary proof, the hypothesis that the pilasters imitate the Temple’s columns was borne out by adding a double door with reliefs on its inner side to the Isserls’ ark in 1648. When the doors opened, the reliefs of the seven-branched menorah on the right wing and the table of the showbread on the left wing (Pl. 2.18) simulated the location of these objects in the Holy Place, a hall in the middle of the Sanctuary. The actual Torah scrolls seen between the doors in the niche stood thus for the Ark in the Holy of Holies, the Sanctuary’s innermost chamber.

The Crown of the Torah

The frieze and the lower attic panel of the Isserls’ ark were allotted for the display of the crown and the verse “By me kings will reign.” The large proportions of the letters within the panel and their placement in the single row high above the spectator’s eyes are reminiscent of the use of monumental frieze inscriptions in the interior of the Sigismund Chapel (Fig. 12). The chapel also demonstrates that the royal crown was not only an emblem of the monarchy but also a religious symbol. Two winged putti holding a gilt metal crown above the royal seat with the Polish eagle on its back create the scenery in which the real king looks to be crowned by celestial creatures. The crown of the corona clausa type in which the diadem supports two intersecting arches, an orb called mundus, and a cross, also symbolises Christ’s universal power and protection over the Christian ruler.51 On the chapel’s exterior, the same message is repeated twice: the high lan-

50 A common custom, which was also confirmed by Moses Isserles, was to leave a square cubit of a plastered wall bare. On the origins and variants of this custom and its implementation in synagogue building, see Batsheva Goldman-Ida, “Black on the White— a Remembrance of Jerusalem,” Jewish Art 23–24 (1997–98): 203–209. In the foreword to his Torat ha-Olah, Moses Isserles stated that the first goal of the book that was composed as a symbolic interpretation of the Temple in Jerusalem, its implements and the service, is “to lament always the destruction [...] as it is said ‘If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, [let my right hand forget her cunning;’ Ps. 137:5].” 51 Cf. Kalinowski, Speculum Artis, 498. On the iconography of the Polish royal crown in the late-15th century and the first half of the 16th century, see Aleksander Gieysztor, “‘Non habemus Caesarem nisi Regem.’ Korona zamknięta królów polskich w końcu XV wieku i w wieku XVI” in Museum i twórca Studia z historii sztuki i kultury ku czci prof. dr. Stanisława Lorentza (Warsaw, 1969), 277–92; Barbara Miodońska, “Korona zamknięta w przekazach ikonograficznych z czasów Zygmunta I,” Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 32, no. 1 (1970): 3–16. the isserl’s torah ark: reconstructing the unity 95 tern is again crowned, and its spire supports an orb with a kneeling putto who holds aloft another crown, an orb, and a cross (Fig. 11).52 The angels bearing a crown above one’s head represented Divine glory in the Marian iconography, such as Polish “Madonna and Child” images, where the orb with the cross held by Christ symbolise the universal government given to him.53 The open crown on the Isserls’ ark conveys the idea of royal glory in the form free of the Christological associations. Well visible above the high bimah from many points in the prayer hall, the crown, together with the mention of royalty in Proverbs 8:15 and the royal style of the carved pediment,would have evoked in the synagogue-goers the feeling that they are approaching a magnificent palace. This effect was desirable in the synagogue in the spirit of the rabbinical recommendation that the worshipper’s concentration and reverence during the prayers should be not less that those of a vassal speaking to the king. Moses Isserles, who quoted this directive from Jacob ben Asher’s Sefer ha-Turim,54 stressed that the fear of the heavenly King of Kings should exceed that of any mortal ruler.55 Almost the same combination of the crown, the quotation from Prov- erbs 8:15, and the Torah shrine occurs in the Talmudic story about the Ark zer zahav; gold) זר זהב of the Covenant. Early amoraic sages interpreted the wreath), a rim running along the upper perimeter of the Ark of the Cove- nant (Ex. 25:11; 37:2) and the identical rims atop the Altar and Table of the Showbread as a separable object. The Altar’s wreath was bestowed upon Aaron, the Table’s upon David, and “the one of the Ark is still lying and whosoever wants to take it, may come and take it.” The value of the latter wreath is reconfirmed: “Perhaps you might think it is of little account, therefore the text reads: ‘By me kings will reign’.”56 Given by implication, the argument relates to the Divine source of the mundane government, for through the Divine wisdom “kings will reign, and princes will decree jus-

52 As in other motifs in the Sigismund Chapel, there is some tautology in the use of the regalia: the king with the corona clausa on his head sat under another corona clausa on the throne, the Eagle with the orb and cross is situated under a crown with another orb and cross, and two crowns are seen on the exterior. 53 E.g., see the “Madonna and Child” of 1542 from the parish church in Krobia, reproduced in Tadeusz Dobrzeniecki, Janina Ruszczycówna and Zofia Niesiołowska-Pothertowa, Sztuka sacralna w Polsce, vol. 2, Malarstwo (Warsaw, 1958), fig. 189. 54 Jacob ben Asher, Sefer ha-Turim: Oraḥ ḥayim, sign 98. Cf. also an earlier discourse by Eleazar Rokeah, Perushei sidur ha-Tefilah, 315. 55 See Isserles, glosses on Caro, Shulḥan arukh: Oraḥ ḥayim 1:1. 56 Yoma 72b. 96 chapter four tice; […] princes will rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth” (Prov. 8:15–16).57 The wreaths were popular symbols of power, heroism, and ge- nius in Greco-Roman culture.58 The golden wreath of the Holy Ark in amo- keter; crown) of the Torah in the very popular) כתר raic texts, just as the Mishnah Avot59 and in other tannaitic sources, was understood as being a sign of dignity rather than a mere head ornament. This meaning was in accordance with the biblical keter of royalty and synonymous with the nezer).60 In) נזר atarah) and) עטרה monarchic and priestly diadems called the Middle Ages, Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki, 1040–1105) explicitly stated that the zer in Exodus 25:11 and Yoma 72b means a keter, i. e., crown. The Ark’s zer zahav, translated in the Vulgate as corona aurea, was sometimes depicted as a crown in medieval Christian art. For example, the illuminator of the Lobbes Bible from 1084 (Fig. 42) illustrated it as a golden diadem hung above the Ark.61 The Tablets of the Law that should have been kept in the Holy Ark just under the crown (Deut. 10:1–2, 5) are painted outside—in Moses’s hands. This was likely done in order to alienate the Mosaic Law from the sanctity of the Ark and the glory marked by the crown, as the symbolic coronation of faith was reserved for Christianity. That was implied by Paul, who reversed the στέφανον (wreath; corona in the Vulgate) as an ornament for the winners of races into a symbol of spiritual virtues and eternal salvation (1 Cor. 9:24–25). The crown symbolises the triumph of Christianity over Judaism in their allegoric representations as the Ecclesia and Sinagoga. In the Liber Floridus of Lambert of Saint Omer, ca. 1100–20 (Fig. 43), Christ crowns the Ecclesia with a low circlet that looks like the Ark’s corona aurea in the Lobbes Bible. In contrast, the Sinagoga loses her radiate crown.62

57 On the future tense of the verbs in this translation, see note 77 on page 75. 58 Ann M. Stout, “Jewelry as a Symbol of Status in the Roman Empire” in The World of Roman Costume, eds. Judith Lynn Sebesta and Larissa Bonfante (Madison, 2001), 82. 59 The Mishnah incorporated the Crown of the Torah into another set of several crowns. The parable beginning with the statement, “There are three crowns”—but in fact enumer- ating four (Avot 4:13)—the Crown of the Torah symbolizing rabbinical wisdom is equal to two more crowns that distinguish the priestly and royal majesty, and the most important additional “crown of the good name,” marking one’s ethical merits, overcomes them all. 60 M. Bar, “Ha-Munaḥ ‘Keter Torah’ be-sifrut Ḥazal u-Mashmauto he-Ḥevratit” (The term “keter Torah” in rabbinical literature and its social meaning), Ẓion 55 (1990): 397–417 (Hebrew). 61 Elisabeth Revel-Neher, “Antiquus populus, novus populus: Jerusalem and the Peo- ple of God in the Germigny-des-Prés Carolingian Mosaic,” Jewish Art 23–24 (1997–98): 60–61. 62 Schreckenberg, Jews in Christian Art, 31–63. the isserl’s torah ark: reconstructing the unity 97 Our knowledge of the medieval Jewish depictions of the crown restating the glory of the Torah is scant and indirect. In the Ashkenazic prayer book from 1395–98, the cupola of the tower-shaped arks on folios 16v and 72v (Fig. 44) is given three similar points that make it look like a radiant crown. Although the painter rendered the images schematically and in conven- tional proportions, he thoroughly depicted the details which, in his opinion, were significant for a credible portrayal of a cantor praying near the Torah ark in the synagogue, and even supplied each painting with an inscription of the cantor’s full name in Hebrew. It is possible that the ark’s crown-shaped superstructure depicted a real object as well, although no such medieval arks have survived. The earliest known representation of a כתר crown in synagogue art is not pictorial. It is the Hebrew inscription .keter Torah; Crown of the Torah) in the pediment of a Torah ark (Fig) תורה 45) built after 1451 in the synagogue in Nuremberg.63 The plain reading of the biblical golden wreath as a decorative rim can be well applied to the Gothic leafy ornament above and inside the ogee arch carved within the pediment. The early Jewish images of the crown pertaining to the Mosaic Law come from Renaissance Italy. In the late-fifteenth-century Second Darm- stadt Haggadah from southern Italy (Fig. 46), the royal crown with foliate finials is painted above the book-shaped Tablets of the Law bearing the first letters of the Ten Commandments in Moses’s hand as he is standing on Mount Sinai. A figure appearing at the bottom of the mountain, supposedly Abraham, holds the handle of similar tablets, and another person at the head of a group of people gathered in front of the mountain, assumedly Joshua ben Nun, bears an open book. The Tablets, in accordance with rabbinical exegesis, stand for the entire corpus of Mosaic Law,64 and the picture alludes to the statement in Mishnah Avot 1:1 that the Torah was transmitted in full from Moses to Joshua ben Nun and then to the Jewish sages of the generation after the destruction of the Second Temple. Con- sequently, the crown hovering over the Tablets adorns the entire Torah rather than the Decalogue alone. Rabbi David ben Solomon Vital of Turkey and Greece, a contemporary and correspondent of the Maharam of Padua, connected the “crown” to the entire corpus of the commandments in his book, Keter Torah (The Crown of the Torah), using gematria, the substitution of letters of the Hebrew alphabet for numbers. He reasoned that the

63 Krautheimer, Mittelalterliche Synagogen, 250–52. 64 Katrin Kogman-Appel, Die zweite Nurnberger und die Jehuda Haggada: Judische Illustratoren zwischen Tradition und Fortschritt (Frankfurt am Main, 1999), 84–85. 98 chapter four same number, 620, is equal to the numerical value of the letters in the word KeTeR (20+400+200), the account of all the letters in the Hebrew text of the Ten Commandments, and the sum of all the commandments (the 613 biblical commandments plus the seven rabbinical commandments). In the frontispiece of his book’s edition of 1536 from Constantinople (Fig. 25), between the Renaissance woodcut borders, the title image shows a copy of an Italian crown of the kind painted previously in the Second Darmstadt Haggadah and later engraved on the Isserls’ Torah ark. The first material testimony to a crown image in synagogue art is again from Italy. The relief of a crown, now almost completely destroyed (Fig. 22), is clearly visible in old photographs above the Tablets of the Law in the pediment of the stone Torah ark built in 1522/23 for the Scuola Catalana in Rome.65 The next example, dated twenty years later, is the Torah ark of gilt walnut from the Scuola Grande in Mantua (Fig. 47), still in excellent condition and presently housed in the Museum of Italian Jewish Art in Jerusa- lem, where a crown, inscribed “Crown of the Torah,” decorates the leafy pediment. The crown on the Isserls’ Torah ark is thus the earliest known depiction of the Crown of the Torah in the synagogues beyond Italy, and the display of this image next to the quotation from Proverbs 8:15, is unique and seems to be the Isserls’ invention. Above the messianic message, the reference to midrashim connected the crown and its caption to the ritual functions of the synagogue ark. The crown atop the ark glorifies the Torah that lies inside in the way not only typical in heraldry, but also emphasised in Midrash Tanhuma, which explained that the golden wreath was made to adorn the Ark of the Law “because the Torah was put there.”66 The story in Yoma 72b about the crown of the biblical Ark being not appropriated by king nor priest but awaiting “whosoever [who] wants to take it” implies that this headwear marks the dignity of Torah scholarship and piety, which—in contrast to the crowns of kingship or priesthood—may not be invested, but can be merited only by one’s personal effort. Taking the Torah scroll out of the synagogue ark during prayers is reminiscent of taking the Crown of the Torah from the Ark of the Covenant and thereby deserving the virtue of piety.

65 Migliau, “Nuove prospettive,” 191–205; Ilia Rodov, “The King of the King of Kings: Images of Rulership in Late Medieval and Early Modern Christian Art and Synagogue Design” in Between Syncretism and Independence, fig. 12. 66 Tanḥuma, pericope Vayakhel (Ex. 35:1–38:20) 7. the isserl’s torah ark: reconstructing the unity 99 The Shield of the Messiah

As far as is known, the Isserls were the first to display the hexagram as a symbol on the Torah ark and second only to Aaron Meshulam Horowitz of Prague to introduce the symbolic hexagram in their synagogue. Jewish art in Prague may shed light on the application of this sign by the Isserls.67 In 1354, the Jewish community of Prague was granted permission to bear their own flag, later called in documents “King David’s flag,” which was purportedly decorated with a hexagram.68 The design of the Hebrew Book of Exo- dus printed by Gershom ben Solomon ha-Cohen and his companions in Prague in 1518 confirms that at that time the hexagram had been associated with the local Jewish community (Fig. 21). In the colophon on the last page of the book, the printers denote their residence as being “in exile, in the land of Bohemia, in Prague the capital,” and the woodcut on the frontispiece poses the Jewish community as a separate administrative unit within the municipal and state organisation. In the frontispiece, a hexagram of two intersected triangles appears on an escutcheon vis-à-vis the same escutcheon bearing the coat of arms of the city of Prague, and the land of Bohemia is designated by the eagle and lion shown beneath the escutcheons. The identification of the hexagram with the Jews is reinforced by placing within it a pointed Judenhut, which the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 obliged the Jews to wear as a sign distinguishing them from Chris- tians, and which medieval Jews sometimes adopted as their collective coat of arms.69 After the Judenhut within the hexagram was introduced in the decoration of the books printed by the Cohen family, it became commonly used by the Jews of Prague as their community’s emblem.70

67 From 1492 on, a hexagram appeared as a printer’s sign in Hebrew books published in Lisbon and Constantinople. On the hexagram and its various meanings in earlier periods, see Gershom Scholem, “The Star of David: History of a Symbol” in idem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays (New York, 1971), 257–81. For a bibliography, including more recent works on the hexagram symbol, with critical notes, see Joaneath Spicer, “The Star of David and Jewish Culture in Prague around 1600, Reflected in Drawings of Roelandt Savery and Paulus van Vianen,” The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 54 (1996): 221–22 n. 45. 68 Scholem, “The Star of David,” 275–76. 69 For example, three “Jewish Hats” are an emblem of the Jewish community of Con- stance, Germany, on a seal imprint of 1332 (Karlsruhe, Badisches Generallandesarchiv, sign 3/188). See also R. F. Aronstein, “Kova ha-Yehudim” (The Hat of Jews), Zion 13–14 (1948–49): 33–42 (Hebrew); Thérèse and Mendel Metzger, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages (New York, 1982), 145–46. 70 Alexandr Putík, “The Origin of the Symbols of the Prague Jewish Town: The Banner of the Old-New Synagogue, David’s Shield and the ‘Swedish’ Hat,” Judaica Bohemiae 29 (1993): 33. 100 chapter four As Gershom Scholem argued, since at least the early-fourteenth century, the hexagram was associated with the shield of the biblical King Da- vid. The earliest known mention of this is found in the kabbalistic Sefer ha-Gevul (Book of the Limit) written by David ben Judah he-Ḥasid in Spain around the year 1300. From the late-fourteenth century, Italian prayer books and, again, kabbalistic literature in Spain—Gershom Scholem specifically indicated Isaac ben Moses Arama’s Akedat Iẓḥak (The Binding of Isaac) of 1470—had mentioned the magic protection of David’s shield, although they ascribed the apotropaic power to the seven-branched menorah engraved on it and remained silent about the shape of the shield.71 In Prague, the hexagram pattern, the idea that David had a shield, and the belief in its protective powers melded together. An example for the complex contents of this image is the great hexagram dominating the woodcut frontispiece of the prayer book of 1512 produced by a group of four craftsmen and two backers, one of whom was Isaiah ha-Levi Horowitz.72 The rhymed colophon on the opposite page states that the companions “are recorded after their names, every man under the banner of his father’s house,” referring to the names of the six persons and their quasi coats of arms in the banderoles and shields around and within the hexagram.73 The text identifies the hexagram on the frontispiece as the “Shield of Da- vid” on which “all the engravers’ signs are hung.” The colophon also ascribes magic powers to the Shield of David: those who “cling to it”—obviously those whose signs surround it—will be rewarded with prosperity.74 The colophon of the six companions discloses their perception of history as reaching the eve of the messianic redemption. The year 1512 is en- almost a moment until) כמעט ר'ג'ע' עד יעבור זעם ,coded into the phrase

71 Scholem, “The Star of David,” 269–70. See also a more detailed discourse in Esther Yuhasz, “Ha-’Shiviti-Menorah’—beyin mufshat le-homri: Iyunim be-yiẓug ha-Kodesh” (The ‘shiviti-menorah’: A representation of the sacred—between spirit and matter) (Ph.D. thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Jerusalem, 2004), 21–30 (Hebrew). 72 See S. H. Lieben, “Der hebräische Buchdruck in Prag im 16. Jahrhundert” in Die Juden in Prag (Prague, 1927), 88–106, fig. 1; Yaari, Diglei ha-Madpisim ha-Ivryiym, 6 fig. 7, 124–26; Putík, “The Origin of the Symbols of the Prague Jewish Town,” 33. 73 The colophon, seen on the left page in Fig. 27, is quoted in Yaari, Diglei ha-Madpisim ha-Ivryiym, 124. 74 Yaari’s interpretation (in ibid., 125) of the Shield of David as a symbol of Meir bar David because he was the key person in establishing the Hebrew press in Prague, is incon- clusive. The great hexagram does not relate especially to Meir’s name, whilst the central place within the Magen David is taken by the name of Mordechai Sofer of Prague. Cf. also Charles Wengrov, Haggadah and Woodcut: An Introduction to the Passover Haggadah Completed by Gershom Cohen in Prague, Sunday, 26 Teveth 5287 = December 30, 1526, to Accompany Its Facsimile Edition (New York, 1976), 68. the isserl’s torah ark: reconstructing the unity 101 the danger has passed),75 hints at the Messiah who will very soon terminate the danger of persecution of the Jews. It is prophesied in the Bible that the Messiah will restore just social order, “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous ẓemaḥ [plant, shoot], and he shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land” (Jeremiah 23:5). In this context, the two crowns above each other, one on the top and the other on the bottom on the vertical axis of the hexagram in the frontispiece of the prayer book, may convey the belief that royal dignity will pass from King David to the King Messiah, or, by implication, David’s offspring who will inherit his magic shield. The messianic aspect of the Shield of David symbol was fostered by the news reaching Prague about David Reubeni and Solomon Molcho, who proclaimed themselves Jewish kings and redeemers in 1523. Claiming descent from the tribe of Judah and compiling a pedigree tracing his ancestry back to King David, Reubeni used the Shield of David, most likely shaped as a hexagram, on his banners and shields. Since the arrival of the pseudo- messiahs in Prague in 1529, the six-pointed Shield of David marked tombstones of men called David and Menaḥem, literally a “comforter” and also a name for the Messiah, the comforter of the Jewish people. Some of the Jews of Prague followed Solomon Molcho when he went to meet Emperor Charles V at Regensburg in 1532.76 After Molcho was burnt at the stake in Mantua later that year, his mantle and a banner with Hebrew inscriptions—but without any symbols—that was believed to be the flag that Molcho carried on his mission to Regensburg, were brought to the Horow- itz Synagogue in Prague. Molcho’s relics (either genuine or false) that are held in the Horowitz Synagogue suggest that the devotees of Molcho in Prague assembled here and not in the Altneuschul. The name of the synagogue owners, the ha-Levi Horowitz family, was designated by the jugs of the Levites77 carved into the frieze of the portal built in the Horowitz Synagogue during its expansion by Aaron Meshulam in 1535 (Fig. 48),78 just as a similar jug with a spout symbolised Isaiah ha- Levi, supposedly Aaron Meshulam’s father, on the frontispiece of the prayer book of 1512. Yet the reading of the hexagram with a Judenhut in the

.(moment) records the Jewish year of [5]273 (1512 CE) ר'ג'ע' The word 75 76 Putík, “The Origin of the Symbols of the Prague Jewish Town,” 33; See also Scholem, “The Star of David,” 270; Silver, History of Messianic Speculation in Israel, 133–135. 77 Jugs designate the descendants of the Levites, whose liturgical function is pouring water over the hands of the Cohens before the latter bless the congregation. This ritual was confirmed in Caro, Shulḥan arukh: Oraḥ ḥayim 128:6. 78 See note 79 on page 42. 102 chapter four centre of the frieze as a mere sign of Aaron Meshulam’s belonging to the local community seems to be at odds with the fact that in the years before his reconstruction of the synagogue, he was on bad terms with the other influential Jewish families in Prague, who begrudged the exclusive royal privileges granted to the Horowitzes, and with the traditionalist faction of the Jewish community, who protested his radical messianic beliefs. In order to settle the conflict that threatened the stability of the whole Jewish community, Abraham ben Avigdor, the head of the rabbinical court in Prague, turned to an external arbiter, Josel ben Gershon of Rosheim in Germany. Arriving in Prague in 1534, Josel proposed measures that de- prived the Horowitz family of its exclusive position. Aaron Meshulam provoked a violent revolt against the reform, attempted to assassinate the arbiter, and finally forced him to leave town.79 The expansion and refurbishing of Aaron Meshulam’s synagogue—undertaken about a decade after he had renovated it in the style of contemporary royal architecture— could have celebrated his recent sweep, demonstrated the privileged status his family had maintained in the community, and provided the believers in Molcho with their own place for prayer. By appropriating the collective emblem in his private synagogue, the ambitious individual obviously expressed his claims to leadership in the whole community. In the portal’s frieze, the Shield of David is integrated into the inscrip- This is the“) זה השער ליי' צדיקים יבאו בו an acronym of ,ז'ה'ל צ'י'ב' tion gate to YHWH, the righteous shall enter into it,” Ps. 118:20).80 Following the Jewish tradition of avoiding the full spelling of the ineffable Divine name in the non-sacred texts, the given Hebrew quotation substitutes the Tetra- -an abbreviation usual in Ashkenazic culture.81 How ,יי' grammaton with

79 Ludwig Feilchenfeld, Rabbi Josel von Rosheim, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland im Reformationszeitalter (Strassburg, 1898), 166; Selma Stern, Josel of Rosheim in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation ([s. l.], 1965), 141–45; Jan Heřman, “The Prague Jewish Community before the Expulsion of 1541” in Prague Ghetto in the Renaissance Period, ed. Otto Muneles (Prague, 1965), 29–32. 80 In contrast to “the gate of [the Lord]” in JPS Ps. 118:20, the translation of the preposi- as “to” in “the gate to [the Lord]” given here conveys more correctly the motion implied ל tion by the ascent of the righteous to the heavens described in ibid., 118:19–21. Compare “This is the gate to Jehovah” in the edition of R. Young, The Holy Bible … Translated According to the Letter and Idioms of the Original Languages (Edinburgh, 1898), Ps. 118:20. 81 Later in the 16th century, Moses Isserles confirmed, “they write the name of God in - and ,(ײ ,prayer books as two [Hebrew letters] youd and one more above them” (that is excluded this spelling from the list of God’s holy names that one may not erase; see Isserles, glosses on Caro, Shulḥan arukh: Yoreh de‘ah 276:10. On the contracted spellings or substitu- tions used by Jews instead of the Tetragrammaton, see Theodore Schrire, Hebrew Amulets: Their Decipherment and Interpretation (London, 1966), 91–99. the isserl’s torah ark: reconstructing the unity 103 ever, the acronym on the synagogue portal does not spell the name of God ”for “to ל at all: instead of it, there is the hexagram between the preposition righteous people). As a) צדיקים for צ in “to YHWH”) and the abbreviation) result, the hexagram denotes the destination for the righteous, and if the synagogue-goers deciphered this sign as a hieroglyph for the Messiah, who has or is David’s Shield, they should read the sequence, as “this is the gate to the Messiah, into which the righteous shall enter.” The Isserls, who were in-laws of Aaron Meshulam’s grandson, Pinchas Horowitz, and managed various other contacts with the Jews of Prague, would have similarly identified the hexagram of the two intersected triangles as the Shield of David.82 Restraining from the ecstatic belief in the messianic mission of Molcho and Reubeni, Moses Isserles maintained the traditional concept of King David as the forefather of the Messiah. Echoing Isaac Arama, Moses Isserles repeated that the magic power of David’s shield is conveyed by the painting of the menorah on it, but stressed that the source for this power is David’s adherence to the Divine testament: “the merits of the Torah and the true faith with the fundamentals of religion” granted David the protection in his struggles.83 On the Torah ark in his family’s synagogue, Moses Isserles put the Shield By) בי מלכים ימלוכו ,of David at the end of the quotation of Proverbs 8:15 me kings will reign ), the very same verse that summarises the discussion about Aharon’s priestly crown, David’s royal crown, and the most valuable Crown of the Torah in Yoma 72b. Implicit in this discourse, the ideas of the Messiah inheriting David’s kingdom and of the Divine wisdom revealed in the Mosaic Law as the source legitimating the political and spiritual leadership were noticed by Rashi. Referring to David’s crown, Rashi stressed, “The kingship [belongs] ‘to David and to his seed’ [Ps. 18:51],” quoting in brief the psalmic presage of David’s messianic role: “Great salvation giveth to His anointed’ and‘ :למשיחו] He to His king; and showeth mercy li-Mshiḥo

82 In the 1550s, the hexagram was understood in Italy in a similar way by Tobias Foa, whose marks on the books he printed in Sabbioneta comprise a pair of intersected triangles growing from a tree flanked by rampant lions. Three of the four biblical quotations accompanying the smaller, and probably earlier, variant of Foa’s mark mention the shield as a metaphor of God’s protection: “Thou art my covert and my shield; in Thy word do I hope” (Ps. 119:114); “But thou, O Lord, art a shield about me; my glory, and the lifter up of my head” (Ps. 3:4); “For the Lord God is a sun and a shield; the Lord giveth grace and glory” (Ps. 84:12) (the fourth verse quotes Prov. 2:6). In another variant of the mark, the tree bearing the hexagram is a palm and the caption reads, “The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree” (Ps. 92:13); see Yaari, Diglei ha-Madpisim ha-Ivryiym, 13 figs. 20–21, 133. המנורה היתה מצויירת במגן דוד להיות כי זכות התורה והאמונות האמיתיות עם עקרי 83 .Isserles, Torat ha-Olah, 28v ,הדת היו עומדים לדוד בלחמותיו 104 chapter four also ‘to His Messiah’], to David and to his seed, for evermore.” Rashi’s gloss on the verse from Proverbs 8:15 in Yoma 72b generalises: “The One who crowns the kings is greater than the king, and this is the Scripture that had stated this maxim.”84 The theme of the Divine source of the social order was topical in political propaganda, theology, and art in sixteenth-century Catholic lands in central and eastern Europe. Christian art had celebrated Christ’s suprem- acy over mundane government ever since Constantine the Great bestowed imperial favor on Christianity in the Roman Empire.85 The election of Maximilian I of Habsburg as “King of the Romans” in 1486 gave impetus to the symbolic images of the imperial order blessed by Christ in German lands.86 This art reached its peak in the symbolic and allegoric depictions of governmental order produced by Hans Burgkmair the Elder (1473–1531) after Maximilian I took the title of Elected Roman Emperor of the German People in 1508 without having been crowned by the Pope. Burgkmair’s images conveyed Maximilian’s societal propaganda of the complementary roles of imperium and sacerdotium in Christendom.87 Beginning in the 1520s, when the relations between regnum and sacerdotium preoccupied the Reformists, they had shared the genre of emblematic schemes of governmental hierarchy.88 In Poland under the pluralist regime of Sigismund II Augustus (reigned 1548–72), both Protestants and Catholics proposed their schemes for the ideal state. The most elaborated contribution to that topic is the political writings of the Catholic Humanist Stanisław Orzechowski,89 and their

.וגדול הממליך מן המלך, והתורה אמרה מקרא זה ,The original reads 84 85 André Grabar, Christian Iconography (Princeton, 1968), 38–40. 86 See Larry Silver, Marketing Maximilian: The Visual Ideology of a Holy Roman Emperor (Princeton, 2008). 87 This message had become no longer relevant in 1511, when the emperor planned to take possession of the papacy himself. See M. Hollegger, Maximilian I. (Stuttgart, 2005), 212–13. 88 Rodov, “The King of the King of Kings,” 457–60. 89 Orzechowski studied in Wittenberg, where he was in favour of Luther, and then visited Italy. He was ordained as a Catholic priest and became an active adherent of the Counter-Reformation during the reign of Sigismund Augustus. Orzechowski’s earlier writing containing political theories includes his eulogy of Sigismund I, Stanislai Orichovii Rutheni ornata et copiosa oratio habita in funere Sigismundi Jagellonis Poloniae regis (Venice, 1548); his chronicles of Polish history, Annales Polonici ab excessu Divi Sigismundi Primi (Cracow, 1554); and his address to Sigismund Augustus, Fidelis subditus (Cracow, 1548). See, I. N. Golenishchev-Kutuzov, Ital’ianskoe Vozrozhdenie i slavianskie literatury XV–XVI vekov (Italian Renaissance and Slavic literatures of the 15th and 16th centuries) (Moscow, 1963), 309–16, 368–69 (Russian); Polski Słownik Biograficzny, vol. 24 (Wrocław, 1979), 287–92; Fiszman, Polish Renaissance, 5, 51, 57 n. 47, 326. the isserl’s torah ark: reconstructing the unity 105 illustrations produced in accordance with the author’s instructions by an anonymous artist. Orzechowski’s Rozmowa, albo Dyjalog około egzekucyjej polskiej korony (Conversation, or a Dialog about the Government of the Polish Crown) of 1563 is written in the form of a debate between the “Pa- pist” Catholic and the “Evangelist,” i.e., a Reformist. Through the figure of his Papist, Orzechowski advocates Roman Catholicism and argues against the liberal attitude of Sigismund Augustus towards the Reformists in Po- land. The non-Christians are not part of the conversation, although the Papist mentions Jews and even quotes them in Hebrew.90 An allegoric representation of the Polish Kingdom in the Rozmowa (Fig. 49) is set within a space resembling the church nave: the stage recesses from the great columns on the foreground to the columned arch housing an altar. The place of the arch’s keystone and the uppermost position in the whole engraving is taken by the crucifix, from which descends the crowned Ecclesia holding a small altar, a prototype of the church altar beneath. The Ecclesia protects the emblem of the Kingdom—the eagle bearing the royal initials “SA”—and stands on the shoulders of King Sigis- mund Augustus and the Polish archbishop kneeling in front of the altar, on which the Eucharist chalice and open book (likely the Gospels) are placed. The Papist, a hero of the Rozmowa, explains this pyramidal composition as a symbolic triangle, the apex of which is the church altar designating faithfulness as the highest virtue, and just as the apex rests on both lower angles, the state is established on both royal and priestly rule. He appeals to the Polish people, “aby ni w czym ex isto triangulo Δ nie wykrac- zali” (that [they] should not deviate from that triangle Δ).91 The Papist definition is not precise about the illustration: what he calls a “triangle” is depicted as a quincunx, a five-point pattern, and entitled Quincunx Polo- nia. Whilst working on the program of the picture, Orzechowski began to invent a new, more complex model of the Polish state, and about a year later he expanded upon it in his Quincunx, Tho jest wzor korony polskiej (Quincunx, That is the Model of the Polish Crown).92 In this book, Orzechowski, who himself appears in the text as a debater supporting the

90 See the annotated reprint of Orzechowski’s books: J. Łoś and S. Kot, Stanisława Orzechowskiego polskie dialogi politychne (Rozmowa około egzekucyjej i Quincunx), 1563–1564 (Cracow, 1919), 204. 91 Such a letter-high drawing of a triangle appears in the original text of Orzechowski's book. Ibid., 30–31. 92 Jan Łoś reasonably supposed that Orzechowski had first completed the text of the Rozmowa and then supplied it with the illustration. See ibid., xi–xiii. 106 chapter four Papist, conceded that his previous explanations about the “triangle” were not exhaustive, and added that the quincunx inherently exists within the triangle, like “fire within flint.”93 Now he interpreted the five dots as the angles of a pyramid and illustrated this idea with a geometrical drawing of the Pyramis ex quincunx (Fig. 50).94 The next full-size illustration in the book (Fig. 51) translates the same scheme into the emblematic Typus po- loniæ regni / Wizerunk krolestwa polskiego (Image of the Polish Kingdom) in which crowns and insignia are substitutes for human figures. The royal crown, the bishop’s mitre, the Host, and the altar around the Polish Eagle represent, respectively, the royal and priestly rulers, Christian faith, and worship as the fundamentals of the state. The papal tiara and keys, topped by the crucifix, are set in the apex of the pyramid to demonstrate the su- premacy of the Catholic Church in the structure of the Polish Kingdom. The concise symbolic image proclaims Christ’s dispensation and papal supervision over the national community that is based on a Christian union in the Eucharistic mystery, and jointly governed by a secular and a sacral ruler. Noteworthy is Orzechowski’s parallel use of the text, allegories, non- figurative symbols, and purely abstract schemes for convening the same message. He also treated geometric signs as a kind of hieroglyphs printed in line with the letters.95 Such a hybrid script comprising letters and geometric signs was represented even earlier in the Horowitz Synagogue in Prague (Fig. 48) and on the ark in the Isserls’ Synagogue in Kazimierz (Plate 2.13). Although Orzechowski’s two books from 1563–64 could not have effect on the Isserls’ ark, they are highly illustrative of the rhetoric about the sanctity of mundane government as well as of the double, verbal and graphic, expression of this content in the Humanistic culture in Cracow during the reign of Sigismund Augustus. The Polish Jews, like all Jews residing in Christian countries, had to balance their obedience to the king—in accordance with the halakhic principle “dina de-malkhuta dina” (the law of the government is binding)—with their aversion to Christ’s proclaimed supreme monarchy.96 Renaissance hierarchical representations that based the social order on the New Testa-

93 Ibid., 192–93. 94 Orzechowski also presented various combinations of the five dots lending the quincunx pattern different symbolic and philosophical meanings. See ibid., 187, 189–90, 212, 215. 95 See note 91 on page 105. 96 Sh. Shilo, Dina de-Malkhuta dina (The law of the government is binding) (Jerusalem, 1974) (Hebrew). the isserl’s torah ark: reconstructing the unity 107 ment and Christ left the Jews with no positive part in human history. In response, the statement “By me kings will reign” above the crown on the synagogue ark, implying that the Divine wisdom of the Torah should lead the mundane rulers, creates an alternative hierarchy expounding the Jew- ish point of view. The assumed semantic role of the hexagram in “By me kings will reign ” (Plate 2.13) as a hieroglyphic sign for the Messiah is consistent with Moses Isserles’s concept that God created the world for the sake of the fulfillment of the Torah by the People of Israel. Moses Isserles also considered that the exile and the vassalage of Jews did not controvert their covenant with God, for the severities are only temporal visitations on the People of Israel.97 Before reading the weekly Torah portion on Mondays and Thursdays, the Jews affirmed that in spite of “the aliens” (i.e., Christians) saying that the People of Israel have become small and have no hope, God in His mercy will fulfill His covenant and redeem His people.98 This was also a recommended Jewish response to Christians asserting that the oppressed position of the Jews proves that their faith is wrong.99 The Jewish concept of the future ideal government was based on biblical prophesies. One of them promises the ruler’s sceptre of Judah to the Messiah, unto whom “shall the obedience of the peoples be” (Gen. 49:10). Jeremiah prophesied about God’s raising “unto David a righteous shoot, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice on the earth” (23:5), and Talmudic visions of the messianic monarchy that terminates the rule of the alien kings over Israel.100 Moses Isserles, who in his Torat ha-Olah counted the Messiah as the ninth king and God as the tenth,101 shared the concept of the messianic kingship that will precede the supreme kingdom of God, who is commonly praised by rabbinical literature and in Jewish liturgy as the Lord and Sovereign of the Universe. Having grasped the inscription on the Torah ark as a clue for the encoded promise of the messianic kingdom, its learned Jewish viewer would have wondered how the pediment relief continues the message.

97 Isserles, Torat ha-Olah, 101v no. 37; see a review of Moses Isserles’s historiosophy in Ben-Sasson, Mishnato ha-Iyunit, 121–26, 143–52. 98 Maḥzor Vitry, sign 93. 99 Sefer Niẓaḥon yashan (Old book of victory), ed. Mordechai Breuer (Ramat Gan, 1978), 18 no. 266. 100 E.g., see the polemics of rabbis with kings and the vision of the messianic times in Sanhedrin 91b. 101 Isserles, Torat ha-Olah, 138v. 108 chapter four The Tree of Life

The image of a tree above the Torah ark is one of the ancient symbols appearing in the early fresco layer of 244–45 CE in the synagogue in Dura- Europos in Syria. Herbert Kessler proposes that the fruitless vine plant rendered as a tree with a bold trunk rather than rinceaux above the Torah aedicula is an antithesis to the fruitful grapevines symbolizing the Diony- sian cult. He invalidated the identification of the vine with the Tree of Life and interpreted it, in the spirit of the prophecies of Isaiah (4:2) and Zech- ariah (8:12), as the vine of Israel that is forsaken after the destruction of the Temple, but would yield fruit at the time of the coming of the Messiah.102 He also suggests that the plant alluded to the biblical notions of the Mes- siah as the ẓemaḥ (plant) of God.103 Elisabeth Revel-Neher reinforces the messianic interpretation of the tree, associating the artificial symmetric layout and the trunk’s upper edge split into two great branches with the double tree, the metaphor of the eschatological reunion of the People of Israel in their land, in Ezekiel 37:15–28.104 Needless to say, before the Dura-Europos frescoes had been discovered in 1933, they in no way affected European synagogue art. Nevertheless, the visualization of the arboreal symbols from the Bible that once took place in Syria was found in Jewish art over and over. In the sixth-century floor mosaic in the synagogue at Beit Alpha, the “Aaron’s rod,” one of the objects that was stored in the Holy of Holies (Num. 17:25), is shown twice outside it: as an undeveloped plant to the left of the Holy Ark and, to its right, as a flowering tree. The images refer to the contest for the priesthood, when Aaron and the other heads of the tribes of Israel laid up their rods in the

102 Kurt Weitzmann and Herbert L. Kessler, The Frescoes of the Dura Synagogue and Christian Art (Washington, 1990), 157–60, 178–83, fig. 195. Contemporary Christian art also employed a similar polemical symbolism of the fruitless vine to compete with Dionysian symbolism (ibid.). A concurrent metaphor of the messianic future as a fruitful tree is found in Jewish pseudoepigraphs of the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, e.g., I Enoch 10:18 and II Baruch 29. See Raphael Patai, The Messiah Texts (Detroit, 1979), 231. 103 Isa. 4:2; Jer. 23:5, 33:15; Zech. 3:8, 6:12. See Weitzmann and Kessler, Frescoes of the Dura Synagogue, 158–59. 104 Ezekiel prophesies about the “tree for Judah” and the “tree for Joseph” brought together just as God “will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land” (37:21). See Elisabeth Revel-Neher, “Yeḥezkel, perek lamed zayin: Mafteaḥ nosaf le-Ferush tokhnit ẓiyurei ha-Kir be-Veit Knesset shel Durah-Eyropos” (An additional key to the program of the Dura-Europos synagogue frescoes: Ezekiel 37) in Ve-asu Li Mikdash: Batei-Kneset me- yamei kedem ve-ad Yameynu, eds. Jacob Eshel, Ehud Netzer, David Amit and David Cassuto (Ariel, 2004), 67–75 (Hebrew). the isserl’s torah ark: reconstructing the unity 109 Tabernacle (Num. 17:18–25). Aaron’s rod miraculously “was budded, and put forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and bore ripe almonds” (ibid., 17:23) while the rods of the other tribes remained barren. Obviously, in Beit Al- pha’s mosaic, the thin plant that begins blooming depicts the rod shortly after Aaron left it in the Tabernacle, whereas the blooming tree represents the flowered rod he found there overnight. This rod was said to be one of the relics held within the lost Ark. Aaron’s rod would be revealed in the future and given to the Messiah, who is called God’s “plant” (Isa. 4:2; Jer. 23:5, 33:15; Zech. 3:8, 6:12) and is prophesied to possess the ruler’s sceptre (Gen. 49:10).105 The simultaneous depiction of Aaron’s rod in two different states expresses the belief that Judaism, although having been oppressed throughout history, will thrive in the messianic future.106 This iconography reappears in a more explicit version in the paintings of the Temple implements in Hebrew illuminated manuscripts from thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Spain. The image of Aaron’s flowering rod, as opposed to the sterile stick representing the same rod before it miraculously flourished.107 Christian medieval theology and art interpreted Aaron’s blossoming rod as a prefiguration of the cross, Christianity, and the church. In the Lobbes Bible, a flowering stick with green stems shown within the Ark of the Cov- enant under its golden crown is Aaron’s rod (Num. 17:25–26) which, like a crucifix or other depictions of Christ similarly emerging from the open Ark in medieval Christian art, is perhaps an anagogic reference to the biblical Ark as Christ’s altar.108 The contrast between Aaron’s fruitful rod and the infertile rods of the other tribes was associated with the conflict between Christianity, understood also as the Tree of Life, and Judaism as the mortal Tree of Knowledge and the fig tree cursed by Jesus (Matt. 21:19–21; Mark 11:13–14).109

105 Yoma 52b, Pesakhim 54a. Jewish legends trace the history of this rod to Adam, identify it with the sceptre of the Patriarchs and the miraculous sceptre of Moses, and state that it was in the hand of all the kings of Israel; see Yalkut Shimoni, pericope Shemot (Ex. 1:1–6:1) no. 168, pericope Ḥukat (Num. 19:1–22:1) no. 763; Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 40; Num. Rabba 18:23. 106 Revel-Neher, “Antiquus populus, novus populus,” 61–62. 107 Elisabeth Revel-Neher, Le témoignage de l’absence: Les objets du sanctuaire à Byzance et dans l’art juif du XIe au XVe siècle (Paris, 1998), 67–71. 108 Idem, “Antiquus populus, novus populus,” 59–66. 109 The blossoming rod also connoted Mary as an “infertile plant” that miraculously bore fruit. See Dom B. Capelle, Typologie Mariale chez les Pères et dans la liturgie (Louvain, 1954), 225–249; Revel-Neher, Le témoignage de l’absence, 28, 29, 44–46, 52, 59, pl. 6 and figs. 4, 46, 53; idem, “Antiquus populus, novus populus,” 60–61. 110 chapter four The Jewish-Christian encounter reached at the arboreal symbolism again in Romanesque Christian manuscripts representing the opposition of the flourishing arbor bona and the dry arbor mala as a symbol of vital Christianity as opposed to dying Judaism.110 The Christian images of a single cruciform tree, often featured as vine, suggest that the cross was the true Tree of Life. The arbor crucis vine reliefs in tympana of Gothic churches were reworked into the symbols of the Torah as the Tree of Life, the vitality of Judaism, and the Messiah as God’s scion in the tympanum above the entrance (Fig. 32) and in the pediment of the Torah ark (Fig. 33) in the Altneuschul of Prague.111 It is the symmetrical arrangement of the pairs of branches alternately curving inwards and outwards that make the entrance tympanum relief in the Altneuschul similar to the arbor crucis images. A magnificent example of this motif is the paradisiacal Tree of Life growing from the crucifix in the apse mosaic of ca. 1110–25 in San Clemente in Rome.112 The origin of the iconography is traced back to the symmetrically spiraling plants representing the Golden Age in the Roman imperial art.113 The artists of San Clem- ente’s mosaics might see such plants on the reliefs of the Ara Pacis Augustae of 9 BCE before they were covered by earth. 114 Some parts of that monumental Roman altar had been rediscovered by Renaissance artists

110 See Lamberti S. Avdomari Canonici Liber Floridus (a facsimile edition), ed. Alberto Derolez (Ghent, 1968), fols. 231v–232r; Walter Cahn, Romanesque Manuscripts: The Twelfth Century, vol. 2 (London, 1996): 119–21; Adolf Katzenellenbogen, Allegories of the Virtues and Vices in Mediaeval Art (New York, 1964), 65–66; Schiller, Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst, vol. 4 (Gütersloh, 1980), 1: 67–68; Jennifer O’Reilly, Studies in the Iconography of the Virtues and Vices in the Middle Ages (New York, 1988), 334–36; Andreina Contessa, “’Arbor Bona.’ Dalla menorah alla Vergine: la metafore arborea, segno della redenzione,” Cahiers Ratisbonne 1 (1996): 67–71. 111 See Ilia Rodov, “The Development of Medieval and Renaissance Sculptural Decora- tion in Ashkenazi Synagogues from Worms to the Cracow Area” (Ph.D. thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Jerusalem, 2003), 124–40. 112 The inscription on this mosaic explains that the Church of Christ is likened to the vine, which the Law, i.e., Judaism, causes to wither, whilst the Cross gives it life. See Walter Oakenshott, The Mosaics of Rome from the Third to the Fourteenth Centuries (London, 1967), 250. The identification of the Cross and the Tree of Life was reactivated in the 1250s by Saint Bonaventura (1221–74), who in his Tractatus qui lignum vitae dicitur described the Cross as a tree. See Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art, 2: 133–36, esp. n. 80. 113 Paul Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Michigan, 1988), 179–83; David Castriota, The Ara Pacis Augustae and the Imagery of Abundance in Later Greek and Early Roman Imperial Art (Princeton, 1995). 114 They might have remembered the altar before the quarter in which it was situated was destroyed 1084, or seen the remnants that were buried under the new building on the site in the 1280s. See Michael Vickers, “Mantegna and the Ara Pacis,” The J. Paul Getty Museum Journal 2 (1975): 109. the isserl’s torah ark: reconstructing the unity 111 beginning in the late 1490s,115 and one of them—the plant composed of curved branches spreading from a candelabrum-shaped trunk and ending in flowers—influenced the symmetrical arboreal reliefs representing the Garden of Paradise in the arched tympana of the Sigismund Chapel in Wawel (Fig. 28).116 The whimsical ways of artistic evolution brought the same ancient model to Jewish Kazimierz through both the medieval synagogue art and the ecclesiastic art in Renaissance Poland. As far as we know, a plant growing from its upright trunk did not appear atop Renaissance synagogue arks in Italy. The pediment on the Torah ark from the Scuola Grande in Mantua (Fig. 47)117 is composed of a pair of S-shaped leafy volutes leaning on each another and passing through the Crown of the Torah. The lower scrolls of the volutes embrace the panel, the prepare to meet thy God,” Amos“) הכון לקראת אלוהיך ,inscription on which 4:12)—like the appeal “Know before Whom you stand” on the Torah ark in Padua (Fig. 35)—mobilises the congregants for the service. The Jews who often saw the parchment of the Torah scrolled on its two staves might note the resemblance of this view to the symmetrical scrolled ends of the classical volutes in the ark’s pediment and thus accept the plant literally wear- ing the Crown of the Torah as a symbol of the living and flourishing Mosaic Law. The medieval iconography of the Tree of Life was likely translated into the all’antica “leafy candelabrum” in the art to the north of the Alps. An early experiment of this transformation was done by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472–1553) in 1518–20 in his coloured etching of an altarpiece (Fig. 52). The great tree rising on a low attic panel and seemingly growing out of the cross depicted in the “Lamentation” in the central panel alludes to the cross as the Tree of Life and to Christ’s resurrection. Either seen or not in Cracow by the 1550s, this image harbingered Cranach’s arboreal symbol of the two Testaments (Fig. 53), which he introduced around 1529 for the Lutheran propaganda, and which was known in Poland in its many versions. Referring to the contradiction between Mosaic Law and Christian Grace in John 1:17, Cranach amalgamated the two symbolic trees of Judaism and Christianity into one half-bare, half-green tree separating the scenes of the Fall, the Old Covenant and the Law on its dead side, from the Re- demption, the New Covenant, and Grace on its living side. The Protestants interpreted the opposition between the two halves as the antithesis be-

115 Vickers, “Mantegna and the Ara Pacis,” 109–20. 116 Kalinowski, Speculum Artis, 562ff. 117 Nahon, Aronot kodesh, 48–51. 112 chapter four tween their new order and the old Catholic order,118 and the Catholic artists reworked the image to emphasise that the New Testament, and not Mo- saic Law, ensures human salvation.119 Assumingly, the actualization of the tree as a symbol of faith and redemption in Polish sepulchral art and in the Reformist-Catholic polemics,120 where it sometimes entailed anti-Jewish polemics in sixteenth-century Poland, influenced the revival of this image in the Isserls’ Synagogue. The arboreal pediment of the Isserls’ ark anchors the living faith and messianic redemption in the Torah and Judaism. The tree, if connected to the symbols and inscription beneath it, accomplishes the symbolic program that may be summarised by again quoting Jeremiah’s prophecy about the “righteous shoot” that “shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice on the earth” (23:5). The baluster-like trunk issuing flourishing branches may recall Aaron’s rod that will be miraculously given to the Messiah. Placed above the Torah shrine, the blossoming tree also reinforces the association of the Torah with the tree granting life for those who accept the Torah’s wisdom,121 and its spiraling branches as well as the volutes underneath its sides evoke the scrolls of the Torah. The triple scrolls on either side of the tree are especially massive and extend beyond the top of the attic, as are the three scrolls on either side of the Crown of the Torah on the pediment of the ark from Mantua. There are six scrolls in each of these pediments, the same number as the grape clusters in the pediment of the Altneuschul’s ark. If they are not a mere coincidence, they may have

118 This composition was widely available in single-sheet prints and book illustrations; see Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art, 2: 161–64; Schreckenberg, Jews in Christian Art, 124; O. Thulin, Cranach: Altäre der Reformation (Berlin, 1955), 126–48; D. S. Ehresmann, “The Brazen Serpent: A Reformation Motive in the Works of Lukas Cranach the Elder and His Workshop,” Marsyas 13 (1966–1967): 32–47; W. Scribner, For the Sake of Simple Folk: Popular Propaganda for the German Reformation (Cambridge, 1981), 216–19. On a painted copy of Cranach’s arboreal symbol in Poland, see Jan Harasimowicz, “Rola sztuki w religijnych i społecznych konfliktach wieku Reformacji na Śląsku,” Rocznik Historii Sztuki 18 (1990): 46. 119 E.g., note the frontispiece of the first edition of the Catholic Bible published by Leopolita (Jan Nicz) in Cracow in 1561. See Fiszman, Polish Renaissance, 102. 120 The expansion of Calvinist views among Polish nobility and wealthy citizenry reached its peak in the mid 1550s, a Lutheran translation of the New Testament into Polish was published in 1551–53, and the Calvinist translation of the Bible appeared in 1563. See Helena Szwejkowska, Książka drukowana XV–XVII wieku: Zarys Historyczny (Wrocław, 1987), 127–34. 121 The association is based on Prov. 3:18 stating that Wisdom “is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her” and the Talmud identifies Wisdom with the Torah in the discussion of this verse in Berakhot 32b; cf. also Ta‘anit 7a and Arakhin 15b. This verse from Proverbs was recited in the synagogue before the reading of the Torah from at least the 11th century, when this custom was recorded in Mahzor Vitry, sign 93. the isserl’s torah ark: reconstructing the unity 113 been made to suggest the eve of the messianic age that was believed by Jews elsewhere to come on the sixth millennial day of the world.122

A Message Encrypted

The reworking of various artistic and theological sources and imparting a deep symbolic content to the synagogue project seem to have been initiated by Moses Isserles, a person with an inventive mind, broad ken, and profound erudition. In his writings, he applied a symbolic interpretation to architectonic structures and objects: according to him, the Temple and its implements symbolically reflect the reality and the revelation of God.123 Although rooted in rabbinical tradition rather than in the Vitruvian theory of the symbolic dimensions of the ideal temple, this approach could have paved Moses Isserles’s way to an innovative adaptation of the appropriate elements from Renaissance sepulchral art for the Torah ark in his family’s synagogue. Like the walls of the Sigismund Chapel, the ark demonstrates, although in a simpler form, the triumphal arch—associated here with the Temple in Jerusalem—and, above it, monumental inscriptions and eschatological symbols. Both the Chapel and the ark arrange the real liturgy on the artistic stage that implies imaginary transition from the biblical past to the present and to the afterlife. In the Chapel, as well as in the later Renaissance sculptural epitaphs bearing plant-like pediments, the hierarchical compositions convey the ascent of the deceased’s soul to heavenly Paradise and the descent of God’s protection over the person. Whilst differing from Christian sepulchral art that expresses the personal salva-

122 Following rabbinical tradition, Moses Isserles counted the beginning of the redemption in the sixth millennial “day of the world;” see Ben-Sasson, Mishnato ha-Iyunit, 131–32. Six is a key-point of the cosmogonic discourse in the Talmud (Avodah zarah 9a): “The world will exist 6,000 years. The first 2,000 years were those of chaos [that is without the Torah], the second 2,000 years were those under the Torah, and the last 2,000 years are the days of the Messiah.” On the eschatology of the “sixth day of the world” among Spanish, French and German Jews in the Middle Ages, see Silver, History of Messianic Speculation in Israel, 81–101; Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York, 1973), 80–84. Six, the basic number of Babylonian computation, is also the number of sections (or “orders”) of the Mishnah, the essential part of the Oral Law. Although the number six encoded in the decoration of the Ark’s pediment can evoke the Mishnah stemming from the Torah, it is not likely that this meaning inspired the number of clusters that are seen above the Ark, since this may be read in an undesirable way—showing that the Oral Law surpasses the Torah. 123 Siev, Rabeynu Moshe Iserles, 233–34; Ben-Sasson, Mishnato ha-Iyunit, 27–28. 114 chapter four tion of the believer, the symbolic program of the Torah ark promises collective redemption to all the People of Israel. The sophisticated allusions encoded in Renaissance symbolic images were addressed to a narrow circle of intellectuals. Many particular symbols and allusions in the complex semantic content of the Sigismund Chapel (Fig. 12) were not fully understood in later Polish architecture,124 except for the general idea of the ascent to the heavenly realm that was common in Renaissance art and became even more popular in the Baroque age. When Orzechowski pursued the propagation of his vision of the terres- trial and heavenly hierarchy, he had not only to accompany his symbolic pictures with inscriptions and captions, but also to explain them in detail in the text. The meaning of the novel decoration of the Isserls’ ark was expressed only through symbols and a short inscription, and not com- municated in written form. The association of “By me kings will reign” with the kingdom of the Torah necessitated expertise not only in the language of the Bible, but also in rabbinical literature. The esoteric non-narrative language did not betray the patrons’ concept of the ideal kingdom based on Mosaic Law to the gentiles, who could then have accused the Jews of disobeying the Christian king. The message encrypted by the Isserls was better understood in their own community, where the Isserls’ ark was copied in later synagogues.

124 Białostocki, Art of the Renaissance, 43–44. developments of the isserl’s model in kazimierz 115

CHAPTER FIVE

DEVELOPMENTS OF THE ISSERLS’ MODEL IN KAZIMIERZ

The Isserls’ ark was copied in at least three synagogues in Kazimierz: the renovated Old Synagogue and the new High and Kupah Synagogues. The synagogues were build on different plans and their Torah arks differ in details, but these arks all shared the same combination of a columned gate, a single crown, and a symmetrical plant relief in the pediment. The Renais- sance stone Torah ark in the Old Synagogue has been almost untouched. The sixteenth-century ark in the High Synagogue was altered in the eighteenth century and damaged during the Second World War, but its original appearance may be reconstructed from several remnants and old photographs. The Torah ark in the Kupah Synagogue has also survived, although it has been remodeled and lacks its stepped podium. Almost nothing is known about the original Torah ark in the synagogue erected by a rich Jewish businessman named Wolf Popper in 1620 at the Jewish marketplace, opposite the Isserls’ Synagogue.1 Of the ark, dated presumably to the eighteenth century (perhaps with later alterations), only the carved doors that were in the synagogue up until the Holocaust have survived.2 In 1638–44, another wealthy individual, Isaac Yekelis-Jakubo- wicz, built his synagogue not far from the High Synagogue.3 Purportedly, Isaac’s synagogue was built by Giovanni Trevano of Lombardy (in Poland from 1605; d. 1644), who did not reproduce the local type of Torah arks,

1 Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 208, 272, 412–13; idem, Przewodnik, 63–64; Mahler, Prze- wodnik, 42–43; Duda, Krakowskie judaica, 100; Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 21–23; Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe, 203–205. 2 The interior of the synagogue destroyed during the Nazi occupation is reproduced in Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 2: fig. 13 facing p. 208, and the openwork wooden doors of this Ark, with carved figures of the four animals mentioned in Avot 5:23 are now in the Heikhal Shlomo Museum in Jerusalem; see Roth, Jewish Art, fig. 11. 3 Grotte, “Deutsche, böhmische und polnische Synagogentypen,” 64–66; Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 208, 261–64, 412–13; idem, Przewodnik, 90–95; Mahler, Przewodnik, 49–51; A. Kubiak, “Żydowska architektura zabytkowa w Polsce,” Biuletyn Żydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego 6–7 (1953): 141–42; Wischnitzer, Architecture, 108; Breffny, Synagogue, 106, 115–17; Duda, Krakowskie judaica, 99–100; Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 24–26; Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe, 203–205. 116 chapter five instead designing Isaac’s ark in the style closely resembling Saint Martin’s Church at 58 Grodzka Street in Cracow, which he built in the same period.4

The Old Synagogue: A Renaissance Renovation of a Gothic Building

As we have already seen, the royal decree of 14 October 1557 that granted permission to reconstruct a synagogue near the town’s wall in Kazimierz after it was harmed by fire in that year, concerned the Old Synagogue that had been built ca. 1485. The decree implies that the synagogue was not totally destroyed, but the fire caused so much damage to the building that the Jews could not repair it without special permission. As in the case of the Isserls’ Synagogue, the fire probably destroyed the wooden roof beams, damaged the spanning, and harmed the interior. The hypothesis is cor- roborated by the investigation of the construction in 1864 by Władysław Łuszczkiewicz, who discerned a different kind of brickwork from the window level up.5 None of the Gothic fixtures has survived there. A stone Torah ark and iron bimah were erected in the synagogue after the fire (Plate 1.4); the entrance was redecorated as a Renaissance portal and several alms boxes (Plates 1.13–1.15) were built into the walls from that period on.

4 The authorship of Trevano is proposed in Marta Samek, “Kościół SS. Dominikanek na Gródku a architektura Krakowa drugiej i trzeciej ćwierci XVII wieku,” Rocznik Krakowski 53 (1987): 31; Maria and Kazimierz Piechotka,1 Bramy nieba: Bóżnice drewniane na ziemiach dawnej Rzeczypospolitej (Warsaw, 1996), 18. This is borne out by the close resemblance of the inner space and architectonic design of the synagogue to Trevano’s Saint Martin’s Church (1637–40, consecrated 1644), at 58 Grodzka Street in Cracow. On Trevano’s works in Cracow, see Adam Bochnak, “Kościół ŚŚ. Piotra i Pawła w Krakowie i jego rzymski pier- wowzór oraz architekt królewski Jan Trevano,” Prace Komisji Historii Sztuki 9 (1948): 89–125; Antoni Tomasz Piotrowski, “Kaplica Karmelitańska Matki Boskiej Piaskowej w Krakowie. Nieznane dzieło architekta królewskiego Jana Trevano,” Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 46, no. 4 (1984): 345–54. Several other researchers followed Alfred Grotte’s attribution of the synagogue to the Italian architect Francesco Olivieri in Grotte, “Deutsche, böhmische und polnische Synagogentypen,” 65; cf. Kubiak,”Żydowska architektura,” 6–7: 142; Breffny, Synagogue, 106; Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe, 203; Rudolf Klein, “Major Synagogues,” 588. Grotte asserted that the synagogue is similar to the University Church of Saint Anna, which was ascribed to Olivieri in Leonard Lepszy, Krakau (Leipzig, 1906), 100. In the more recent literature, the Church of Saint Anna is dated to 1688–1704 and attributed to Tylman van Gameren (ca. 1632–1706), an architect of Dutch origin; see Adam Miłobędzki, Architektura Polska XVII wieku, vol. 1 (Warsaw, 1980), 158, 385, 389–93. 5 Ludwikowski, Old Synagogue, 15. Gothic masonry structures often had wooden beams in the roofing (e.g., the construction of the church and monastery at Skałka in Kazimierz built about 1500 described by Tadeusz Dobrowolski and Władysław Tatarkiewicz, Historia sztuki polskiej, vol. 1, Sztuka średniowieczna [Cracow, 1962], 251). developments of the isserl’s model in kazimierz 117 Since there is no surviving documentary evidence about the patrons of the reconstruction of the Old Synagogue after the fire in 1557, we may suppose that, as earlier in the sixteenth century, the community executive dealt with the maintenance of this building. They represented the Jewish community in the agreements about the enlargement of the Jewish quarter in 1553–54.6 Among them were a certain doctor Moises and the senior Israel Czarny. As in Polish documents in Latin, the title doctor, as applied to a Jew, meant “a rabbi;” “Doctor Moses” is likely to have been Rabbi Moses Isserles.7 Israel Czarny (alias Schwarz or Niger), was the father of Isaac Czarny, who during those years in Venice bought precious stones for Queen Bona.8 Another individual, Jacob Ezdrasz (Ezra), a royal supplier, purchased parcels of land in Kazimierz in order to realise the plans for the expansion of the Jewish quarter.9 The general profile of the community representatives may not have changed considerably over the next few years. Such people had political and economical power and religious authority, and they could have obtained royal permission to rebuild the synagogue shortly after the fire. The masonry work could not have begun in mid-October 1557, when the king signed the decree, so they probably began in the spring of 1558, when the reconstruction of Isserls’ Synagogue had not yet been completed. Since the lower part of the synagogue had not been damaged, the reconstruction retained the old two-nave plan.10 The prayer hall was re-spanned with pointed rib vaults; these were still common in Polish sacral architecture, where Renaissance spanning was not used before the late-sixteenth century, except for domed sepulchral chapels.11 The axial supports were re-

6 The text of the agreement of 1553 between the heads of the Jewish community and the magistracy of the towns of Kazimierz and Stradom is published in Piekosiński, Prawa, przywileje i statuta miasta Krakowa, 1: 213–17 no. 154; cf. the version in Bersohn, Dyploma- tariusz, 52–58 no. 62. The Jewish names from the 1554 document are listed in Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 543. 7 The 1553 agreement mentions two persons called “Rabbi Moses:” one as a senior (an elder) and another as “a representative.” Bałaban (Historja Żydów, 1: 190, 543) identified Moses Isserles with “the elder,” but he (probably less than 30 years old at the time) would have also been a community “representative.” 8 Bershadskiy, Russko-evreyskiy arkhiv, 3: 163; Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 140. 9 Ibid., 1: 192. 10 Cf. Władysław Łuszczkiewicz, Zabytki naszego budownictwa (Cracow, 1864), 60, who stressed that the Gothic reconstruction of the synagogue after 1557 is in contrast with the Renaissance character of contemporaneous architecture in Cracow. Ludwikowski (Old Synagogue, 15) explained the obsolete Gothic style by the conservative attitude of the Jews of Kazimierz, who wanted the synagogue to look like their old prayer house. 11 Zbigniew Dmochowski, Dzieła Architektury w Polsce (London, 1956), 232–34. 118 chapter five shaped as slender Tuscan columns as well as the new stone carved Torah ark and the doorframe that gave the synagogue interior a touch of Renais- sance expression. Such eclectic reconstructions of sacral buildings without changing the old structure were not unique in Trans-Alpine Renaissance architecture, as can be seen in the medieval two-nave Saint Catherine’s Church in Augsburg that was rebuilt in 1516–17 under the patronage of the Fuggerei (Fig. 54).12 The addition on the synagogue’s exterior was an arched blind wall around the roof (Plates 1.1–1.2).13 Protecting the synagogue from another fire would be a high religious and practical priority for the congregation. This had also been obligatory in Cracow beginning in 1544. In that year, the city council prescribed erecting high parapets around the roofs of all new buildings,14 and four years before Seweryn Boner ordered the buildings of the Wawel Castle damaged by the fire of 1536 to be protected with fireproof walls.15 Over time, the technical innovation was given an artistic interpretation as a picturesque attic wall, usually called a “Polish attic.”16 Between 1556 and 1560, a fireproof attic decorated with a blind arcade, S-shaped recumbent volutes, masks, and vases were erected on the Sukien- nice (Cloth Hall), a Gothic market hall in Cracow that was reconstructed after the fire of 1555 (Fig. 55).17 The roof parapet of the synagogue (Plates 1.1–1.2) that was built around the same time is much simpler: the blind arcade runs evenly on a series of narrow pilasters, with broad pilasters

12 Henry-Russell Hitchcock, German Renaissance Architecture (Princeton, 1981), 20. 13 The parapet around the flat roof with finials on its four corners distinguished the Old Synagogue from other buildings of the Oppidium Judeorum (Jewish town), as can be seen in the pictorial map of Cracow and its vicinity from the late-16th or early-17th century. The map had appeared in the fourth volume of the Civitates Orbis Terrarum, published by Georg Braun in Cologne between 1576 and 1618, and was reproduced in Essenwein, Die mittelalterlichen Kunstdenkmale der Stadt Krakau (1869); it was discussed in relation to the Old Synagogue in Wischnitzer, Architecture, 54. 14 Władysław Łuszczkiewicz, “Z wycieczki do Zawichostu i Sandomierza” in Sprawo- zdania komisji do badania historyi sztuki w Polsce, vol. 5 (Cracow, 1896): V; Wacław Husarski, Attyka Polska i jej wpływ na kraje sąsiednie (Warsaw, 1936), 19. 15 The archival record is referred to in Stanisław Tomkowicz, Teka grona konserwato- rów Galicyi zachodniej, vol. 1, Inwentaryzacya zabytków Galicyi zachodniej, part 4, Zabudo- wania Wawelu i ich dzieje (Cracow, 1908), 284 n. 2. 16 Husarski, Attyka Polska. 17 The records suggest that Gian Padovano (ca. 1493–ca. 1574) was responsible for the final Renaissance reconstruction of the Sukiennice, but they do not state whether he also built the attic wall. Władysław Łuszczkiewicz, in his Sukiennice Krakowskie. Dzieje gmachu i jego obecnej przebudowy, (Cracow, 1899), and Białostocki, in his Art of the Renaissance, 66, attributed to Padovano with certainty only the stairs on the short sides of the building. developments of the isserl’s model in kazimierz 119 added at the corners to support the finials. The skyline is thus broken only by the high corner finials. At a time when the community was burdened by the rebuilding of a great number of dwellings destroyed by the fire, the collecting of the necessary funds for the synagogue would have taken a long time and the reconstruction would have been done in several stages, most likely starting with spanning of the prayer hall in order to resume worship in the synagogue as soon as possible and then continuing with the design of the interior. Nevertheless, the statement, common in literature on the Old Synagogue, that the reconstruction of the building was completed only in 157018 seems to be unreliable. The completion in 1570 was first reported by Jan Droździewicz, a Catho- lic Hebraist, who in 1865 published the Hebrew inscriptions from the synagogue and their translations into Polish. He interpreted the date from the on an alms box, a מˇבˇיˇאˇ שˇלˇ לˇפˇקˇ in the inscription של middle word remnant of which has survived on the inside of the entrance to the prayer hall (Plate 1.13).19 The last three characters marked with superscript signs, by the abbreviated era), indicating) לפרט קטן are an acronym for ,לˇפˇקˇ that the inscription contains the three last figures of a Hebrew year. The signify that they are מˇבˇיˇאˇ apostrophes above the first four characters A gift in secret pacifieth“) מתן בסתר יכפה אף an acronym, too—of the verse anger,” Prov. 21:14), suggesting that charity prevents misfortune from befall- -of) makes no sense in the phrase and, al) שˇלˇ ing the Jews. The word though unabridged, is nevertheless apostrophised. Here the signs suggest that the letters should be counted for their numerical value, which is 330, a “lesser counting” of the year 5330 according to the Jewish calendar, i.e., 1570 CE. It is most likely that during one of the later repairs of the prayer hall, the carvings in the gateway’s wall had been covered by plaster until the late 1920s, when Majer Bałaban and Ozjasz Mahler testified that after the plaster had been removed, a remnant of a “beautiful relief” was discovered near the entrance door, but they did not re-read the inscription on it.20 In later

18 E.g., Lepszy, Krakau, 68; Breffny, Synagogue, 112; Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe, 201; Rudolf Klein, “Major Synagogues: Eastern and Central Europe,” 586. 19 Jan Droździewicz, O napisie Hebrejskim w bóżnicy kazimirskiéj Starą zwanéj (Cracow, 1865), 13, 24. 20 Majer Bałaban, Zabytki Historyczne Żydów w Polsce (Warsaw, 1929), 100. In his Histo- rja Żydów, 1: 74 and Przewodnik, 53, Bałaban reported, “Na ścianach były przepiękne pła- skorzeżby, z których dochowal się ledwie ułamek na ścianę wschodniej niedaleko drzwi wchodowych” (On the walls there were very beautiful reliefs, only a fragment remained in 120 chapter five publications, the date of 1570 from the alms box was misunderstood as a part of the builder’s signature in Latin on one of the Renaissance vault keystones,21 which no longer exist.22 That signature, but no date, had been reported by Władysław Łuszczkiewicz, a Polish architect and architectural historian, who examined the synagogue vaults in 1864.23 The year inscribed on the alms box indicates that Renaissance sculptural decorations in the synagogue interior were produced more than a decade after the fire, but other parts of the building and furniture could still have been completed earlier. The name that Łuszczkiewicz saw in the synagogue vault was “Matteo Gucci.” As we assume, the spanning could have been completed in 1558 or a few years later. A certain “Matteo the Italian” or “Matteo Gucci” is mentioned as a majstr mularski (sic; should be murarski, “master of stone work” or “mason”) in the records on the reconstruction of the courtyard in the royal palace at Wawel in 1545–48.24 Yet he might not have worked in the Old Synagogue, as he died in 1550, and his brothers and colleagues Alexan- der (d. before 1572) and Francisco (Franciszek) Gucci inherited his lega- cy.25 Consequently, one may suppose that the mason Matteo Gucci who the eastern wall near the entrance door). Most probably, that account means the eastern side of the doorway, and Mahler repeated that the relief was near the entrance door; see Mahler, Przewodnik, 44–45. The year 1570 that is inscribed on the alms box (Plate 1.13) has been neglected in the more recent Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6, where the text on p. 8 and caption to fig. 116 date the box to the 17th century. Instead, ibid., 7 and caption to fig. 106 relate the date of 1570 to the alms box on the buttress in the synagogue’s lobby (Plate 1.15), although that year may not be deciphered from the inscription above the box’s [v]oice of rejoicing and salvation” [Ps. 118:15] to the [lesser]“) [ק[ול רינה וישוע לפ]ק] :door the letters add up to 793 (or 693, if taken without the ,לפ]ק] counting). Saving the indicator which corresponds to the illogical date of 2032/33 (or 1932/33). The last ,(ק omitted initial -gives a more prob ,(ו equal to 392 (or 386, if counted without the preposition ,וישוע word able date of 1631/32 (or 1625/26). The lack of a letter at the beginning and the end of the phrase confirms that this frayed dark-stone section was dropped when it was inserted into the seemingly much newer, smoothly sculpted frame with the pediment bearing a mis- .a gift in secret pacifieth anger” (Prov“ מתו]–מתן[ בסתר יכפה אפ]–אף] ,spelled quotation 21:14) 21 E.g., see Ludwikowski, Old Synagogue, 15; Rożek, Żydowskie zabytki, 20; Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 1. 22 The 16th-century keystones disappeared in 1941–42 when the Nazi occupants ordered the spanning to be taken down; see Ludwikowski, Old Synagogue, 36. 23 Łuszczkiewicz, Zabytki naszego budownictwa, II; idem, Zabytki sztuk pięknych Kra- kowa, 1: 59. The name on the keystone was recorded also by Droździewicz in 1865 (O napisie Hebrejskim, 12–13). These authors give a slightly different spelling of the name: Matheus Gucci (Guci or Gucy) Florentino (or Fiorentin). 24 Tomkowicz, “Wawel, I. Zabudowania Wawelu i ich dzieje,” 287–88. 25 I thank Dr. Mirosław Piotr Kruk who kindly provided me with a copy of the record from Acta Consularia Cracoviensis 758: 474–75 in the National Archive in Cracow testifying developments of the isserl’s model in kazimierz 121 signed his name in the Old Synagogue was someone else, apparently a namesake and probably a relative of the former one, who continued in the family profession.26 The professional activity of Matteo the elder, Alexander, and Francisco Gucci allows us to outline, even if only generally, the professional profile of an Italian mason in mid-sixteenth century Cracow—a person such as the younger Matteo. At the court, Matteo Gucci the Elder participated in a long-lasting architectural project that was begun ca. 1507 by Franciscus Florentinus (d. 1516). This was the Renaissance arcaded gallery that ran around the courtyard in the royal palace at Wawel. In 1530–34, Berrecci built the gateway into the courtyard (Fig. 56), the eastern gallery and a section to the south of the courtyard with an arcaded wall (Fig. 57). After the palace and gallery had been seriously damaged in a great fire in 1536, Berrecci began to repair them, but was killed in 1537, and the work was continued by his assistant, Nicolo Castiglione.27 Matteo Gucci the Italian continued the work after Nicolo’s death in 1545 and held the position until at least 1548.28 This Matteo made embrasures in the castle’s walls, stone framings for doorways and windows, roofs and did other building and to the death of Matteo in 1550 and to the relationship between him and Alexander and Francisco Gucci. The document was referred to in Zofia Wencel-Homecka, “Gucci, Alek- sander” and “Gucci, Mateusz,” Polski Słownik Biograficzny, vol. 9 (Wrocław, 1961), 131 and 132 respectively. No other Matteo Gucci was found in the documents from 1550 on, nor in those in the bibliography of Wencel-Homecka. 26 Attempts have been made to link the brothers Gucci the masons to the Guccis of Florence, one of the Italian families who immigrated to Poland in the 16th century. The oldest were Gasparo Gucci and Carlo Calvanus Gucci (d. 1551). Carlo Gucci, a merchant and contractor, arrived in Cracow in the retinue of Queen Bona Sforza. Carlo had two sons, Octavian and Regnier, and a relative also named Octavian; see Krystyna Pieradzka, “Gucci, Carlo Calvanus,” and “Gucci, Kaspar,” Polski Słownik Biograficzny, 9: 131–32. An assumption raised first in Thieme and Becker, Allgemeines Lexikon, vol. 15 (1922): 184 and sometimes repeated in more recent literature, that Matteo Gucci was a son of Gasparo Gucci (d. 1551), a merchant and a member of the Cracow City Council, has not been proved. Matteo Gucci may also not be identified with Santi Gucci from Florence (ca. 1530–ca. 1600); see Hannelore Künzl, “Der Synagogenbau im Mittelalter” in Die Architektur der Synagogue, ed. Hans-Peter Schwarz (Frankfurt am Main, 1998), 84. Santi Gucci, a leading court sculptor in the late-16th century, began his activities in Poland with his work at Sukiennice in ca. 1557, where he made the model of the masks carved by the stonecutter Jan. See Andrzej Fischinger, Santi Gucci, Architekt i rzeżbiarz królewski XVI wieku (Cracow, 1969), 9–10; Helena Kozakiewicz, Rzeźba XVI wieku w Polsce, 153; and pages 162–63 below. 27 Tomkowicz, “Wawel, I. Zabudowania Wawelu i ich dzieje,” 233–87; Bolesław Przy- byszewski, “Muratorzy i kamieniarze zajęci przy budowie zamku królewskiego na Wawelu (1502–1536),” Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 27, no. 1 (1955): 149–61; Tadeusz Dobrowolski, “Zamek na Wawelu: dzieło architektury polskiej” in Studia Renesansowe, ed. Michał Walicki, vol. 1, (Wrocław, 1956), 147. 28 Wencel-Homecka, “Gucci, Mateusz,” 132. 122 chapter five maintenance work at Wawel Hill.29 A decade after Matteo’s death, his brother Alexander Gucci, together with a certain “Thomas the Italian” (de Robore; d. 1562) reconstructed the Rapsztyn courtyard at Wawel after it had been damaged by fire eleven years earlier.30 The stonemasons of Italian origin in mid-sixteenth century Cracow acquired their professional skills either in late-Renaissance Italy or under Italian Renaissance artists at the Jagellonian court. It is less likely that the Guccis and their compatriot co- workers were engaged in the planning of representative buildings. How- ever, they managed projects of the leading Renaissance architects in Poland and were skilled in the Renaissance architectural forms and techniques. When employed by the Church or substantial townsfolk in Cracow and its vicinities, the Italian builders implanted the Renaissance building tech- nologies and style of decorations into Gothic architecture, which still pre- vailed beyond the royal court. In 1559 Alexander Gucci’s partner, Thomas de Robore, built several rooms in the house of Felix the Jew at 36 Joseph Street, formerly 266/90 Żydowska (Jewish) Street (Plate 3.2) in Kazimierz. In 1560, Thomas, with another Italian, Antonio de Morosi, carried out some unspecified building work for the Jews of Kazimierz.31 In 1561 Thomas de Robore, with Alexan- der Gucci, began to reconstruct the spanning of Saint Catherine’s Church in the Augustinian Monastery in Kazimierz after this Gothic building was damaged by fire.32 They worked at Saint Catherine’s until Thomas’s death in early 1562—at the same time or shortly after Matteo Gucci was doing the same work at the Old Synagogue located some 600 m to the east. Pos- sibly, the abovementioned professional activity of Thomas de Robore and Antonio de Morosi in the Jewish quarter in 1560 was their participation in Matteo Gucci’s reconstruction of the synagogue. This assumption con- forms to an obscure mention of a certain “Anton Floriantinus” as the builder of the Old Synagogue by an anonymous correspondent for the Cracow Jewish newspaper Ha-Maggid in 1857,33 before Łuszczkiewicz revealed

29 Tomkowicz, “Wawel, I. Zabudowania Wawelu i ich dzieje,” 287–88. 30 Ibid., 293. 31 Cini and Filippo da Fiesole built the house for Jonah ben Abraham in 1537 and it was destroyed in the 19th century; see Ptaśnik, Cracovia artificum 1501–1550, 547 no. 1360; Kras- nowolski, Ulice i place, 63, 73. 32 For the contracts relating to the vaulting of Saint Catherine’s Church, see Sprawoz- dania komisji historii sztuki Polskiej Akademii Umiętnosci, vol. 6 (Cracow, 1900): XXXVIII–XL; Wencel-Homecka, “Gucci, Aleksander,” 131. 33 Ha-maggid 47 (Cracow, 13 November 1857), 187. The writer, who did not argue his attribution, might have had information unknown to us today. developments of the isserl’s model in kazimierz 123 the signature of Matteo Gucci there. Anton Floriantinus could have been the name of Antonio de Morosi if he—like the Guccis—originated from Florence. In the Saint Thomas Chapel of Saint Catherine’s Church in Kazimierz, Matteo Gucci could have found a formal model for his signature in the synagogue. The vault bosses in four bays of the chapel display the carved letters “KA-ZY-MI-R,” composing the name of the chapel’s founder, King Casimir the Great.34 In the synagogue, Matteo utilised the Gothic mode of decorating keystones for his own—rather than a patron’s—commemoration in the spirit of Renaissance adoration of the artist’s individuality. Matteo almost undoubtedly saw Berrecci’s signature proudly exposed in the cupola of the Sigismund Chapel. The sizeable inscription “Bartholo Florentino opifice” (Bartolommeo, Florentine master) parades in the apex of the lantern, surpassing the less visible letters of the king’s name above the altar. Researchers explained the location of the signature in the area symbolizing the empyreum and thus the closest proximity to God’s throne as an expression of the neo-Platonic concept of the artist as an imitator of the Divine Creator. Tadeusz Zadrożny proposes an alternative interpretation of this inscription within the context of the Chapel as imitatio Templi: the Holy Spirit’s revelation of the artist’s name in Sigismund’s sanctuary is a symbolic repetition of God’s appointment of Bezalel and Hiram as the builders of the biblical Sanctuaries.35 Yet, we have no plausible reason to think that the Christian builder re- pairing the Jewish house of prayer similarly considered himself to be a chosen builder of the new Temple; neither is any other signature of the builder or artist known from synagogues since the beginning of the Middle Ages, and only a few names of the synagogue builders are found in medieval records.36 Rather pretentious when appearing in the synagogue, Mat-

34 See Katalog zabytków sztuki w Polsce, series 4, Miasto Kraków, vol. 5, Kazimierz i Stradom. Kościoły i klasztory, part 1, eds. Izabella Rejduch-Samkowa and Jan Samek (Warsaw, 1987): 117; Jan Rączka, Krakowski Kazimierz (Cracow, 1982), 18–19. The chapel was built in the late 1340s, Crossley, Gothic Architecture, 236. 35 Zadrożny, “Starotestamentowa geneza,” 9–57. An in-detail review of the interpretations of the Chapel’s symbolic program in the light of neo-Platonic doctrines with the related bibliography in footnotes is given here on pp. 9–15. 36 A record dated from 1460 of the appointment of a Heinrich and a Maneschin, most likely Christians, as builders of the stone synagogue in Frankfurt am Main is mentioned in Krautheimer, Mittelalterliche Synagogen, 228. Mar Simson—likely, a transliteration of the Mr. Samson), who was credited as the builder of the synagogue of 1296) מר שמשון Hebrew in Nuremberg, was probably its sponsor. See Paulus, Die Architektur der Synagoge im Mit- telalter, 166. I thank Simon Paulus for his suggestions at this point. 124 chapter five teo Gucci’s signature on a vault boss was, however, less legible than only one or two letters of Casimir’s name on each of the four bosses in the Saint Thomas Chapel, and less ostentatious than Berecci’s in the Sigismund Cha- pel. It might have been the gesture of a former apprentice or assistant who had succeeded in accomplishing a great project and proudly celebrated himself as an independent master by signing his work. If our identification of Matteo who worked in the Old Synagogue is correct, the absence of any trace of him in any other buildings and records means that he did not have many individual commissions. From the time of the reconstruction, the Old Synagogue had become a modernised and enlarged religious and community centre and even more impressive landmark, but no more the only masonry synagogue in the Jewish quarter.

The New Torah Ark in the Old Synagogue

The stepped platform and stone carved façade of the Torah ark in the Old Synagogue have survived in very good condition (Plate 1.8). The losses during the Nazi occupation include the original doors that were taken off, and minor damage to the stone frame: a few protruding edges were broken, and several stone slabs were split but not removed. During the reconstruction under the guidance of Józef Ptak in 1955–59,37 the ark was repaired and the original missing parts were remodeled with a yellowish plaster that differs only slightly in its tint from the colour of the stone.38 Although not authen- tic in their precise outline, the remodeled parts do not distort the whole design. In its general layout, the Torah ark in the Old Synagogue (Plate 1.9) is identical to the Isserls’ ark (Plate 2.13): both comprise a portal-shaped fa- çade with two dissimilar supports at each side, a crown relief, the citation from Proverbs 8:15, attic panels flanked by volutes, and an arboreal pedi-

37 Ludwikowski, Old Synagogue, 36–45. 38 The photograph by Ignacy Kriger from ca. 1880 (Plate 1.4) shows several plaques the Crown of the Torah) was hung) כתר תורה attached to the ark. A tablet with the phrase holy unto the) קדש ליי' under the relief crown in the attic, and a plaque with the words Lord) in relief in the centre and ornamentation at the sides, screened the original inscription. Since these plaques are obviously later additions to the original structure, they have not been reconstructed. A tall container for the Eternal Light attached to the wall to the left of the Torah ark is likely a neo-Baroque structure from the 1860s or 1870s (Ludwikowski, Old Synagogue, 24–25), and Kriger’s photograph attests to the fact that the container already existed in its present form around 1880. developments of the isserl’s model in kazimierz 125 ment. In the design of the supports and entablature, the Old Synagogue’s ark is closer to the Renaissance architectonic frames introduced into Polish art by Berrecci and his companions than that of the Isserls’. Already in the Sigismund Chapel, Berrecci used the scheme including pilasters resting on bases and supporting a broken entablature with a developed cornice under a symmetrical tree-like ornamentation (Fig. 12). In 1534, he repeated the same order, now without a foliate pattern above it, in the framing of the main entrance of the Royal Castle at Wawel (Fig. 56).39 This gateway resembles the decoration of the Old Synagogue’s ark even on the level of particular details. The simplified treatment of the leaves in the lower half of the capitals, the proportion between the breadth of the shaft to its width, and the cabling reaching to about a third of the height of the ark’s shafts are similar to the shafts of the attached columns flanking the gate. The atypical corner volutes scrolling from the bottom upward on the Corinthian capitals of the Torah ark (Plate 1.12) are found in Wawel as well: a few in the Sigismund Chapel (e.g., Fig. 59), a pair on the tombstone of Bishop Tomicki (Fig. 29), and several more in the gallery of the courtyard.40 At least one of the capitals with upward-scrolled volutes, dated to the period from 1530 to 1548, has remained of the columns on the first floor of the southern gallery (Fig. 58).41 A more complete affinity to the Torah ark in the Old Synagogue in terms of both the composition and scale is demonstrated in the architectonic framing of the Tomicki Tomb (Fig. 29). In contrast to the massive proportions and closed working of the volutes in the capitals of the monumental outdoor arcade, the volutes on the smaller indoor tomb and synagogue ark are made as openwork, the relief of the parts of the capital is more delicate, and its outline is more elegant. As in the tomb framing, a plinth is set between the high pedestals of the ark’s columns, and the niche is delimited

39 Tomkowicz, “Wawel, I. Zabudowania Wawelu i ich dzieje,” 269; Katalog zabytków sztuki w Polsce, series 4, Miasto Kraków, vol. 1, Wawel, part 1, ed. Jerzy Szablowski (Warsaw, 1965): 48; part 2: fig. 22. 40 See also Białostocki, Art of the Renaissance, 53; Helena Kozakiewicz, Rzeżba XVI wieku w Polsce, 52–56; Kalinowski, Speculum Artis, 445–59. 41 Two double-tiered tripartite arcades set between wide pillars enclose the ground and the first floor of the gallery’s southern side, supported by columns between the arches and columns attached to the pillars. The gallery’s southern wing was built in 1530–33 and was damaged by fire in 1536, 1595 and 1702. The reconstruction of 1906–14 replaced 96 of the 120 capitals, which were varied in their design, with copies of the older designs. Several of the original capitals were deposited in the Wawel Art Collections. See Franciszek Fuchs, Z historii odnowienia wawelskiego zamku, 1905–1939 (Cracow, 1962), 56–76; Katalog zabytków, series 4, Wawel, vol. 1, part 1: 50; part 2: fig. 37. 126 chapter five by attached shafts. The ark’s broken entablature with a small moulding and stressed cyma on the architrave, and with a greater moulding under the sharply projecting cornice (Plate 1.11), closely imitates the tomb’s entablature. The volutes flanking the ark’s attic (Plate 1.8) repeat the design of the recumbent volutes of the tomb’s pediment. The stone carver of the Old Synagogue’s ark seems to have been less experienced in the style of decorative carvings in the Sigismund Chapel than the artist (supposedly Cini) of the pediment and attic of the Isserls’ ark. As compared to these parts of the Isserls’ ark, the style of the Old Synagogue’s ark is stricter and the composition of the superstructure tight- er: here the tree relief does not spread beyond the pediment’s triangular outlines, the pediment is narrower than the attic, and the standing volutes have no attached leaves on their outer sides. In the Isserls’ pediment, the branches scroll more organically and the masses are balanced better than a somewhat uneven curvature of the branches and the contrast between these thin branches and the massive baluster-like trunk in the Old Syna- gogue’s ark’s pediment. The heavier style of vegetative reliefs resembles a group of leafy pediments produced by unknown sculptors from Cracow in the mid-sixteenth century (e.g., Figs. 31, 34). The expertise of the artist creating the synagogue ark in the style of the Renaissance architectural design in the Wawel Castle after the completion of the Sigismund Chapel well fits the professional experience of the builders and stone carvers of the Gucci family, suggesting that the same builder was responsible for both the reconstruction of the Old Synagogue and for its stone Torah ark. The elder Matteo Gucci, who died in 1550, repaired the southern part of the castle whilst working as a mason under Berrecci (until 1537) and Nicolo Castiglione, and in 1545–48 as a chief builder. The younger Matteo Gucci, to whom we attribute the rebuilding of the Old Synagogue, could have learnt the Renaissance architectural decorations at the royal castle under his elder relatives and colleagues, the brothers Mat- teo, Alexander, and Francisco Gucci.42 The most significant distinction of the Old Synagogue’s ark from the Isserls’ ark is the integrity of the former: all its parts, made of the same kind of ochre-tinted sandstone, are carved in a homogeneous style and combine to form an organic unit. This proves that the Isserls’ ark, constructed from the components of different origin, was the genuine invention, whereas

42 See note 25 on page 120. developments of the isserl’s model in kazimierz 127 the ark in the Old Synagogue is its copy. 43 Isserl and Moses Isserles, who at the time was a rabbi and community representative, could have played a part in the choice of the model for the new ark in the main synagogue in their town, or merely advised its patrons. Several features of the Old Synagogue’s ark bear out our theory that this is an enhanced imitation of the Isserls’ ark. Instead of the small crown on the frieze and the blank attic panel in the Isserls’ ark, in the Old Syna- gogue’s ark a much larger crown is carved within the attic. The new arrangement makes the crown more visible and fills the empty space in the ark’s superstructure without changing the meaning of this symbol. Instead of the two pairs of dissimilar massive pilasters of the Isserls’ ark, two attached fluted columns on the Old Synagogue’s ark bear the protruding entablature, and two additional supports are flat pilasters engraved on the vertical slabs flanking the ark’s doors (Plates 1.8, 1.11). The round columns, as opposed to the flat pilasters, emphasise the effect of a recession that purportedly alludes to Jachin and Boaz in front of the Temple housing the Holy of Holies with the Ark of the Covenant. The floral decoration and the upward-scrolled volutes of the simplified Corinthian capitals (Plate 1.12) may have been chosen from the stock of contemporary architectonic forms in order to represent the “lily-work” atop the Solomonic pillars (I Kings 7:19, 22).44 A few distinctions were perhaps suggested by the patrons of the Old Synagogue’s reconstruction. They might have refrained from the hexagram on their ark because of the association of this symbol with the pseudo- messianic movement in Prague; the Isserls were probably more tolerant of the Shield of David since it was accepted by their relatives, the Horowitzes of Prague. If the heads of the Old Synagogue understood the messianic symbolism of the number six encrypted in the triple spirals at the end of the lower volutes of the Isserls’ pediment, they purposely avoided it by preferring the single scroll in these spots on their ark. The traditional symbolism of the tree as a symbol of the Torah and Judaism was maintained in the form of the four-branched tree more closely recalling the vine tree in the Altneushul’s gateway (Fig. 32).

43 This view contests the opinion that the Isserls’ ark was “an imitation of the beautiful late-Renaissance ark of the Old Synagogue in Kazimierz,” Wischnitzer, “Mutual Influ- ences,” 45. Cf. also Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe, 203; Geoffrey Wigoder, The Story of the Synagogue: A Diaspora Museum Book (New York, 1986), 94. 44 See also page 92 above. 128 chapter five The High Synagogue: An Italian Jewish Patron in Kazimierz?

During the period when the two masonry synagogues in Kazimierz were being reconstructed after the fire of 1557, a newer, so-called Wysoka (High) Synagogue was founded at 38 Joseph (former 267/89 Żydowska) Street (Plate 3.1), nearly 100 m west of the Old Synagogue, on a parcel of land that in 1533 had been occupied by the house of one Frankowa (Mistress Frank).45 No permit for the erection of the synagogue has ever been discovered, and no mention of its existence is found in the 1553 agreement between the Jews and the magistracy of Kazimierz and Stradom46 or in the royal permit of 1557 for the reconstruction of the Old Synagogue after the great fire. Krasnowolski found an archival record from 1563 stating that the masonry house of “Felix the Jew” was near some unspecified synagogue. He identifies Felix’s house as the building on which two of the Italian masons, Giovanni Cini and Filippo da Fiesole, worked at the Sigismund Chapel, which had been constructed for Jonah ben Abraham in 36 Joseph (formerly 266/90 Żydowska) Street (Plate 3.2 nos. 1–2).47 The adjacent building is the High Synagogue (Plate 3.2 no. 3); hence the year 1563 is the terminus post quem for its construction.48 A fragment with the head of an angel in relief above a door of Jonah ben Abraham’s house (Plate 3.2, no. 4) suggests that this was a representative residence similar to those of the Polish burghers in Cracow. Felix the Jew, the new owner of the house, was a trader of precious stones, a tax collector and a court servitor to Sigismund Augustus.49 The name Felix was rare

45 Krasnowolski, Ulice i place, 74. 46 See note 6 on page 117. 47 “Teki Żegoty Paulego, wypisy z akt radzieckich i ławniczych Kazimierskich,” MS 5357/ II, VII, 40–41, quoted in Krasnowolski, Ulice i place, 73 n. 160. See also Ptaśnik, Cracovia artificum 1501–1550, 547 no. 1360; Krasnowolski, Ulice i place, 63 and notes 348 and 505. 48 There was an inscription above the portal of the synagogue, but it is discernible only in a photograph taken before 1939 (Warsaw, Jewish Historical Institute, neg. no. ŻIH- בית הכנסת גבוה \ נבנה לערך חצי המאה הרביעי]ת[ \ ונתחדש ע"י ,III-6691). The text reads the High Synagogue was built about the mid-4th century [of) הגבאים \ בשנת תרסו לפ"ק the 5th millennium] and renovated in the year 666 by the abbreviated era [1906 CE]). Counting this very loosely defined date as the precise midpoint of the 4th century, the year [5]350 (1589/90 CE), Bałaban reported that year as the probable date for the synagogue’s foundation; see Bałaban, Zabytki Historyczne, 51; idem, Historja Żydów, 1: 208; idem, Prze- wodnik, 35. Some researchers accepted Bałaban’s conclusion (Mahler, Przewodnik, 48; Breffny, Synagogue, 113; Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe, 203), whilst others have accepted the dates 1556–63 (Duda, Krakowskie judaica, 97; Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 14; Rudolf Klein, “Major Synagogues,” 587). 49 Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 159. developments of the isserl’s model in kazimierz 129 among Jews in eastern and central Europe at the time, and suggests his Italian origin.50 Like other Italian Jews at the court of Sigismund Augustus, he may have come to Kazimierz in the retinue of Queen Bona Sforza and exploited his contacts in Italy, mainly in Venice, to supply precious stones to the Polish royal court. In 1559, perhaps soon after Felix acquired the house at 36 Joseph Street, he commissioned Thomas de Robore (d. 1562), known to us as a companion of Alexander Gucci and Antonio de Morosi, to reconstruct several of its rooms.51 It is possible that Felix also bought the building to the west of his house, at 38 Joseph Street, and commissioned one of these architects to build a private synagogue there, on the upper floor. Felix could establish such a synagogue without a royal permit. A document from 1597 mentioned the synagogue on Joseph Street in Kazimierz as a nowa bóżnica (new synagogue),52 and the name “High” was obviously given to this synagogue to distinguish it from the “New Syna- gogue” of the Isserls, but both were still called “New” until the nineteenth century.53 The prayer hall there is situated above the ground floor, which was pri- vately owned until the mid-nineteenth century and was used then as a shop.54 The ground floor and an underground basement would have been a former house that was extended upwards and given a new façade, which was reinforced with the massive sloping buttresses dividing the two-tiered wall into three vertical sections (Plate 3.1).55 On the ground floor of the reconstructed building (Plates 3.4b, 3.5), two rooms take up about two- thirds of the width, and on the west side, a long corridor leads from the monumental portal on the south façade to the staircase, which is attached to the building from the north and leads to the prayer hall on the upper floor. A photograph taken before 1939 shows that the stairway then led to an arched door situated under the western window on the northern wall (Plate 3.6); most likely, this was the original access to the prayer hall.56 Another door and two apertures were opened in the western wall to con- nect the prayer hall with a women’s gallery, which was set up in the adjoin-

50 Not one Felix appears among the many dozens of Jewish names mentioned in the Cracow Municipal Books until the early 16th century; see the “Index of Persons” in Jews in Medieval Cracow, 249–72. 51 Krasnowolski, Ulice i place, 63, 73. 52 Ibid., 74. 53 E.g., note the caption Nowa bóżnica (New Synagogue) in Plate 3.2 no. 3. 54 Bałaban, Przewodnik, 35–36. 55 Cf. Krasnowolski, Ulice i place, 74. 56 The western window of the prayer hall begins higher up than the two others in this row, and a niche has remained under this window in the interior. 130 chapter five ing building at 36 Joseph Street. In the reconstruction of 1969–71, the stairway was changed, and a new, smaller door was opened on the same wall to the left of the old one, close to the northwestern corner of the hall; the apertures into the women’s gallery were walled up, and another new doorway was made in the eastern wall at the left of the Torah ark.57 Except for the entrance set in the western part of the lateral wall, the plan of the synagogue (Plate 3.4c) differs from the medieval type of longitudinal synagogue hall situated on the ground floor and often even below ground level.58 The placement of the synagogue in an upper storey was, however, characteristic of sixteenth-century Italy,59 and might thus have been favoured by Felix the Jew, whom we assume to be the founder of the synagogue. It is also possible that the need of the Italian Jews in Kazimierz to worship according to the Italian or Sephardic rite caused Felix to establish the third synagogue soon after the Isserls’ and the Old Synagogue were renovated.60 The High Synagogue’s prayer hall (14.72 × 10.33 m), spanned by a barrel vault and lit through large arched windows, is marked by a Renaissance sense of centralised architectonic space. The photographs taken before the reconstruction of the spanning (Plates 3.6–3.7) bear witness that the barrel vault ran north-south, parallel to the street, and rested on the eastern and western walls.61 Such a wide hall and the latitudinal direction of the vault are unusual features for Ashkenazic synagogues and for the local architecture in general: Zbigniew Dmochowski dated the first appearance of barrel vaults without lunettes in Polish secular architecture to ca. 1590.62 This

57 Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 14. The passage to the High Synagogue prayer hall is possible now only via the house at 40 Joseph Street. 58 See the section “The Sunken Floor” in Wischnitzer, Architecture, 111. 59 E.g., the Scuola Levantina (1538), Scuola Grande Tedesca (1529) and Scuola Canton (1531) in Venice, see Pinkerfeld, Batei ha-Knesset b-Italiyah, 7–14; Wischnitzer, Architecture, 62–66. One of four synagogues active in Candia in 1481, then under Venetian rule, was called the High Synagogue, probably also because it was situated on an upper floor; see Marcus, “Crete,” 290. 60 Cf. Izabella Rejduch-Samkowa, “Krakowskie bóżnice (część IV). Sefardyjska bóżnica tzw. Wysoka,” Fołks-Sztyme 12[4719] (23.03.1985): 10–11; Jacob Elbaum, “The Influence of Spanish-Jewish Culture on the Jews of Ashkenaz and Poland in the Fifteenth-Seventeenth Centuries” in Jewish Intellectual History in the Middle Ages, ed. Joseph Dan (Westport, 1994), 179–97 61 The photograph ascribed to the High Synagogue in Bałaban, Przewodnik, 36 fig. 1 is a mistake: it was taken in Isaac’s synagogue. In the recent reconstruction of the High Syna- gogue, the wall pilasters supporting the vault were removed, a flat ceiling was built instead of the vault, and the pitched roof was remodeled so that the slopes became perpendicular to the street and formed a triangular glassed tympanum on the façade. Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 14–15. 62 Dmochowski, Dzieła Architektury w Polsce, 232–34. developments of the isserl’s model in kazimierz 131 positioning of the vault may have been caused by the erection of the synagogue on a site of wide proportions between two existing houses, with the eastern wall on one of the long sides. Apparently, the architect decided to span the shorter distance, using the buildings from the west and east to support the great and heavy vault, and strengthen the southern façade and northeastern corner by buttresses. The name “High” was obviously given to the synagogue because of its upper-floor position, which was unusual in Polish synagogue architecture. If it had really been constructed before 1563, it predates the almost-square (10 × 9 m) hall of Renaissance character, located on an upper floor of the Vysoká (High) Synagogue in Prague. The latter synagogue, established by Mordechai Meisel (1528–1601) in 1566 or 1568, was planned by the northern Italian architect Pankratius Roder and constructed by local bricklayers under the foreman Rada.63 Both High Synagogues have three large arched windows that belong to the upper-floor prayer hall on a lateral façade (cf. Plate 3.1 vs. Fig. 72), but in Prague the whole street wall becomes a buttress projecting beyond the other façades into the street. Meisel, the famous Bohemian financier and mayor of the Jewish town, had close connections with Polish Jewry, and may well have been aware of the innovations in synagogue design being executed in Kazimierz in the 1560s.64 If this sequence is correct, the Jews of Prague were now basing their synagogue on a Polish model, rather than vice versa.

The Torah Ark in the High Synagogue: Refitting the Puzzle’s Pieces

The stone frame of the Torah ark and several more Renaissance stone carvings in the High Synagogue have survived many alterations to the building

63 Olga Herbenová, “Vysoká synagoga,” Židowská Ročenka, 5722, 1961–1962 (Prague, 1961), 45–49; Pařík and Štecha, Jewish Town of Prague, 42–44; Rudolf Klein, “Major Syna- (the High Synagogue) בית הכנסת הגבוה gogues,” 592. A mention of the Prague synagogue as is found in the chronicles of David Ganz, published in 1592; see David Ganz, Sefer Ẓemaḥ David (Book of the Plant of David), ed. Mordechai Breuer (Jerusalem, 1983), 146 (Hebrew). See also Alexander Kisch, “Das Testament Mardochai Meysels,” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 37, no.1 (1893): 27. 64 Meisel sent valuable ritual objects and granted considerable loans to the Kazimierz Jewish community. Several documents report on a Meisel family living in Kazimierz in the 1580s: Rabbi Abraham Meisel was a community leader, and his son Simkhah Bunem Meisel married Moses Isserles’s daughter Dreisel (1562–1602). The Meisels of Kazimierz were probably a branch of the Bohemian family, and there may have been kinsmen living in both towns even earlier; see Ganz, Sefer Ẓemaḥ David, 146; Alexander Kisch, “Das Testament Mardochai Meysels,” 27; Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 144, 196, 512, 544; Friedberg, Luḥot zikaron, 56–57; Lew, Jews of Poland, 20. 132 chapter five and its damage during the Nazi occupation. A few other old stone reliefs, the bimah,65 the ark’s steps and a cantor’s pulpit at the right have been lost, but are discernable in archival photographs. The surviving columns, flat carved pilasters and entablature around the niche for the Torah scrolls (Plate 3.8), copy the same parts in the Old Syna- gogue’s ark (Plate 1.8), although in a simpler form: the mouldings of the entablature are smoother and undecorated, the base unadorned, too, and the capitals use a common type of Corinthian volutes. The engraving on the pilasters (the right of which is now set upside-down)66 do not imitate the columns, as do those in the Old Synagogue’s ark, but bear a Renaissance symmetric ornamental plant with a string-like stem, the type that had introduced in the Wawel Cathedral architectonic sculptures by Berrecci and his workshop,67 and then continued by their followers in Poland through to the 1580s (e.g., Fig. 81).68 The attic and pediment of the High Synagogue’s ark differ in style and in the technique of stucco relief from the stone carvings in the ark’s lower part. A crown, now absent, seen in old photographs in the upper centre of ,(Crown of the Torah) כתר תורה the attic panel, above the surviving words recalls the iconography of the Old Synagogue’s ark. However, in the High Synagogue, the crown is held by two rampant griffins—zoomorphic images, which were avoided in sixteenth-century Polish synagogues. The griffins standing beside trees on small hills do not exactly fit the attic’s sunken panel: their wings escape its sides and project onto the protruding pilasters. The ark’s heading has a traditional triangular shape enclosing a plant, but it is rendered here as a vase with leaves and flowers set between two volutes, and a garland passing through the vase’s ring-shaped

65 The square bimah that is seen in the pre-Second World War photographs (Plates 3.6–3.7) was destroyed, and no trace of it is presently seen in the prayer hall. The iron parapet around the bimah, the handrails and the posts supporting candlesticks on the steps were made at some later stage, apparently in the 19th century. 66 In 1971–72, the broken fragments of the right vertical panel, which previously lay within the niche, were recomposed, and the missing fragments were completed with newly made parts. See Zbigniew Skupio, “Kraków, Bóżnica Wysoka—Aron Hakodesz. Sprawo- zdanie z prac konserwatorskich i dokumentacja konserwatorska, PP. Pracownie Konser- wacji Zabytków, Oddział Kraków, Pracownia Konserwacji Dzieł Sztuki,” typescript (Cracow, 1972), photographs no. 1–4 and the coloured map of the reconstruction. Yet, despite the map, the right panel was mistakenly inverted. 67 E.g., see the high pilasters on the southern wall of the Sigismund Chapel, seen on the left in Fig. 12. 68 Cf. also Kopera and Cercha, Pomniki Krakowa, 2: [s. p.]. Bieniarzówna and Małecki, Dzieje Krakowa, 2: 140–41; Burnatowa, “Ornament renesansowy w Krakowie,” 105; Dobro- wolski, Sztuka Krakowa, 308–309 fig. 218. developments of the isserl’s model in kazimierz 133 handles down to the volutes gives the pediment a shaped outline. The -holy [i.e., dedicated] to the Lord,” Ex. 28:36; 39:30) ap“) קדש \ ליי' words peared at the sides of the vase, and two more vases were set above the lateral sections of the pediment. The classical type and precisely outlined shape of the vase in the centre of the pediment and the soft lines of the hanging garland, as well as the delicate relief of the landscape below the griffins, resemble the combination of soft forms with clear-cut contours in reliefs from the second half of the eighteenth century—for example, in the decoration above the arch in the church in Przysucha of 1780–86 (Fig. 61). The style of the ark’s pediment is characteristic of the pediments composed of the voluted segments atop portals of the same age.69 It was also the time when the earliest clearly dated full-figure stucco zoomorphic hybrids were sculpted on the walls of the synagogue in Łańcut, ca. 1761 (Fig. 62),70 and griffins supporting the crown were carved above arched pediments with the painted inscription ,holy to the Lord) on the Torah ark in the synagogue in Przysucha) קודש ליי' 1764–77 (Fig. 63).71 It is therefore unlikely that the reliefs above the ark of the High Synagogue date from before the mid-eighteenth century. The stylistic discrepancy between the parts of the same structure is obviously the result of the eighteenth-century remodeling of the sixteenth-century ark. As in many other synagogues, the building and fixtures were often damaged by fire and then refurbished or reconstructed, and usually their former design underwent changes to keep up with current modes. The High Synagogue might have been damaged in 1623, when two-thirds of the Jewish homes in Kazimierz were burnt,72 and it was likely that one of the

69 E.g., see the portal of 1772 in the sacristy in the Missionary Church of Stradom, Cracow, in Katalog zabytków sztuki w Polsce, series 4, Miasto Kraków, vol. 5, Kazimierz i Stradom. Kościoły i klasztory, 2 (illustrations), eds. Izabella Rejduch-Samkowa and Jan Samek (Warsaw, 1994): fig. 78. 70 On this synagogue, see Wischnitzer, Architecture, 116–18; Lanẓut: Hayim ve-Ḥurvanah shel kehylah yehudit (Łańcut: Life and destruction of the Jewish community), ed. Michael Walzer (Tel Aviv, 1963); Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe, 209–211; Katalog zabytków sztuki w Polsce, new series 3, Województwo Rzeszowskie, vol. 5, Łańcut i okolice, part 1, eds. Małgorzata Omilanowska and Jakub Sito (Warsaw, 1995): 11–14; Piechotka, Bramy nieba: Bóżnice murowane, 332–35. 71 On this synagogue, Adam Penkalla, Żydowskie ślady w województwie Kieleckim i Radomskim (Radom, 1992), 141–43; Piechotka, Bramy nieba: Bóżnice murowane, 342–44. 72 This fire is depicted in a votive painting from the mid-17th century, now in the Cor- pus Christi Church in Kazimierz, reproduced in Świszczowski, “Miasto Żydowskie,” fig. 12. 134 chapter five two synagogues was damaged by fire in 1643.73 Probably, the refurbishing of the ark’s top was triggered by the repairs to the synagogue’s eastern wall that was damaged by a fire that broke out in 1773 in the house at 40 Joseph Street, adjacent to the eastern wall of the synagogue.74 Findings in the synagogue and historical photographs suggest that the High Synagogue’s original ark much more closely resembled the ark in the Old Synagogue. A version of the ark pediments of the Isserls’ and the Old synagogues, the triangular relief surmounts the entrance in the western wall that led from the prayer hall to the women’s gallery (Plate 3.9). The relief’s bottom is underlined with a cornice, and the two upper sides have a somewhat irregular outline, probably because they were damaged. This carving appears to be in seemingly better condition, seen above the high door behind the bimah in the pre-Holocaust photograph of the High Syn- agogue (Plate 3.6). A framed relief crown imitating the attic panel of the Old Synagogue’s ark is discernible in the same photograph under the right- hand window, above the low arched door in the northern wall (Plates 3.6, 3.10). The reliefs resembling the standing volutes flanking the ark’s attic in the Isserls’ and the Old Synagogues are seen (in a photograph from 1935, Plate 3.11) atop the alms box on the northern wall to the right of the abovementioned arched door.75 In this stone frame, somewhat awkwardly built into the wall around a small door of the box, two separate volutes are set side by side to form a pediment resting on a narrower cornice beneath and supporting another, much wider cornice above. The upper cornice, bearing two bud-shaped finials at its edges and a third, higher finial in the centre, belongs to the Baroque decorations, another example of which crowns a window from ca. 1612 (Fig. 64) in the monastery at the Corpus Christi Church, a few minutes’ walk from the High Synagogue. In the synagogue, the addition of such cornices atop the panel with the crown relief and the alms box (Plates 3.10–3.11) gave the Renaissance stone carvings a taste of the newer, Baroque style. During the reconstruction of 1969–71, the alms

73 Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 207, 226 n. 42, 409; Świszczowski, “Miasto Żydowskie,” 60 n. 44. Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 15. 74 Bałaban, Przewodnik, 40; Krasnowolski, Ulice i place, 74; Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 16. 75 The photograph was published by Bałaban in 1935 in his Przewodnik, plate 4, but his description of this alms box as situated at the western wall of the prayer hall (ibid., 37) seems to be incorrect as the segment of the hexagram seen in this photograph at the bottom left of the alms box is part of the semicircular door on the northern wall, which is discernible under the arched window in another photograph (Plate 3.6). developments of the isserl’s model in kazimierz 135 box was transferred from the prayer hall to the lobby of the house at 40 Joseph Street (Plate 3.12), and the upper cornice with the finials was lost.76 The examination of the old photograph versus the restored alms box (Plates 3.11–3.12) reveals that on both volutes the stem that runs from the lower scroll once ended in a leaf looking like the head of a bird with a crooked beak, but on the left volute the head has been broken. The approximate symmetry77 and head-shaped ends of volutes were characteristic of ornamental sculpture of that time (Fig. 34), but the lack of any bond or leaf connecting them and the use of two different slabs for the same pediment had no precedents there. The arrangement of the volutes adjoining each other is most likely secondary; they had originally been produced as separate pieces so that their asymmetry was barely noticeable. Judging from the photograph (Plate 3.6), the triangular relief and the rectangular panel with the crown were about the same width.78 Both of them could have been parts of the same pedimented attic that originally stood between the volutes from the alms box. The width of the attic, about 70 cm, plus the width of the two standing volutes, 25 cm each, form the structure that is commensurate with the 120-cm-wide Renaissance entablature of the High Synagogue ark. They would have been the remnants of this ark that, after having been removed, could not have been discarded because of their former sacred function, and thus were reused in the same synagogue. The only element that appears on the Isserls’ and Old Syna- gogue’s arks, but was either omitted or has been lost in the High Synagogue, is the inscription from Proverbs 8:15. The round columns and location of the large crown within the attic panel—as opposed to the small crown on the frieze and four massive pilasters in the Isserls’ Synagogue—indicate that it is an enhanced version of the Isserls’ ark in the great communal Old Synagogue and not the Isserls’ eclectic and obsolete model that was imitated in the High Synagogue. This also implies that the ark in the Old Syn-

76 A comparison of the alms box as it is seen in the old photograph (Plate 3.11) with its present appearance (Plate 3.12) shows that the capitals, bases, plinth, entablature, and inner parts of the pilasters are almost all new additions. Cf. Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 16–17. 77 The leaves on the back of the left volute are larger and thicker that those on the right volute; the petals of the open flower on the right are slightly larger than the petals of the left flower; and the lower right scroll with the bird’s head touches the cornice, whereas the lower scroll on the left does not. Two vertical bands outline the left side of the pediment, but no bands are seen on its right side. 78 In Plate 3.6, the pediment looks slightly wider, but since it is situated closer to the camera than the rectangular panel, the seeming difference in size is a result of optical foreshortening. 136 chapter five agogue had been completed before 1563, the year when the High Synagogue already began to function. The softly modeled, heavier branches and volutes spreading from the slim stem in the pediment from the High Synagogue differ from the trees with the thick baluster-like trunk in the pediments in Isserls’ and the Old Synagogues (Plates 2.13, 1.10), and resemble the leafy pediments produced in Cracow workshops for built-in sepulchral monuments (see Figs. 31, 34). This difference, as well as the standard Corinthian volutes in the High Synagogue’s ark’s capitals, instead of the inverted volutes of the Old Syna- gogue’s ark, demonstrates that in the High Synagogue the sculptor replaced the elements he considered to be strange or obsolete with more familiar forms. If the viewers were aware of the symbolic meaning of the ark, the standardization of unusual forms could not obliterate their meaning. A curious feature of the High Synagogue’s ark is the bird-like ends of the leaves on the attic volutes. In Polish sepulchral wall sculptures, birds were rendered as separate images (e.g., Fig. 28),79 whereas the grotesques volutes that appeared there later in the 1560s ended in a beast’s or dragon’s head (e.g., Fig. 81).80 Since the rabbinical bans of figurative images as a rule applied to the complete figure,81 nothing prevented the tombstone carvers from accepting the hybrids of leafy volutes and animal heads in the cemetery near the Isserls’ Synagogue in the early-seventeenth century.82 About 1628, the distinct shape of a bird’s head on its neck and upper breast was given to the top edge of the volutes flanking the Torah ark, at the height of its capitals, in the synagogue in Lutsk in Volyn.83 If on the High Syna- gogue’s ark of ca. 1563, an avian form was purposefully given to the leaves, it is the first known case of the revival of animal images in Poland after a long period of avoiding them in Bohemian and Polish synagogues, and only a few years after the lion sculpture was rejected instead of being reused in the Isserls’ Synagogue. It is probable that Felix, the purported patron of the

79 See the details reproduced in Bochnak, Kaplica Zygmuntowska, figs. 8, 49. 80 Cf. Burnatowa, “Ornament renesansowy w Krakowie,” 94–95, and note an early example of the zoomorphic volute in the epitaph of Jan Horle (d. 1567) on the exterior of Saint Barbara’s Church in Cracow (ibid., 96 fig. 58). Zoomorphic grotesque reliefs came to Poland with the Jagiellonian Renaissance and are found in the Sigismund Chapel (e.g., my Fig. 28). 81 See Bezalel Narkiss, “On the Zoocephalic Phenomenon in Medieval Ashkenazi Manuscripts” in Norms and Variations in Art: Essays in Honour of Moshe Barasch (Jerusalem, 1983): 49–62. 82 E. g., Radwański, “Odkrycie renesansowych i barokowych nagrobków,” fig. 4; Kata- log zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: figs. 205, 247. 83 Piechotka, Bramy nieba: Bóżnice murowane, 86 fig. 69. developments of the isserl’s model in kazimierz 137 High Synagogue, felt himself less bound by the Ashkenazic tradition due to his Italian background and possible Sephardic origin. The birds on either side of the Torah ark’s top probably related to the two winged cherubs above the biblical Ark of the Covenant. If so, the griffins that have replaced the Renaissance decoration of the ark in the High Synagogue’s attic in the eighteenth century did not change its original symbolism, for at that time they were another representation of the cherubs.84

The Kupah: A Collective Patronage over the Synagogue

The latest known version of the Isserls’ type of the Torah ark in Kazimierz was built in the Kupah Synagogue (Plate 4.5). This synagogue occupies the parcel of land now delimited by Warszauer (formerly Ubogich) Street from the south (Plate 4.1) and by Miodowa Street from the north (Plate 4.2). This, and nearby grounds at the eastern part of the town’s northern wall, were acquired by the Jewish community from the Council of Kazimierz and then annexed to the Jewish quarter in accordance with the agreement between the two sides, as approved by King Sigismund III (1566–1632) in 1608. The royal permission was to be promulgated in the three synagogues of Kazimierz,85 which may be identified with the Old, Isserls’, and High Syn- agogues. The new parcels of land had been occupied by buildings much later, ca. 1635.86 The original form of the synagogue cannot be clearly discerned, as its building underwent numerous reconstructions: the spanning was redone, several annexes and staircases were attached, galleries were established within the prayer hall, and a number of apertures were opened in the walls (Plate 4.3).87 Currently, the niche for the Torah scrolls is situated to the right of centre on the eastern wall. If the niche was originally in the very centre of the wall, as it would normally have been, the northern wall must have been located along the current line of the supports for the northern gallery. Consequently, the prayer hall would have been almost square in its plan (13.5 × 14 m; Plate 4.4), like the Renaissance type of synagogue planning introduced in the High Synagogue ca. 1563 (cf. Plate 3.4c).

84 Cf. Bracha Yaniv, “The Cherubim on Torah Ark Valances,” Assaph 4 (1999): 155–70. 85 Bersohn, Dyplomatariusz, 123 no. 211; Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 198; Świszczowski, “Miasto Żydowskie,” 55; Krasnowolski, Ulice i place, 107–108. 86 Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 198–99; cf. also Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 18. 87 Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 18–20. Piechotka, Bramy nieba: Bóżnice murowane, 127–28. 138 chapter five

kupah: literally, “moneybox” or “treasury”) is) קופה The Hebrew name believed to have been given to the synagogue in order to commemorate its -mi-kupat ha-kahal) i.e., from the commu) מקופת הקהל source of funding nal treasury.88 The Polish name of the synagogue, Szpitalna (hospital’s), concerned its congregants from the Jewish hospice, which was established before 1567 in the same Ubogich (miserable) Street.89 Inasmuch as the walk from this area to the Old Synagogue at the opposite end of the Jewish quarter was long, a synagogue nearby would have made it easier for ill or dis- abled patients. The collective patronage over the project on the outskirts of the Jewish quarter by poorer groups of the Jewish community was probably the reason for its very long realization. Bałaban supposed that they began to col- lect money for the synagogue in 1595,90 that is before the plot for it was purchased in 1608, whereas the first known mention of the Kupah Syna- gogue dates 35 years later: In 1643, the guild of Jewish goldsmiths offered 400 złoty “for the needs of the Kupah Synagogue,” demanding for themselves permanent rights to two seats in the prayer hall near the bimah, opposite the Torah ark.91 The reservation of seats most likely implies that the prayer hall was already functioning; thus the “needs of the synagogue” were either for its completion or for maintenance of the building. If the Kupah was one of the two synagogues damaged by fire in 1643,92 the year of the donation, the money might have been spent for the repairs. Some work on it continued at least until 1647, when the Holy Society of Cohens and Levites donated the window on the eastern wall to the right of the Torah ark and commemorated their gift with a dedicatory inscription in a relief built into the window’s southern jamb (Plate 4.8).93

88 Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 208. 89 Krasnowolski, Ulice i place, 108. 90 Bałaban, Zabytki Historyczne, 51; idem, Historja Żydów, 1: 208 and 412; idem, Prze- wodnik, 96–98; Mahler, Przewodnik, 51–52. 91 Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 208, 316. 92 The first was probably the High Synagogue. See note 73 on page 134. 93 The text of the inscription is, החלון הזה קנאו ]sic[ \ ונדבו בני החבורה \ הקדושה כהנים \ והלוים לכבוד \ המקום ולכבוד \ ב'ה' לאורו לפר]ט קטן[ \ יברכך יאר ישא \ שלום “The members of the Holy Society of Cohens and Levites purchased and donated the window in honour of God and in honour of the House of God [synagogue] for its illumination. By the abbreviated [era]: [may the Lord] bless you, [make your face] shine up and -means that the window made them jeal קנאו grant [you] peace.” The spelling of the word they) קנו ous, but in the context of the phrase it seems to be the erroneously written verb purchased). The last sentence of the inscription paraphrases Num. 6: 24–26, using the major words of the priestly blessing recited by Cohens in the synagogue. In 1865, Droździewicz developments of the isserl’s model in kazimierz 139 The way the Kupah Synagogue was established by joint efforts of the community members, professional unions, and religious societies was exceptional in the earlier Ashkenazic synagogues. As we have seen, those were founded either by the entire community, a private patron, or a group of immigrants praying in accordance with their own rite. A collective patronage was practised in other regions. A rare example of a synagogue of the Jews belonging to the priestly tribe is the synagogue of Cohens recorded in Candia in 1481.94 Synagogues built by Jewish guilds, confraternities, and groups of neighbours were common in medieval Spain. Yom Tov Assis saw it as a significant social act of the lower classes intending to allow them to enjoy the service free from discrimination against them by the rich upper classes in the usual communal synagogues.95 The members of the groups and societies that donated to the Kupah Synagogue and the hospice inhabitants included in its congregation probably felt themselves marginal in the private synagogues in Kazimierz or in the Old Synagogue that hosted the community’s elite.

The Torah Ark in the Kupah Synagogue: A “Folk Renaissance” in the Baroque Age

The stone frame of the ark, except for the steps in front of it, has been restored from the existing remnants between 1998 and 2002 (Plate 4.5). A dedicatory tablet built into the panel under the pediment (Plate 4.6) states that the ark underwent its fifth renovation in 1911/12.96 The ark could have been damaged again when the synagogue was destroyed by the Nazis between 1939 and 1945, and once more during a pogrom at the synagogue by an Antisemitic mob in September 1945.97 Not one photograph of the

whose ,י ,י ,י ,א ,ש ,ל ,ו ,ם recorded apostrophes, now indiscernible, above the characters numerical values give 407, that is 1647 (Droździewicz, O napisie Hebrejskim, 11–12). 94 Marcus, “Crete,” 290. 95 Assis, “Synagogues in Mediaeval Spain,” 12–14. 96 The inscription reads, נתחדש פעם ]ח[משית\ ע"י המתעסקים הגבאים \ ד'ב'ה'כ' זו ונגמר בשנת \ תרעב לפק “It was renovated for the fifth time / by the active gabbaim [managers of synagogue affairs] / of this synagogue, and was completed in the year 672 by the abbreviated era [1911/12 פ]...[ס]...[מג]...[מ/כ]...[ ,(CE]”. The inscription on the cornice (now painted in green is a dedication mentioning a deceased person, perhaps Michal or ,פאל]...[מיכל זצל תנ]?[ Michel, but because of their very poor condition, the other words cannot be reliably deciphered. 97 Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 18–20. Piechotka, Bramy nieba: Bóżnice murowane, 127–28. 140 chapter five Kupah’s interior prior to 1998 has been found in archives or publications, and its Torah ark was sometimes believed to have been lost.98 Even in its current condition, the Torah ark in the Kupah Synagogue has much in common with the Old Synagogue’s ark: the great wide crown in the attic (and not in the architrave as in the Isserls’ ark), fluted supports resting on bases and bearing a broken entablature, the attic panel flanked by volutes and enclosing a crown relief, the Hebrew quotation from Prov- erbs 8:15, and a symmetrical plant in the pediment. However, the rendering of these parts is markedly different. Unlike the Corinthian columns of the ark in the Old Synagogue, there are flattened pilasters with primitive rectangular capitals in the Kupah’s Torah ark. The sculptor of the Kupah’s ark also made the other mouldings less complicated, the S-shaped volutes simpler, and the crown ungainly. Drawing the crown, he could not grasp the fine points of illusionist linear perspective, misinterpreting the circlet shown in foreshortening as an oval in the Old Synagogue into a C-shaped bracket attached to the crown’s bottom (Plate 1.10). He might have been one of the carvers who depicted similar, naïve crowns on the Jewish tombstones (e.g., Fig. 65). The symbolism of the crown is conveyed in the Kupah Synagogue in a more straightforward manner than in the earlier synagogues in Kazimierz. The viewer was not expected to identify the crown with the Torah by implication, from rabbinical exegesis or any other tradition. Instead, he or she כתר תורה ,should merely have known enough Hebrew to read the name (Crown of the Torah), engraved inside the circlet. The relation of the verse “By me kings will reign” to the kingship of the Torah is emphasised by in- scribing the quotation directly on the crown. The phrase is slightly mis- they] will reign) there is the similar]) ימלוכו in ו spelled: instead of the first they] will enthrone]) ימליכו transforming that verb into י but shorter letter [somebody]); more probably, it is a scribe’s mistake and not any sophisticated transformation of the standard biblical text. There is also a distant similarity between the plant reliefs in the pediments of the arks in the Old and Kupah Synagogues. The amphora with its segmented body in the latter pediment simulates the vase-like boss with a ring of petals in the trunk’s bottom in the former one. The pair of branches rising from the amphora to the top centre and another two branches, which spread symmetrically from the same spot outwards, forming curves facing the vase, and then continue down to the larger spirals in the lower

98 Duda, Krakowskie judaica, 101; Klein, “Major Synagogues,” 588. developments of the isserl’s model in kazimierz 141 corners of the newer pediment, are a schematic imitation of the main branches in the old one. The subtle, abstracted Renaissance ornament was reworked into the thick, heavy shapes of a still-schematised but much more mimetic, more easily recognisable image of a vase with flowers. There were also two more small vases with tall plants and flowers, a type of ornament common in Polish Renaissance art, on the pilasters flanking the crown. The flowers in the vase may still evoke in the spectator a sense of blossoming and vitality, although they lose the possible association with a flourishing sceptre. In the Kupah Synagogue’s Torah ark, the floral relief fills the space under the pediment’s sloping top and between the upper third of the pilasters, leaving a space below—in contrast to the earlier Renaissance arks in the other synagogues in Kazimierz, where the ornamental pediment rests directly on the attic panel. The large vase with the roses at the pediment’s apex seem to be an integral part of the frame that also comprises a pair of slim, almost unadorned pilasters supporting small vases at the pediment’s lower sides, and the smooth double moulding underlining the vase with the scrolling branches within the pediment. At least two features of that frame suggest that it was made later than the vase within the pediment. First, the vase with roses in high relief above the pediment clearly differs from the Renaissance composition, early-Baroque shapes, and bas-relief execution of the vase with flowers within the pediment. Secondly, the frame’s racking cornices truncate the upper edges of the scrolling branches and flowers beneath. If the original pediment was also modeled on the Old Synagogue’s ark, it would have been an unframed vegetative relief resting directly on the attic panel with the crown image (Plate 4.6). The old pediment was perhaps moved higher in the wall and framed with small fluted pilasters and the sloping top bearing the vases. It might have been done at any time between the eighteenth century and 1911/12, during any one of at least five reconstructions mentioned in the dedicatory inscription on the ark. The new, large vase with realistically rendered roses, dominating and echoing the vase below it, restated the symbolism of the superannuated image. Those who reconstructed the ark could have been inspired by the illusionistic bouquet that was sculpted (instead of the Renaissance plant relief) in the pediment of the ark in the High Synagogue (Plate 3.8). The alteration heightened the pediment, making the whole ark more similar to those much-higher arks, which became widespread in east European synagogues from the mid-seventeenth century on. The sponsors of the Kupah ark’s 142 chapter five reconstruction in 1911/12 utilised the extra space between the pediment and the crown by inserting their dedication there. The traditionalist views of the community on synagogue decoration, which contrasts with the innovative approach of an influential individual, may explain the application of the Renaissance composition, already outmoded at that time, to the Torah ark in the Kupah Synagogue. Its seventeenth-century patrons were probably less acquainted with the sophisticated symbolism that was implemented in the Isserls’ and Old Synagogue’s arks, and the builder had no experience with the learned Ital- ianised art. The elements that had become no more comprehensible were simplified and thus familiarised for their new viewer. A copy of the old ark from the community’s principal synagogue could have added to the prestige of the new synagogue at the edge of the Jewish quarter and consoli- dated within its congregation the sense of belonging to the venerated Jewish community in the heart of the Polish Kingdom. The new style of Torah ark in the community playing the leading spiritual, administrative, and economic roles in the life of Polish Jewry, caused the Jews in the Cra- cow area to reproduce the Renaissance, aedicula-like design in their synagogues. from kazimierz to pińczów and szydłów 143

CHAPTER SIX

FROM KAZIMIERZ TO PIŃCZÓW AND SZYDŁÓW

Two early-seventeenth-century stone Torah arks inscribed “By me kings will reign” near a crown relief have fortunately survived in the Cracow area—one in Pińczów, about 70 km northeast of Cracow, and the other in Szydłów, about 40 km east of Pińczów. Travels for purposes of trade, job opportunities, education, family visits, etc., created various occasions for the exchange of customs between the capital and the province. It was to Szydłów where Moses Isserles escaped from an epidemic in Kazimierz and where he wrote his first book, in 1556. The interrelations between these towns became even closer after the establishment of the Va‘ad Arba Araẓot (Council of the Four Lands) in 1580, a central institution for Jewish self- government in Poland, in which the Jewish communities of Pińczów and Szydłów belonged to the “Land” of the Lesser Poland dominated by the Cracow community (that is, Kazimierz near Cracow).1 The customs register of 1593 notes Jewish merchants of Szydłów and Pińczów exporting their goods to Cracow, and Jews of Kazimierz importing goods from Pińczów.2 The rabbis who usually travelled from place to place were able to convey some explanations regarding the new type of Torah arks and its symbolism. The approximate date of the building of the Torah arks and very scanty sources of the history of the rabbis in Pińczów and Szydłów do not shed light on who the rabbis were when the Torah arks were built there. In Szydłów, it might have been the first known rabbi of this town, a Rabbi Moshe Mendeles, who later left for Frankfurt and Kazimierz,3 or his successor in Szydłów ca. 1616–18, a noted halakhic codifier named Rabbi Joel ben Samuel Sirkes (otherwise BaḤ;4 ca. 1561–1640). Sirkes studied under Solomon Luria in Lublin, visited Kazimierz, and had rabbinical posts in

1 Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 351. 2 See Handel Żydowski w Krakowie w końcu XVI i XVII wieku. Wypisy z krakowskich rejestrów celnych z lat 1593–1683, eds. Jan M. Małecki and Elżbieta Szlufik (Cracow, 1995), 59 no. 2; 62 nos. 43–44, 47; 65 no. 77, 66 no. 99, 67 no. 106, 73 no. 186, 74 no. 197, 91 no. 413, 94 no. 454, 95 no. 469, 98 no. 501, and p. 266 (s.v. “Szydłów”). 3 Friedberg, Luḥot zikaron, 5 no. 6, 11–12 n. 10 4 Sirkes’s nickname is the acronym of his book Bayit ḥadash (New House), a commentary on the Sefer ha-Turim of Jacob ben Asher. 144 chapter six several Jewish communities within the Polish Commonwealth.5 In Pińczów, the earliest evidence of a rabbi names Menachem-Mendl Stangen-Margo- lioth (d. 1652), who lived there from 1615 to 1635. He was born in Germany, married a daughter of the head of the yeshiva in Kazimierz, Moses Morde- chai Margolioth, and after her death in 1624, married a daughter of Moses Ḥarif, the head of the Rabbinical Court in L’viv.6 Either of these rabbis from Pińczów or Szydłów, as well as their unknown predecessors, might have visited Kazimierz and been aware of the meaning of the Crown of the Torah through which “kings will reign” on the Torah arks in the synagogues there. Yet, in each of these towns, the model of the ark from Kazimierz was implemented differently.

The Jews of Pińczów under the Protestants and Catholics

The earliest mention of Pińczów dates from the fourteenth century. Zbig- niew Oleśnicki (1389–1455), the bishop of Cracow, who became the owner of Pińczów in 1425, built a castle and church there, and in 1428 the village was granted the rights of a town.7 Purportedly, Jews settled in Pińczów during the reign of Zbigniew’s descendant, Mikołaj Oleśnicki the Elder, who ruled in the town from 1550 until his death in 1562,8 and ten Jewish families that paid municipal taxes were recorded there in 1576.9 Under the

-is referred to in his ShuT BaH He (שידלוב) Sirkes’s tenure as a rabbi in Szydłów 5 Hadashot (BaH’s New Responsa), 4 (Hebrew) and in the epitaph on his tombstone in the Jewish cemetery near the Isserls’ Synagogue; see Zunz Ir ha-Ẓedek, 177–78; Friedberg, Luḥot ”as “Szidlowca” and not as “Szydłów שידלוב zikaron, VI, 11 no. 9 (Friedberg’s transliteration of is erroneous). On the positions occupied by Sirkes, see Elijah Judah Schochet, Rabbi Joel Sirkes: His Life, Works and Times (New York, 1971), 23–24. 6 On the first known rabbis of Pińczów, see Zunz, Ir ha-Ẓedek, 74, 150 ff.; Friedberg, Luḥot zikaron, 12 n. 10; Yoel Yakobovich-Ashkenazi, “Rabanei Pinchev le-doroteyhem” (Generations of the Pińczów rabbis) in In Pinchev togt shoyn nisht: Sefer zikaron le-Kehilat Pinchev (Tel Aviv, 1970), 113–14 (Hebrew); Wunder, Elef margaliot, 12–16 no. 16. 7 Maria Koczerska, “Oleśnicki, Zbigniew,” Polski słownik biograficzny, 23 (Wrocław, 1978), 776–84. 8 Halina Kowalska, “Oleśnicki, Mikołaj,” Polski słownik biograficzny, 23: 768–71; Wac- ław Urban, “Pińczów w okresie reformacji” in Pińczowskie spotkania historyczne, vol. 1, Pińczów za panowania pińczowskiej linii Oleśnickich. Materiały sesji naukowej 24 lutego 1997 (Pińczów, 1997), 45. 9 Zenon Guldon and Jacek Wijaczka, “Ludność Pińczówa w XVI–XVIII wieku” in Ludność żydowska w regionie świętokrzyskim. Materiały sesji naukowej w Starachowicach, 17 X 1987 r. (Kielce, 1989), 52, n. 63. On the early history of the Jewish community of Pińczów, see also Simon M. Dubnow, “Pinchovskiy molitvennik” (A prayerbook of Pińczów), Voskhod 14 (1894): 149–150 (Russian); Penkalla, Żydowskie ślady, 72–76; Jarosław Tambor and Jerzy Znojek, Społeczeństwo żydowskie w Pińczowie (Pińczów, 1998). from kazimierz to pińczów and szydłów 145 rule of Mikołaj Oleśnicki, the town became the centre of the Reformist movement in Poland: the Catholic clergy were expelled, and a number of prominent Calvinists from Poland and abroad settled there. The intellectual atmosphere in Pińczów, at that time often called the “Polish Athens,” had the Humanistic character of the Polish Renaissance. The liberal atmosphere in Pińczów during Mikołaj Oleśnicki’s time attracted groups of het- erodox Italians, who ca. 1560 established a colony called Włochy (literally, “the Italians”), one kilometre northeast of the town. Most of the settlers in Włochy were engaged in quarrying and stone carving. Polish Reformists propagated the Calvinist attitude to the visual arts as a transgression of the Second Commandment and as a sign of Popish idolatry, and called on their austere brethren to follow what they believed to be the doctrines of the “old Apostolic Church.”10 In ca. 1550, the reformists stripped the Saint John the Baptist Catholic Church in Pińczów of its paintings and sculptures in order to adapt it to their way of worship.11 In the town, a number of Polish Reformist synods were held; a Protestant school, the so-called “Academy,” was opened in 1551; a Protestant printing house functioned there from 1558 to 1562; and the headquarters of the Arians (Polish Brethren) were situated from 1559 to 1569. The intensive Reformist activities could have brought about the building of their new prayer houses, but none of them is found among the surviving buildings in Pińczów.12 Like their co-religionists elsewhere in Europe, the Reformists of Pińczów showed an interest in the Old Testament and Hebrew. In 1550–51, Oleśnicki’s court became a shelter for Francesco Stancaro (Stankar, ca. 1501–74), a converted Jew of Mantua and a Hebraist from the Academy of Cracow.13 The attitude of the Reformists towards the Jews at the time varied from indifferent to hostile.14 However, when living side by side, the Reformists and

10 Nevertheless, Polish Reformists used figurative images in their sepulchral monuments and for the sake of religious propaganda. See Przypkowski, “Zabytki Reformacji w Kielecczyżnie,” 75–81. 11 Janusz Zbudniewek, “Klasztor paulinów w Pińczowie” in Pińczowskie spotkania historyczne, 1: 35. 12 Dziubiński argues against the identification of the masonry house of ca. 1600 in the marketplace in Mirów with the Protestant printing house, as was often believed. See Andrzej Dziubiński, Przechadzka po Pińczowie i okolicy (Pińczów, 1992), 38. 13 Kowalska, “Oleśnicki, Mikołaj.” 14 Janusz Tazbir, “Die Reformation in Polen und das Judentum,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 31, no. 3 (1983): 386–400; idem, “The Polish Reformation as an Intel- lectual Movement” in Fiszman, Polish Renaissance, 123. 146 chapter six Jews tolerated each other’s customs and, by participating in religious disputes, exchanged information about each other’s dogmas or practises.15 In 1586, the Oleśnicki family sold Pińczów to Piotr Myszkowski (ca. 1510–91), the bishop of Cracow, who restored Catholic rule in the town and returned the Church of Saint John the Baptist and the nearby convent to the brethren of the Order of Saint Paul. Piotr, a patron of the arts and of Renaissance Humanists and writers such as Jan Kochanowski, did not halt the tendency of the town’s citizens towards Renaissance Humanism.16 Piotr’s nephew, Sigismund Myszkowski (ca. 1562–1615), who inherited the town, had been raised as a Calvinist, but after Piotr converted him to Ca- tholicism in 1587, Sigismund studied in the Jesuit College in Siena and visited Rome. He leaned towards the Italianised Catholic culture of the Royal Court, and was often nicknamed “the Italian” for his devotion to Ital- ian art and culture. He had direct contacts with Italy, and was especially close to Vincenzo Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua (reigned 1587–1612), who, in 1598, even adopted Sigismund into the Gonzaga family.17 In 1592, Sigismund Myszkowski established a Catholic enclave in the territory that bordered Pińczów on the east. He declared this area to be an independent town of Mirów and imposed the Magdeburg Law on it, and in 1594 expelled the Jews from there. Sigismund began to build the Church of Saint Mary in Mirów that was founded by Piotr Myszkowski in 1587.18 At the same time, Sigismund remained tolerant of the Protestants who did not leave Pińczów after the restoration of the Catholicism there in 1586. They still lived in the region, openly practising their cult until the first few decades of the seventeenth century.19 He was tolerant as well of the het- erodox Italians, Orthodox Christians, and Jews living in his town.20 After the expulsion of Jews from Mirów in 1594, Myszkowski allowed them to maintain their cemetery, which had remained in that area, and granted

15 On such a dispute between Marcin Czechowic, an advocate of the Reformation, and Jacob the Jew of Bełżyce, see Odpis Jakóba Żyda z Bełżyc na Dialogi Marcina Czechowica, na który zaś odpowiada tenże Marcin Czechowic (Lublin, 1581), and Aleksander Brückner, Rożnowiercy Polscy, vol. 1 (Warsaw, 1905), 252–53. 16 Roman Żelewski, “Myszkowski Piotr,” Polski słownik biograficzny, vol. 22 (Wrocław, 1977), 390–92; Janusz Tazbir, “The Polish Reformation” and Tadeusz Ulewicz, “Polish Huma- nism and Its Italian Sources” in Fiszman, Polish Renaissance, 111–26 and 215–35 respectively. 17 Urszula Augustyniak, “Myszkowski, Zygmunt,” Polski słownik biograficzny, 22: 404– 407. 18 The works were completed by Sigismund’s successor, Ferdinand Myszkowski, ca. 1619. 19 See Przypkowski, “Zabytki Reformacji w Kielecczyżnie.” 20 Augustyniak, “Myszkowski Zygmunt,” 404–407. from kazimierz to pińczów and szydłów 147 them wide economic rights in Pińczów.21 That same year, he also permitted the Jewish community to acquire a plot of land in Pińczów on which to build a synagogue.22 The earliest date painted on the synagogue walls, 1608/09, indicates that it was already functioning at that time.23 The synagogue is situated between Saint John the Baptist Church (a few minutes’ walk to the north) and the church of Mirów (some 200 m further on the same street, Klasztorna). It is unlikely that the twelve-metre-high, massive masonry building was erected in the central area of the town without the consent of Sigismund Myszkowski, the landowner of Pińczów, who had the prerogative to grant rights for establishing a synagogue in his town and would have been more deeply involved in its construction than the king was in the details of planning and construction of the synagogues in royal towns. The permissive politics of the Myszkowskis toward their Jewish citizens continued throughout the seventeenth century. In 1636, Władyslaw Mysz-

21 Guldon and Wijaczka, “Ludność Pińczówa w XVI–XVIII wieku,” 52. The text of Sigismund Myszkowski’s permit of 1594 for maintaining the Jewish cemetery that is cited in ibid., 63 n. 64 does not mention a synagogue in Mirów, as Guldon and Wijaczka suggest. 22 “Naprzód pozwalamy im plac wolny kupić w tymże miasteczku naszym Pińczowie, na osobnym miejscu ku zbudowaniu bóżnice do odprawowania swego nabożeństwa, na którym placu wolno im będzie zbudować domek wedle potrzeby dla swego księdza, kantora i bakałarza, którzy to od wszelkich podatków i straży, jako się w inszych miastach zachowuje, wolnymi być mają” (I permit them in advance to acquire a free site in this our town Pińczów, on a separate place, to build a synagogue for performing their worship; they are allowed to build on this site a house, by necessity, for their priest, cantor, and teacher, who should be free from any taxes and duties, as is accepted in other towns), “Codex Myszkovianae ordi- nationis diplomaticus,” no. 75; cited after Guldon and Wijaczka, “Ludność Pińczówa,” 63–64 n. 65. 23 The Hebrew inscriptions surviving in the Pińczów Synagogue are deciphered and published in Andrzej Trzciński and Marcin Wodziński, “Wystrój malarski synagogi w Pińczowie,” Studia Judaica 2, no. 1(3) (1999): 87–102; 3 no. 1(5) (2000): 91–98. The first inscription containing the earliest date is situated above the pillar in the centre of the western -to the account[:] Shabtai, son of Abra“ ,ל'פרט' ש'בתי בר אברהם זל' ,wall in the prayer hall ,.is 369, i.e ל and ש ,ט ,ל ham, his memory be blessed,” the value of the marked letters 1608–1609. The same name and date are enciphered in the compilation of biblical verses on the eastern jamb of the window in the room to the east of the vestibule, ]ולא[ תקח ש'חד \ ]לא[ תעשו ב'משפט עול \ לא \ ]תשא[ פני דל ]ולא[ ת'הדר בריבו \ ]לא[ תשא פני' גדול בצדק \ תש'פט' עמ'יתך', “[thou shalt not] take a bribe [Deut. 16:19], […] Ye shall do in judgment no unrighteous- ness, thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, [neither shalt thou favour] a poor man in his cause [Ex. 23:3], thou [shalt not] respect the person of the great, in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour [cf. Lev. 16:15].” The first four marked letters combine the מ ,ט ,ש Shabtai), and the sum of the values of the next four marked letters) שבתי name is also 369, i.e., 1608–1609, cf. Trzciński and Wodziński, “Wystrój malarski synagogi (כ) ך and w Pińczowie” 2, no. 1(3): 98, 101; 3 no. 1(5): 91–92. 148 chapter six kowski permitted them to restore the synagogue and to attach a wooden annex to it.24 In 1682, Stanisław Kazimierz Myszkowski allowed them to build another synagogue to accommodate their growing congregation.25

The Pińczów Synagogue: A Protestant Influence or a Bequest?

The old synagogue contains a large prayer hall, almost square in plan (10.75 m wide by 10.1 m long) at its south end, with two additional rooms on the ground floor to the north, above which the women’s gallery is found (Plates 5.1–5.7).26 The outer walls are raised to screen the zigzag roof (Plate 5.6), and the gutters are set into three narrow arched openings in the eastern parapet at the points where the roof slopes downwards (Plate 5.2). The low antechamber on the western part of the north side that is the only annex existing today (Plate 5.1), is attached to a vestibule that was used as a place for prayer on weekdays and as a study hall.27 A small door led from the vestibule into a small annex on the synagogue’s western side (Plate 5.6, no. 3). This older annex has not survived, but it seems still to have existed in 1952 (Plate 5.4, no. 4). Zajczyk, who investigated the Pińczów Synagogue before 1933, thought that this room under the stairs had been used as a jail or a communal treasury beginning in the late-eighteenth century. The older stairs, he argued, ascended from the west side of the northern wall,

24 Dawid Kandel reported that he saw the original document written on parchment and sealed; see idem, “Bóżnica w Pińczowie,” Kwartałnik poświęcony badaniu przeszłości Żydów w Polsce 1, no. 2 (1912), 28. However, the person who signed the document was most likely Władyslaw Myszkowski, who owned the town in 1621–58 and not—as Kandel assumed—Józef Władyslaw Myszkowski, who ruled there from 1685 until 1727. See Andrzej Link-Lenczowski, “Myszkowski, Józef Władyslaw”and Adam Przyboś, “Myszkowski, Władyslaw,” Polski słownik biograficzny, 22: 373–75 and 401–403 respectively. 25 The newer synagogue was demolished during the Holocaust. The text of the privilege is quoted in Guldon and Wijaczka, “Ludność Pińczówa,” 66–67; on the synagogue, see Piechotka, Bramy nieba: Bóżnice murowane, 412. 26 Katalog zabytków, series 3, Województwo Kieleckie, vol. 9, Powiat Pińczowski, eds. Jerzy Z. Łoziński and Barbara Wolff (Warsaw, 1961): 67–68; Sylwester Godzic, “Opis techniczny do inwentaryzacji konserwatorskiej synagogi w Pińczowie opracowanej we wrześ- niu 1974,” typescript (Pińczów, 1974); the latter document was kindly made available to me by the Regional Museum in Pińczów. 27 The ground plan from 1952 (Plate 5.4, no. 3) records a niche, now walled up, in the centre of the northern wall of the vestibule, and Kandel reported that there was a sink for washing hands in it (Kandel, “Bóżnica w Pinczowie,” 35). The use of the vestibule as a smaller prayer hall is suggested by the inscriptions and paintings from the late-17th and first half of the 18th century, which can still be partially seen on the ceiling and the upper part of the walls. from kazimierz to pińczów and szydłów 149 and then turned around the corner, reaching the doors of the gallery on the western side of the upper floor.28 A transverse wall reinforcing the northern wall of the prayer hall delim- its a chamber to the east of the vestibule, probably a communal office and rabbinical court (Plate 5.4, no. 5).29 In the eastern bay of the chamber, two separate lunettes are cut into the barrel vault, and in the western bay, two lunettes meet each other to form a higher passage from the vestibule on the north to the prayer hall on the south. Set on the same axis under the lunettes as the entrance door, the doorway on the chamber’s opposite wall (Plate 5.14) opens off the centre of the niche in the wall of the prayer hall, so that if one looks from inside the hall, the arched doorway seems to be moved to one side (Plate 5.9). A base protruding from the bottom of the wall to the right of the entrance, within the arch, may be the remnant of a structure that originally occupied this extra space:30 perhaps an alms box, lampstand, or bowl, attached to the wall. The prayer hall is 9.33 m high and is spanned with a great barrel vault supported by three arches on each longitudinal wall and resting on corbels set at the half-way up the walls. The vault abutting the two storeys of the rooms at the north is strengthened on the south from outside by a pair of long narrow buttresses and by wider buttresses at the four corners of the building. In the hall, the upper sections of the east and west walls are occupied by a small round window in the centre, above two large round- arched windows on either side; the same large windows are found in the lunettes on the southern wall. On the lower level, a large arched niche is set under each of these windows and under the apertures on the north. An additional women’s gallery was attached to the western wall of the prayer hall on the ground floor; this annex is seen on the right-hand side in Plate 5.3. The women entered it through a wooden vestibule facing to the west, and could hear and partially see the the men worshipping through two small windows in the niches on the western wall.31

28 Szymon Zajczyk, “Bóżnice renesansowe w Polsce, I, Bóżnica w Pińczowie,” Wiado- mości Krajoznawcze 14 (1933): 4–7. The entrance into the women’s gallery on the upper floor is possible through an arched door on its western side (Plate 5.5, no. 3). The two-floor annex that contained a staircase leading to the women’s gallery on the upper floor (Plate 5.3) was destroyed during the Nazi occupation. 29 Trzciński and Wodziński, “Wystrój malarski synagogi w Pińczowie” 2, no. 1(3): 101–102; 3 no. 1(5): 93. 30 This base has been omitted in Białecki’s cross-section, Plate 5.7. 31 Białecki’s drawing shows that in 1952, a small, low-arched window, partially walled up, is seen within the right-hand niche in the western wall of the prayer hall (Plate 5.6, no. 6), and a large hole occupied the place of the second low-arched window in the left niche (Plate 5.6, no.7). A short vertical jamb of this broken window is discernable on the 150 chapter six From the surviving evidence, it seems that the women’s gallery on the upper floor of the Pińczów Synagogue is the earliest separate chamber for women that was integrated into the body of the synagogue in the Ashke- nazic diaspora.32 The “women’s synagogue” of 1212/13 in Worms was attached to the northern side of the older synagogue of 1174/75.33 That case had remained unique until such annexes were built in the east European synagogues in the late-sixteenth or early-seventeenth century when, for example, a low annex for women was constructed along the northern wall of the Old Synagogue in Kazimierz.34 In 1638, two separate Jewish prayer houses, a larger men’s synagogue and a smaller women’s, were built in Chęciny, a town approximately 40 km from Pińczów.35 Second to that in Pińczów, a women’s section, planned as an integral part of the synagogue space and not as a later addition, was the gallery in the prayer hall of Isaac’s synagogue of 1638–44 in Kazimierz.36 The square prayer hall spanned by a barrel vault creates an effect characteristic of Renaissance architecture, as it had done in the High Synagogue in Kazimierz in the early 1560s (Plate 3.6). The longitudinal direction of the vault in the Pińczów Synagogue fits the main liturgical axis connecting the bimah in the middle of the hall to the Torah ark in the centre of the eastern wall. An early barrel vault supported by corbels situated above the piers of the longitudinal arcades is found in the parish church in Chęciny (built in 1603; Fig. 66).37 Although in the Pińczów Synagogue, the much shorter piers are attached to the wall between arched niches and the corbels are set lower down than those in the nave in the Chęciny church, in both buildings the barrel vault rests on the corbels that are fixed on the walls above the piers, which end in simple geometric imposts supporting semicircular arches. The spanning of the prayer hall in Pińczów predates the Baroque type of barrel vault that rested directly on the piers of the longitudinal arcades as in the nave of the church in Klimontów (1617–20; Fig. 67).

right side of the hole, to the left of the pier’s capital. Later on, a door was set into the left niche, and the rest of that hole has been walled up. 32 In pre-exile Spain, a women’s gallery with openings into the prayer hall was built on the upper floor of private synagogues: the synagogue of 1315 in Cordoba and Abulafia’s synagogue of ca. 1357 in Toledo (Fig. 1). 33 Böcher, “Die Alte Synagoge zu Worms,” 52–57, 105–108. 34 See Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 5. 35 Piechotka, Bramy nieba: Bóżnice murowane, 145. 36 See the bibliography in note 3 on page 115. 37 Cf. also note 62 on page 130. from kazimierz to pińczów and szydłów 151 The large arched niches surrounding the prayer hall in the Pińczów Synagogue (Plates 5.9–5.11) are used to reinforce the walls. This technique was occasionally used by builders in Poland, but unlike the case of the Pińczów Synagogue, the space below the arch was usually walled up, and the composite structure was concealed under plaster. The empty space left inside the arcade creates a row of niches around the hall. As pre-Second World War photographs show (e.g., Plates 5.9–5.10), the congregation used the extra space for wooden seats surmounted by bookcases. The arched niches encompassing the entire prayer hall are not found in other east European synagogues,38 even when the congregants sat around the hall, as in the Altneuschul in Prague (Fig. 5). The composition unifying the prayer hall, vestibule, and women’s section of the Pińczów Synagogue within a compact cubic space also differs from the hierarchical arrangement of auxiliary rooms abutting the dominating space of the prayer hall that was common in earlier Ashkenazic synagogues. A similar united space incorporating the prayer hall and two storeys of chambers—here on the southern side of the building—is found in the synagogue of Chęciny, built ca. 1668 on the site of the separate men’s and women’s prayer houses of 1638 that were damaged by fire in 1657.The unusual plan of the new synagogue might have been either inherited from the location of the old buildings or influenced by the synagogue in Pińczów about 40 km south of Chęciny.39 The ruins of one more remarkable synagogue have been found about 25 km west of Pińczów, in the magnate’s town of Wodzisław (Fig. 68). The early history of this building is vague. Since plaster has fallen from large areas on the walls (Fig. 69), one may observe the masonry of flat stones, a technique characteristic of the first half of the seventeenth century.40 This estimated date refutes the indentification of the construction with a synagogue mentioned in Wodzisław in the sixteenth century.41 The brickwork buttresses were most probably built a century later, perhaps after the fire

38 The arcade in Pińczów differs from the irregular niches on the eastern and northern walls in the Isserls’ Synagogue (Plates 2.10–11). It is possible that the niches are parts of the living room that existed in Israel Isserl’s house before it was rebuilt into the synagogue; see note 9 on page 45. 39 Piechotka, Bramy nieba: Bóżnice murowane, 145–48. 40 A. Swarzewski, “Badania architektoniczne spichrza w Wodzisławiu, pow. Jędrzejów, woj. Kieleckie,” typescript (Cracow, 1967), 17–19; this report is referred to in Adam Penkalla, Żydowskie ślady w województwe kieleckim i radomskim (Radom, 1992), 104. 41 F. Kiryk and F. Leśniak, “Skupiska żydowskie w miastach małopolskich do końca XVI wieku” in Żydzi w Małopolsce, ed. F. Kiryk (Przemyśl, 1991), 35. 152 chapter six of 1747,42 to reinforce the corners of the building and the interfenestral spaces of the main hall. Similar rows of bricks wall up the upper section of the high arched windows on the western façade. On the lateral façades, three such windows lit the eastern area of the building, and the fourth arched opening further to the west in the northern façade served as the entrance to the gallery at the upper floor. The distribution of the windows on the façades fits the division of the inner space into the nearly square- plan high prayer hall and shorter two-storeyed room on its western side. The symmetrical masses of the Wodzisław synagogue, with its open gallery to the west of the prayer hall—unlike the separate rooms on a lateral side as in Pińczów—are typical of Catholic churches. In Isaac’s synagogue (completed in 1644) in Kazimierz, the Italian Giovanni Trevano43 build an open gallery for the women above the vestibule on the western side of the oblong prayer hall in a form resembling an organ loft at the west end of the Catholic church. Over time, the parallelepiped space containing the women’s chamber above the entrance floor on the west side of the prayer hall became accepted in traditional synagogue architecture of eastern and central Europe. As a rule, there was a solid wall with small windows between the women’s section and the men’s hall.44 The Pińczów synagogue scarcely provided impetus for that development, remaining peculiar in both Jewish and Catholic sacral architecture of its time. An example of the ritual architecture showing a few traits in common with the Pińczów synagogue was the Calvinist and Arian churches built in the areas around Pińczów in the mid-sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Reformists’ immediate solution for their worship in Polish towns was the seizing of Catholic churches and stripping the images from them. How- ever, when planning their new prayer houses, the Protestants experiment- ed with forms that were free of associations with the Papist church. They did not create any planning that became canonic in Reformist architecture, but their experiments yielded a few new types of sacral buildings in Po- land.45 Many of those were storeyed, unadorned structures made of stone or brick. There were smaller churches that were built on a square plan (for

42 On the history of the synagogue building, see Penkalla, Żydowskie ślady, 103–105. 43 See note 4 on page 116. 44 Open, screened, or veiled-off balconies for women were built in the prayer halls of Italian and Dutch synagogues as early as the 17th century, but such balconies are unknown in synagogues built in eastern Europe before the 19th century. 45 Tadeusz Przypkowski, “Zabytki Reformacji w Kielecczyżnie” in Studia renesansowe 1 (Wroclaw, 1956): 56–82. from kazimierz to pińczów and szydłów 153 example, those in Sancygniów46 and Chełmce, near Strawczyn), and larger ones built on an oblong plan (such as those in Cieszkowy and Ublinka). In the seventeenth-century Calvinist church in Cieszkowy (Fig. 70), two doorways in the vestibule on the ground floor provided a separate entrance for men and women to their sections of the high prayer hall. Wooden stairs fixed on the outer wall led to the apartments of the minister in the upper floor and loft. In the Arian church in Ublinka, a less ruined example of its kind, there is a similar combination of the vestibule and prayer hall under the dwelling chambers, all inside the cubical stone structure supported by massive buttresses on its four corners.47 Noticeably, the synagogues in Pińczów and Wodzisław resemble the unadorned Reformist churches of a simple geometric form and separate entrances for men and women. We cannot state whether any of the churches in Sancygniów, Chełmce, and Cieszkowy, the farthest of which is about 50 km from Pińczów, was seen by the builders of the synagogue there around 1600 (excluded from the list, the church in Ublinka is reliably dated to 1630). Tadeusz Przypkowski (1905–77) had a theory that the Jews could have adopted former Reformist churches for synagogues. He assumed that the unusual synagogue in Wodzisław was a prayer house established by the Reformist Jan Lanckoroński ca. 1556, in addition to the local Catholic church, which this magnate gave to the Calvinists in 1551. Nineteenth-century historians reported that after the restoration of Catholicism in Wodzisław ca. 1621, the former Catholic and then Calvinist church was destroyed, and the Reformists leaving the town sold their estates to the Jews who had settled in the town beginning around 1600.48 Tadeusz Przypkowski alleged that the second Reformist prayer house in the town in the 1550s was purchased by the Jews in 1621, who then converted it into a synagogue.49 His theory has been refuted by a more recent examination of the building technique and materials that date the Wodzisław synagogue to the first half of the seventeenth century.50 Similar legends about

46 Ibid., 74–75. 47 Ibid., 70–72. 48 Michał Baliński and Tymoteusz Lipiński, Starożytna Polska pod względem historycznym, jeograficznym i statystycznym opisana, vol. 2 (Warsaw, 1844), 151; Filip Sulimierski, Bronisław Chlebowski, Władysław Walewski, Słownik Geograﬁczny Królestwa Polskiego i innych krajów słowiańskich, vol. 13 (Warsaw, 1880), 732. 49 Przypkowski, “Zabytki Reformacji w Kielecczyżnie,” 60–64. 50 Swarzewski, “Badania architektoniczne spichrza w Wodzisławiu,” 17–19. 154 chapter six the conversion of Reformist churches in Orla in northeastern Poland51 and Pidhaytsi (Polish: Podhajce) in Podolia52 into synagogues were also dis- proven by recent technical and historical investigations.53 Whilst criticising the others for their proclamations of any old “granary or barn” to be a former Arian church, Przypkowski himself believed that before the building in Wodzisław became a synagogue, it belonged to Ari- ans.54 The legends of the Arian heritage shared by Polish romanticist- minded historians and local folklore were etiological: they intended to explain the origin of the strange old edifices, mostly abandoned or ruined, that did not look like Catholic churches. In Wodzisław, as well as Orla and Pidhaytsi, the legends of the Arian churches turned into synagogues closed the gaps in local history. No Reformist church has survived in any of these former strongholds of the Reformation, nor was any record concerning the establishment of the synagogues found there. The legends both revealed the lost churches and explained the origins of the local synagogues. It is noteworthy that no such story was published about Pińczów, where the privilege for purchasing land for the synagogue has been found. To the best of my knowledge, the stories of a synagogue converted from a church did not circulate in Jewish folklore, and those Jewish researchers who quoted them based them on Polish publications.55 Nevertheless, despite the fictitious nature of the legends, they reflect the true affinity of the synagogue and the Reformist prayer houses in the region, which did not look like Catholic churches and included a separate room for female worshippers. Although there are no arcades or colonnades around the prayer hall in a few of the surviving Polish Reformist churches, the arcade surrounding the hall in the Pińczów synagogue places the worshippers around the middle of the space in the fashion characteristic of the arrangement of Reformist worshippers around the preacher’s pulpit in

51 Wiesław Kaczyński, “Z badań nad synagogą w Orli,” Białostocczyzna 1, no. 5 (1987): 3–7. 52 Pamiatniki gradostroitel’stva i arkhitektury Ukrainskoi SSR (Monuments of City Plan- ning and Architecture in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic), ed. Nikolai L. Zharikov, vol. 3 (Kiev, 1985), 81 (Russian). 53 On Orla: Dariusz Stankiewicz, “Synagoga w Orli,” Biuletyn konserwatorski wojewódz- twa Białostockiego 1 (1995): 81–84; Piechotka, Bramy nieba: Bóżnice murowane, 362–64. On Pidhaytsi: Sergey R. Kravtsov, “Gothic Survival in Synagogue Architecture of Ruthenia, Podolia and Volhynia in the 17th–18th Centuries,” Architectura. Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Baukunst / Journal of the History of Architecture 1 (2005), 92. 54 Przypkowski, “Zabytki Reformacji w Kielecczyżnie,” 57. 55 E.g., David Davidovitch, who attributed the synagogue in Wodzisław to the Refor- mists in idem, Shuln in Poyln (Synagogues in Poland) (Buenos Aires, 1961), 492 (Yiddish) referred to Przypkowski, “Zabytki Reformacji w Kielecczyżnie,” 60–64. from kazimierz to pińczów and szydłów 155 the centre of the church, expressing their emphasis on preaching. Yet the Huguenots in France and the Calvinists in the Netherlands built colonnades bearing galleries surrounding the pulpit in the centre of the prayer hall in their temples. In Amsterdam’s Spanish-Portuguese Synagogue, that design was first reworked in 1639 for the colonnades and galleries parallel- ing the two long sides with the benches, which face the central bimah.56 Assuming that the Reformists could have influenced synagogue architecture in Poland even earlier than they did in the Netherlands, we may raise two hypotheses of how the idea had an effect on the unknown architect of the Pińczów Synagogue. One is an imitation of the model: the Christian builder accepted synagogue worship in the terms of a non-Catholic service performed around the podium, and thus considered the Reformist liturgical space to be appropriate for that aim. Another possibility is that the legend about a Reformist prayer house converted into a synagogue is true regarding Pińczów. During the twelve years that the Reformation flourished in Pińczów under Mikołaj Oleśnicki, from 1550 to 1562, or even later, until the restoration of Catholicism there in 1586, the Reformists, who had seized the Cath- olic Saint John the Baptist Church, could have built another edifice planned in accordance with their own needs, in the centre of town. The hall en- circled by an arcade with benches may have originally been planned to accommodate the worshippers around the preacher and the synods of the Polish Reformists that were held in Pińczów almost annually from 1550 until the 1570s.57 If there were a Reformist prayer house in the town, Piotr Myszkowski would have either confiscated the building or ceased holding services there when restoring Catholic rule and returning the Saint John the Baptist Church to the Catholics in 1586. And if so, when Sigismund Myszkowski granted the Jews of Pińczów the right to establish a synagogue in 1594, they could have aquired the existing building rather than build a new one. The lack of any imagery or symbols in the building could have facilitated the Jews’ agreeing to worship in a former Christian edifice, and the Catholic magnate could not have objected to transferring the former non-Catholic prayer house from one kind of “infidels” (the Reformists) to another (the Jews). To adapt the prayer hall for the liturgy, the Jews placed a bimah in the centre and excavated a niche for the Torah scrolls in the pier between the

56 Helen Rosenau, “The Synagogue and Protestant Church Architecture,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 4 (1941): 80–84; Wischnitzer, Architecture, 83–87. 57 Urban, “Pińczów w okresie reformacji,” 47. 156 chapter six arches in the eastern wall. Perhaps the pier was wider than a minister’s cathedra, but it is narrow for the Torah ark. Although the ark fitted exactly between the two arched niches on the eastern wall (Plate 5.11), there was still not enough space for a cantor’s pulpit. Instead of the traditional recession for the cantor’s pulpit in the right section of the staircase in Ashke- nazic synagogues, a separate stone stand resting on a wooden step was put at the right side on the upper steps in order to support the cantor’s prayerbook and candles (Plate 5.12), leaving on the steps’ left side a narrow passage to the Torah niche. Przypkowski reported on a similar problem in the Reformist prayer house converted into a Catholic church in Sobków in 1570: the space between the windows in the centre of the eastern wall was too narrow, resulting in the altarpiece partially concealing them.58 Furthermore, the assumption that the synagogue is a bequest of the Pińczów Reformists proposes an explanation for the discrepancy between several stone carved parts and the masonry of the building. The opening of the pilastered and arched stone frame of the entrance to the prayer hall (Plate 5.14) is smaller than the gateway behind it, so that the edges of the frame’s unadorned rear side are seen from the prayer hall (Plate 5.15). The massive, crude stonework of the walls contrasts with the accurately carved built-in architectural details. The imposts of the arched niches on the walls are rough-hewn slabs with an octagonal panel carved on the surface facing the prayer hall (seen on the left in Plate 5.15). Unlike them, each corbel supporting the vault’s arches is a finely sculpted block with profiled cornices resting on a shaped triangular or trapezoid support (Plate 5.9). The lower edges of the arch near the four corners of the hall are narrower than those in the centre of the lateral walls, but instead of creating either narrower corbels or corner corbels to support those arches, the sculptor just cut off a part of the standard corbel. On the ceiling, the network that looks like the ribs of cross or groin vaults is in fact a stucco decoration of the single vault (Plates 5.5, 5.8). The mouldings form a symmetrical net-like pattern connecting the three squares on the central axis with the outline of the lunettes, and a stone rosette is set in the centre of each field and delimited by the intersecting ribs. Noticeably, the diagonal mouldings end in a non-functional manner along the curve of the arches rather that at their bases. A precedent of the decorative mouldings on the synagogue ceiling, dated to 1520–35, is found in the Horowitz (Pinchas) Synagogue in Prague, where they simulate in-

58 Przypkowski, “Zabytki Reformacji w Kielecczyżnie,” 65. from kazimierz to pińczów and szydłów 157 tersecting ribs of Late Gothic vaults.59 In Pińczów, the row of great squares and especially the lines radiating from them (Plate 5.8) create a spatial effect emphasizing the wide span of the ceiling characteristic of the tran- sitional type from the Gothic vault ribs to Early Baroque ceiling ornamentation that first developed in Polish architecture in the early-seventeenth century.60 It seems that the prayer hall was originally built as an unadorned space and only later was decorated with the entrance portal framing, wall corbels, and ceiling mouldings, and was equipped with the stone Torah ark and bimah. The stucco moldings as well as the surviving Torah ark, alms boxes, and corbels made of limestone from the quarries near Pińczów, might have been ordered from the masonry workshop there in the late- sixteenth and early-seventeenth century. It might have been done to adapt the ascetic building of a former Reformist church for a synagogue. It is still possible that the Jews of Pińczów intended first to have any—even if modest—place for worship, then prayed in it for some time, and only later enhanced it with more expensive stonework, as seemingly happened in those years in Szydłów.

Szydłów: A Synagogue in a Royal Town

Szydłów, which was granted municipal rights in 1329, belonged to the crown and hosted sojourns of the king and his court. Casimir the Great ordered walls to be built to protect Szydłów, and established a castle and the Church of Saint Ladislaus there. In the first half of the sixteenth century, Szydłów was a prosperous, growing town: there were nine professional guilds in 1523, and the royal castle and the town walls were renovated after the fires of 1528 and 1544. In that same time, the municipality built the town hall (destroyed in 1880), as well as the Church and Hos- pital of the Holy Spirit (now in ruins).61

59 See note 79 on page 42. 60 On this development, see Miłobędzki, Architektura Polska XVII wieku, 1: 154–57. 61 Baliński and Lipiński, Starożytna Polska, 2: 367–71; [Bronisław Chlebowski], “Szyd- łów,” Słownik geograficzny królestwa Polskiego i innych krajów słowiańskich, vol. 12 (Warsaw, 1892), 95–97; Katalog zabytków sztuki w Polsce, series 3, Województwo Kieleckie, vol. 1, Powiat Buski, eds. Jerzy Z. Łoziński and Barbara Wolff (Warsaw, 1957): 73–80; Tadeusz Maszczyń- ski, Szydłów (Kielce, 1967); Crossley, Gothic Architecture, 158, 204; Bohdan Guerquin, Zamki w Polsce (Warsaw 1984), 300–301. 158 chapter six A Jewish presence in Szydłów is older than that in Pińczów: Casimir IV confirmed the privileges of the Jewish community in 1453;62 there was a Jewish cemetery in 1470;63 and John Albrecht allowed the Jews of Szydłów to trade in alcoholic beverages in 1494.64 The masonry synagogue is situated in the former Obigiński Square on the northern edge of the town, far from the marketplace, churches, and the castle. The early history of the synagogue was studied by Adam Penkalla, who proposed that it was established before 1564, when a register of the properties in Szydłów reported that the Jews had built a synagogue on an empty lot that was once returned to the king after its feudal owner died intestate.65 A register from 1627 provides more details about the Obigiński Square, specifying that the king presented the site to the governor of Szydłów, Marcin Zborowski, who sold it to “Mark the Jew.” Since Zborowski took the governor’s position in 1534, that year is the terminus post quem of the synagogue building.66 The synagogue was built as an elongated rectangular main mass with a small annex on its western side (Plates 7.1–7.5). The existing two-storeyed structure at this side (Plate 7.3) is a recent reconstruction, but a smaller vestibule might have been built here together with the prayer hall,67 as was done in many medieval Ashkenazic synagogues. Since the land on which the synagogue is situated slopes northwards, the floor of the prayer hall is below ground level on the south side of the synagogue, and, from the outside, the northern wall is higher than the southern one. The walls are reinforced by the massive, two-tiered buttresses set between the great windows and diagonally in the corners. This technique was customary in local building: for example, buttresses similarly support the corners and

62 This review of the early Jewish history of Szydłów is based on Adam Penkalla, “Syna- goga i gmina w Szydłowie,” Biuletyn Żydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego 1/2 (121/22) (1982): 57–70. 63 J. Wiśniewski, Historyczny opis kościołów, miast, zabytków i pamiątek w stopnickiem (Marjówka, 1929), 294. 64 [Chlebowski], “Szydłów,” 96. 65 Penkalla, “Synagoga i gmina w Szydłowie,” 61 n. 22. 66 Ibid., 61 n. 21, 25. 67 The masonry annex seen in a photograph taken before 1939 (Plate 7.2) was partially destroyed during the Second World War. See Penkalla, “Synagoga i gmina w Szydłowie,” 70. The reconstruction of the stone entrance vestibule and wooden women’s section in 1978 (Plate 7.3) was based on a watercolour by Teodor Chrząński (Plate 7.1) included in the album of Kazimierz Stronczyński, Obraz ogólny różnego rodzaju zabytków w Królestwie Polskim. Widoki zabytków starożytności w Królestwie Polskim służące do objaśnienia tychże starożyt- ności, sporządzone przez Delegację wysłaną z polecenia Rady Administracyjnej Królestwa w latach 1844–1846, vol. 1 (1850), the University of Warsaw Library, Print Room, no. 243, plate 49. from kazimierz to pińczów and szydłów 159 walls of the Gothic Saint Ladislaus Church of ca. 1355, and buttresses attached in diagonal to a corner are found in the Church of All Saints built around 1400 and the fourteenth-century palace, the so-called “Knights’ Hall” (Fig. 71) in the Szydłów Castle that was reconstructed in 1528 and 1544. The function of the upper section of the synagogue walls screening the roof68 is similar to that of the Renaissance fireproof parapets such as the “Polish attic” added to the Old Synagogue in Kazimierz after 1557. How- ever, this, a remote model, seems to have had no effect on the Szydłów Synagogue. The smooth transition from the synagogue walls to the crenel- lated parapet almost duplicates the battlement with simple oblong merlons sloping outwards on the palace in the town’s castle and the merlons, the same in form but greater in size, on the town’s wall. On the palace, the western side of which is integrated into the town’s wall, the battlement could be used for defense. In contrast, the synagogue’s parapet could not have played the same role because of the approximate 80 m between the synagogue and the nearest section of the town’s wall, the crenels that are much shallower than those on the palace, and there was probably no access to the roof from inside the building. However, the fortress-like appearance of the synagogue could also evoke in the Jews the sense of the protection that God grants to the faithful. Moreover, the horizontal, crenel- lated skyline clearly distinguished the synagogue from the town’s churches with their high, gabled roofs, and might have suggested its association with the architecture in the royal castle and, by implication, the king’s patronage over the Jews. The southern side of the synagogue faces a square, the former marketplace of the Jewish community, and there is an entrance leading through the southern side of the annex to a portal with a low segmented arch in the western wall of the prayer hall, to the south of its central axis.69 Here the doorway could not have been opened in the exact centre of the wall because of the buttress attached to this spot from the outside (Plate 7.4). The off-centre entrance allows the congregant to catch a glimpse of the Torah ark in the eastern wall, behind the bimah in the midst of the single nave (10.5 by 14.08 m). The inner space is well lighted by four tall windows set

68 The tripartite roof, whose peak is seen above the roof parapet in Plate 7.2 and is shown in Plate 7.6, was built after Chrząński had painted the synagogue with no roof seen above the crenellation (Plate 7.1). Wischnitzer’s assumption (Architecture, 122–23) that the original roof was flat is borne out by the location of three arched openings in the eastern parapet, which rise from the level lower than the nadir of the new roof. 69 A smaller auxiliary entrance at the east corner on the synagogue’s northern wall leads directly into the main hall. 160 chapter six high on the wall in the lunettes on both long sides and two in the lunettes on the eastern wall on either side of the ark.70 A small round window was originally pierced in each of the three lunettes on the western wall.71 The spanning of the prayer hall is composed of a barrel vault in the centre with ribbed vaults at each end (Plate 7.7). The shorter walls are topped by three lunettes, and four lunettes are on the longitudinal walls. Between 1507 and 1536, similar combinations of a barrel, ribbed, and groin vaults with lunettes on two or all four walls varied in the rooms on the first floor of the west and north wings and in the northern section of the east wing of the Wawel Castle in Cracow.72 The elongated hall with the entrance from a corner area at its western section was a traditional layout of both greater double-naved synagogues and smaller single-hall ones in the medieval Ashkenazic communities. However, the prayer hall in Szydłów, wider than the single halls of the Horowitz Synagogue in Prague and the Isserls’ Synagogue in Kazimierz, was not divided into naves. In Szydłów, where the Saint Ladislaus Parish Church is double-naved, this plan might have been associated with Chris- tianity. It is probably even more important that after the last two-nave synagogue was built in Kazimierz in the late-fifteenth century, the space divided by axial columns was no more considered befitting the atmosphere of collective worship in the synagogue. The entrance, although off-centre but situated more or less opposite the Torah ark, and the composite vault (approximately 9.8 m high) unite the inner space and give a Renaissance- type quality to the synagogue interior. Any of the builders working in Szydłów between 1534 and 1564, and more likely those participating in the renovation of the castle and the town walls and in the building of the Church and Hospital of the Holy Spirit after the fire of 1544, could have constructed a great hall for the synagogue using the local techniques of masonry of roughly hewn stones, reinforced by buttresses, and then plastered. Those craftsmen were also able to imitate the battlement of the palace in the royal castle and to reproduce the

70 The position of the large windows within the lunettes off the centre of the arch (Plates 7.6a, 7.7) may indicate a later reconstruction of the vault, during which the lunettes were lowered. 71 Adolf Szyszko-Bohusz, “Materjały do architektury bożnic w Polsce,” Prace Komisji Historii Sztuki 4 (1927): 16, mentioned three oculi on the western wall. Two of them were in the lateral lunettes, and the third walled-up window in the central lunette is discernable in the photograph of that wall from the 1920s or 1930s (Warsaw, the Institute of Art of the Polish Academy of Sciences, neg. no. 4691). 72 See Helena and Stefan Kozakiewicz, Renesans w Polsce, 29. from kazimierz to pińczów and szydłów 161 composite vaults of the court architecture in the synagogue. However, as in Pińczów, the stucco network on the ceiling could not have been done before the early-seventeenth century.73 On the ceiling in Szydłów, some of the ribs outline the lunettes and others complete a loosely symmetrical network consisting of triangular patterns near the lunettes and in the corners, transverse ribs on the barrel vault and a square in the very centre (Plate 7.4b).74 The carved stone rosettes composed of several concentric rings and petals are set on the mouldings (Plate 7.7).75 The corbels on the walls comprise a triangular-shaped floral bracket supporting a rectangular Ionic capital (Plate 7.8), and a twin corbel of the same design is found in the four corners of the hall. The corbels are not functional, as they are placed below the lower edges of the vault without supporting them. The stone-carved Torah ark and polygonal bimah, as we will see, can also be dated to the early-seventeenth century.76 Thus in Szydłów, like in Pińczów and in the Old Synagogue of Kazimierz, the synagogue was given a set of stone carvings many years after it had been established. It seems that the refurbishing of the synagogue was motivated by the sense of stability that the Jews in Szydłów felt in the late-sixteenth century. In 1588, Sigismund III granted them trade rights that were almost equal to those of the Christian inhabitants of the town, and in 1590, he confirmed the royal privilege given earlier by Casimir IV.77 In 1598, shortly after Przesław Mojecki accused the Szydłów Jews of a ritual murder and expressed displeasure with their synagogue in his Żydowskie okrucieństwa, mordy i zabobony (Jewish Atrocities, Murders, and Superstitions), Sigis- mund III reconfirmed their legal right to the synagogue at the Warsaw

73 See note 60 on page 157. 74 For example, an asymmetry is seen on the ceiling near the Torah ark. To the left of it, a moulding connects the left edge of the corbel on the wall with the large rosette on the central axis of the ceiling. However, the corresponding section to the right of the ark rises from the moulding of the lunette rather than from the edge of the corbel (Plate 7.7). 75 The rosettes are of three different sizes: large ones are found on the central axis, and two sizes of small ones are situated on several lateral ribs and at the apexes of the triangular vaults. There may have been a rosette in the centre of the square frame on the ceiling, as in 1909, Adolf Szyszko-Bohusz marked it with a double ring as he had done with the other large rosettes (drawing, Institute of Art, the Polish Academy of Sciences, neg. no. 2040). 76 This dating was first proposed by Kazimierz Stronczyński (note 67 on page 158) in 1850. See Penkalla, “Synagoga i gmina w Szydłowie,” 62 n. 32. 77 Jakub Goldberg, Jewish Privileges in the Polish Commonwealth, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1985): 335–39; Penkalla, “Synagoga i gmina w Szydłowie,” 61. 162 chapter six Sejm (Council).78 The masons able to produce fashionable stone fixtures for that synagogue were found nearby, in Pińczów.

The Masonry Workshop in Pińczów

A rise in architectural and sculptural activities in Pińczów began when the town was transferred to Piotr Myszkowski in 1586 and continued from 1591 under his successor, Sigismund Gonzaga Myszkowski. Sigismund reinforced the Catholic character of the town and developed it as the residence of a prosperous magnate. He initiated the renovation of the Saint John the Baptist Church (Fig. 72), the establishment of the Chapel of Saint Anna,79 the reconstruction of the old castle, and the building of baths and a fountain in the marketplace. The main projects of the Myszkowskis were directed by Santi (Ognisan- ti) Gucci (ca. 1530–1600), who had studied under his father, Giovanni di Niccoló Albenghi Gucci (also called della Camilla) and under Baccio Ban- dinelli (1493–1560) in Florence.80 Researchers suggest that prior to his leaving for Poland, Santi Gucci visited Rome.81 He began his activities in Poland by creating masks for the attic wall of Sukiennice Hall in Cracow about 1557 (Fig. 55). As we noted above, nothing proves that Santi Gucci was a relative of Matteo Gucci, the restorer of the Old Synagogue in Kazimierz.82 Santi Gucci’s professional career seems to have been much more intensive than that of Matteo: Santi served as the court sculptor to Kings Sigismund II Augustus and Stephen Batory, and he is believed to have created many

78 Ibid. 79 On the early history of Pińczów, see [Bronisław Chlebowski], “Pińszów,” Słownik geograficzny królestwa Polskiego i innych krajów słowiańskich, vol. 8 (Warsaw, 1888), 159–64; Katalog zabytków sztuki w Polsce, 3, Województwo Kieleckie, 9: 55–69; Bieniarzówna and Małecki, Dzieje Krakowa, 2: 105, 136–38, 296, 305, 343; Dziubiński, Przechadzka po Pińczowie i okolicy; Jan Górecki, Sławne i znane postacie w dziejach Pińczowa (Pińczów, 1998). 80 On Santi Gucci and his workshop, see Krystyna Sinko, Santi Gucci fiorentino i jego szkola (Cracow, 1933); Szymon Zajczyk, "Muratorzy zamojscy (1583–1609),” Biuletyn Histo- rii Sztuki i Kultury 7, no. 2 (1939): 201–212; Adam Bochnak, “Gucci Santi,” Polski słownik biograficzny, 9: 132–33; Hornung, “Rodowód artystyczny,” 227–30; Fischinger, Santi Gucci; idem, “Gucci Santi,” Słownik artystów Polskich, vol. 2 (Wrocław, 1975), 510–512; Miłobędzki, Architektura Polska XVII wieku, 1: 44, 129, 135, 232; Helena and Stefan Kozakiewicz, Renesans w Polsce, 178; Helena Kozakiewicz, Rzeźba XVI wieku w Polsce, 153–57. Tadeusz Chrzanowski, Sztuka w Polsce od I do III Rzeczypospolitej: zarys dziejów (Warsaw, 1998), 15–22. 81 Zbigniew Hornung, “Rodowód artystyczny twórczości rzeźbiarskiej Santi Gucciego,” Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 24, no. (1962): 228–29. 82 See note 26 on page 121. from kazimierz to pińczów and szydłów 163 sculptures and projects of several buildings. Since Santi Gucci had signed only the Tomb of Batory in the Lady Chapel in Wawel Cathedral, the attribution of his other sculptural works is based mainly on their stylistic features. During his work in Poland, he developed a vernacular Mannerist style characterised by picturesque interpretations of Renaissance architectonic elements and their free combinations in a dynamic composition.83 Along with his work at the royal court, Santi Gucci and his assistants executed numerous commissions for their upper- and middle-class clien- tele throughout Poland. For the stone sculptures, he mainly used limestone from the Pińczów quarries. In 1586, when Santi Gucci began to work for the Myszkowski family, he acquired a private house in Pińczów and established a workshop there, which became a notable school of the Mannerist sculpture and architecture in Poland. The stone carvers of Pińczów often worked up the slabs as semi-manufactured objects for sculptural and architectonic decorations, which were then sent to their destinations and were combined and completed. After Gucci’s death in 1600, his workshop was managed by Błażej Gocman (Gottesman). Gocman and several of Gu- cci’s other former assistants completed a number of Gucci’s projects. These sculptors continued, in general lines, Gucci’s Mannerism in their own works during the next decade, still playing a prominent role in the sphere of monumental stone carvings in the territories from Cracow to Zamość. An example of the Mannerist stone-carved frames common to Cracow and the Pińczów area is the wall tomb of Zofia Czerska of 1584 (Fig. 81).84 The upper part of Czerska’s tomb demonstrates the dynamic Mannerist scheme known to us from the synagogue arks in Szydłów and Pińczów: it comprises protruding central supports with Ionic capitals contrasting with the flattened lateral pilasters.85 These works also have in common a broken stepped architrave and frieze, topped by dentils, under a straight cornice. In all of these stone frames, one finds short, almost square small stands crowned by Ionic capitals: in the sculptural epitaph in Cracow, two such

83 Jan Białostocki, “Mannerism and ‘Vernacular’ in Polish Art” in Walter Friedlaender zum 90. Geburtstag (Berlin, 1965), 47–57; idem, “Two Types of International Mannerism: Italian and Northern,” Umĕni 18 (1970): 105–109; idem, Art of the Renaissance, 84–88. 84 See Burnatowa, “Ornament renesansowy w Krakowie,” 95–99. 85 The flattened outer pilasters aside the protruding central supports, a combination found among Berrecci’s works at Wawel (Fig. 56), became characteristic of the Mannerist sepulchral sculptures of Gucci’s workshop; see, for example, Fig. 73. See also Alicja Kurząt- kowska, “Rzeźba pińczowska na Lubelszczyżnie” in Sztuka około roku 1600. Materiały sesji Stowarzyszenia historyków sztuki, Lublin, 1972 (Warsaw, 1974), 168–69. 164 chapter six stands bear flaming vases; on the Szydłów ark, two empty stands flank the pediment; and in Pińczów, a single stand supporting a vase is set on the apex of the pediment. The deep triangular pediment composed of sharply projecting cornices with dentils and enclosing the crowned coat of arms of Czerska closely resembles the pediment with a crown on the Pińczów ark. The string of a plant embellishing the pilasters of her epitaph is also seen on the pilasters of the ark in Szydłów. The stonemasons of Pińczów were the most attainable craftsmen for refurbishing the synagogues in their town and in Szydłów. The stone arks in both synagogues, although different in size and outline, are made of the same Pińczów limestone and share several formal features with the works by the local workshop. Especially striking is the semblance of the obelisk- like pediment between two Ionic stands on the Szydłów ark and that on the tombstone in the parish church in Kraśnik, about 80 km northeast of Szydłów (Fig. 83). Revising earlier attributions of this tombstone to Santi Gucci’s circle and its dating to the early-seventeenth century, Jerzy Kowal- czyk proposed that this was Gucci’s own work, identified the young couple sculpted above the sarcophagus as a son and daughter of Andrzej Tęczyński and Zofia Dembowska, and deduced that the tombstone was commissioned before this family had sold the town of Kraśnik in 1579.86 The design of the Tree of Life above a pair of volutes at the top of the synagogue ark is similar to the relief of the Tęczyński coat of arms covering the face of the obelisk, which was set on a voluted pedestal. The Ionic pilasters flanking the niche of the ark and the arch on the tombstone are almost identical: the sunken panel on the pilaster trunk bears a small vase with a tall leafy stem ending in three round flowers, and the lower part of the capital is covered by leaves. Thus, despite their different composition, the two Torah arks may be attributed to the same Pińczów school of the Mannerist monumental sculpture. Consequently, the symbolism of their peculiar elements, which are absent from the arks in Kazimierz synagogues—the closed triangular pediment of the Pińczów ark and the obelisk atop the Szydłów ark—was most probably inspired by the artistic conventions shared by Sancti Gucci and his followers in the Pińczów area.

86 Jerzy Kowalczyk, “Legenda o pomniku Jana Baptysty Tęczyńskiego i królewny Cecylii w Kraśniku,” Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 48 (1986): 263–76. Kowalczyk declined the frequently cited attribution of this tombstone as the monument of Jan Tęczyński and Cecylja the Swede, produced under the patronage of the Zamojski family by the followers of Santi Gucci after 1604; e.g., see Sinko, Santi Gucci fiorentino, 37–38; Fischinger, Santi Gucci, 84. revivals of ancient art in the design of arks 165

CHAPTER SEVEN

REVIVALS OF ANCIENT ART IN THE DESIGN OF LATE-SIXTEENTH- TO MID-SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY ARKS

Following the general principles of Renaissance design of Torah arks in the synagogues of Kazimierz near Cracow, the designers of the arks in Pińczów and Szydłów introduced into the east European synagogues new forms of the arks’ top: a classical pediment and a high, obelisk-like pediment. Com- mon in the decoration of the Kazimierz arks, the vegetative relief in the pediment was interpreted in Szydłów to be a seven-petaled plant reminiscent of the seven-branched candelabrum in the Sanctuary. Later in the seventeenth century, representations of the menorah appeared in synagogues in Kazimierz and spread elsewhere in east European synagogues. The revivals brought to synagogues the visual signs of three ancient cultures: Greco-Roman, Egyptian, and biblical Jewish.

The Triangular Pediment

The all’antica triangular pediment surmounts the Torah ark in the synagogue of Pińczów (Plate 5.12). This stone ark was damaged during the Nazi occupation of the town; it was later removed, and has recently been restored and re-attached to the wall.1 The triangular pediment of nearly equilateral shape was found on medieval Torah arks, including that in the Altneuschul in Prague (Fig. 33).2 The Renaissance arks in Kazimierz had non-framed vegetative pediments of a triangular shape, which diverged from their predecessor, the enclosed triangular pediment raised on the attic panel atop the Torah ark of the Scuola Tedesca in Padua (Fig. 35). In distinction, the pediment of the Pińczów ark designed as a simple low triangle enclosed by classical cornices and resting directly on the entablature gives the whole ark the appearance of a classical aedicula.

1 Julian Słoń, “Projekt fundamentowania oraz przytwierdzenia do ściany, szafy ołtarzowej Aron Kodesz w sali głównej synagogi w Pińczowie,” typescript (Kielce, 1996); the report was kindly made available to me by the Regional Museum in Pińczów; Tambor and Znojek, Społeczeństwo żydowskie w Pińczowie. 2 Cf. Paulus, Die Architektur der Synagoge im Mittelalter, 538–41. 166 chapter seven The association of columnar niches surmounted by a pediment with a sanctuary is traced back to Greco-Roman architecture, where they served as shrines for a sacral or sepulchral image or object, and their Latin definition, the aedicula (literally, “small temple”), was derived from aedis, temple.3 Material and visual evidence that have been uncovered in the modern period show that the aedicula was a main form of the Torah ark in the ancient synagogues,4 but those artifacts might have been unknown in medieval and Renaissance Europe. The classical aedicula was revived in synagogues ca. 1522/23, when a columned marble frame bearing a classical entablature and triangular pediment was built at the Scuola Catalana in Rome (Fig. 22).5 The form was imported from the ecclesiastic art of the Italian Renaissance, where the all’antica aediculae—called there also tabernacoli, after the biblical Tabernacle—were used as shrines or frames of sacred images.6 For example, Lorenzo Ghiberti’s wooden tabernacle produced for the Florentine Arte de’ Linaiuoli (ca. 1433) frames Fra Angelico’s painting of Mary with Child (Fig. 74),7 and Jacopo Sansovino’s marble tabernacle, the Martelli Altar (built from 1518 to 1521) in Sant Agostino of Rome (Fig. 76), encloses a sculpture of the same figures.8 The tabernacle was also a name for a receptacle, stationary or portable, for liturgical vessels housing the consecrated Host, of which an example is Luca della Rob- bia’s tabernacle of 1443 (Fig. 75).9 The transposition of the name for the biblical portable sanctuary onto the church aediculae alludes to the typological parallel of these objects and Christ in his human body or, symboli-

3 See a brief review and bibliography in G. Bendinelli, “Edicola,” Enciclopedia dell’arte antica, classica e orientale, vol. 3 (Rome, 1958), 214–16. 4 Revel-Neher, L’arche d’alliance, 249–50; Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven, 2000), 330–31. 5 Migliau, “Nuove prospettive,” 191–205; Daniela Di Castro, “Gli arredi” in Arte ebraica a Roma e nel Lazio (Rome 1994), 115; idem, “Prìncipi e vendori di stracci: arte nel ghetto del Roma” in Italia ebraica: Oltre duemila anni di incontro tra la cultura italiana e l’ebraismo (Tel Aviv 2007), 175–77. 6 Cf. the usage of tabernaculum in the Vulgate (e.g., Ex. 39:32; Num. 16:26–27; 31:54). 7 Michelangelo Gualandi, Memorie originali riguardanti le Belle Arti, vol. 4 (Bologna 1845), 109–11. 8 A tabernacolo is the definition for the Martelli altar in Sansovino’s contract for this work. See Gino Corti, “Iacopo Sanovino’s Contract for the Madonna in Sant’Agostino, Rome,” The Burlington Magazine 113 (1971): 396. 9 The tabernacle, now at Peretola, was produced for the Chapel of San Luca in the Santa Maria Nuova Hospital in Florence. On this, Anna Padoa Rizzo, “Luca della Robbia e Verrocchio. Un nuovo documento e una nuova interpretazione iconografica del tabernacolo di Peretola,” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 38, no. 1 (1994): 48–68. revivals of ancient art in the design of arks 167 cally, in the Eucharistic sacrament as the Divine presence dwelling in the Tabernacle. The adoption of an aedicula-shaped tabernacle for storing the scrolls of the Torah reconsiders the Tabernacle in its original scriptural sense as an abode for the Holy Ark containing the Mosaic Law. On the Catalana ark (Fig. 22), this meaning is accentuated by the inscription: “and [they] brought it [–the tribute of gold]10 into the Tabernacle of the congregation, for a memorial for the children of Israel before God” (Num. 31:54). It is also borne out by the depiction of Sanctuary implements on the frieze: the seven-branched menorah, two pairs of wings representing the cherubs of the Holy Ark, a priestly censer, and a vase with fruit offerings. In the quattrocento aedicula-shaped tabernacles in Italian churches, the entablature and pediment usually exposed images and symbols relating to the painting, sculpture, or object in the tabernacle’s central area. When Christ and the Holy Spirit were portrayed within the tabernacle, the image of God the Father within the pediment completed the hierarchical representation of the Trinity. In Ghiberti and Luca della Robbia’s tabernacles (Figs. 74–75), God the Father manifests the messianic mission of Christ by displaying the open pages of a book that bear Christ’s apocalyp- tical alpha and omega symbol (cf. Rev. 1:8 et al.). The angels in the spandrels, frieze, and bottom area of the tympanum signify the passage to the celestial realm from which Divine revelation emerges into the mundane world. In the Catalana ark, the Tablets of the Law appearing between the shofar and trumpet against the blue background of the tympanum convey a non-figurative version of the revelation of the Holy Scripture, and the crown atop the Tablets celebrates the prevailing authority of Mosaic Law. The earliest dated evidence of a Torah ark designed as an aedicula with a closed triangular pediment in the Polish Commonwealth comes from the synagogue of Isaac Nachmanowicz (ben Naḥman; d. 1595) in L’viv.11 He was a financier to Sigismund II Augustus and Stephen Batory, and a senior of the Jewish community in L’viv, the second largest Jewish community in

10 The offering of gold in the Tabernacle mentioned in the verse might implicitly praise the donors of the expensive marble construction. 11 Nachmanowicz’s synagogue is also known as the TaZ, named after the initials of Turei Zahav by David ben Samuel ha-Levi (1586–1667), who prayed there. The synagogue’s goldene Royze) or Żłota Róża (Golden Rose), was given) גאָלדענע רויזע other name, the because of a legend that Rosa, daughter-in-law of Isaac Nachmanowicz, saved the building from being seized by Jesuits in the early-17th century. See J. Caro, Geschichte der Juden in Lemberg (L’viv, 1894), 34–43; Majer Bałaban, Żydzi lwowscy na przełomie XVI i XVII w. (L’viv, 1906), 41–48; Kravtsov, Di Gildene Royze. 168 chapter seven Poland after that of Kazimierz and the centre of one of the “Four Lands.” of Jewish self-government. Nachmanowicz had enough means and authority to build a private synagogue in his city. Although we have no indication that Nachmanowicz ever visited Pińczów, it is possible that he was there or heard about the Pińczów Synagogue: his business with the court and aristocracy, and his position as a leader of the Council of the “Four Lands” demanded of him a great deal of traveling between the administrative centres of the kingdom and Jewish communities throughout Poland.12 The ark is seen in a somewhat blurred photograph taken in the severely damaged synagogue in 1941, before its almost total destruction (Plate 6.2),13 and also in two earlier drawings that differ on a few minor details (Plates 6.3–6.4).14 The synagogue was built in 1582 by an architect named Paolo (in Poland also called Paulus Italus or Paweł Szczęśliwy) from the Graubünden Canton in Switzerland.15 It seems that he understood the

12 Majer Bałaban, Izak Nachmanowicz Żyd lwowski XVI wieku (L’viv, 1904). 13 Only fragments of the eastern wall and the southern wall with traces of vaults can be found in the synagogue today. 14 The drawing by M. Kowalczuk (Plate 6.3), first published in Władysław Łoziński, Sztuka lwowska w XVI i XVII wieku. Architektura i rzeżba (L’viv, 1901), 39 fig. 17, depicts interlacing bands forming a row of rhombs that are filled with four-petalled, cross-shaped flowers inside and with halves of such flowers on the ark’s pilasters. Grotte, who published another drawing of the ark (Plate 6.3) in his “Deutsche, böhmische und polnische Synago- gentypen,” 34 fig. 3, interpreted the same ornament as flowers between two vertical undu- lated lines, increased the size and number of the acanthi on the capitals, drew the bound volutes in the spandrels as smaller and more compact patterns, and simplified the adornment on the narrow pilasters. He also added a diamond-shaped pattern surrounded by S-shaped curls on the pilaster’s pedestal. In contrast to Kowalczuk, Grotte copied, albeit the :כתר תורה instead of the normative) כהר תירה with errors, the Hebrew inscription Crown of the Torah). Neither draughtsmen saw the crown relief in the pediment and the ear-like wings on the ark’s sides, which were covered by later decorations and plaster (see Plate 6.1) until the reconstruction of the ark in 1919. See Kravtsov, Di Gildene Royze, 39–40. The crown and wings are discernible in Maria Gutkowska-Rychlewska’s etching that depicts the ark in 1925 (reproduced in ibid., 19 fig. 9) and in Janusz Witwicki’s photograph of 1941 (Plate 6.2).. 15 The attribution is based on the 1604 and 1606 archival records that were referred to and partially quoted in Łoziński, Sztuka lwowska, 42. Grotte saw Hebrew letters that enciphered the year 342, i.e., 1582, on a keystone in the synagogue’s vault (Grotte, “Deutsche, böhmische und polnische Synagogentypen,” 36 n. 1). See also Marjan Osiński, Zamek w Żółkwi (L’viv, 1933), 84–85; Tadeusz Mańkowski, “Pochodzenie osiadłych we Lwowie budowniczych włoskich” in Księga pamiątkowa ku czci Leona Pinińskiego, vol. 2 (L’viv, 1936), 135–36; idem, Dawny Lwów—jego sztuka i kultura artystyczna (London, 1974), 137; Josef Piotrowski, Lemberg und Umgebung (L’viv, [n.d.]), 149; See Piechotka, Bramy nieba: Bóżnice murowane, 151–56. Bałaban erroneously attributed the synagogue to Paolo Romano; see Majer Bałaban, Dzielnica Żydowska, jej dzieje i zabytki (L’viv, 1909), 123. This has been repeated in a few more recent publications, e.g., Wischnitzer, Architecture, 108; Breffny, Synagogue, 114–15; Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe, 213. revivals of ancient art in the design of arks 169 synagogue ark to be a kind of a tabernacle frame, for he gave it an arch raised on a high base, a feature characteristic of the Italian altar tabernacles like that of Sansovino’s (Fig. 76), which differs from the rectangular openings and lower bases of the Torah arks in Kazimierz and the Cracow area. The fanciful silhouette of the side wings is similar to those that emerged in Polish art during the last third of the sixteenth century under Netherlandish influence.16 The ark in Nachmanowicz’s synagogue is an early known specimen of the pedimented frames from the sculptural workshops in L’viv that enhanced Renaissance architectural schemes with Mannerist ornaments and strapwork volutes. Around 1595, a much larger frame of that kind, based on the Albertian composition, was donated by an honourable local named Jan Scholz Wolfowicz for the altar in Saint Nicolas’s Church in L’viv (Fig. 77, cf. Fig. 36). The reliefs between the columns on the sides of the altarpiece depict Christ’s Passions; Golgotha with a view of Jerusalem in the background is displayed in its central panel; and Christ’s Ascension is in the attic. The visual narration is consonant with the purported associations of the four-columned, two-tiered structure with the triumph and New Temple of Christianity.17 Like the pediments of Italian tabernacoli (Figs. 74–75), the pediment of the altarpiece in L’viv represents the empyreum from which God the Father blesses Christ.18 The work suggests that the symbolism of the closed pediment as a sign of Divine abode had been maintained by the sculptors in L’viv until at least the mid-1590s. It may thus be suggested that about a decade earlier, Paolo Szczęśliwy or his assistant, who carved the Torah ark for Nachmanowicz, could not only adopt the altar-like form but also rework its semantics for the synagogue ark. In the ark’s pediment, the Divine revelation of the Mosaic Law is designated by a crown, which is defined as the “Crown of the Torah” by the inscription in the frieze.19 In Pińczów, the architects and sculptors might ascertain the symbolism of the aedicula with a triangular pediment by consulting Sebastiano Ser- lio’s Libri dell’architettura, a prevalent source for the architects in Poland

16 On the Netherlandish ornaments in the architecture and sculpture of L’viv in the 1580s, see Łoziński, Sztuka lwowska, 120. 17 See note 17 on page 85. 18 See Łoziński, Sztuka lwowska, 134–36. The triangular pediment enclosing a sculpture of God the Father featured also the wall tombstone made by Jacob Trwały of L’viv for the Franciscan Church in Krosno; see ibid., 128–29, fig. 64. 19 See note 14 on page 168. 170 chapter seven from the late 1560s.20 The arks’ columns partially overlapping the lateral pilasters, triple-stepped architrave, and a closed triangular pediment bearing short stands resemble the respective parts of a Corinthian gateway in Serlio’s “Extraordinary Book” of 1551 (Fig. 78). Serlio adorned the lower third of each column with simple vertical flutes, showed shorter diagonal flutes in the column’s middle part, and an interlacing pattern in the column’s upper section. Obviously having in mind the so-called Solomonic columns in the Vatican, he believed that this fluting copied “the columns in Jerusa- lem which were in the portico of Solomon.” The choice of much simpler— and thus cheaper—vertical flutes on the Torah ark’s columns resonates Serlio’s own bewilderment about the complicated “Solomonic” fluting: “the worthy ancients never used to gird columns crosswise but always fluted them from top to bottom.”21 The purported Solomonic style could impart a taste of historic reliability to the association of the synagogue ark with the biblical shrine of the Holy Scripture. Serlio’s project of an exemplary church (Fig. 79), a paraphrase of Al- berti’s façade of Santa Maria Novella (Fig. 36), also popularised the triangular pediment as a sign of—in Serlio’s words—“a sacred temple.”22 The scheme was interpreted as a pedimented frame above a tetrastyle containing three arched niches on the Saint John the Baptist Church in Pińczów (Fig. 72) and a pedimented aedicula above two paired pilasters flanking another niche on Saint Mary’s Church in Mirów (founded in 1587, completed ca. 1615–19; Fig. 80).23 In a departure from Alberti’s and Serlio’s applications of the scheme to the entire church façade, the builders from Pińczów reduced this scheme to an adornment of the church’s shaped gable. Even more evident is an emblematic, rather than functional role of the pediment in the triangular moulded frame lacking any entablature and detached from the arches of the double window beneath the façade of the church in Mirów. The quotations of the Italian models on the churches patronised by Sigismund Myszkowski reflected his favour of Italian culture and reverence for the Roman Catholic Church. The elaborate façades con-

20 See Jerzy Kowalczyk, Sebastian Serlio a sztuka Polska. O roli włoskich traktatów architektonicznych w dobie nowożytnej (Wrocław 1973). 21 Sebastiano Serlio, Extraordinario libro di Architettura di architetto del re christianissimo (Lion 1551), fol. 24r; Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, eds. Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks, vol. 1 (New Haven, 1996), 505. 22 Sebastiano Serlio, Regole generali d’architettura (Venice 1537), fols. 175r–v; Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, 1: 350. 23 See Katalog zabytków, 3, Województwo Kieleckie, 9: 62–64; Miłobędzki, Architektura Polska XVII wieku, 1: 135–37. revivals of ancient art in the design of arks 171 trasting with the unadorned Reformist edifices alluded to the grandeur of Catholicism and paraded its restoration in Pińczów.24 As in the indoor pedimented tabernacles, the triangular pediments on the two churches were used for the demonstration of emblems of faith. A crowned, rounded cartouche bearing a cross decorates the quasi-pediment above the entrance to Saint Mary’s in Mirów and the haloed acronym of Jesus’s name, IHS, occupies the pediment of Saint John the Baptist’s.25 In the pediment of the Pińczów Torah ark (Plate 5.12), a Jewish creedal -Crown of the Torah)—is simi) כתר תורה emblem—the crown labeled as בי מלכים \ ימלוכו larly set against a halo-like round field, under the quotation (“By me kings will reign,” Prov. 8:15) known to us from the synagogue arks in Kazimierz. However, the arch-headed crown of the royal corona clausa type in the Pińczów ark differs from the open crowns depicted in the Ka- zimierz synagogues. Perhaps in Pińczów, where the open crown signified the magnate, the closed crown marking the highest, royal dignity looked more appropriate for designating the prevailing authority of the Torah. The vase rising on the stand atop the ark’s pediment26 contains a few small petals seeming to be a representation of flames like those shown emerging from vases and torches in the Polish sepulchral sculpture. It may be an- .lapidim: torches; Ex) לפידים other symbol of the Torah, referring to the -esh dat: “fiery law,” Deut. 33:2) appearing at the theoph‘) אש דת and (20:14 .devarai ka-‘esh: “my word like as fire,” Jer) דברי כאש ;any on Mount Sinai :lapid ‘esh) לפיד אש God’s fiery speech to Jeremiah, or Abraham’s ,(23:29 “fiery torch,” Gen. 15:17). All these figures are interpreted in midrashim as

24 Miłobędzki proposed that the anti-Reformist argument had stimulated the rapid spread of the Baroque style in Polish sacral architecture of the early-17th century; see ibid., 1: 24. 25 The trigram IHS (a Latin abbreviation of the Greek name Ιησούς Χριστός) was fostered as an object for veneration by Saint Bernardino of Siena (1380–1444), whose attribute in art is the name IHS on a flaming disk. The trigram had been widespread in Catholic art from 1541, when Ignatius of Loyola adopted the letters IHS (which he read as an acronym of Iesus Hominum Salvator) with a cross inside the letter H as the emblem of the Jesuit Order. See J. U. Morris, “Holy Name, Iconography of,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., vol. 7 (Wash- ington, 2002), 32–33. Yet, the Jesuit order never administered the Saint John the Baptist Church in Pińczów, which belonged to the Paulists until the late-18th century, and since that time has become parish. Here the Jesuit emblem expressed Sigismund Myszkowski’s reverence for the order, where he once studied at its college. See Augustyniak, “Myszkowski, Zygmunt.” 26 Old photographs (e.g., Plate 5.10) show a small vase on the pediment’s left side and a short stick, probably a remnant of another vase, on the right side. The vases, likely cast in metal, seem to be a later addition to the stone ark. 172 chapter seven signs of the Torah.27 The image of fire also echoed the actual ner tamid (eternal lamp) burning perpetually in front of or near the Torah ark in synagogues as a reminder of the unquenchable light of the seven-branched candelabrum in the Sanctuary.28 In rabbinical thought, the “eternal lamp” was comprehended as designating God’s permanent presence amid the People of Israel and emanating the spiritual light from the Temple into the mundane world.29 The classic triangular pediment had not become common on Torah arks in other seventeenth-century east European synagogues. In due course, the congregations considered their aedicula-shaped arks to be not ornate enough. In Nachmanowicz’s synagogue in L’viv, another, seemingly wooden pedimented aedicula enclosing the Tablets of the Law, was built above the ark’s stone pediment (Plate 6.1). An additional pedimented panel flanked by standing S-shaped volutes was painted on the wall above the real pediment of the ark in Pińczów. The painting, although barely discernable in its current condition (Plate 5.13), makes the synagogue ark similar to the Renaissance Torah arks in Kazimierz, and the curly thin branches with leaves filling in the panel compensate for the absence of the usual Tree of Life relief atop the stone ark.30 Probably, the re-evaluation of the strict geometric patterns in Neo-classicist art of the late-eighteenth century prompted the construction of the Torah ark as a classical pedimented

27 E.g., Midrash Tanḥuma (Warsaw edition), pericope Pekudei (Ex. 38:21–40:38), sign 8; Midrash Tehillim, ed. Solomon Buber, Psalm 17:7; 38:2; 52:8. On the symbolic and liturgical perceptions of light in the synagogue, see Ernst Roth, “Das Licht im Jüdischen Brauch- tum,” Udim: Zeitschrift der Rabbinerkonferenz in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 3 (1972): 81–91. ner tamid) in Exodus) נר תמיד Note the definition of the seven-branched menorah as 28 27:20 and Leviticus 24:2. See also Judah (Julius) David Eisenstein, Oẓar dinim u-minhagim (A digest of Jewish laws and customs) (New York 1917), 273–74 (Hebrew). 29 Shabbath 22b; Exodus Rabba 36:1. Cf. also Joseph Gutmann, “Christian Influences on Jewish Customs” in Spirituality and Prayer: Jewish and Christian Understandings, eds. Leon Klenicki and Gabe Huck (New York 1983), 136. 30 The dates found in the wall and ceiling paintings in the Pińczów Synagogue suggest that they were produced or refurbished in several stages, from 1695/96 until 1742/43; see Trzciński and Wodziński, “Wystrój malarski synagogi w Pińczowie” 3 no. 1(5): 91–98. The latter layer of paintings is signed by Joseph ben Eliezer, beadle of the synagogue. There are no known documents that corroborate Adolf Szyszko-Bohusz’s assertion that the Jewish craftsman Judah Leib ben Isaac worked in the Pińczów Synagogue; see Adolf Szyszko- Bohusz, “Materiały do architektury bóżnic w Polsce,” 7. Dawid Kandel (“Bóżnica w Pińczowie,” 30) also reported on the sculpted lions above the Holy Ark, but no lions are seen in the surviving photographs and no traces of such sculptures are now found in the eastern wall. revivals of ancient art in the design of arks 173 aedicula in the Pińczów new synagogue.31 The pitched roof of that synagogue formed triangular pediments on its eastern and western façade that in Pińczów were associated with a sacral building much more than the flat silhouette of the old synagogue. The triangular pediment containing the Tablets of the Law that in the early-twentieth century was drawn on the flat wall on the old synagogue’s northern side (Plate 5.2) seems to be a new retort to the church triangular pediments (Figs. 72, 80) as a symbol of the sanctuary.

Obelisks and Pyramids

The Szydłów stone Torah ark (Plates 7.9–7.10) has survived in its almost original condition, except for the lost doors (Plate 7.11).32 Early-twentieth- century photographs (e.g., Plate 7.9), in which the left stand is moved aside, expose a remnant of the Ionic volute of another short stand, whose inner side is incorporated into the left recumbent volute in the obelisk’s bottom.33 The merging of the ball-capped pediment and voluted stands on

31 Piechotka, Bramy nieba: Bóżnice murowane, 412. 32 The doors do not seem to be an integral part of the original stone structure. The text on the right door is a compilation of biblical verses recited in the synagogue before the Torah scroll is removed from the ark: ויהיה \ בנסוע \ הארון ויא \ מר משה \\ קומה יי ויפצו \ איביך וינסו \ משנאיך ]מפניך[ \ כי And it came to pass, when the Ark set forward, that“) מציון תצא \\ תורה ודבר ה' \ מירושלים Moses said: ‘Rise up, O Lord, and let Thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate Thee flee before Thee’” [Num. 10:35], “for out of Zion shall go forth the law [–Torah], and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” [Isa. 2:3]). The verses inscribed on the left door are ובנחה \ יאמר שובה \ יי רבבות אלפי \\ :recited when the Torah is placed back into the Ark And“) ישראל קומה \ יי למנוחתך \ אתה וארון \ עזך בעבור דוד \\ עבדך אל תשב \ פני משיחך when it rested, he said, ‘Return, O Lord, unto the ten thousands of the families of Israel’” [Num. 10:36]; “Arise, Lord, unto thy resting-place; Thou and the Ark of thy strength;” “For thy servant David’s sake turn not away the face of Thine anointed” [Ps. 132:8, 10]). The date -by the abbre“) לפק encoded by the three Hebrew characters followed by the abbreviation -Their possible com .ל (3 ,ז or ו ,י (2 ,ת or מ (viated era”) may be read, from right to left, as 1 ,that correspond to the years 1316 (מיל) or 80 ,(מול( 77 ,)מזל) binations give the values of 76 i.e., 1676, 1677 ,(תיל) or 480 (תול(, 437 )תזל) and 1320, which make little sense; or 436 1317 and 1680 respectively, that seem more fitting the Baroque style of the wooden columned frame. 33 The dark left finial resting on the leftmost edge of the ark’s entablature is seen in K. Kłos’s photograph of 1913 (Institute of Art, the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, neg. no. 2989) and other unsigned photographs from that time (ibid., neg. no. 5152; Plate 7.9). This left finial, now looking much brighter (perhaps restored), appears in front of the obelisk in the photographs taken after the walls in the prayer hall were whitewashed, probably in the late 1920s or 1930s (Institute of Art, the Polish Academy of Sciences, neg. nos. 4692, 19163; Plate 7.8). 174 chapter seven the ark might be of the kind found in the top of the tombstone of the young Tęczyńskis in Kraśnik (Fig. 83). If the ark’s upper part was built like that of the tombstone, the position of the voluted stands would have been just above the ark’s protruding pilasters, and perhaps they also bore flaming vessels. The dissimilar paired supports on each side of the ark’s niche created a three-dimensional effect, as if thrusting the main pilasters and the upper cornice forward. The one-piece central section of the cornice contrasts with the broken architrave and frieze to turn the whole composition into a steady support for the high triangular pediment with its heavy forms. The volutes beside the pilasters turned the rectangular aedicula into a triangular-shaped structure that gives a visual effect of a graceful ascension from the heavy pedestal to the globe at the summit of the tapering pediment (Plate 7.10). The same formal effect is also stressed by the gradually decreasing width of the main components of the composition from the bottom upward: the stone forestructure is more massive than the ark’s pedestal, which is wider than the distance between the outer sides of the standing volutes, and the ark’s protruding entablature is a little wider than the pediment’s base. The quotation from Proverbs 8:15, “By me kings will reign” near the crown and the plant relief on the pediment relate the ark in Szydłów to the Renaissance synagogue arks in Kazimierz.34 In Szydłów, the large flat letters (and the roundels flanking the last word) are seen against the sunken background in two rectangular panels on the wall between the upper parts of the protruding pilasters. This technique, differing from the letters carved into the stone surface on Christian epitaphs, was characteristic of Jewish tombstones.35 Once again, a Jewish tombstone carver could add a Hebrew inscription to the object brought into the synagogue from a Christian workshop. The symbols that came from the synagogues in Kazimierz were rendered in Szydłów in another style. The plant with seven fleshy leaves on a bulky trunk rising from a pair of recumbent volutes on the ark’s pediment differs from the delicately scrolling branches that gently sprout from the baluster-like trunk in the Renaissance arks in Kazimierz. The sculptor of

with ,בי מלכום ]sic[ \ ימלכו The inscription on the Szydłów ark spells the phrase as 34 kings) and) מלכים in the word י rather than the normative ו the long character looking like will reign), in contrast to its unabridged spelling) ימלכו in the midst of the word ו without .in the earlier Isserls’ and Old Synagogue’s arks in Kazimierz ימלוכו as 35 E. g., see Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: fig. 232. revivals of ancient art in the design of arks 175 the Szydłów ark could see such a vegetative pediment above even earlier Renaissance aediculae in Cracow—for instance, the seven-petal plant above the tombstone of Piotr Tomicki (Fig. 29)—and reworked it for a tall triangular format. Differing from the flatter relief crowns on the Kazimierz arks, the protruding crown on the Szydłów ark’s frieze is of the type carved by Santi Gucci in the coats of arms in the pediment of the tomb of King Batory in the Wawel Cathedral in 1595 (Fig. 82). The softly scrolling leaves emerging from below the crown on the Torah ark are similar to the ornament found in the frieze on several wall tombs attributed to Gucci or his circle (e.g., Fig. 81).36 The stylistic changes of the prototypes from Kazim- ierz in the Szydłów ark do not obscure the traditional meaning of the plant and crown as symbols of the Torah, and even emphasise the visual association of the sculpted volutes and scrolling branches with the scrolls of the Torah. The closest stylistic parallel to the Szydłów ark—the Tęczyński tombstone of the late 1570s in Kraśnik, attributed to Santi Gucci—repeated the program of one of Gucci’s debut works: the wall cenotaph of his compatriot, the Florentine architect and sculptor Galeazzo Guicciardini (d. 1557) in the cloister of the Dominican Church in Cracow (Fig. 84).37 The monument was commissioned by another Florentine in Cracow, the businessman Girolamo di Cino Cini.38 This is the first tombstone in Poland that demonstrates a great pointed finial topped with a ball, a trapezium with its voluted edges, and a pair of flaming urns. The tall triangle bearing a portrait medallion and resting, supported by two small legs, on a rectangular base resembles the pyramidal cenotaphs designed by Raphael for the Chigi Chapel in Santa Maria del Popolo in Rome between 1513 and 1516 (Fig. 85).39 If Santi Gucci visited Rome before his arrival in Cracow in 1557, he

36 Another similar lion mask with tenderly curved leaves emerging from its mouth adorns the frieze of the tomb of Elżbieta Firlej of 1580–89 in the parish church of Bejsce, not far from Pińczów, Katalog zabytków sztuki w Polsce, 3, Województwo Kieleckie, 9: 2, fig. 212; Helena Kozakiewicz, Rzeźba XVI wieku w Polsce, 133, 137–38. 37 See this attribution in Stanisław Mossakowski, “Mauzoleum Morsztynów w War- szawie a egiptologia XVII wieku” in idem, Sztuka jako świadectwo czasu. Studia z pogranicza historii sztuki i historii idei (Warsaw 1980), 193; Chrzanowski, Sztuka w Polsce, 18. 38 Elizabeth Pilliod, “A Widow’s Choice: Alessandro Allori’s Christ and the Adulteress in the Church of Santo Spirito at Florence” in Beyond Isabella: Secular Women Patrons of Art in Renaissance Italy, eds. Sheryl E. Reiss and David G. Wilkins (Kirksville 2001), 302. 39 John Shearman, “The Chigi Chapel in S. Maria del Popolo,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 24 (1961): 129–60; Brian A. Curran, The Egyptian Renaissance: The Afterlife of Ancient Egypt in Early Modern Italy (Chicago 2007), 209–12 and extensive bibliography on this chapel on p. 361 n. 111. 176 chapter seven could have seen the pyramidal tombstones in the Chigi Chapel and learnt about its symbolism.40 The proportions of the tapered part of the Chigi’s tombs resemble the Caius Cestius’s pyramidal tomb of 18–12 BCE near the Porta San Paolo (ancient Porta Ostiensis) and the so-called “Pyramid of Romulus” near the Vatican that was demolished in the early-sixteenth century.41 The small legs beneath the pyramidal body of Chigi’s tomb and the globe atop it42 quote the same features of the Vatican obelisk that was believed to be the tomb of Julius Caesar.43 Italian Humanists, who were confident about the Egyptian origin of the pyramids and obelisks, inspired their adoption into Renaissance art as part of the revival of the ancient wisdom that, in their opinion, included not only Greco-Roman heritage, but also the wisdom of the ancient East.44 A symbolic Renaissance interpretation of the tapered Egyptian monuments as an architectural representation of fire and sunlight is apparent in the notes of the Humanists Giulio Pomponio Leto and Niccolò Perroti recorded by the latter in Rome ca. 1471–72. They reaffirmed the etymology of the word “pyramid” as a derivative of the Greek πυρ (fire)45 and described a pyramid as a mass “which starts out wide and then, like a flame, becomes steadily narrower,” and relates an obelisk to the sun, since the obelisk’s form “is clearly that of a ray of light when it passes through a window.”46 Cardinal Egidio da Viterbo, one of the most authoritative voices in the surroundings of Agostino Chigi and Raphael and Prior General of the Augus- tinian order that presided over the Church of Santa Maria del Popolo, vividly translated the fire symbolism of the pyramid into the Neoplatonic terms of the “most ardent flames of Divine love” that penetrated all the

40 See note 81 on page 162. On the completion of the pyramids in the 1520s, see Shear- man, “Chigi Chapel,” 130. 41 The pyramids in imperial Rome likely owe their proportions to the tall Nubian pyramids rather than to the nearly equilateral and much greater pyramids in Giza. See Amanda Claridge, Rome: An Oxford Archaeological Guide (Oxford 1998), 59, 364–66. 42 The bronze balls and marble panelling were removed from the Chigi’s tombstones during the remodeling of the chapel by Bernini; see Shearman, “Chigi Chapel,” 132. 43 Curran, Egyptian Renaissance, 36–39. 44 Rudolf Wittkower, Selected Lectures of Rudolf Wittkower: the Impact of Non-European Civilizations on the Art of the West, ed. Donald Martin Reynolds (Cambridge 1989), 47–51. 45 Curran, Egyptian Renaissance, 210, 361–62 n. 121. 46 The source is quoted and analyzed in Brian A. Curran, Anthony Grafton, Pamela O. Long, and Benjamin Weiss, Obelisk: A History (Cambridge, MA, 2009), 81–83, 312 n. 44–45. revivals of ancient art in the design of arks 177 earth and resounds through the heaven.47 Reviving the ancient type of pyramidal funerary monuments, Raphael involved the same associations into the multi-layered program of the Chigi sepulchral chapel. In the historicist aspect, the pyramidal tombs alluded to the funeral pyres of Roman emperors, which were represented on ancient coins as steeply-pointed pyramids crossed over by the lines that radiate from the sphere at their top (Fig. 86).48 In the theological context, the pyramid set on a rectangular pedestal implying a sarcophagus visualized the Neoplatonic concept of the soul’s progress from its temporary material abode to the eternal celestial light.49 As in Italian art, the Egyptian revival in Polish art was inspired by Re- naissance thinkers and channeled by books. Serlio’s Book III: On Antiquities published in Venice in 1540 brought to Poland the descriptions and depictions of the Egyptian obelisks in Rome (Fig. 87) and the pyramid of Cheops (Fig. 88), whose steep proportions resemble the tomb of Cestius in Rome rather than the Great Pyramids in Giza.50 In the absence of any Egyptian antiquities on Polish soil, an actual obelisk was built shortly after 1554 by Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514–74), a mathematician and Copernican as- tronomer, at the castle of Jan Boner the Younger (1516–62) in Balice near Cracow.51 In 1557, the year of Galeazzo’s death, Rheticus published Jo- hannes Werner’s De triangulis sphæricis with the depiction of an obelisk on the title page. In his introduction to Werner’s book, Rheticus related to the Egyptian origin and symbolism of the obelisk, which he proclaimed to be not a human invention, but God’s creation, and the spherical cup of which he interprets as the solar oculus mundi.52

47 Cited after Ingrid D. Rowland, “Render unto Caesar the Things Which Are Caesar’s: Humanism and the Arts in the Patronage of Agostino Chigi,” Renaissance Quarterly 39, no. 4 (1986): 696–98, 710. 48 Ibid, 706–708. 49 In the Chigi Chapel, the pyramids rise from the static rectangular sarcophagi through the entablature of the triumphal-arch-like design of the wall behind it to reach the lunette. The composition produces an effect of dynamic ascent alluding to the ascension of the soul through heaven, symbolized by the cupola, towards God the Father, who is painted as though seen through the oculus in the cupola’s summit. Ibid., 673–730. 50 Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro di architettura di Sebastiano Serlio Bolognese nel qual si figurano e descrivono le antiquita di Roma e li alter cose che sono in Italia, e fuori d’Italia (Venice, 1540), fols. LVIII and XCIIII. See also Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, 1: 153, 184. 51 Johannes Werner, De triangulis sphæricis libri quatuor (Cracow, 1557), [10]. See also Miziołek, “Oculus Mundi... osulus coeli,” 78–79; idem, “Obeliski Rzymu i Krakowa w 2 połowie XVI w.,” Barok 1, no. 2 (1994): 160. 52 Werner, De triangulis sphæricis, [11–12]. 178 chapter seven The first Polish imitation of a novel Italian type of the tombstones in Cracow (Fig. 84) commemorated Guicciardini, Santi Gucci’s colleague and one of the artists who pioneered the use of Serlio’s models in Poland,53 as a learned Italian literate. The rendering of Guicciardini’s pyramid as a flattened triangle of limestone—much simpler than Chigi’s pyramids sloping backwards, sheathed in marble paneling, and topped with a bronze globe54—may be explained by the professional skills of Santi Gucci and a more modest budget provided to him by his patron. The addition of a panel under Guicciardini’s pyramid-obelisk and flaming torches on its sides, although breaking the unity of Raphael’s model, made the whole structure more similar to the poly-tiered Renaissance wall tombstones of Polish noblemen. The fusing of pyramid and obelisk became a novel and sophisticated substitute for the traditional vegetative image at the top of a sepulchral monument. The flaming torches, a popular sign of Resurrec- tion in Renaissance funerary monuments,55 made the meaning of Guic- ciardini’s pyramid-obelisk as a symbol of fire and light more evident. The conflation of pyramid and obelisk rising between flaming torches was repeated, although infrequently, in Polish sepulchral art of the 1560s and 1570s. In the early 1560s, Wojciech Sobieński, a royal secretary and the canon of Cracow, commissioned a copy of Guicciardini’s obelisk for the tomb of Bartłomiej Niszczycki, the chancellor and canon of Płock, and wrote in his will that the same monument must appear on his own tomb. The two tombstones had been built in the Plock Cathedral by a sculptor from Santi Gucci’s circle, likely a certain Jan (Giovanni?) of Piacenza.56 A rare example of the obelisk-like monument not attributed to Gucci’s workshop and showing no flaming vessels is the tombstone of Hieronim Ko- niecki of ca. 1564 (Fig. 89) in the Saint Nicholas Collegial Church in Końskie. Its representation of ascension and light is almost pictorial, resembling the depictions of funeral pyres on ancient Roman coins:57 the ribs on the tombstone’s tapered part rise up to the orb at its summit, thus creating an image of rays radiating from the sun. The cross atop the orb verifies this symbol of celestial light as Christian.

53 Kowalczyk, Sebastian Serlio a sztuka Polska, 75; Curran, Egyptian Renaissance, 208–12. 54 See note 42 on page 176. 55 Shearman, “Chigi Chapel,” 137–38. 56 Mossakowski, “Mauzoleum Morsztynów”, 193; Adam Tyszkiewicz, “Motyw obelisku w sztuce nagrobnej Warszawy jako element europejskiej tradycji sepulkralnej,” Meander 3 (2005): 359. 57 Cf. Rowland, “Render unto Caesar,” 708 fig. 10. revivals of ancient art in the design of arks 179 In the Tęczyński siblings’ tombstone in Kraśnik (Fig. 83), the pyramid- obelisk and flaming torches appear in an even more complicated composition. Like Koniecki on his epitaph, the deceased are sculpted at rest, and their coat of arms—not portraits—is on the top of the pyramid.58 The creative coping with the symbols of light, fire, and ascension, purportedly by Santi Gucci himself or by a sculptor from his workshop, reinforces the assumption that an artist from the same circle was able to propose the symbolic pyramid-obelisk to the patrons of the Szydłów synagogue’s Torah ark. Christian kabbalists translated such a concept of light into the pictorial schemes composed of a triangle pointing at the sun. In the Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae published in Hamburg in 1595 by a Hermetic philoso- pher, Heinrich Khunrath (1560–1605), the triangle designating the unity of the body, soul, and spirit encloses a hermaphroditic Anthropos-Christ, who symbolises an incarnated Divine spirit that leads the human soul to union with God (Fig. 90).59 The creature lifts its hands, inscribed ora and labora, in a gesture of entreaty. The words of the hermaphrodite’s prayer, written on a winding ribbon, ascend through the summit of the triangle up to the ten aspiring flames of the human virtues. The flames unite with the rays of Divine virtues—also ten, as the number of the kabbalistic sephirot—radiating from the sun that bears the Hebrew letters of the Tetragram- maton, a representation of God the Archetypos.60 Shortly after its first edition, Kunrath’s Amphitheatrum was reproduced several times61 and many other depictions of Divine radiance in the form of a pyramid, obelisk, or tapered beam of light as well as a triangle, often based on the Pythago- rean Tetractys, illuminate the Christian kabbalistic literature intensively published in early-seventeenth-century Europe, especially in Frankfurt.62

58 Kowalczyk, “Legenda o pomniku”. 59 The inscription on the hermaphrodite’s garment reads, Christo indutus et eum imitans (led by Christ and imitating him). Urszula Szulakowska, The Alchemy of Light: Geometry and Optics in Late Renaissance Alchemical Illustration (Leiden, 2000), 122, 128. 60 Cf. ibid., 25, 122–23, 128. 61 See ibid., 103–38. See also Umberto Eco, Lo strano caso della Hanau 1609 (Milan, 1989). 62 E.g., see Szulakowska, Alchemy of Light, 167–82 and numerous illustrations in Robert Fludd, Utriusque Cosmi, Maioris scilicet et Minoris, metaphysica, physica, atque technica Historia (illustrations by Johann Theodor de Bry), vols. 1–2 (Frankfurt on Main, 1617–21); idem, Philosophia sacra et vere christiana seu meteorologia cosmica (illustrations by Mat- thäus Merian the Elder), (Frankfurt on Main, 1626). See also the diagram Signaculum mundi pithagoricum showing the cosmos in the form of a triangle topped by the sun and resting on a rectangular pedestal in Helisaeus Röslin, De Opere Dei Creationis, seu, de mundo hypotheses (Frankfurt on Main, 1597). 180 chapter seven Most of the illustrations were designed as a kind of rebus to be deciphered by the reader conversant in the Hermetic kabbalah. If one of those books, which was printed around 1600, reached the artists or patrons of the Szydłów ark, it could have fostered the adoption of the pyramid-obelisk as a new image for light in the synagogue. The learned Jewish viewers could have understood the symbols of fire and light appearing on the Torah ark in terms of the Hebrew Scripture and exegesis. Midrash Tehilim lists the parabolic references to light from the Books of Isaiah and Proverbs: All the utensils of this nation [of Israel] are of light: its Torah is of light, as is said, “For the commandment is a candle, and the Torah is light” [Prov. 6:23];63 its God is of light, as is said, “And the light of Israel shall be for a fire” [Isa. 10:17]; its redemption is of light, as is said, “Arise, shine, for thy light is come” [Isa. 60:1]; its joy is of light, as is said, “The light of the righteous rejoiceth” [Prov. 13:9]; and the future is described as light “sown for the righteous” [Prov. 97:11]. Divine are those [lights] and not human.64 Midrash Tanḥuma ascribes luminosity to the Torah in the Holy Ark built by Bezalel, and prophesies that the Ark’s physical light advances the Divine light of redemption.65 We may thus speculate that the orb-capped tall pyramid on the Szydłów ark was understood to be a likeness of the celestial luminary source emit- ting a ray to the earthly world. The implications of this association seem to be dual: the image may represent the emanation of the Divine presence and descent of the Torah from the heavenly realm to the people as well as the ascent of human prayer to God. It is also probable that the message was even more complex, especially if the ark once bore a pair of sculpted torches, another symbol of God’s revelation that we discussed above in relation to the flaming vase on the Torah ark in Pińczów. The torches—as opposed to the obelisk—could also imply the metaphor of the commandments as flames of fire and the Torah as radiance of light in Proverbs 6:23.

”.transcribed here as “Torah” is translated in JPS Prov. 6:23 as “teaching תורה The term 63 אומה זו שכל תשמישיה באור, תורתה של אור, שנאמר כי נר מצוה ותורה אור, אלהיה 64 של אור, שנאמר והיה אור ישראל לאש, גואלה של אור, שנאמר קומי אורי כי בא אורך, שמחתה של אור, שנאמר אור צדיקים ישמח, וכן לעתיד לבא כתיב אור זרוע לצדיק, אלוהית אלו ואינן בני -Midrash Tehillim, ed. Solomon Buber, Psalm 22:11. Another midrash similarly sum אדם marizes: God, the Torah, and messianic redemption appear in the mundane world as supernatural radiance; see Midrash Aggadah, ed. Solomon Buber, Numbers 6:[24], s.v. “The Lord bless thee.” 65 Midrash Tanḥuma (Warsaw edition), pericope Vayakhel (Ex. 25:1–38:20), sign 10. revivals of ancient art in the design of arks 181 Thus, if the patrons of the Szydłów Synagogue were familiar with mystical teachings, they might have related the obelisk-pyramid to the kabbalistic concept of Divine light permeating the universe. The meaning of the obelisk-pyramid on Christian tombstones recalls the comparable Jewish mystical visions of the ascent of a human soul in the ray of light to the empyrean. As Moshe Idel has shown, medieval kabbalists interpreted the simile of a commandment and the Torah to a candle and light in Proverbs 6:23 as a clue for the dual concept of light: the spiritual flame of a human soul fulfilling God’s commandments is a lesser light that longs to unite with the greatest light of the Divine realm.66 Those who shared this perception could extrapolate the idea of the mutual gravitation of the spiritual human light and mystical Divine light to the worship and reading of the Torah in the synagogue accepted as the fulfillment of the commandments in the Divine presence. By the end of the sixteenth century, smaller, narrow obelisks, either ball- or flame-capped or pointed, appeared on Christian tombstones in Poland under the influence of Netherlandish art.67 Three such needle-like obelisks on the Torah ark in the synagogue of 1642 in Tykocin, in northeastern Poland,68 but not one Italianiate obelisk-pyramid of the type shown on the Szydłów Torah ark, is known to us from the other east European synagogues. We have no indication of whether the sixteenth-century Polish Jews connected the obelisks and pyramids to Egypt. This association had become more plausible from 1609—that is, soon after the obelisk-topped ark was built in Szydłów—when structures similar to the tapered Polish pediments appeared in the woodcut illustrations of the Passover Haggadah printed in Venice (one of the three parallel editions of this Haggadah was aimed at the Yiddish-speaking reader).69 The artist of the Haggadah implanted tall pyramids and short obelisks into the scenery of Egypt. No- table is the role of the two tapered stone-block structures that resemble the Roman pyramid of Cestius and Serlio’s drawing of the pyramid of

66 See Moshe Idel, “Be-Or he-Hayim: Iyun be-eskhatologiah kabalit” (In the light of life: a study in cabbalistic eschatology) in Kedushat he-Hayim ve-heruf ha-Nefesh, eds. Yeshayahu Gafni and Aviezer Ravitzky (Jerusalem 1992), 191–211 (Hebrew). 67 Tyszkiewicz, “Motyw obelisku,” 360–62. 68 See Piechotka, Bramy nieba: Bóżnice murowane, 87, 208–15. 69 In other editions, the Hebrew text is translated into Ladino and Judeo-Italian. See Bezalel Narkiss, “The Venice Haggadah of 1609” in The Passover Haggadah: Venice, 1609 (reprint; Jerusalem, 1974), 1–15. 182 chapter seven Cheops (Fig. 88)70 in the illustration (Fig. 91) that concisely resumes the story of the Exodus: “We were Pharaoh’s bondmen in Egypt; and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand” (Deut. 6:21).71 The pyramids flank a group of Israelites burdened with wood, stones, and heavy sacks, whilst being bullied by their overseers and inspected by the king looking out of a window at his palace. Another group of Jews escaping the persecutions under the protection of God’s angel with a drawn sword are seen in the depth of the image. The scene on its foreground is derived from the story about the Egyptians who set over the Jews “taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh store-cities, Pithom and Raamses” (Ex. 1:11).72 In the illustration, the pyramids serve as landmarks of Egypt and their construction may be easily attributed to the Jewish builders. Echoing Pliny the Elder’s depiction of the Egyptian pyramids as repositories of monarchic treasures built by “lower classes”,73 the location of the pyramids in the store-cities built by Israelites for “a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph” (Ex. 1:8) diverges from the medieval Christian and Jewish comprehension of the pyramids as the storehouses founded by Joseph for keeping the food for the “seven years of famine” (Gen. 41:47–48, 53–56).74 The re-ascription of the laborious construction of pyramids to the enslaved Israelites emphasised the harshness of their lives in Egypt on the eve of the Exodus.75

70 Cf. note 41 on page 176. 71 Sefer Haggadah shel Pesaḥ (Venice, 1609), fol. 4r. 72 Cf. another illustration of a Pharaoh’s store-city as mentioned in Genesis 1:11 that depicts it as an Italian town; see Sefer Haggadah shel Pesaḥ, fol. 7v, bottom. 73 Pliny the Elder, Natural History, 36:16. 74 For example, Joseph’s granaries are depicted as tall pyramids in the atrium mosaic of ca. 1270 in San Marco in Venice. See Wittkower, Selected Lectures, 43, fig. 3/8. For more examples of Christian and Muslim perceptions of the Egyptian pyramids in the Middle Ages, see Curran, Egyptian Renaissance, 34–36. An early Jewish mention of the pyramids in Giza is found in the itinerary of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela about his travel in Egypt (treasuries); see Judah (Julius) אוצרות between 1165 and 1173, which defines them as Joseph’s David Eisenstein, Oẓar masaot. Koveẓ te’urim shel nos‘im yehudim b-Ereẓ Yisrael, Suryah, Miẓrayim ve-arẓot aḥerot (Anthology of itineraries of Jewish travelers in the Land of Israel, Syria, Egypt and other countries) (Tel Aviv, 1969), 42 (Hebrew). Meshulam ben Menaḥem of Volterra, who visited Giza in 1481, described the great pyramids in detail and also identified them as Joseph’s treasuries. See Jewish Travellers, ed. Elkan Nathan Adler (London, 1930) 167; Eisenstein, Oẓar masaot, 92. 75 The legend of the building of the great pyramids by Jewish slaves circulated among 17th-century pilgrims in Egypt. For example, in 1634–37, Vassily Gagara, a Russian tradesman and traveler, definitely stated in his itinerary that the pyramids in Giza were built by “the Israelites enslaved by Pharaoh the King,” Vassily Gagara, “Khozheniye Vasiliya Gagary v Ierusalim i Egipet” (Jorney of Vassily Gagara to Jerusalem and Egypt) in Zapiski russkikh puteshestvennikov XVI–XVII vv. (Moscow, 1988), 74 (Russian). revivals of ancient art in the design of arks 183 Along the lines of the Passover Haggadah implying the liberation of the Israelites from Egyptian slavery as a presage of the termination of their post-biblical exile, the Jews of Poland could have associated Egypt with the country of their contemporary exile rather than share the attitude of Re- naissance Humanists to ancient Egypt as a source of “old wisdom.” It occurred much later—in late-eighteenth or early-nineteenth century Germany—that the Egyptianised synagogue design was believed for the first time to be a historic reconstruction of the style of Solomon’s Temple.76 A unique example of illusionistic representation of Egyptian pyramids in the Polish synagogues, assumingly dated to the early-twentieth century, is a fragment showing the pyramid of Cheops to the right of the Torah ark as seen in a photograph of the central area of the eastern wall in Wolf Popper’s synagogue in Kazimierz.77

The Seven-Branched Candelabrum

We cannot ignore a certain similarity of the seven-petal plant relief on top of the Szydłów Torah ark (Plate 7.10) to the layout of the seven-branched menorah, reinforced by the vegetal terms used for the description of this lampstand in Exodus 25:31–40; 37:17–24.78 The representation of the menorah in the guise of a seven-branched, fruit-bearing tree was found in medieval Hebrew illuminated manuscripts,79 and even when the menorah was depicted there as an actual lampstand, it was often featured as an or-

76 See Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe, 77–78; cf. Sergey R. Kravtsov, “Reconstruction of the Temple by Charles Chipiez and Its Applications in Architecture,” Ars Judaica 4 (2008): 25–42. 77 The photograph is reproduced in Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 2: facing p. 208. On the synagogue, see note 1 on page 115. The dating of the painting is based on the Art Nouveau style of the flowers depicted in the lower part of the wall and on the modernist qualities of the composition freely crossing the arch of the vault (seen in the right top) and as if continuing behind the ark. calyx). See also Nogah) גביע bud or knob), and) כפתור ,(flower) פרח ,(stem) קנה Note 78 Hareuveni, “Knob and Flower in the Design of the Menorah” in In the Light of the Menorah: Story of a Symbol (Israel Museum Catalogue no. 406), ed. Yael Israeli (Jerusalem, 1999), 39–42. Cf. Steven Fine, “The United Colors of the Menorah: Some Byzantine and Medieval Perspectives on the Biblical Lampstand” in Biblical Interpretation in Judaism and Christian- ity, eds. Isaac Kalimi and Peter J. Haas (New York, 2006), 110–11. 79 E. g., the micrographic drawing by Solomon ha-Cohen in the Pentateuch, German Switzerland, 1294–95. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS hébreu 5, fol. 118v. See Zofja Amei- senowa, “The Tree of Life in Jewish Iconography,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 2 (1939): 339, fig. 56b. 184 chapter seven ganic object, with its seven branches issuing sprouts and leaves or with additional small branches growing from the menorah’s stem, under its main arms.80 A customary motif in the manuscript illuminations, the imitative portrayal of the biblical menorah as a seven-branched lampstand, is not found in the known medieval synagogues. This void is especially notable, since in the synagogues of the Greco-Roman and Byzantine periods, the paintings, mosaics, and sculptures of the Temple’s seven-branched candelabrum were ubiquitous despite the Talmudic prohibition of imitating the Temple’s candelabrum. Although the Talmud conceded: one “may, however, make [the candelabrum] with five, six or eight [branches], but with seven he may not make it even though it be of other metals,”81 only a small number of five- or nine-branched menorahs have been uncovered in ancient synagogues.82 It seems that medieval Jews took the Talmudic proscription stricter. Hypothetically, it became their reaction to the practise, begun ca. 1000, of including a metal seven-branched candelabrum into the furnishings of Catholic churches.83 When Christians set what they believed to be a facsimile of the Temple’s menorah in the church to designate it as the new Temple, the restraint of the Jews from imitating the menorah in the synagogue could have expressed their belief that the true menorah will be reconstructed only in the Temple to come. The first known revival of this image in the synagogues after the Middle Ages is the menorah on the Torah ark in the Catalana Synagogue in Rome (Fig. 22).84 That image differs from the typical depictions of menorahs in both Christian and Jewish medieval manuscripts and early printed books. Christian artists usually designed the arms of the seven-branched candelabrum as ogee-shaped or pointed, and often ended the pairs of menorah’s

80 Revel-Neher, Le témoignage de l’absence, figs. 105–108. 81 Avodah zarah 43a; repeated in Rosh ha-Shanah 24a–b; Menaḥot 28b. 82 Rachel Hachlili, The Menorah, the Ancient Seven-Armed Candelabrum: Origin, Form, and Significance (Leiden, 2001), 200–202. 83 The earliest extant seven-branched candelabrum, dated to ca. 1000, is found in the Cathedral of Essen in the Rhineland. On this artistic tradition, see Peter Bloch, “Siebenarmige Leuchter in christlichen Kirchen,” Wallraf-Richartz Jahrbuch 23 (1961): 55–190; idem, “Seven- Branched Candelabra in Christian Churches,” Journal of Jewish Art 1 (1974): 44–49; Bianca Kühnel, “The Menorah and the Cross: The Seven-Branched Candelabrum in the Church” in In the Light of the Menorah, 117–21. 84 Di Castro, “Gli arredi;” idem, “Prìncipi e vendori di stracci,” 175–77. revivals of ancient art in the design of arks 185 branches at different levels.85 In medieval Hebrew manuscripts, the arched arms of the menorah are as a rule of much taller proportions and end all at the same level.86 The menorah on the Catalana Torah ark was likely modeled on the Temple’s menorah on the Arch of Titus: in both these reliefs, the menorahs’ arms are semicircular, each arm consists of a smooth central section and a row of rounded segments on its sides, and similar segments comprise the upper section of the menorah’s stem.87 About a decade earlier, Raphael, an expert in the antiquities of Rome who copied some motifs from the Arch of Titus in his works88 and pursued historical reliability in the depiction of the Temple’s implements, gave a semicircular outline to the arms of the candelabrum that he frescoed in the “Expulsion of Heliodorus from the Temple” in the Stanza di Eliodoro in the Vatican.89 In the synagogue in Rome, the all’antica menorah became a Jewish implication of the Renaissance idea of the revival of antiquities. When displayed on the Torah ark, the symbol of the humiliation of Judaism from the Roman triumphal arch conveyed the meaning given to the menorah in medieval Jewish illuminations: the lamp to be lit in the messianic Temple. The Italian concept of the historical reconstruction of the menorah from its image on the Arch of Titus was discontinued in the Polish synagogues. Instead, the peculiar structure of the plant with its seven leaves, three on each side and one on top of its bold stem, on the Szydłów Torah ark duplicates the scheme of the seven-branched candlesticks, with their arms ending in pairs at different levels, as they appear in Renaissance

85 Avraham Ronen, “The Temple Menorah in Renaissance Art” in In the Light of the Menorah, 122–23 figs. 1–3. 86 See Revel-Neher, Le témoignage de l’absence, 61–95; Bezalel Narkiss, “The Menorah in Illuminated Hebrew Manuscripts of the Middle Ages” in In the Light of the Menorah, 81–86. On the height of the arms, note Rashi, gloss on Ex. 25:32, s. v. “Going out of the sides The height of the heads [of the) גובה ראשיהן שוה לגובהו של קנה האמצעי השביעי :”thereof six lateral branches] is equal to the height of the seventh, middle branch). 87 The stepped form of the pedestal of the menorah on the Arch of Titus was not copied in ancient, medieval, and Renaissance art. The precise shape of the menorah’s base is not determined in the biblical descriptions of the seven-branched candelabrum (Ex. 25:31 and Num. 8:4). See Daniel Sperber, “Between Jerusalem and Rome: The History of the Base of the Menorah as Depicted on the Arch of Titus” in In the Light of the Menorah, 135–59. 88 Arnold Nesselrath, “Lotto as Raphael’s Collaborator in the Stanza di Eliodoro,” The Burlington Magazine 146, no. 1220 (2004): 738. 89 On this fresco, mentioned by Giorgio Vasari, The Lives of the Artists (Oxford, 1998), 322, see John Shearman, “The Expulsion of Heliodorus” in Raffaello a Roma: Il convegno del 1983, eds. C. L. Frommel and M. Winner (Rome, 1986), 75–87. 186 chapter seven art.90 A candelabrum of that kind is held by Mercury in the emblematic image in Achille Bocchi’s Symbolicarum quaestionum of 1555 (Fig. 93). The motto Silentio Deum cole (Worship God in silence) above the engraving reveals that the act that Mercury performs is liturgical. The illustration fuses symbols of the various sources of ancient wisdom:91 Greco-Roman Hermes-Mercury—associated with the Egyptian Hermes Trismegistus, whose silence communicates hidden wisdom92—lifts the biblical menorah, bringing its flames next to the sun marked as the “monad,”93 a Py- thagorean term for God. Like the symbolic pyramids-obelisks in sepulchral sculpture, the image juxtaposes two sources of light, flames of fire and the sun, and alludes to the souls’ aspiring to their eternal source. The pretext for the candelabrum designating luminous spiritual emanation was found in the mystical treatises, influenced by the Jewish kabbalistic interpretation of the seven-branched menorah as the tree of sephirot, by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Johannes Reuchlin, and Guillaume Postel.94 Postel’s Candelabri typici in Mosis tabernaculo (Fig 94) printed in 1548 is the most elaborated Renaissance Christian adoption of the Jewish kabbalistic visions of the menorah.95 Among the vast rabbinical literature referred to in the Candelabri typici, there is the commentary on the Penta- teuch containing a kabbalistic interpretation of the menorah by the medi-

90 E. g., note the candlesticks in Lorenzo Costa, “Presentation in the Temple,” 1502, formerly in the Kaiser Friedrich-Museum, Berlin. See Dalia Haitovsky, “A New Look at a Lost Painting: The Hebrew Inscription in Lorenzo Costa’s ‘Presentation in the Temple’,” Artibus et Historiae 15, no. 29 (1994): 115. 91 Cf. Barbara C. Bowen, “Mercury at the Crossroads in Renaissance Emblems,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 48 (1985): 228. 92 See Raymond B. Waddington, “The Iconography of Silence and Chapman’s Hercules,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 33 (1970): 259–60. Edgar Wind argued that Mercury’s role here is to guide “the souls from outward appearances back to the inward One.” See Edgar Wind, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance (New York, 1968), 12 n. 40. Cf. Anne Rolet, “Une énigme hiéroglyphique: Le Mercure à la ménorah dans les Symbolicae Quaestiones d’Achille Bocchi” in L’Enigmatique à la Renaissance: formes, significations, esthétiques (Actes du colloque organisé par l’Association “Renaissance, Humanisme, Réforme”, Lyon, 7–10 septembre 2005), eds. Daniel Martin, Pierre Servet, and André Tournon (Paris, 2008), 251–60. 93 The text reads, Monas manet in se (Monad remains in itself). 94 Moshe Idel, “The Throne and the Seven-Branched Candlestick: Pico della Miran- dola’s Hebrew Source,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 40 (1977): 290–92; Rolet, “Une énigme hiéroglyphique,” 255. 95 On the genesis and developments of the mystical interpretations of the menorah, see Moshe Idel “Binah, the Eighth Sefirah: The Menorah in Kabbalah” in In the Light of the Menorah, 142–46. revivals of ancient art in the design of arks 187 eval Spanish rabbi, Baḥye ben Asher,96 which first appeared in print in Naples in 1492, then was often republished, and was well known by Polish rabbis. One of the editions was issued in Venice in 1546, the year of Postel’s arrival there, by the printer Daniel Bomberg,97 whom Postel began to as- -Biy’ur al ha-Torah: Elu) ביאור על התורה—sist.98 The title of Baḥye’s book or: light), and the) אור cidation on the Torah)—plays with the morpheme מאור הגולה introduction on the frontispiece dubs the author himself (Ma’or ha-Golah: luminary of the Exile) and “golden menorah.”99 Postel’s Candelabri typici, bearing the Hebrew supertitle Sha‘ar ha-Or ha-Kadosh (Gate of the Holy Light),100 is a modified Latin version of Pos- tel’s Hebrew treatise published earlier, likely in 1547, as a broadsheet Or nerot ha-Menorah (Light of the Menorah’s Candles).101 The broadsheet (Fig. 95) displays a drawing of a great menorah with the pairs of branches ending at different levels and four dissimilar legs: human, leonine, bovine, and aquiline. The menorah’s frame is formed by a string of biblical citations, beginning with “the Torah is light” (Prov. 6:23), that mention light and fire. The Hebrew inscriptions filling in the spaces around the plant-like menorah relate it to the sephirot, associate its flames with light of the primary creation, and define it as an image of the Divine chariot, which is borne— in accordance with Ezekiel 1:10—by the four angelic creatures looking like a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle.102 A menorah of the same layout, but of more massive proportions and only the principal Hebrew captions, was reproduced on the back of the frontispiece in the Latin edition. By addressing his treatise in Hebrew directly to the Jewish reader, Pos- tel—whom some assume to have been a kind of Judeo-Christian103—

96 Baḥye is mentioned in [Guillaume Postel], Candelabri typici in Mosis tabernaculo iussu diuino expressi [...] interpretatio: opus [...] a Zohare et Behir caeterisq[ue] multis antiquissimis Cabalae monume[n]tis ad nos emanatu[m] nuperimeque in lucem editum (Venice, ca. 1548), fol. 22r. 97 Baḥye ben Asher, Biy’ur al ha-Torah (Venice: Daniel Bomberg, 1546). 98 François Secret, Guillaume Postel (1510–1581) et son interprétation du candélabre de Moyse en hébreu, latin, italien et français (Nieuwkoop, 1966), 10–12. 99 Baḥye ben Asher, Biy’ur al ha-Torah, fol. 103v s. v. “Menorat zahav tahor” (menorah of pure gold). .שער האור הקדוש it should be ;שער האורה קורש Postel misspelled the phrase as 100 101 A German Hebraist, Conrad Pellicanus (1478–1556), copied the Or nerot ha-Menorah and translated it into Latin. Apparently when doing so, Pellicanus had not yet seen Postel’s Latin modified translation, the book Candelabri typici of 1548. See a discussion and fac- similes of these editions and copies in Secret, Guillaume Postel. 102 Ibid., 32. 103 Silverman points out that Postel identified himself as a convert to Judaism in his Or nerot ha-Menorah and there is testimony from an eyewitness that Postel once prayed in 188 chapter seven aimed at the achievement of peaceful co-existence between the Christians and the adherents of the other religions by convincing the latter of the truth of Christianity.104 Postel maintained contact with Jews.105 From at least 1538, he had been acquainted with a German-born Venetian Jew, the Hebrew and Yiddish linguist and writer Elijah Levita-Baḥur (1468/69– 1549).106 From 1514 until 1527 in Rome, Levita boarded at the house of Egi- dio da Viterbo, whose perception of the pyramid as a Neoplatonic symbol of fiery Divine love probably influenced Raphael’s pyramidal tombs of the Chigi.107 Later, when Postel lived in Venice, he met Levita among the Jewish assistants, editors, and proofreaders at the Daniel Bomberg press.108 Bom- berg’s was at that time the leading Christian printing house of Hebrew books,109 many of which were sold in Poland. Postel’s contacts in Italy and the wide circulation of printed books throughout Europe suggest that his vision of the menorah might have influenced Jewish scholars, even if Postel’s pronounced Christological argument prevented them from referring to him in their writings. The preoccupation of Christian kabbalists with the Temple’s candelabrum might reawaken the interest of sixteenth-century Polish rabbis in Jewish kabbalistic sources concerning the same subject. Two compilations on the menorah were composed approximately in the same period by Moses Is- serles and Solomon Luria of Lublin, who were relatives and close friends, but independent thinkers. In his Torat ha-Olah, Moses Isserles concisely exposed the cabbalistic discourse on the seven-branched menorah from Baḥye ben Asher’s Biy’ur al ha-Torah,110 quoting Baḥye’s association of the menorah’s light with the Torah: “The menorah with its seven lamps will

Hebrew. See Godfrey Edmond Silverman, “Postel, Guillaume,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 16: 419. 104 Illustrative of this position is Postel’s De orbis terrae Concordia Libri Quatuor (Basel, 1544). 105 Cf. William J. Bouwsma, “Postel and the Significance of Renaissance Cabalism,” Journal of the History of Ideas 15, no. 2 (1954): 220. 106 See Guillaume Postel, Linguarum duodecim characteribus differentium alphabetum (Paris 1538), fol. 3. 107 See Gérard Emmanuel Weil, Elie Levita: humaniste et massorete (1469–1549) (Leiden, 1963), 56, 54, 117, 169; and note 47 on page 177 above. 108 Secret, Guillaume Postel, 10. 109 A. M. Haberman, Ha-Madpis Daniel Bomberg u-reshimat sifrei beit Dfuso (The printer Daniel Bomberg and the list of the books of his press) (Safed, 1978) (Hebrew). 110 See note 97 on page 187. revivals of ancient art in the design of arks 189 hint at the Torah, which is called light, as it is said […] ‘the Torah is light’ [Prov. 6:23].”111 Solomon Luria devoted a monograph, Menorat zahav tahor (The Meno- rah of Pure Gold) to the symbolism of the menorah. In 1581, that is, after Luria’s death in 1573, the text was first published in Prague as an eight-page booklet, and in 1584 it was reprinted in Cracow. Luria’s treatise on the menorah—like Postel’s—was supplied with a woodcut illustration of the seven-branched candelabrum (Fig. 96). The verse “For with Thee is the fountain of life; in Thy light do we see light” (Ps. 36:10) written above the illustration propagates the meaning of the menorah as a representation of Divine light. The compilation largely cites Isaac Arama’s Akedat Iẓḥak and Italian prayer books, which believed that King David disclosed the magical power of the menorah by writing the 69th Psalm on it.112 Luria’s menorah is inscribed with the letters of the first verse of Psalm 69 above its seven flames, and each of the following seven verses (2–8) runs from top to bottom along another arm of the menorah. In divergence from the menorahs formed by the rows of the text in Italian prayerbooks,113 the engraver of the illustration that is repeated in the early printed editions of Luria’s book drew the menorah’s body and inscribed the psalmic verses on the banderoles that overlap the branches, crossing “its calyxes, its knops, and its flowers” (Ex. 25:31). The thick branches and a horizontal base on three leaf-like legs resemble menorah images in medieval Pentateuch manuscripts of the Mikdashiah (Temple of God) type from Spain and southern France—for example, the Catalan Bible of 1301 from the Kon- gelige Bibliotek in Copenhagen (Fig. 97).114 Some Mikdashiah Bibles had reached the Ashkenazic communities, and one of them inspired the painting of the Temple implements in the Re- gensburg Bible of ca. 1300. Katrin Kogman-Appel convincingly argued that the illuminator in Regensburg reworked its model in order to convey an Ashkenazic eschatological vision, a more mystical one than a mainly pos-

-Isser ,המנורה בשבעה נרותיה תרמוז לתורה הנקרא אור שנאמר ]...[ נר מצוה ותורה אור 111 les, Torat ha-Olah, fol. 28r. Moses Isserles confessed that Baḥye’s interpretation of the menorah was far from his own, but said that this could not prevent him from citing the latter; see ibid. 112 Yuhasz, “Ha-’Shiviti-Menorah’,” 30–37. 113 See ibid., 51–52 figs. 1–3. 114 On this manuscript, see Elisabeth Revel-Neher, Le témoignage de l’absence, 70–71. On the Mikdashiah history, iconography, and meanings, see Katrin Kogman-Appel, Jewish Book Art between Islam and Christianity: The Decoration of Hebrew Bibles in Medieval Spain (Leiden 2004), 74–88, 133–39, 156–68. 190 chapter seven itivistic belief in the natural progression of human history towards the restoration of the Jewish kingdom and Temple in Jerusalem that was expressed in the Sephardic paintings.115 Similarly, the woodcut in Luria’s book is a version, rather than a copy, of a menorah from the Mikdashiah manuscripts. The engraver overlooked the arrangement of the six lateral flames of the menorah turning towards the central flame that were typical of the Sephardic illuminations.116 Either the need to place a benediction117 and biblical verse (Gen. 49:18) or Rashi’s description of the menorah’s bottom as “a kind of a chest, and three legs go from it downwards”118 prompted the engraver to depict the menorah’s pedestal as more massive than that seen in the manuscripts. The menorah’s calyxes, frequently mentioned in Luria’s text, are shown in the engraving as actual goblets, in accordance .gevi‘a), which means both calyx and goblet) גביע ,with their Hebrew name Luria’s association of the menorah’s central branch with “the Tree of Life that ‘in the midst of the garden [– of Paradise; after Ex. 3:2],’ that means, in the centre of the garden”119 is reminiscent of the description of the menorah by Postel: “It is the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil, and both of them in the midst of the garden.”120 Postel thought of the tree-like menorah as of a kind of axis mundi transmitting Divine emanation between the celestial and earthly worlds.121 Luria repeated this con

115 See Katrin Kogman-Appel, “Sephardic Ideas in Ashkenaz: Visualizing the Temple in Medieval Regensburg,” Simon Dubnow Institute Yearbook 7 (2009): 245–77. 116 See examples in Revel-Neher, Le témoignage de l’absence, pl. 7b, figs. 58, 64, 66b. The inclination of the menorah’s lateral flames towards the central one is described in Rashi’s gloss on Ex. 25:37, s. v. “Shed light towards its face.” See examples in Revel-Neher, Le témoi- gnage de l’absence, pl. 7b, figs. 58, 64, 66b. ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו :The benediction quoted on the base of Luria's menorah reads 117 .(Blessed be His glorious kingdom forever and ever) לעולם ועד ,Rashi ירכה: הוא הרגל של מטה העשוי כמין תיבה, ושלשה רגלים יוצאין הימנה ולמטה 118 gloss on Ex. 25:31, s. v. “Its stem.” Cf. Maimonides’s more general remark, “it [the menorah] had three legs,” Mishneh Torah: Hilkhot beit ha-Beḥirah, 3:2. והוא ]הקנה האמצעי[ סוד עץ החיים אשר בתוך הגן ר"ל ]רוצה לומר[ באמצע הגן 119 Solomon Luria, Menorat zahav tahor (Cracow, 1585), [4]. The figure in the brackets counts the pages, starting with the frontispiece, in this sine pagina publication. see Secret, Guillaume והיא ]המנורה[ עץ החיים ועץ דעת טוב ורע שניהם בתוך הגן 120 Postel, 58 (fol. 215r). Cf. Conrad Pellicanus’s Latin translation of this sentence in ibid, 82 (fol. 201v) and 94. Postel’s modified Latin version in his Candelabri typici, fol. 11v, reads: “et hoc e[st] lignu[m] vitae, et lignu[m] cognitio[n]is bo[n]i et mali ultraq[ue] arbore e[st] i[n] medio horti;” see Secret, Guillaume Postel, 119. אילון בתוך אילון כמו אופן בתוך אופן מלמעלה למטה בשמותיו ומדותיו השם יתעלה ואילן 121 Tree in the midst of a tree, just like a wheel in the midst of the wheel, a tree) מלמטה למעלה from top to bottom, with the names and attributes of God to be exalted; and the tree from bottom to top), Secret, Guillaume Postel, 58 (fol. 215r). Writing in Hebrew, Postel used the ,literally, “the Name”). Cf. Pellicanus) השם ,traditional Hebrew substitute for God’s name revivals of ancient art in the design of arks 191 cept according to his vision of Psalm 69, which was written on the menorah’s branches. He explained that on the central branch, the first and last letters the name of God, and stated that this ,יה compose—ה and י—of verse four alludes to God’s government in the world both above and beneath; to the Divine abode in the heavenly Jerusalem and Temple, which are reflected in the Earthly Jerusalem; and, again, to the Tree of Life connecting both realms.122 The sixteenth-century literature on the menorah popularised the symbolic perception of the seven-branched lampstand and its parts, rather than embarking on any historical or archaeological investigation of the menorah’s original shape. The main readers of Christian kabbalistic, Neo- platonic, or Hermetic writings were Humanistic intellectuals, among them artists. Moses Isserles’s prevailingly exegetic discourse on the menorah appealed mainly to Jewish literati, some of whom managed synagogue affairs. In contrast, Luria addressed not only the Jewish intellectual elite, but also the common synagogue attender: Luria added a liturgical introduction and conclusion to the “psalm of the menorah” and promised Di- vine protection and benefits to those who recite it in the synagogue.123 Luria’s other distinct idea was a visualization of his mystical vision. He argued for the public display of the menorah bearing the psalm in the synagogue, and not only intimately, such as in books, as was previously practised. His Menorat zahav states, “And the sages wise in the kabbalah said: everyone who will every day see this psalm drawn in the shape of the menorah will deserve grace and understanding of God and people; and if it [the psalm] is drawn on the Holy ark, it will protect the community from a bad predestination.”124 The favour that the Menorat zahav enjoyed immediately is confirmed by its four republications in Cracow and Prague up to the end of the six- fol. 201v (ibid., 82), translating it as the normative Christian Dominus Deus: “Arbor […] cum niminibus eius et proprietatibus eius domini dei benedicti” (The tree […] with its Lord God’s blessed names and attributes). In his Candelabri typici, fol. 11v, Postel himself reworded: “[…] hoc est arbor in medio arboris. Rota in medio rotae. Arbor a superiori [ad] inferius cu[m] nominibus, et proprietatibus dei benedicti, et arbor ab inferiori ad superi[us],” see Secret, Guillaume Postel, 119. ]... ה[קנה האמצעי שבתחלה י' ובסופה ה' והוא שם י"ה והשגחתו וממשלתו ברום ובתחת, 122 ,Luria, Menorat zahav tahor וזה רומז שעל קנה האמצעי הוא ירושלים ובית המקדש ועץ החיים [7]. 123 Ibid., [1, 3]. ואמרו חכמים בעלי הקבלה כל מי שיראה זה המזמור כל יום מצוייר בצורת המנורה, ימצא 124 ,.ibid חן ושכל טוב בעיני אלהים ואדם, אם הוא מצוייר על ארון הקודש יגן בעד גזירה רעה לקהל [1]. 192 chapter seven teenth century,125 but it seems that the route of the menorah image took until the design of the Torah ark necessitated more time. In that context, the seven-petal plant on the Torah ark in Szydłów seems to be an experi- mental introduction of the menorah into the synagogue design. If in the late-sixteenth-century Polish synagogues, the imitation of the biblical seven-branched candelabrum was still taboo, its alternative appearance in the arboreal shape—as we have seen, a common figure in the contemporary mystical texts on the menorah—would have been agreed upon, because of a vegetative relief atop the Torah ark that had been tolerated in the venerated Altneuschul of Prague and Renaissance synagogues of Ka- zimierz. One may only speculate, whether inspiration had come to the Szydłów ark’s sculptor or patron when one of them was observing the frontispiece of Postel’s Candelabri typici, on which—if turned upside down— a tall seven-petal leaf rises between a pair of great recumbent volutes (Fig. 94), or its resemblance to the plant and volutes on that ark is accidental. Whatever the case, the menorah in the guise of a plant integrates well into the symbolism of the Torah ark in Ashkenazic synagogues. The plant carved on the ark in Szydłów continued the tradition of crowning the Torah ark with a symbol of the Tree of Life in the synagogues of Kazimierz. The volutes scrolling out from below the “tree” in Szydłów may imply an image of the scrolls of the Torah, and if contemplated by the spectator familiar with the association of Divine wisdom with the “tree of life to them that lay hold upon her” (Prov. 3:18), the image might imbue him or her with a hope for a long life on earth and eternal bliss in Paradise. When considered as a disguised lampstand, the plant reiterates the symbolism of the light of God and of Divine Scripture encoded in the pyramid-obelisk, and—when pondered in line with the kabbalistic concepts of the menorah’s central stem as a sign of God’s dominance in the world and the axis of the universe—the plant’s thick trunk, like the obelisk, alludes to Divine emanation. The belief in the magic power of the menorah displayed on the Torah ark was first implemented in the form of a sheet of paper with a drawing of the menorah attached to an ark’s door. Menachem Mendel Krochmal (ca. 1600–61), reported that in a synagogue in Prostějov (then Prossnitz), Moravia, a congregant painted the menorah directly on the ark’s door and pasted psalmic verses written on pieces of parchment to the menorah’s

125 After its first publication in Prague in 1581, Luria’s Menorat zahav tahor was reprinted in Cracow in 1585; in Prague again in 1591; and twice more, concurrently in Prague and Cracow, in 1595. revivals of ancient art in the design of arks 193 branches instead of a clumsy drawing of the menorah on a small piece of paper that had been previously pinned to the inside of the door.126 There were precedents of inscriptions and painted ornaments on the interiors of arks’ doors in Italy,127 but no earlier emblems or images there have been found anywhere. Krochmal, who spent most of his life in his native Ka- zimierz, was the rabbi of Prossnitz from 1646 until 1648, when another permanent representation of the apotropaic menorah was produced, in 1647/48, on the inside of a new pair of doors (Plates 2.17–2.18) for the Torah ark, then almost a century old, in the Isserls’ Synagogue in Kazimierz.128 The menorah that imitated the woodcut illustration from Luria’s Menorat zahav became part of the relief made of separate pieces cast in a lead and tin alloy that were hammered, cut out, nailed to the tin plate covering the wooden panel,129 and then gilt and painted.130 The installation of the menorah relief on the ark’s door answered Luria’s advice to draw Psalm 69 in the shape of the menorah for apotropaic reasons. Yet here, the menorah appears under the biblical command about its proper treatment in the Sanctuary, “the seven lamps shall give light in front of the candlestick” (Num. 8:2), and is coupled with the table of the showbread on the inside

126 Menachem Mendel Krochmal, She’elot ve-teshuvot Ẓemah Ẓedek (Amsterdam, 1675), 33v response 50. See also Yuhasz, “Ha-’Shiviti-Menorah’,” 150–53. 127 An early example of this custom is the Ten Commandments rephrased as a piyuut (liturgical verse) on the inner side of the Torah ark’s doors of 1543 from the Scuola Grande in Mantua. Nahon, Aronot kodesh, 48–51. 128 The doors were donated to the Israel Museum in 1964. The dimensions of the doors, 33 × 154 cm each, is almost the same as the current doors of the Isserls’ (Rema) Synagogue, 32.5 (left panel) and 32 (right panel) wide and 149 cm high. It is probable that the lower side of the niche was elevated by some 5 cm in the second half of the 19th century, when a new dedicatory tablet was inserted between the bases of the pilasters. I thank Mr. Eugeniusz Duda, curator of the Judaica Collection of the Cracow Historical Museum in the Old Syna- gogue, who kindly provided me with the measurements from the Isserls’ Synagogue. The date of [5]408 (1647/8 CE) is enciphered by the numerical value of the letters marked by dots in the name of a child, in honor of whom the doors were donated, in the cartouche on Isaac Zekel [may God protect him]). See also) י'צ'ח'ק' זע'ק'ל' י']ישמרהו ?] :the right door Iris Fishof, “Zug delatot aron kodesh mi-Krakov” (A pair of Torah ark doors from Cracow) in Kroke-Kazimizh-Krakov, 293–96 (Hebrew). 129 The technique of low tin reliefs combined together on a wooden panel may be unique to the synagogues of Kazimierz, as no other example has survived elsewhere. Even if there were more such ark doors in Poland, the demand for them would not have been constant, so it is unlikely that there was a workshop specializing only in this type of production. The craftsmen commissioned for making the ark’s doors could have derived their skills from their practise as goldsmiths, silversmiths or bookbinders. On these professions, which were widespread among the Jews in Kazimierz, see Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 301, 313–19. 130 Tiny traces of the original gilding from both sides, and of silver leaf on the inner side, and fragments of colour are still discernable on the doors. 194 chapter seven of the other door, captioned “the table showbread before me always” (Ex. 25:30). The composition of large-scale images within two tall panels, the menorah on the right and the table on the left (Plate 2.18), was obviously influenced by the early Mikdashiah illuminations, exemplified by the Co- penhagen Catalan Bible (Fig. 97), where the menorah and the showbread are similarly shown—on the right and left respectively—within two vertical panels. The departures of the relief on the ark’s doors from the Sep- hardic Mikdashiah iconography are of a different nature. As we have seen, the menorah’s shape and inscriptions were copied from Luria’s amuletic menorah. None of the tongs, shovels, fire pans, or steps usually depicted near the menorah in the Mikdashiah Bibles has been reproduced on the door. Similarly copying the menorah from a Sephardic model, the illuminator of the Regensburg Bible omitted these additions in order to emphasise the symbolic significance of the menorah itself.131 The rendering of the table as if seen from above, with the staves of bread rising from behind the tabletop, was probably the attempt of a naïve artist to imitate a three-dimensional illusion of the linear perspective. The triangular pediment above the table on the left door seems to be a simplified, non-figurative version of the representations of the Holy Ark’s pediment, which in the Copenhagen Catalan Bible is formed by the raised wings of the cherubs, but is depicted as an actual triangular Gothic pediment in the Foa Bible of the 1380s from the Barcelona area.132 On the door, the Ark’s pediment surmounts the table of the showbread, whereas the image of the Ark of the Covenant, which in Sephardic manuscripts is composed of the two Tablets of the Law bearing the initial words of the Ten Commandments, is absent. The Tablets might have been censured from the relief on the ark’s doors because of the fear that exposition of the text of the Decalogue only may diminish the value of all the other commandments predicted by the Torah. The admonition is rooted in the objection of the Talmudic sages to the Jews who extended the practise of reciting the Ten Commandments in the Temple in Jerusalem to the “outlying districts,” that is, outside the Temple: the sages stopped this liturgy “on account of the insinuations of the Gentiles.”133 In medieval France, Rashi specified the “Gentiles” as “the pupils of Jesus” and proposed a clearer explanation for the “insinuations,” the term obscurely defined in the Talmud: “Lest [the

131 Kogman-Appel, “Sephardic Ideas in Ashkenaz,” 273–75. 132 Paris, Saint Sulpice, Compagnie des prêtres, MS. 1933, fol. 5v. Kogman-Appel, Jewish Book Art, 150, fig. 112. 133 Berakhot 12a. revivals of ancient art in the design of arks 195 Gentiles] would say to the [Jewish] ignoramuses: ‘The rest of the Torah is not true’.”134 In contrast, the Sephardic tradition remained liberal toward that custom: Maimonides testified that the Decalogue continued to be a part of public liturgy; Jacob ben Asher, who moved from Cologne to Spain, recommended including them in the everyday morning prayer; and Joseph Caro, the most influential sixteenth-century Sephardic codifier of Jewish law, agreed with Jacob ben Asher.135 Adopting Caro’s halakhah to the Ash- kenazic tradition, Moses Isserles stressed: “Just to the sole person it is permitted to recite the Ten Commandments daily, but it is forbidden to recite them publically.”136 It seems that by implication of their attitude to public recitation of the Ten Commandments, the Ashkenazic Jews considered the parading display of the Tablets to be fraught with the meaning of reducing the totality of the Revelation at Sinai to the Ten Commandments only. It is worth noting that the illuminator of the Ashkenazic Regensburg Bible did not copy the Decalogue written in two columns on the Holy Ark from his Sephardic model, but transformed them into the two columns of showbread on the bipartite rectangular occupying the left top of the page.137 To the best of our knowledge, there is no example of the Tablets of the Covenant in ancient and medieval synagogues prior to their appearance on the Torah ark of 1522/23 in the Scuola Catalana in Rome (Fig. 22),138 the same ark that was mentioned above as the earliest post-medieval case of the classical aedicula and the menorah revived in the synagogue. However, the custom of open exposition of the Tablets on the Torah ark did not spread beyond Rome: rather rare in other sixteenth-century Italian synagogues, the Deca- logue or its poetic paraphrasing appeared there on the interior of the ark’s

134 Rashi, gloss on Berakhot 12a s. v. “On account of the insinuations of the gentiles” and “The gentiles” (the censored section). See also Gad B. Sarfatti, “The Tablets of the Law as a Symbol of Judaism” in The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition, ed. Gershon Levi (Jerusalem, 1990), 385, 389–90. 135 Maimonides, Responsa, 263; Jacob ben Asher, Sefer ha-Turim: Oraḥ Ḥayim, sign 1; Caro, Shulḥan arukh: Oraḥ ḥayim 1:5. ,Isserles ודוקא ביחיד מותר לומר עשרת הדברות בכל יום, אבל אסור לאומרם בצבור 136 glosses on Caro, Shulḥan arukh: Oraḥ ḥayim 1:5. 137 Instead of the bipartite rectangular shape of the Ark, the painter of the Regensburg Bible depicted the Ark as a wide chest with a sloping top in the right bottom. See Kogman- Appel, “Sephardic Ideas in Ashkenaz,” 262–63. 138 Cf. Gad B. Sarfatti, “Tablets of the Law,” 385, 388–89, 405–407. The chronology of the Torah arks by Sarfatti is not always reliable since he referred to several obsolete sources, and confessed (ibid., 406) that when the date of the Torah ark was unknown to him, he gave the date of the synagogue building instead. I accept the date of the Scuola Catalana ark confirmed in Migliau, “Nuove prospettive,” 191–205. 196 chapter seven doors,139 and in the east European synagogues, the Tablets were not adopted until at least the mid-seventeenth century. The absence of an image of the Tablets of the Covenant from the doors of the Isserls’ ark is compensated by the presence of the actual scrolls of the Torah inside. When the doors opened, the flattened representation on them accomplished the three-dimensional setting of the menorah and showbread in front of the ark’s niche, symbolically corresponding to the holiest area in the depth of the Sanctuary: “And thou shalt set the table without the veil [– of the Holy of Holies], and the menorah over against the table on the side of the tabernacle toward the south; and thou shalt put the table on the north side” (Ex. 26:35). Demonstrating the paraphernalia in great detail, the Mikdashiah ignores their mutual placement in the Temple and its precincts: for instance, the location of the menorah to the right of the showbread is at odds with Maimonides’s note, “The menorah is on the south, to the left of the comer, and the table, on which is the showbread, to the right.”140 Maimonides’s description relates to the array of these two major implements in the Sanc- tuary, where the Ark was housed in the westernmost chamber. Accord- ingly, the schematic ground plans of the Tabernacle in the desert and the Temple in Jerusalem, according to Rashi and Maimonides, respectively, draw the menorah to the left of the Holy Ark, vis-à-vis the showbread on its right.141 However, the righthand location of the menorah as in the Mik- dashiah paintings became the correct biblical topography in the eastward- oriented synagogues: the menorah to the south of the most holy place, opposite the table on the northern, left side. On the Isserls’ ark, the magic

139 See note 127 on page 193. Indicative is the Torah ark of ca. 1500 from Urbino, the doors of which were decorated on their inner sides with depictions of the Tablets of the Decalogue only during its refurbishing in 1623/24. Mann, “Recovery of a Known Work,” 274. In Italian synagogues, representations of the Tablets on the Covenant on either the interiors of the doors or the pediment of the ark that were widespread in the 17th century, see Nahon, Aronot kodesh, 8–10, 36, 101, 105–106, 110–11, 115. Maimonides, Mishneh המנורה בדרום משמאל הנכנס ושולחן מימין שעליו לחם הפנים 140 Torah: Hilkhot Beit-ha-Beḥirah, 1:7. 141 E.g., see a plan of the Tabernacle in Rashi’s Commentary on the Pentateuch, Cam- erino, 1399 (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Michael 384, fol. 142v), reproduced in Bezalel Narkiss, “A Scheme of the Sanctuary from the Time of Herod the Great,” Journal of Jewish Art 1 (1974): 15 fig. 8. On Maimonides’s plans of the Temple, see Rachel Wischnitzer, “Mai- monides’ Drawings of the Temple,” Journal of Jewish Art 1 (1974): 16–27; Gabrielle Sed-Rajna, “The History of a Hebrew Codex: A Hebrew Codex as History. Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah at the Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences” in Studies in Jewish manuscripts, eds. Joseph Dan, Klaus Herrmann, Johanna Hoornweg, and Manuela Petzoldt (Tübingen, 1999), 199–220. revivals of ancient art in the design of arks 197 function of the menorah was thus secondary to its part in the artistic reconstruction of the Sanctuary reinforced by the signature citing Exodus 36:4 in the cartouche on the left door, which associated Zalman, Hayim, Manya (also possibly Monya or Anya) Schnitzer (– carver), and Velvel—the Jewish craftsmen, who produced the doors—with the artisans of different professions, who built the biblical Tabernacle.142 This had become the earliest known signature of artists in the synagogue since the beginning of the Middle Ages, the first made by Jewish synagogue designers and second only to the signature of the Italian builder Matteo Gucci in the vault of the Old Synagogue in Kazimierz. Apparently, during the second half of the seventeenth century, two more Torah arks in Kazimierz were equipped with the double doors decorated with the menorah and the table of showbread. One pair of the doors is known only from a pre-Holocaust photograph of the open ark in the High Synagogue published by Bałaban (Plate 3.14). Seemingly, the reliefs were made in the technique identical to that on the doors of Isserls’ ark: metal casts nailed through a tin plate to a wooden panel.143 Bałaban reported that on one of the doors, he saw the names Zalman and Hayim, sons of Aaron,144 perhaps the same people who participated in the work on the ark’s doors from the Isserls’ Synagogue. No date is discernible in the photograph from the High Synagogue, but a more delicate rendering and freer arrangement of the cast reliefs within the panels suggests that the ark’s doors in that synagogue were done later than those in the Isserls’. Probably, when working for Moses Isserles’s heirs, the craftsmen were assisted by an expert in biblical Hebrew, but they had no such advice in the High Syna-

ויבאו כל החכמים העשי]ם[ \ ]את[ כל ,The inscription, partially damaged, reads 142 and all“) מלאכת הקדש איש איש \ ממלאכתו כמר זלמן היים \ מ]א?[^ניה שניצר וועלוויל ק^ס the wise men, that wrought / all the work of the sanctuary, came every man / from his work which they made” [Ex. 36:4], Zalman Hayim / Manya [or Monya?/Anya?] Schnitzer Velvel KS[?]). 143 Most likely, the doors’ outside was originally decorated by rhombic grids of planks. The reliefs of a great crowned eagle, birds, dragons, plants and fruits attached to the grids seem to have been made later than the reliefs on the inner side of the doors. The elegant, precise outlined shapes and the liberal use of zoomorphic images on the doors’ outside suggest the dating of these reliefs to the reconstruction of the ark after the fire of 1773, when the ark’s attic and pediment could been reshaped and adorned with the stucco reliefs of griffins and plants (Plate 3.15). See Ilia Rodov, “Dragons: A Symbol of Evil in Synagogue Decoration?” Ars Judaica 1 (2005): 80–82. 144 Bałaban, Historja Żydów, 1: 77 and figs. 20–21. Probably, he read these names in the partially damaged inscription within the oval cartouche under the table of showbread on the left door, but the only surviving photograph (Plate 3.15) is not clear enough to decipher the text. 198 chapter seven gogue, inasmuch as here the quotations from Numbers 8:2 and Exodus 25:30 labeling the menorah and showbread, respectively, are misspelled.145 The designers of the door reliefs in the High Synagogue brought back the shape of their menorah to that of the candelabra with a ball above three semicircular cups on each, from the Mikdashiah illuminations (cf. Fig. 97), retreating from the “psalm of the menorah.” The tradition from the Mik- dashiah paintings of featuring the menorah as a vivifying plant by depicting extra leaves on the stem under its main branches was continued by attaching pairs of leaves to the stem and the base of the menorah and a cluster of grapes to the stem’s bottom on the right door in the High Syna- gogue. This artistic convention prompts the reading of a similar large vine leaf nailed in a vertical position just above the stem of the menorah on the right ark door of the Isserls’ Synagogue, as a simpler signifier of the same symbolism. The effect of the opened Torah ark in the High Synagogue as a vision of the Sanctuary was accomplished by the wood-carved likeness of valances hanging from the arch in the ark’s niche, which illustrates the note in Exo- dus 26:35 that the menorah and table are “without the veil” of the Holy of Holies, as well as by the round-headed Tablets of the Law attached to the top of the arch. The attribution of this arched frame to the craftsmen who decorated the inside of the doors is probable.146 Yet, as far as is seen in the photograph, the Tablets are most likely a later addition: original seems to be another, flatter and wider panel partially overlapped by the Tablets that rises directly from the arch and fits precisely between the leaves in the spandrels. Still visible only when the doors opened, this might have been an early example of the Tablets of the Covenant represented in Polish synagogues. Since we suppose the carved Tablets to be newer than the metal cast reliefs on the doors that postdated those of 1648 in the Isserls’ Synagogue, we may estimate that the objection by east European Jews to the open display of the Ten Commandments vanished during the second half of the seventeenth century. It is possible that the purportedly Sep-

in the beginning of the sentence and the extra vowel אל Cf. the omitted preposition 145 in the ה and the lack of the article מול פני המנורה יאירו שבעת הנירות in הנרות in the word י אל מול פני on the High Synagogue ark vs. the normative לחם פנים לפני תמיד in פנים word ’Ex. 25:30) on the Isserls) לחם הפנים לפני תמיד Num. 8:2) and) המנורה יאירו שבעת הנרות doors. 146 The attribution is proposed judging from the resemblance of the wooden carved pairs of C-shaped branches overlapping wider leaves in the arch’s spandrels to the rope-wide curved branches in the margins of both doors, and the similarly executed small rosettes on the roundels in the tripartite bottom bar of the niche and on the background of the doors. revivals of ancient art in the design of arks 199 hardic congregants of the High Synagogue147 were more tolerant of that image than their Ashkenazic neighbours. A different interpretation of the seven-branched candelabrum is found in the painting of the menorah and the table on the round-headed wooden doors that were rescued from one of the synagogues in Kazimierz during the Nazi occupation, and were attached to the reconstructed iron bimah in the Isserls’ Synagogue in 1958 (Plate 2.19).148 The partially damaged Hebrew date on the menorah’s base may be deciphered as either 1654/5 or 1694/5.149 The painting loosely copies the shape of the menorah from Solomon Luria’s Menorat zahav (Fig. 97), except for its inscriptions. The banderoles that are reshaped as yellow bands ascending to sparkling red flames feature the branches as streams of fiery light intimating the kabbalistic visions of the menorah as a channel of luminous Divine emanation. The custom of mounting new decorated doors on old frames testifies to the responsive perception by the patrons and congregation of the symbolism of the Torah shrine in their synagogues. Whereas the depiction of the major implements heightens the significance of the synagogue ark as an image of the biblical abode of the holiness, their appearance on either side of the worshipper approaching the ark during the liturgy implies a pageant of his imaginative visit to the Sanctuary. This function of the images reflects the new attitude toward space in Baroque art, whose aim and method, as John Rupert Martin generalised, were “to break down the barrier between the work of art and the real world” and “to conceive of the subject represented as existing in a space coextensive with that of the observer.”150 The involvement of the worshipper in a Baroque spectacle was even wider scaled when the menorah and the showbread were portrayed in the centre of the southern and northern walls, respectively, in the prayer hall.151 The oldest known examples of this imagery on synagogue walls appeared short-

147 See note 60 on page 130. 148 Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 12. golden menorah, by the) [מ[נו'רת' ז'הב' לפק ]–לפרט קטן] The inscription reads 149 is [5]415, corresponding ו'ת'ז'ב' abbreviated era). The value of the apostrophised characters -now lost, was also marked, the total arrived at [5]455, corre ,מ to 1654/5 CE. If the letter sponding to 1694/5. 150 John Rupert Martin, Baroque (London, 1989), 155. 151 According to Eisenstein (Oẓar dinim u-minhagim, 273), the “eternal light” was once placed in a niche in the western wall of the synagogue in remembrance of the position of the menorah in the Temple. Yet he did not provide any source for or example of that information, and noted that in his day (born in Poland in 1854, immigrated to the United States in 1872), the custom was to place the “eternal light” in front of the Torah ark. 200 chapter seven ly after it was depicted on the doors of the Isserls’ ark. Between the late 1640s and 1670s, the menorah and the showbread were sculpted in low relief on the southern and northern walls in the synagogue of Szczebrz- eszyn in southeastern Poland.152 The lower part of the painted menorah flanked by jugs has survived on the southern wall in the Kupah Synagogue in Kazimierz,153 and it is most likely that the showbread was depicted on the opposite wall. Although no inscriptions are seen on the menorah branches in the Szczebrzeszyn and Kupah Synagogues, remnants of the abbreviations accompanying the magical psalmic menorah are found near the menorah in the former, and both menorahs reproduce the two-tiered wide base with the benediction of God’s name154 and Genesis 49:18 from Luria’s Menorat zahav.

152 These reliefs are usually considered to be part of the original decoration of the synagogue, along with the ark’s frame, moulded network on the ceiling, and blind arcade on the walls. For this approach and more bibliography, see Piechotka, Bramy nieba: Bóżnice murowane, 163–66. Basing himself on the spatial composition, the form of the spanning and the pattern of the moulded network on the ceiling, Adam Miłobędzki dated the synagogue to the late 1630s; see Miłobędzki, Architektura Polska XVII wieku, 1: 307. However, the style of the menorah and showbread reliefs differs from that of the ornamented ceiling mouldings and resembles that of the jug and bowl sculpted above the entrance on the western side of the prayer hall. These emblematic reliefs, which are not an integral part of the ceiling moulded net and blind arcades on the walls, could be an addition inserted afterwards. This might have been after 1648, when the Jews of Szczebrzeszyn were attacked by the Cossacks of Khmelnitsky and the synagogue was damaged. Trzciński assumed that its repair was completed by 1659; see Andrzej Trzciński, Śladami zabytków kultury żydowskiej na Lubelszczyźnie (Lublin, 1990), 16. The reliefs of the Levitical attributes, a jug and a bowl, designate their artist, David ben Moses Levi, whose signature with the date of his work was זה / מעשה ידי דוד בן / מוהרר ]מורנו הרב רבי[ משה :found in a cartouche above his emblem This was) [?] מבית / לוי זצ"ל ]זכר צדיק לברכה[ לפרט ]קטן[ ת'הלה / ל'דוד א'רוממך אלוה'י made by David, son of our teacher Rabbi Moses of the house of Levi, may the memory of the righteous be blessed, by the abbreviated era: “[A psalm] of praise, of David. I will extol Thee, my God” [Ps. 145:1–2]). This inscription, missing since 1939, is visible—except for the single character following the last word in the bottom row—in photographs no. 13289 and 13290 from the collection of the Institute of Art of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw. As far as I can discern in the photographs, the letters marked as numbers are whose total of [5]436 corresponds to 1675/76 CE. Citing this Hebrew text in its ,ת' ל' א' ה' translation into Polish, the Piechotkas read the date as 1679/80 and attributed to David ben Moses some unspecified paintings (the photographs show Hebrew prayers inscribed within the arcades and on the walls and the coloured background within moulded frames on the ceiling). See Piechotka, Bramy nieba: Bóżnice murowane, 166. 153 See a reproduction in Izabella Rejduch-Samkowa and Jan Samek, Dawna sztuka żydowska w Polsce (Warsaw, 2002), fig. 119. The menorah image that overlays a prayer written in the lower layer of painting on the wall seems to be dated much later than the synagogue completed by the early 1640s (see page 138 above). 154 See note 117 on page 190. revivals of ancient art in the design of arks 201 To summarise, we may point out the distinct meanings of the menorah revived in synagogue art in the Cracow area in the late-sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: a reconstructed major implement of the Sanctuary; a protective talisman; and a mystical symbol, either a guise of the Tree of Life or a representation of Divine light. These types developed, although to different extents, in the design of synagogue arks in later times in eastern and central Europe and in Italy.155 In Kazimierz once again, the menorah and the table of showbread, both crowned and accompanied by a pair of jugs and a basket of fruit, were shown as a delicate gilt relief against a teal blue background on the interiors of the ark’s doors and dated 1742/43.156 An indication of the spread of this iconography in Ashkenazic synagogues to the east and west of Poland are the paintings of the menorah and showbread on the insides of the Torah arks’ doors produced by Eliezer ben Solomon Sussman, a wandering synagogue artist from Brody, Ukraine, in the synagogue in Unterlimpurg near Schwäbisch Hall in 1738/39 and in Colmberg near Ansbach about the same period.157 Elaborate versions of the same imagery were produced in eighteenth-century synagogues in Piedmont, Italy. On the insides of the two pairs of doors of the Torah ark from a synagogue in Saluzzo, the golden menorah and the altar of the Tabernacle are painted on the right-hand wings; the interior of the upper left-hand wing shows Moses’s hands, instead of his entire body, receiving the Tablets of the Ten Commandments at Sinai; and the inner side of the lower left wing shows the table of show-

155 On various exchanges between the Jews in these regions from the late-16th century, see Elbaum, Petihut ve-histagrut, 24–52. 156 See Katalog zabytków, 4, Miasto Kraków, 6: 12, figs. 111–12. Like the 17th-century painted doors (Plate 2.19), the doors of 1742/43 originate from an unidentified synagogue in Kazimierz and have been set in the passage to the bimah in the Isserls’ Synagogue. The front of the doors is decorated with a jug with fruit and flowers. It seems that the carver of these reliefs was unaware of the biblical descriptions of the menorah on the south and the table on the north side in the Sanctuary, as on his doors—in contrast to all other known doors of that kind—the menorah is on the left wing and the showbread on the right. 157 In the 1730s, Eliezer Sussman painted in several wooden synagogues in Franconia and Swabia. See Theodor Harburger, “Werke jüdischer Volkskunst in Bayern,” Bayerische Israelitische Gemeindezeitung 13 no. 1 (1931): 195–99; David Davidovicz, “Ha-Ẓayar Eliezer Zusman, ben he-Hazan Shelomo Kaẓ me-Brod” (The Painter Eliezer Sussman, son of the cantor Solomon Kats of Brody), Gazit 19, no. 7–8 (1961): 10–16 (Hebrew). Regarding the synagogue in Unterlimpurg, now in Hällisch-Fränkisches Museum in Schwäbisch Hall, see Gerhard Taddey, Kein kleines Jerusalem: Geschichte der Juden im Landkreis Schwäbisch Hall (Sigmaringen, 1992), 215–16, fig. 26. A photograph of the Torah ark from Colmberg is reproduced in Theodor Harburger, Die Inventarisation jüdischer Kunst- und Kulturdenkmäler in Bayern. Herausgegeben von den Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People, Jerusa- lem und dem Jüdischen Museum Franken, vol. 2 (Fürth, 1998), 148–49. 202 chapter seven bread.158 In the reliefs carved in the interior of the Torah ark of the late 1760s in the synagogue at 8 via Bertini in Carmagnola,159 the menorah on the left door is located under a domed central-plan building representing the Temple, and on another door, the space above the table of showbread is occupied by the images of the crowned Tablets of the Covenant standing under a baldachin on the chest-like Holy Ark, the rod of Aaron, and the jar of manna. The images of the menorah against the showbread on the lateral sides of the prayer hall became standard in east European synagogue art.160 The menorah had been shown on the façade of the Torah ark in east European synagogues beginning in the eighteenth century. An early example of that is the menorah relief on the front side of the double door of the wooden Torah ark in the synagogue of Voupa (Wołpa) in Western Be- larus.161 Yet such a display remained rare, whereas the menorah-shaped psalm—handwritten, printed, painted, or carved—atop the cantor’s stand in front of the Torah ark has become widespread in the synagogues every- where.162 The menorah on the Voupa ark’s doors blends an apotropaic sign with an image of the Tree of Life: the menorah’s shape and inscriptions are a reproduction of the candelabrum in Luria’s Menorat zahav, and its stem emits additional opulent branches with flowers and fruit. A thick vegetable stem with six leafy arms ending at different levels, the pattern resembling Renaissance symbolic representations of the menorah was carved into the doors of the Torah ark of 1801 in the synagogue in Pakruojis, Lithuania (Fig. 98).163 A bird atop the menorah’s central stem—in contrast to modern wax candles on the other six arms—seems to be a signal for charging this image with new mystical connotations. For instance, the bird could have alluded to the kabbalistic interpretations of the central stem as a symbol of Divine

158 Nahon, Aronot kodesh, 68, 70–71. Today the ark from Saluzzo is in the Menaḥem Ẓion Synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City. 159 Probably, the ark was constructed during the refurbishing of the synagogue in 1764–66; see David Cassuto, “Le sinagoghe piemontesi nell’era Barocca” in Italia judaica Gli ebrei in Italia dalla segregazione alla prima emancipazione. Atti del III Convegno internazionale, Tel Aviv, 15–20 giugno 1986 (Rome, 1989), 174, fig. 15. 160 See Wischnitzer, Architecture, 131 and other examples in Yuhasz, “Ha-‘Shiviti-Meno- rah’,” 160. 161 The synagogue no longer exists. The terminus ante quem for the Torah ark is 1781, which Bersohn saw on it in the Hebrew inscription commemorating a repair of the synagogue roof. See Mathias Bersohn, Kilka słów o dawniejszych bóżnicach drewnianych w Polsce, vol. 3 (Cracow, 1903), 6. 162 Yuhasz, “Ha-‘Shiviti-Menorah’,” 167–71. 163 On the date of construction of this lost ark, see Chackelis Lemchenas, “Pakruojo medinė sinagoga,” Pakruojo apylinkės 5 (1996): 71. revivals of ancient art in the design of arks 203 presence or God’s protection transmitted by the menorah,164 or it could have depicted the phoenix being resurrected from fire, a symbol corresponding to the meaning of the menorah as a fiery lamp and revitalizing tree.165

164 Cf. note 122 on page 191 above. As far as is seen on the photographs of this lost ark, on its central axis there are three more birds stretching their wings: a smaller bird similar to that atop the menorah and the two double-headed eagles, the uppermost of which bore the Tetragrammaton on its breast. Either single- or double-headed eagles were a common symbol of Divine presence in Ashkenazic art. See Ilia Rodov, “The Eagle, Its Twin Heads and Many Faces: Synagogue Chandeliers Surmounted by Double-headed Eagles” in Studia Rosenthaliana 37 (2004), 77–129. 165 The Jewish adaptation of the Greek legend of the bird being resurrected from fire is based on the interpretation of hol (literally: “sand”) in “I shall die with my nest, and I shall multiply my days ke-Hol [as the sand]” (Job 29:18) as a φοίνιξ in the Septuagint and as a fabulous of hol (literally: “sandy bird”) in the midrash. According to Genesis Rabba (Vilna edition), 19:5, the of hol never dies as it has not eaten fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, but once every thousand years it is consumed by fire and then regenerates itself. 204 chapter seven afterword 205

Afterword

The idea of revival of the classical antiquity, which connected various Eu- ropean cultures to its cradle in Italy with a network of ties crossing political and religious boundaries, was accepted in each of the local centres in a different way. The Jewish adoption of all’antica artistic expression was gradual and selective. Polish Jews first encountered local Renaissance art as a prestigious decoration of Christian sacred spaces and the increasingly dominating style in the architecture of the Polish elite. The revival of ancient grandeur for the glory of modern Christianity and native kingdom, which was a pursuit of Polish Humanists, became a challenge for their Jewish compatriots. In Jewish minds, the declaration of a cultural collapse during the period that the Renaissance people named the “Middle Ages” could have been fraught with mistrust in the never-interrupted continuity of the Mosaic Covenant. Yet the proclaimed Renaissance novelty was in fact not fully detached from the medieval traditions even in Italy, and all the more so beyond the Alps. This book proposes that the concepts of “precedent” and “continuity” came to the foreground during the process of domestication of the Chris- tian revival of antiquity in Polish synagogues. A harbinger of this adoption, the aedicula in the Isserls’ Synagogue, relied on the precedent of an all’antica Torah ark abroad (in Padua), tolerated there by the most authoritative rabbis. A bricolage of diverse parts, including spolia of the old local architecture and a Renaissance counterpart of the medieval arboreal pediment of the Torah ark in Prague, the Isserls’ ark appealed to the collective memories of each of the different groups in the Jewish community of Ka- zimierz. This ground-breaking experiment justified the Renaissance design in synagogues as a revival of the Jews’ own past and influenced more integral compositions and variegated types of the Renaissance Torah ark in Poland. If our hypotheses are correct, the Jewish polemical reinterpretation of Christian and pagan allusions to revivalist iconography was a result of the conscious intellectual efforts of synagogue patrons or their learned advisers. The subversive representation of alien symbols for the sake of argument against infidels, and encouragement of the faithful, was neither a Jewish nor Renaissance invention. Innovative was a deeper belief that the infidels may possess a certain true knowledge of the Divine. It was contrib- 206 afterword uted to religious polemics by the Renaissance Humanists, who sought spiritual wisdom in the ancient pagan and other non-Christian sources. The Jewish patrons and Christian producers of synagogue art would have understood each other’s ideologies in order to include the images originat- ing from the Polish ecclesiastic, sepulchral, and profane art into the proper semantic contexts in Renaissance Torah shrines. Beyond its reclaim for the ancient grandeur of Jewish tradition, the all’antica design of synagogue ark conveyed more historical allusions as well as ontological and apotropaic meanings: the memory of the biblical Sanctuary and anticipation of its messianic reconstruction; the vitality of Divine Law and its inevitable future triumph; the emanation of Divine presence into the mundane world and ascension of human prayer heavenwards; and God’s providence and protection over the People of Israel. From the early-seventeenth century, the classical motifs in the design of east European synagogues subsided; they reappeared with the emergence of Neo-classicist and Historicist styles in the late-eighteenth century. Concurrently, the augmentation of the Torah ark’s frame increased; during the second half of the eighteenth century it culminated in very elaborate, poly-tiered synagogue arks. Jewish craftsmen continuously produced such lavishly painted and carved Torah arks in Ashkenazic synagogues until the mid-twentieth century. illustration credits and sources 207

Illustration Credits and Sources*

Bałaban, Majer, Historja Żydów w Krakowie i na Kazimierzu, 1304–1868, vol. 1, 1304–1655 (Cra- cow, 1931): 1.1, 1.4, 3.7, 3.14–3.15; Bałaban, Majer, Przewodnik po żydowskich zabytkach Kra- kowa (Cracow, 1935): 2.11 (fig. 16), 3.11 (fig. 4); Bałaban, Majer, Żydzi lwowscy na przełomie XVI i XVII w. (L’viv, 1906): 6.1 [p. 35]; Baltrušaitis, Jurgis, Le Moyen Age fantastique (Paris, 1955): 17 [p. 9 fig. 37e]; Berlin, Staatliche Museen: 52; Bildarchiv Foto Marburg—Deutsches Doku- mentationszentrum für Kunstgeschichte: 4, 8; Bonnevier, Rickard: 20; Copenhagen, Det Kongelige Bibliotek: 97; Cracow, Muzeum Historyczne Miasta Krakowa: 1.6; Darmstadt, Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek: 46; De Luca, Araldo: 22; Ekielski, Eugeniusz, Miasto Kazimierz i budowle uniwersyteckie w tem mieście (Cracow, 1869): 3.2 [p. 128]; Flor- ence, Polo Museale Fiorentino: 74; Frauberger, Heinrich,“Über Bau und Ausschmückung alter Synagogen,” Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft zur Erforschung jüdischer Kunstdenkmäler, 2 (1901): 35 [p. 38 fig. 42]; Ghent, Centraale Bibliotheek van de Rijksuniversiteit: 43; Grotte, Alfred, “Deutsche, böhmische und polnische Synagogentypen vom IX. bis Anfang de XIX. Jahrhunderts,” Gesellschaft zur Erforschung jüdischer Kunstdenkmäler (Eingetragener Ver- ein) zu Frankfurt am Main, 7–8 (1915): 6.4 [p. 65]; Hałun, Jakub: 69; Heidelberg, Hochschule für Jüdische Studien: 9; Jamski, Piotr: 59; Jerusalem, Israel Museum: 2.17; Jerusalem, Na- tional Library of Israel: 41; Jerusalem, the Umberto Nahon Museum of Italian Jewish Art: 47; Kalantarov, Anna and Olga: 1.9; Katalog zabytków sztuki w Polsce, series 4, Miasto Kraków, vol. 6, Kazimierz i Stradom. Judaica: Bóżnice, budowle publiczne i cmentarze, eds. Izabella Rejduch-Samkowa and Jan Samek (Warsaw, 1995): 1.3 [based on p. 4]; Kopera, Feliks and Maksymilian and Stanisław Cercha, Pomniki Krakowa 2 (Cracow, 1904): 89 [s. p.]; Krautheimer, Richard, Mittelalterliche Synagogen, (Berlin, 1927): 7 [p. 105 fig. 22], 45 [p. 63 fig. 18]; Kravtsov, Sergey: 36; Kyiv, Institute for Theory and History of Architecture: 6.2 [neg. no. I-10218]; Lessing Photo Archive: 5; Loukomski, George K., Jewish Art in European Syna- gogues: From the Middle Ages to the Eighteenth Century (London, 1947): 5.2 [p. 70], 7.9 and 7.11 [pp. 106–107]; Łoziński, Władysław, Sztuka lwowska w XVI i XVII wieku. Architektura i rzeżba (L‘viv, 1901): 77 [p. 141], 6.3 [p. 89]; Maurer-Kuhn, François, Romanische Kapitellplas- tik in der Schweiz (Bern, 1971): 16 [p. 184]; Münzer, Zdenka, “Die Altneusynagoge in Prag, “Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Juden in der Cechoslovakischen Republik 4 (1932): 33 [fig. IV following p. 105]. Nestorów, Rafał: 1.7, 1.14, 4.5; Pechuro, Alexander: 3.13; 4.6; Piechotka, Maria and Kazimierz, Bramy Nieba: Bóżnice murowane na ziemiach dawnej Rzec- zypospolitej (Warsaw, 1999): 2.2 [after p. 119 fig. 104]; 2.3 [after p. 116 fig. 99], 3.4 [after p. 120 fig. 107]; 3.5 [after p. 121 fig. 110]; 7.1 [p. 135 fig. 137]; 7.4 [based on p. 134 fig. 135], 7.5 [based on p. 134 fig. 136], 7.6 [after p. 137 fig. 142]; Ramat Gan, Bar-Ilan University, Department of Jewish Art: 1–2; Regional Museum in Pińczów: 5.11; Reggio Emilia, Biblioteca Panizzi: 38–39; Shenderovich, Ida: 57, 2.5–2.6, 3.3; Šiauliai, Aušra muziejus, C. Lemchenas collection: 98; Sirota, Svetlana: 48, 2.13; Tournai, Bibliothèque du Séminaire, 42; Vatican, Biblioteca Apos- tolica: 44, 86; Volavková, Hana, The Pinkas Synagogue (Prague, 1955): 14–15 [pp. 63–64]; Warsaw, Instytut Sztuki Polskiej Akademii Nauk: 12 [no. 171410], 28 [no. 171411], 29 [no. 605589], 65 [no. 141017], 66 [no. 120293], 73 [no. 63986], 82 [no. 80163], 83 [no. BR00000025]; 84 [no. 85552], 1.8 [no. 191931], 1.11 [no. 191932], 1.15 [no. 137273], 2.7 [no. 127231], 2.9 [no. 4642],

* Every effort has been made to contact the owners of the copyright of all the works reproduced in this book but if, for any reason, any acknowledgments have been omitted, the author asks those concerned to contact him. 208 illustration credits and sources

2.10 [no. 154235], 2.12 [no. 137222], 2.15 [no. 137224], 3.6 [no. 3378], 3.8 [no. 137299], 5.3 [no.19013], 5.9 [no. 19015], 5.10 [no. 5642], 5.12 [no. 4711], 5.15 [no. 100705], 7.2 [no. 19159], 7.8 [no. 19161]; Warsaw, Politechnika: 68, 5.4–5.7; Warsaw, Żydowski Instytut Historyczny: 2.8 [no. KRA 328]; 3.6 [no. III-6187]; Yaniv, Bracha: 4.7–4.8, 5.1. bibliography 209

Bibliography

Przyboś, Adam. “Myszkowski, Władyslaw.” Polski słownik biograficzny. Vol. 22, 401–403. Wrocław, 1977. Alberti, Leon Battista. De re ædificatoria, Book 7. Florence, 1485. Alföldi, Andreas. “Des Geschichte des Throntabernakels.” La Nouvelle Clio. Vols. 1–2 (1949– 50): 535–66. Die Alte Synagogue zu Worms. Edited by Ernst Róth. Frankfurt am Main, 1961. Ameisenowa, Zofja. “The Tree of Life in Jewish Iconography. “Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 2 (1939): 326–45. Amram, David Werner. The Makers of Hebrew Books in Italy. Philadelphia, 1909. Ancient Synagogue Revealed. Edited by Lee Israel Levine. Jerusalem, 1981. Die Architektur der Synagoge. Edited by Hans-Peter Schwarz. Frankfurt am Main, 1998. Aronstein, R. F. “Kova ha-Yehudim” (The Hat of Jews). Ẓion 13–14 (1948–49): 33–42. Hebrew. Arte ebraica a Roma e nel Lazio. Edited by Daniela Di Castro. Rome, 1994. De Artibus opuscula 40: Essays in Honour of Erwin Panofsky. Edited by Millard Meiss. New York, 1961. Assis, Yom Tov. “Synagogues in Medieval Spain.” Jewish Art 18 (1992): 7–29. Augustyniak, Urszula. “Myszkowski, Zygmunt.” Polski słownik biograficzny. Vol. 22, 404–407. Wrocław, 1977. Baḥye ben Asher. Biy’ur al ha-Torah (Elucidation on the Torah). Venice, 1546. Hebrew. Baliński, Michał and Tymoteusz Lipiński. Starożytna Polska pod względem historycznym, jeograficznym i statystycznym opisana. Vol. 2. Warsaw, 1844. Balogh, Jolán. Die Anfänge der Renaissance in Ungarn: Matthias Corvinus und die Kunst. Graz, 1975. Baltrušaitis, Jurgis. Le Moyen Age fantastique. Paris, 1955. Bałaban, Majer. “Jacob Polak, der Baal Chillukim in Krakau und seine Zeit.” Monattsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft der Judentums 21(57) (1913): 59–73, 196–210. ———. “Umysłowość i moralność żydostwa polskiego XVI w.” In Kultura Staropolska, 606– 39. Cracow, 1932. ———. Die Judenstadt von Lublin. Berlin, 1919. ———. Dzielnica Żydowska, jej dzieje i zabytki. [L’viv, 1909]. ———. Historja i literatura żydowska. L’viv, 1925. ———. Historja Żydów w Krakowie i na Kazimierzu, 1304–1868. 2 vols. Cracow, 1931–36. ———. Izak Nachmanowicz Żyd lwowski XVI wieku. L’viv, 1904. ———. Przewodnik po żydowskich zabytkach Krakowa. Cracow, 1935. ———. Skizzen und Studien zur Geschichte der Juden in Polen. Berlin, 1911. ———. Zabytki Historyczne Żydów w Polsce. Warsaw, 1929. ———. Żydzi lwowscy na przełomie XVI i XVII w. L’viv, 1906. Bar, M. “Ha-Munaḥ ‘Keter Torah’ be-sifrut Ḥazal u-Mashmauto he-Ḥevratit” (The term “keter Torah” in the rabbinical literature and its social meaning). Ẓion 55 (1990): 397–417. Hebrew. Bauminger, Arieh. “Toldot ha-Yehudim be-Kraka be-shnot 5064–5575” (History of the Jews of Cracow from 1304 to 1815). In Sefer Kraka, Ir va-Am b-Yisrael (Book of the Jewish city of Cracow), edited by Arieh Bauminger, 9–38. Jerusalem, 1959. Hebrew. Bąkowski, Klemens. Dzieje Krakowa. Cracow, 1911. ———. Historya miasta Kazimierza pod Krakowiem do XVI wieku. Cracow, 1902. 210 bibliography

Beauty in Holiness: Studies in Jewish Customs and Ceremonial Art. Edited by Joseph Gut- mann. New York, 1970. Belski, Marcin. Kronika Polska, edited by Ioachim Bielski. Cracow, 1597. Benayahu, Meir. Ha-Dfus ha-Ivri be-Kremona (Hebrew printing in Cremona). Jerusalem, 1971. Hebrew. Bendinelli, G. “Edicola.” Enciclopedia dell’arte antica, classica e orientale. Vol. 3, 214–16. Rome, 1958. Ben-Sasson, Yonah. Mishnato ha-Iyunit shel ha-Rema (The philosophical system of R. Moses Isserles). Jerusalem, 1984. Hebrew. Bergman, Eleonora and Jan Jagielski. Zachowane synagogi i domy modlitwy w Polsce. Warsaw, 1996. Bernstein, Béla. “‘Der Sieg’ des Rabbi Jomtov Lipman [Lipmann] Mülhausen.” In Jewish Studies in Memory of Michael Guttmann, edited by Samuel Loewinger, 201–20. Budapest, 1946. Bershadskiy, S. A. Russko-evreyskiy arkhiv. Dokumenty i materialy dlya istorii evreev v Rossii. Vol. 3, Dokumenty k istorii pol’skikh i litovskikh evreev, 1364–1569 (Russian-Jewish archives: Documents for the history of Russian and Lithuanian Jews, 1364–1569). St. Petersburg, 1903. Russian. Bersohn, Mathias. Dyplomatariusz dotyczący żydów w dawnej Polsce, na źródłach archiwalnych osnuty. Warsaw, 1911. ———. Kilka słów o dawniejszych bóżnicach drewnianych w Polsce. 3 vols. Cracow, 1895–1903. Between Syncretism and Independence: Models of Interaction between Judaism and Christian- ity. Edited by Marcel Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz. Leiden, 2009. Beyond Isabella: Secular Women Patrons of Art in Renaissance Italy. Edited by Sheryl E. Reiss and David G. Wilkins. Kirksville, 2001. Białostocki, Jan. “Mannerism and ‘Vernacular’ in Polish Art.” In Walter Friedlaender zum 90. Geburtstag, 47–57. Berlin, 1965. ———. The Art of the Renaissance in Eastern Europe. Oxford, 1976. ———.”Two Types of International Mannerism: Italian and Northern.” Umĕni 18 (1970): 105–109. Biblical Interpretation in Judauism and Christianity. Edited by Isaac Kalimi and Peter J. Haas. New York, 2006. Bieniarzówna, Janina and Jan M. Małecki. Dzieje Krakowa. 2 vols. Cracow, 1984–92. Bieniarzówna, Janina. “Kraków pod wpływami reformacji.” In Janina Bieniarzówna and Jan M. Małecki, Dzieje Krakowa. Vol. 2, Kraków w wiekach XVI–XVIII, 124–44. Cracow, 1984. Bland, Kalman P. The Artless Jew: Medieval and Modern Affirmations and Denials of the Vi- sual. Princeton, 2000. Bloch, Joshua. “Venetian Printers of Hebrew Books.” In Hebrew Printing and Bibliography, edited by Charles Berlin, 65–88. New York, 1976. Bloch, Peter. “Seven-Branched Candelabra in Christian Churches.” Journal of Jewish Art 1 (1974): 44–49. ———. “Siebenarmige Leuchter in christlichen Kirchen. “Wallraf-Richartz Jahrbuch 23 (1961): 55–190. Blunt, Anthony. “The Temple of Solomon with Special Reference to South Italian Baroque Art. “In Kunsthistorische Forschungen. Otto Pächt zu zeinem 70. Geburtstag, edited by Artur Rosenauer and Gerold Weber, 258–65. Salzburg, 1972. Bocchi, Achille. Symbolicarum quaestionum de universo genere quas serio ludebat libri quinque. Bologna, 1555. Böcher, Otto. “Die Alte Synagoge zu Worms.” In Die Alte Synagogue zu Worms, edited by Ernst Róth, 11–154. Frankfurt am Main, 1961. Bochnak, Adam. “Gucci, Santi. “Polski słownik biograficzny. Vol. 9, 132–33. Wrocław, 1960–61. bibliography 211

———. “Kościół ŚŚ. Piotra i Pawła w Krakowie i jego rzymski pierwowzór oraz architekt królewski Jan Trevano.” Prace Komisji Historii Sztuki 9 (1948): 89–125. ———. “Mecenat Zygmunta Starego w zakresie rzemiosła artyctycznego.” Studia do dziejów Wawelu 2 (1961): 131–288. ———. “Problematyka krakowskiego Renesansu.” In Krakowskie Odrodzenie, Referaty z konferencji naukowej Towarzystwa Miłośników Historii i Zabytków Krakowa z września 1953, edited by Jan Dąbrowski, 106–24. Cracow, 1954. ———. Kaplica Zygmuntowska. [Warsaw], 1953. Boksenboim, Yacob. Iggerot beit Rieti (Letters of the Rieti family). Tel Aviv, 1987. Hebrew. Bonfil, Reuven. “Kavim le-Demutam ha-Ḥevratit shel yehudei ezor Veneẓiah be-Rashit ha- Meah ha-Shesh Esreh” (Aspects of the social image of the Jews in the Venetian area at the beginning of the 16th century). Ẓion 41 (1976): 68–96. Hebrew. Bonfil, Robert. Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renaissance Italy. New York, 1990. Bouwsma, William J. “Postel and the Significance of Renaissance Cabalism.” Journal of the History of Ideas 15, no. 2 (1954): 218–32. Bowen, Barbara C. “Mercury at the Crossroads in Renaissance Emblems.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 48 (1985): 222–29. Breffny, Brian de. The Synagogue. New York, 1978. Brückner, Aleksander. Rożnowiercy Polscy. Vol. 1. Warsaw, 1905. Burke, Peter. The European Renaissance: Centres and Peripheries. Oxford, 1998. Burnatowa, Irena. “Ornament renesansowy w Krakowie.” In Studia Renesansowe, edited by Michał Walicki. Vol. 4, 5–243. Wrocław, 1964. Byzantine Studies in Honor of Milton V. Anastos. Edited by Speros Vryonis. Malibu, 1985. Cahn, Walter. “Solomonic Elements in Romanesque Art.” In The Temple of Solomon: Ar- chaeological Fact and Medieval tradition in Christian, Islamic, and Jewish Art, edited by Joseph Gutmann, 45–72. Missoula, 1976. ———. Romanesque Manuscripts: The Twelfth Century. 2 vols. London, 1996. Cantera Burgos, Francisco. Sinagogas españolas. Madrid, 1955. Capelle, Dom B. Typologie Mariale chez les Pères et dans la liturgie. Louvain, 1954. Caro, J. Geschichte der Juden in Lemberg. L‘viv, 1894. Carpi, Daniel. “Ha-Yehudim be-Padovah be-Tekufat ha-Renesans (1369–1509)” (Jews in Padua in the period of the Renaissance [1369–1509]). Ph.D. thesis, the Hebrew Univer- sity of Jerusalem. Jerusalem, 1967. Hebrew. ———. Be-Tarbut ha-Renesans u-vein Ḥomot ha-Geto: Meḥkarim be-Toldot ha-Yehudim b- Italiyah be-Meot ha-14–ha-17 (Between Renaissance and Ghetto: Essays on the history of the Jews in Italy in the 14th–17th centuries). Tel Aviv, 1989. Hebrew. Carpo, Mario. “How Do You Imitate a Building That You Have Never Seen? Printed Images, Ancient Models, and Handmade Drawings in Renaissance Architectural Theory.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 64, no. 2 (2001): 223–33. Case Studies in Archaelogy and World Religion: The Proceedings of the Cambridge Conference. Edited by Timothy Insoll. Oxford, 1999. Cassuto, David. “Le sinagoghe piemontesi nell’era Barocca.” In Italia judaica. Gli ebrei in Italia dalla segregazione alla prima emancipazione. Atti del III Convegno internazionale, Tel Aviv, 15–20 giugno 1986, 165–78. Rome, 1989. ———.“The Synagogue of Conegliano Veneto.” In A Crown for a King: Studies in Jewish Art, History and Archaeology in Memory of Stephen S. Kayser, edited by Shalom Sabar, Steven Fine and William M. Cramer, 47–57. Berkeley, 2000. Castriota, David. The Ara Pacis Augustae and the Imagery of Abundance in Later Greek and Early Roman Imperial Art. Princeton, 1995. Castro, Daniela Di. “Gli arredi.” In Arte ebraica a Roma e nel Lazio, edited by Daniela Di Castro, 96–118. Rome, 1994. 212 bibliography

———. “Prìncipi e vendori di stracci: arte nel ghetto del Roma.” In Italia ebraica: Oltre duemila anni di incontro tra la cultura italiana e l’ebraismo, 173–84. Tel Aviv, 2007. Cercha, Stanisław and Feliks Kopera. Nadworny rzeżbiarz króla Zygmunta Starego Giovanni Cini z Sieny i jego dzieła w Polsce. Cracow, [1917]. [Chlebowski, Bronisław]. “Pińszów.” Słownik geograficzny królestwa Polskiego i innych krajów słowiańskich. Vol. 8, 159–64. Warsaw, 1888. ———. “Szydłów.” Słownik geograficzny królestwa Polskiego i innych krajów słowiańskich. Vol. 12, 95–97. Warsaw, 1892. Chojecka, Ewa. “Krakowska grafika kalendarzowa i astronomiczna XVI wieku.” In Studia Renesansowe, edited by Michał Walicki. Vol. 3, 319–473. Wrocław, 1963. Chrzanowski, Tadeusz. Sztuka w Polsce od I do III Rzeczypospolitej: zarys dziejów. Warsaw, 1998. Ciscato, Antonio. Gli ebrei in Padova (1300–1800): Monografia storica documentata. Padua, 1901. Reprinted: Bologna, 1985. Claridge, Amanda. Rome: An Oxford Archaeological Guide. Oxford, 1998. Codex Diplomaticus Universitatis Studii Generalis Cracoviensis. Vol. 2, 1441–1470, Cracow, 1873. Codreanu-Windauer, Silvia. “The Medieval Jewish Quarter of Regensburg and Its Syna- gogue: Archaelogical Research 1995–1997.” In Case Studies in Archaelogy and World Re- ligion: The Proceedings of the Cambridge Conference, edited by Timothy Insoll, 139–52. Oxford, 1999. Cohen, Richard I. Jewish Icons: Art and Society in Modern Europe. Berkeley, 1993. A Companion to Medieval Art: Romanesque and Gothic in Northern Europe. Edited by C. Rudolph. Oxford, 2006. Contessa, Andreina. “‘Arbor Bona.’ Dalla menorah alla Vergine: la metafore arborea, segno della redenzione.” Cahiers Ratisbonne 1 (1996): 67–71. Copera, Feliks, Maksymilian and Stanisław Cercha. Pomniki Krakowa. 3 vols. Cracow, 1904. Corti, Gino. “Iacopo Sanovino’s Contract for the Madonna in Sant’Agostino, Rome.” The Burlington Magazine 113 (1971): 394–96. Crossley, Paul. Gothic Architecture in the Reign of Kasimir the Great: Church Architecture in Lesser Poland, 1320–1380. Cracow, 1985. A Crown for a King: Studies in Jewish Art, History and Archaeology in Memory of Stephen S. Kayser. Edited by Shalom Sabar, Steven Fine and William M. Cramer. Berkeley, 2000. Curran, Brian A. The Egyptian Renaissance: The Afterlife of Ancient Egypt in Early Modern Italy. Chicago. 2007. Curran, Brian A., Anthony Grafton, Pamela O. Long, and Benjamin Weiss. Obelisk: A History. Cambridge, MA, 2009. Czartoryski, P. Wczesna recepcja “Politiki” Arystotelesa na Uniwersutecie Krakowskim. Wrocław, 1963. Czechowic, Marcin. Odpis Jakóba Żyda z Bełżyc na Dialogi Marcina Czechowica, na który zaś odpowiada tenże Marcin Czechowic. Lublin, 1581. Davidovicz, David. “Ha-Ẓayar Eliezer Zusman, ben he-Hazan Shelomo Kaẓ me-Brod” (The Painter Eliezer Zussman, son of the cantor Solomon Kats of Brody). Gazit 19, no. 7–8 (1961): 10–16. Hebrew. ———. Shuln in Poyln (Synagogues in Poland). Buenos Aires, 1961. Yiddish. Dąbrowski, Jan. “Związki początków i rozwoju Odrodzenia w Krakowie z Odrodzeniem na Węgrzech.” In Krakowskie Odrodzenie, Referaty z konferencji naukowej Towarzystwa Miłośników Historii i Zabytków Krakowa z września 1953, edited by Jan Dąbrowski, 138–57. Cracow, 1954. Dmochowski, Zbigniew. Dzieła Architektury w Polsce. London, 1956. Dobrowolski, Tadeusz and Władysław Tatarkiewicz. Historia sztuki polskiej. Vol. 1. Sztuka średniowieczna. Cracow, 1962. bibliography 213

Dobrowolski, Tadeusz. “Zamek na Wawelu: dzieło architektury polskiej.” In Studia Renesan- sowe, edited by Michał Walicki. Vol. 1, 140–185. Wrocław, 1956. ———. Sztuka Krakowa. Cracow, 1971. ———. Janina Ruszczycówna and Zofia Niesiołowska-Pothertowa. Sztuka sacralna w Polsce. Vol. 2, Malarstwo. Warsaw, 1958. Donin, R. K. Die Bettelordenskirchen in Österreich. Wien, 1935. Doppelfeld, Otto. “Die Ausgrabungen im Kölner Judenviertel.” In Die Juden in Köln von den ältesten Zeiten bis zur Gegenwart, edited by Zvi Asaria, 71–145. Cologne, 1959. Droździewicz, Jan. O napisie Hebrejskim w bóżnicy kazimirskiéj Starą zwanéj. Cracow, 1865. Dubnow, Simon M. “Pinchovskiy molitvennik” (A prayer book of Pińczów). Voskhod 14 (1894): 149–50. Russian. Dubnow, Simon M. History of the Jews in Russia and Poland from the Earliest Time until the Present Day. 3 vols. Philadelphia, 1916–20. Duda, Eugeniusz. “Batei ha-Kneset ha-Atykim be-Krakov” (The old synagogues in Cracow). In Kroke-Kazimizh-Krakov: Meḥkarim be-Toldot yehudei Krakov, edited by Elchanan Reiner, 261–92. Tel Aviv, 2001. Hebrew. ———. “Hebrajskie inskrypcje—cytatu ze Starego Testamentu—w Starej synagodze i na zabytkach ze zbiorów Muzeum Historycznego m. Krakowa.” Krzysztofory 8 (1981 [in fact, after 1982]): 82–85. ———. Krakowskie judaica. Warsaw, 1991. ———. “W obronie prof. Majera Bałabana, Starej Synagogi na Kazimierzu w Krakowie i języka hebrajskiego.” Folks-Sztyme 12, no. 10 (4568/1982): 10, 12. Dziubiński, Andrzej. Przechadzka po Pińczowie i okolicy. Pińczów, 1992. Gli Ebrei e Venezia. Secoli XIV–XVIII, edited by Gaetano Gozzi. Milano, 1982. Eco, Umberto. Lo strano caso della Hanau 1609. Milan, 1989. Ehresmann, D. S. “The Brazen Serpent: A Reformation Motive in the Works of Lukas Cran- ach the Elder and His Workshop.” Marsyas 13 (1966–67): 32–47. Eidelberg, Schlomo. R. Juspa, Shammash of Warmaisa (Worms): Jewish Life in the 17th Cen- tury Worms. Jerusalem, 1991. Eisenstein, David Judah (Julius). Oẓar dinim u-minhagim (A digest of Jewish laws and customs). New York, 1917. Hebrew. ———. Oẓar masaot. Koveẓ te’urim shel nos‘im yehudim b-Ereẓ Yisrael, Suryah, Miẓrayim ve-arẓot aḥerot (Anthology of itineraries of Jewish travelers in the Land of Israel, Syria, Egypt and other countries). Tel Aviv, 1969. Hebrew. Ekielski, Eustachy. Miasto Kazimierz i budowle akademickie w tem mieście. Cracow, 1869. Elbaum, Jacob. Petiḥut ve-histagrut: ha-Yeẓirah ha-Ruḥanit–ha-Sifrutit be-Folin u-ve-Arẓot Ashkenaz be-Shilhei ha-Meah ha-Shesh-esreh (Openness and insularity: Late sixteenth century Jewish literature in Poland and Ashkenaz). Jerusalem, 1990. Hebrew. ———. “The Influence of Spanish-Jewish Culture on the Jews of Ashkenaz and Poland in the Fifteenth-Seventeenth Centuries.” In Jewish Intellectual History in the Middle Ages, edited by Joseph Dan, 179–97. Westport, 1994 Elon, Menachem. Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles. 4 vols. Philadelphia, 1994. Elsner, J. “From the Culture of Spolia to the Cult of Relics: The Arch of Constantine and the Genesis of Late Antique Forms.” Papers of the British School at Rome 68 (2000): 149–84. Enciclopedia dell’arte antica, classica e orientale. 7 vols. Rome, 1958–66. Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. 26 vols. Detroit, 2007. L’enigmatique à la Renaissance: formes, significations, esthétiques. Actes du colloque organ- isé par l’Association “Renaissance, Humanisme, Réforme”, Lyon, 7–10 septembre 2005, edited by Daniel Martin, Pierre Servet, and André Tournon. Paris, 2008. Enẓyklopediah talmudit (Talmudic encyclopedia). Jerusalem, since 1969, continuing. Epstein, Abraham. Jüdische Altertümer. Wrocław, 1896. 214 bibliography

Eschwege, Helmut. Die Synagoge in der deutschen Geschichte. Dresden, 1980. Essenwein, August Ottmar Ritter von. Die mittelalterlichen Kunstdenkmale der Stadt Krakau. Leipzig, 1869. Estreicher, Karol. “Polish Renaissance Architecture.” Burlington Magazine 86, no. 1 (1945): 4–9. Fabiani, Giuseppe. Gli ebrei e il Monte di Pietà in Ascoli. Ascoli Piceno, 1942. Fehr, G. Benedikt Ried: Ein deutscher Baumeister zwischen Gotik und Renaissance in Böhmen. Munich, 1961. Feilchenfeld, Ludwig. Rabbi Josel von Rosheim, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland im Reformationszeitalter. Strassburg, 1898. Fine, Steven. “The United Colors of the Menorah: Some Byzantine and Medieval Perspec- tives on the Biblical Lampstand.” In Biblical Interpretation in Judauism and Christianity, edited by Isaac Kalimi and Peter J. Haas, 106–113. New York, 2006. ———. This Holy Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue during the Greco-Roman Period. Indiana, 1997. Fischinger, Andrzej. “Gucci Santi.” Słownik artystów Polskich. Vol. 2, 510–12. Wrocław, 1975. ———. “Nagrobek Jana Olbrachta i początki rzeżby renesansowej w Polsce.” In Renesans. Sztuka i ideologia, 451–66. Warsaw, 1976. ———. Santi Gucci, Architekt i rzeżbiarz królewski XVI wieku. Cracow, 1969. Fishof, Iris. “The Vittorio Veneto Synagogue.” In Jewish Art Masterpieces from the Israel Mu- seum, Jerusalem, edited by Iris Fishof, 32–33. Jerusalem, 1994. ———. “Zug delatot aron kodesh mi-Krakov” (A pair of Holy ark doors from Cracow). In Kroke-Kazimizh-Krakov: meḥkarim be-toldot yehudei Krakov, edited by Elchanan Reiner, 293–96. Tel Aviv, 2001. Hebrew. Fludd, Robert. Utriusque Cosmi, Maioris scilicet et Minoris, metaphysica, physica, atque technica Historia. 2 vols. Frankfurt on Main, 1617–21. ———. Philosophia sacra et vere christiana seu meteorologia cosmica. Frankfurt on Main, 1626. Foerster, Gideon. “Ketuvot mi-Vatei ha-Kneset ha-Atykim ve-Zykatan la-Nosahim shel brakhah u-tefilah” (Inscriptions from the ancient synagogues and their relationship to versions of blessing and prayer). Cathedra 19 (1981): 11–40. Hebrew. Fox, Paul. The Reformation in Poland, Some Social and Economic Aspects. Baltimore, 1924. Frauberger, Heinrich.”Über Bau und Ausschmückung alter Synagogen.” Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft zur Erforschung jüdischer Kunstdenkmäler 2 (1901). Friedberg, Hayim Dov[berish]. Toldot mishpaḥat Horoviẓ (History of the Horowitz family). Antwerp, 1928. Hebrew. ———. Luḥot zikaron (Tablets of memory). Frankfurt am Main, 1904. Hebrew. Friedenberg, Daniel M. Jewish Medals from the Renaissance to the Fall of Napoleon (1503– 1815). New York, 1970. ———. Medieval Jewish Seals from Europe. Detroit, 1987. Fuchs, Franciszek. Z historii odnowienia wawelskiego zamku, 1905–1939. Cracow, 1962. Gagara, Vassily. “Khozheniye Vasiliya Gagary v Ierusalim i Egipet” (Jorney of Vassily Gagara to Jerusalem and Egypt). In Zapiski russkikh puteshestvennikov XVI–XVII vv., 68–87. Mos- cow, 1988. Russian. Ganz, David. Sefer Ẓemaḥ David (Book of the Plant of David), edited by Mordechai Breuer. Jerusalem, 1983. Hebrew. Garbacik, T. Kallimach jako dyplomata i polityk. Cracow, 1948. Gardens and Ghettos: The Art of Jewish Life in Italy. Edited by Vivian B. Mann. Berkeley, 1989. Ghirondi, Mordecai Samuel and Graziado Nepi. Toledot gedolei Yisrael u-geonei Italiyah (The book of the great people of Israel and sages of Italy). Trieste, 1853. Hebrew. bibliography 215

Gieysztor, Aleksander. “Polish Historians and the Need for History in 15th and 16th Century Poland.” In The Polish Renaissance in Its European Context, edited by Samuel Fiszman, 3–16. Bloomington, 1988. ———. “‘Non habemus Caesarem nisi Regem.’ Korona zamknięta królów polskich w końcu XV wieku i w wieku XVI.” In Museum i twórca. Studia z historii sztuki i kultury ku czci prof. dr. Stanisława Lorentza, 277–92. Warsaw, 1969. Glenn, Menachem G. “‘Mehir Yayin’ (Rabbi Moses Isserles’ Philosophical Allegory on the Book of Esther).” The Jewish Forum 31 (1948): 48. Godzic, Sylwester. “Opis techniczny do inwentaryzacji konserwatorskiej synagogi w Pińczowie opracowanej we wrześniu 1974.” Typescript. Pińczów, 1974. Goldberg, Jakub. Ha-Mumarim be-mamlekhet Polin-Lyta (Converted Jews in the Polish Com- monwealth). Jerusalem, 1985. Hebrew. ———. Jewish Privileges in the Polish Commonwealth. 2 vols. Jerusalem, 1985–2001. Goldman, Esther W. “Samuel Halevi Abulafia’s Synagogue. El Tránsito in Toledo.” Jewish Art 18 (1992): 58–69. Goldman-Ida, Batsheva. “Black on the White—a Remembrance of Jerusalem.” Jewish Art 23–24 (1997–98): 203–209. Gol’dshteyn, S.”K istorii evreyskoy obshchiny v Krakove 15 veka. Istorik Jan Długosz i evrei Krakova” (To the history of the Jewish community of the 15th century: Jan Długosz and the Jews of Cracow). Evreyskaya starina 2 (1910): 630–31. Russian. Golenishchev-Kutuzov, I. N. Ital’ianskoe Vozrozhdenie i slavianskie literatury XV–XVI vekov (Italian Renaissance and Slavic literatures of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries). Moscow, 1963. Russian. Goodenough, Erwin R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. 13 vols. New York, 1954–68. Górecki, Jan. Sławne i znane postacie w dziejach Pińczowa. Pińczów, 1998. Grabar, André. Christian Iconography. Princeton, 1968. Grafton, Anthony. Leon Battista Alberti: Master Builder of the Italian Renaissance. Cam- bridge, MA, 2000. Grotte, Alfred. “Deutsche, böhmische und polnische Synagogentypen vom IX. bis Anfang de XIX. Jahrhunderts.” Gesellschaft zur Erforschung jüdischer Kunstdenkmäler. Eingetra- gener Verein) zu Frankfurt am Main. Berlin, 1915. Gualandi, Michelangelo. Memorie originali riguardanti le Belle Arti. Vol. 4. Bologna, 1845. Guerquin, Bohdan. Zamki w Polsce. Warsaw, 1984. Guldon, Zenon and Jacek Wijaczka, “Ludność Pińczówa w XVI–XVIII wieku.” In Ludność żydowska w regionie świętokrzyskim. Materiały sesji naukowej w Starachowicach, 17 × 1987 r., 39–67. Kielce, 1989. Gutmann, Joseph. “Christian Influences on Jewish Customs.” In Spirituality and Prayer: Jewish and Christian Understandings, edited by Leon Klenicki and Gabe Huck, 128–38. New York, 1983. ———. “Jewish Medieval Marriage Customs in Art: Creativity and Adaptation.” In The Jew- ish Family: Metaphor and Memory, edited by D. Kraemer, 47–62. Oxford, 1989. ———. “Wedding Customs and Ceremonies in Art”. In Beauty in Holiness: Studies in Jewish Customs and Ceremonial Art, edited by Joseph Gutmann, 313–25. New York, 1970. ———. The Jewish Life Cycle. Leiden, 1987. Haberman, A. M. Ha-Madpis Daniel Bomberg u-reshimat sifrei beit Dfuso (The publisher Daniel Bomberg and the list of the books of his press). Safed, 1978. Hebrew. Hachlili, Rachel. Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Diaspora. Leiden, 1998. ———. Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel. Leiden, 1988. ———. The Menorah, the Ancient Seven-Armed Candelabrum: Origin, Form, and Signifi- cance. Leiden, 2001. Haitovsky, Dalia. “A New Look at a Lost Painting: The Hebrew Inscription in Lorenzo Costa’s ‘Presentation in the Temple’.” Artibus et Historiae 15, no. 29 (1994): 111–20. 216 bibliography

Handel Żydowski w Krakowie w końcu XVI i XVII wieku. Wypisy z krakowskich rejestrów celnych z lat 1593–1683. Edited by Jan M. Małecki and Elżbieta Szlufik. Cracow, 1995. Harasimowicz, Jan. “Kasper Berger i rzeżba legnicka schyłku XVI wieku.” Biuletyn historii sztuki 42, no. 2 (1980): 107–31. ———. “Rola sztuki w religijnych i społecznych konfliktach wieku Reformacji na Śląsku.” Rocznik Historii Sztuki 18 (1990): 31–94. Harburger, Theodor. “Werke jüdischer Volkskunst in Bayern.” Bayerische Israelitische Gemei- ndezeitung 13 no. 1 (1931): 195–99. ———. Die Inventarisation jüdischer Kunst- und Kulturdenkmäler in Bayern. Herausgegeben von den Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People, Jerusalem und dem Jüdisch- en Museum Franken. Vol. 2. Fürth, 1998. Hareuveni, Nogah. “Knob and Flower in the Design of the Menorah.” In In the Light of the Menorah: Story of a Symbol. Israel Museum Catalogue no. 406, edited by Yael Israeli, 39–42. Jerusalem 1999. Hatikwá. Edited by Claudia De Benedetti. Vol. 1. Padua, 1998. Haussher, Reiner. “Templum Salomonis und Ecclesia Christi. Zu einem Bildvergleich der Bible Moralisée.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 31 (1968): 101–21. Hebrew Printing and Bibliography. Edited by Charles Berlin. New York, 1976. Herbenová, Olga. “Vysoká synagoga.” In Židowská Ročenka, 5722, 1961–1962, 45–49. Prague, 1961. Heřman, Jan. “The Prague Jewish Community before the Expulsion of 1541.” In Prague Ghetto in the Renaissance Period, edited by Otto Muneles, 29–32. Prague, 1965. Hitchcock, Henry-Russell. German Renaissance Architecture. Princeton, 1981. Hollegger, M., Maximilian I. Stuttgart, 2005. Hońdo, Leszek. “Stary cmentarz Żydowski w Krakowie.” In Żydzi i Judaism we współczesnych badaniach Polskich. Materiały z konferencji, Kraków, 21–23, XI, 1995, 337–74. Cracow, 1997. Hońdo, Leszek. Inskrypcje starego Żydowskiego cmentarza w Krakowie. Vol. 1. Cracow, 2000. Hornung, Zbignew. “Działalnośćsc rzeżbiarska Jana Ciniego ze Sieny w świetle nowych badań.” Sprawozdania Wrocławskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego, 1953 8 (1956): 20–26. ———. “Czy Jan Maria zwany ‘Il Mosca’ albo Padovano był klasycystą?” In Księga ku czci Wladysława Podlachy. Wrocławskie Towarzystwo Naukowe. Rozprawy Komisji Historii Sztuki. Vol. 1, edited by Władysław Floryan, 119–28. Wrocław, 1957. ———. “Rodowód artystyczny twórczości rzeźbiarskiej Santi Gucciego.” Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 24 (1962): 227–30. Horowitz, Elliott. “Speaking of the Dead: The Emergence of the Eulogy among Italian Jew- ry of the Sixteenth Century.” In Preachers of the Italian Ghetto, edited by David B. Ruder- man, 129–62. Berkeley, 1992. Hotz, Walter. Der Dom zu Worms. Darmstadt, 1981. Husarski, Wacław. Attyka Polska i jej wpływ na kraje sąsiednie. Warsaw, 1936. Idel, Moshe. “Be-Or he-Hayim: ’Iyun be-eskhatologiah Kabalit” (In the light of life: a study in cabbalistic eschatology). In Kedushat he-Hayim ve-heruf ha-Nefesh, edited by Ye- shayahu Gafni and Aviezer Ravitzky, 191–211. Jerusalem, 1992. Hebrew. ———. “Binah, the Eighth Sefirah: The Menorah in Kabbalah.” In In the Light of the Meno- rah: Story of a Symbol. Israel Museum Catalogue no. 406, edited by Yael Israeli, 142–46. Jerusalem, 1999. ———. “The Throne and the Seven-Branched Candlestick: Pico della Mirandola’s Hebrew Source.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 40 (1977): 290–92. In Pinchev togt shoyn nisht: Sefer zikaron le-Kehilat Pinchev (Theire is no more down in Pińczów: Memorial book of the community of Pińczów). Tel Aviv, 1970. Yiddish and Hebrew. In the Light of the Menorah: Story of a Symbol. Israel Museum Catalogue no. 406, edited by Yael Israeli. Jerusalem 1999. bibliography 217

Isserles, Moses [Rema]. Darkei Mosheh: Orah hayim (Moses’ paths: Way of life). Fürth, 1760. Hebrew. ———. Darkei Mosheh: Yoreh de‘ah (Moses’ paths: Teaching knowledge). Sulzbach, 1692. Hebrew. ———. Meḥir yayin: Biy’ur tov ve-Neḥmad al megilat Ester (Price of wine: A good and pleasant elucidation of the Book of Esther). Cremona, 1559. Hebrew. ———. Sefer torat ha-Olah (Book of the law of the burnt offering). Prague, 1570. Hebrew. Italia ebraica: Oltre duemila anni di incontro tra la cultura italiana e l’ebraismo. Tel Aviv, 2007. Italia judaica: Gli ebrei in Italia dalla segregazione alla prima emancipazione. Atti del III Convegno internazionale, Tel Aviv, 15–20 giugno 1986. Rome, 1989. Jagielski, Jan. “Zabytki żydowskie w katalogu zabytków sztuki w Polsce.” Biuletyn Żydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego 3/4 (1985): 143–53. Jalabert, Denise. La flore sculptée des monuments du Moyen Age en France. Paris, 1965. Jamróz, Józef. “Średniowieczna architectura dominikańska w Krakowie.” Rocznik Krakows- ki 41 (1926): 5–28. Jewish Art Masterpieces from the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. Edited by Iris Fishof. Jerusalem, 1994. Jewish Art. Edited by Cecil Roth. London, 1971. ———. Edited by Gabrielle Sed-Rajna. New York, 1997. Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. 12 vols. London, 1901–1906. The Jewish Family: Metaphor and Memory. Edited by D. Kraemer. Oxford, 1989. Jewish Studies in Memory of Michael Guttmann. Edited by Samuel Loewinger. Budapest, 1946. Jewish Texts on the Visual Arts. Edited by Vivian B. Mann. Cambridge, 2000. Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth Century. Edited by B. D. Cooperman. Cambridge, 1983. Jewish Travellers. Edited by Elkan Nathan Adler. London, 1930. The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the Nizzahon Vetus. Edited by David Berger. Philadelphia, 1979. The Jews in Medieval Cracow: Selected Records from Cracow Municipal Books. Edited by Bożena Wyrozumska. Cracow, 1995. The Jews in Poland. Edited by Andrzej Paluch. Vol. 1. Cracow, 1992. John of Damascus. Three Treatises on the Divine Images. Translated by Andrew Louth. Crest- wood, 2003. Judah he-Ḥasid [Yehuda HeChasid], Sefer Chasidim: The Book of Pious. Northvale, 1997. ———. Sefer Hasidim (Book of the pious). J. Wistinetzki edition. Frankfurt on Main, 1924. Hebrew. Die Juden in Köln von den ältesten Zeiten bis zur Gegenwart. Edited by Zvi Asaria. Cologne, 1959. Die Juden in Prag. Prague, 1927. Kaczyński, Wiesław. “Z badań nad synagogą w Orli.” Białostocczyzna 1, no. 5 (1987): 3–7. Kahane, Yiẓḥak Ze’ev. Meḥkarim be-sifrut ha-Teshuvot (Studies in the Responsa literature). Jerusalem, 1973. Hebrew. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, Ioli. “The Byzantine Knotted Column.” In Byzantine Studies in Honor of Milton V. Anastos, edited by Speros Vryonis, 95–103. Malibu, 1985. Kalinowski, Lech. Speculum Artis: Treści dzieła sztuki sredniowiecza i renesansu. Warsaw, 1989. Kandel, Dawid. “Bóżnica w Pińczowie.” Kwartałnik poświęcony badaniu przeszłości Żydów w Polsce 1, no. 2 (1912), 25–35. Karl, Zvi. Arim ve-imahot b-Yisrael. Vol. 2, Kraka (Jewish communities: Cracow). Jerusalem, 1948. Hebrew. 218 bibliography

Katalog zabytków sztuki w Polsce, new series 3, Województwo Rzeszowskie. Vol. 5, Łańcut i okolice, part 1, edited by Małgorzata Omilanowska and Jakub Sito, Warsaw, 1995. ———. series 3, Województwo Kieleckie. Vol. 1, Powiat Buski, edites by Jerzy Z. Łoziński and Barbara Wolff. Warsaw, 1957. ———. series 3, Województwo Kieleckie. Vol. 9, Powiat Pińczowski, eds. Jerzy Z. Łoziński and Barbara Wolff. Warsaw, 1961. ———. series 4, Miasto Kraków. Vol. 1, Wawel, 2 parts, edited by Jerzy Szablowski. Warsaw, 1965. ———. series 4, Miasto Kraków. Vol. 5, Kazimierz i Stradom. Kościoły i klasztory, 2 parts, edited by Izabella Rejduch-Samkowa and Jan Samek. Warsaw, 1987. ———. series 4, Miasto Kraków. Vol. 6, Kazimierz i Stradom. Judaica: Bóżnice, budowle publiczne i cmentarze, edited by Izabella Rejduch-Samkowa and Jan Samek. Warsaw, 1995. Katzenellenbogen, Adolf. Allegories of the Virtues and Vices in Mediaeval Art. New York, 1964. Kaufman, Judah. R. Yom Tov Lipman[Lipmann]-Mulhausen. New York, 1927. Hebrew. Kaufmann, David. “Art in the Synagogue: The Lions under the Ark in Ascoli and Pesaro.” Jewish Quarterly Review 9 (1897): 254–69. ———. Gesammelte Schriften. Vol. 1. Frankfurt an Main, 1908. Kedushat he-Hayim ve-heruf ha-Nefesh. Edited by Yeshayahu Gafni and Aviezer Ravitzky. Jerusalem 1992. Kee, Howard Clark. “Defining the First-Century C.E. Synagogue: Problems and Progress.” Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress, edited by Howard Klark Kee and Lynn H. Cohick, 7–26. Harrisburg, 1999. Kessler, Katrin. Ritus and Raum der Synagoge: Liturgische und religionsgesetzliche Vorausset- zungen für den Synagogenbau in Mitteleuropa. Petersberg, 2007. Kieszkowski, Jerzy. Kanclerz Krzysztof Szydłowiecki. Z dziejów kultury i sztuki Zygmuntows- kich czasów, 2 parts. Poznan, 1912. Kinney, D. “The Concept of Spolia.” In A Companion to Medieval Art: Romanesque and Goth- ic in Northern Europe, edited by C. Rudolph, 233–52. Oxford, 2006. Kirchheim, Juda Löw. Minhagot Vermaiza (Customs of Worms Jewry), edited by Israel Mor- dechai Pels. Jerusalem, 1987. Hebrew. Kirchner, P. Chr. Judisches Ceremoniell. Nuremberg, 1724. Kisch, Alexander. “Das Testament Mardochai Meysels.” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 37, no.1 (1893): 25–40. Klein, Jacques-Sylvain. La Maison Sublime: L’École rabbinique et le Royaume Juif de Rouen. Rouen, 2006. Klein, Samuel. Jüdisch-palästinisches Corpus Inscriptionum. Ossuar-, Grab- und Synago- geninschriften. Hildesheim, 1971. Koczerska, Maria. “Oleśnicki, Zbigniew.” Polski słownik biograficzny. Vol. 23, 776–84. Wrocław, 1978. Kogman-Appel, Katrin. “Coping with Christian Pictorial Sources: What Did Jewish Minia- turists Not Paint?” Speculum 75, no. 4 (2000): 816–58. ———. “Sephardic Ideas in Ashkenaz: Visualizing the Temple in Medieval Regensburg.” Simon Dubnow Institute Yearbook 7 (2009): 245–77. ———. Die zweite Nurnberger und die Jehuda Haggada: Judische Illustratoren zwischen Tradition und Fortschritt. Frankfurt am Main, 1999. ———. Jewish Book Art between Islam and Christianity: The Decoration of Hebrew Bibles in Medieval Spain. Leiden, 2004. Kohen, Isaac Hayim. Paḥad Iẓḥak (Isaac’s fear). Amsterdam, 1681. Hebrew. Kohn-Zedek, Joseph. Shem ve-She’erit (Name and remainder). Cracow, 1895. Hebrew. Komornicki, Stefan. “Franciszek Florentczyk i palac wawelski.” Przegląd Historii Sztuki 1 (1929): 57–69. bibliography 219

———. “Kaplica Zygmuntowska w katedrze na Wawelu: 1517–1533.” Rocznik Krakowski 23 (1931): 47–120. Kopera, Feliks. “Jan Maria Padovano.” Prace Komisji Historii Sztuki 7 (1938): 219–61. ———. “Średniowieczna architectura kościoła i klasztoru OO. Dominikanów w Krakowie.” Rocznik Krakowski 20 (1926): 57–76. ———. “Grobowiec króla Jana Olbrachta i pierwsze ślady stylu Odrodzenia na zamku wawelskim.” Przegląd Polski 118 (1895): 1–36. Kowalczyk, Jerzy. “Legenda o pomniku Jana Baptysty Tęczyńskiego i królewny Cecylii w Kraśniku.” Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 48 (1986): 263–76. ———. “Triumf i sława wojenna ‘all’antica’ w Polsce w XVI w.” In Renesans. Sztuka i ideologia, 293–348. Warsaw, 1976. ———. Sebastian Serlio a sztuka Polska. O roli włoskich traktatów architektonicznych w dobie nowożytnej. Wrocław, 1973. Kowalska, Halina. “Oleśnicki, Mikołaj.” Polski słownik biograficzny. Vol. 23, 768–71. Wrocław, 1978. Kozakiewicz, Helena and Stefan. Renesans w Polsce. Warsaw, 1976. Kozakiewicz, Helena. “Z badań nad Bartłomiejem Bereccim.” Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 23, no. 4 (1961): 311–27. ———. Rzeźba XVI wieku w Polsce. Warsaw, 1984. Krajewska, Monika. A Tribe of Stones: Jewish Cemeteries in Poland. Warsaw, 1993. Krakowskie Odrodzenie, Referaty z konferencji naukowej Towarzystwa Miłośników Historii i Zabytków Krakowa z września 1953. Edited by Jan Dąbrowski. Cracow, 1954. Krasnowolski, Bogusław. Ulice i place Krakowskiego Kazimierza. Z dziejów chreścijan i Żydow w Polsce. Cracow, 1992. Krautheimer, Richard. Die Kirchen del Bettelorden in Deutschland. Cologne, 1935. ———. Mittelalterliche Synagogen. Berlin, 1927. ———. Studies in Early Christian, Medieval, and Renaissance Art. London, 1971. Kravtsov, Sergey R. “Gothic Survival in Synagogue Architecture of Ruthenia, Podolia and Volhynia in the 17th–18th Centuries.” Architectura. Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Bauku- nst / Journal of the History of Architecture 1 (2005): 69–94. ———. “Reconstruction of the Temple by Charles Chipiez and Its Applications in Archi- tecture.” Ars Judaica 4 (2008): 25–42. ———. Di Gildene Royze: The Turei Zahav Synagogue in L’viv. Braunsweig, 1911. Krinsky, Carol Herselle. “Representations of the Temple of Jerusalem before 1500.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 33 (1970): 1–19. ———. Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning. New York, 1996. Krochmal, Menachem Mendel. She’elot ve-teshuvot Ẓemah Ẓedek (Responsa of the Pious Scion). Amsterdam, 1675. Hebrew. Kroke-Kazimizh-Krakov: meḥkarim be-toldot yehudei Krakov (Kroke-Kazimierz-Cracow: Studies in the History of Cracow Jewry), edited by Elchanan Reiner. Tel Aviv, 2001. He- brew. Krzyżanowski, Stanisław. Księgi ławnicze krakowskie 1365–1376 i 1390–1397 Cracow, 1904. Księga pamiątkowa ku czci Leona Pinińskiego. Vol. 2. L’viv, 1936. Kubiak, A. “Żydowska architektura zabytkowa w Polsce.” Biuletyn Żydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego 6–7 (1953): 122–68; 8 (1953): 73–96. Kühnel, Bianca. “The Menorah and the Cross: The Seven-Branched Candelabrum in the Church.” In In the Light of the Menorah: Story of a Symbol. Israel Museum Catalogue no. 406, edited by Yael Israeli, 117–21. Jerusalem 1999. Kunsthistorische Forschungen. Otto Pächt zu zeinem 70. Geburtstag, edited by Artur Rosenau- er and Gerold Weber. Salzburg, 1972. Künzl, Hannelore. “Der Synagogenbau im Mittelalter.” In Die Architektur der Synagogue, edited by Hans-Peter Schwarz, 61–88. Frankfurt am Main, 1998. 220 bibliography

———. “Der Synagogenbau im Mittelalter.” In Synagogen in Deutschland: Geschichte einer Baugattung im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. 1780–1933, edited by Harold Hammer-Schenk, 61–87. Hamburg, 1981. Kurzątkowska, Alicja. “Rzeźba pińczowska na Lubelszczyżnie.” In Sztuka około roku 1600. Materiały sesji Stowarzyszenia historyków sztuki, Lublin, 1972, 153–77. Warsaw, 1974. Kutrzeba, Stanisław. “Ludność i majątek Kazimierza w końcu XVI stulecia.” Rocznik Kra- kowski 3 (1900): 183–201. Laderman, Shulamit and Yair Furstenberg, “Jewish and Christian Imaging of the ‘House of God’: A Fourth-Century Reflection of Religious and Historical Polemics.” In Between Syncretism and Independence: Models of Interaction between Judaism and Christianity, edited by Marcel Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz, 434–56. Leiden, 2009. Lamberti S. Avdomari Canonici Liber Floridus. A facsimile edition, edited by Alberto Derolez. Ghent, 1968. Landsberger, Franz. A History of Jewish Art. Cincinnati, 1946. Langermann, Y. Tzvi. “The Astronomy of Rabbi Moses Isserles.” In Physics, Cosmology and Astronomy, 1300–1700, edited by S. Unguru, 83–98. Dordrecht, 1991. Lanẓut: Hayim ve-Ḥurvanah shel kehylah yehudit (Łańcut: Life and destruction of the Jewish community). Edited by Michael Walzer. Tel Aviv, 1963. Hebrew. Lauterbach, Jacob Z. “The Ceremony of Breaking a Glass at Weddings.” In Beauty in Holiness: Studies in Jewish Customs and Ceremonial Art, edited by Joseph Gutmann, 340–69. New York, 1970. Lemchenas, Chackelis. “Pakruojo medinė sinagoga.” Pakruojo apylinkės 5 (1996): 71–72. Lepiarczyk, Józef. “Znacenie Krakowa dla sztuki Renesansu w Polsce.” In Krakowskie Odrodzenie, Referaty z konferencji naukowej Towarzystwa Miłośników Historii i Zabytków Krakowa z września 1953, edited by Jan Dąbrowski, 125–37. Cracow, 1954. Lepszy, Leonard. Krakau. Leipzig, 1906. Levine, Lee Israel. “Mi-Merkaz Kehylati le-Mikdash Me‘at: ha-Rehut ve-ha-Penim shel Beyt ha-Kneset ha-Atik” (From community center to the Temple: the interior and design of the ancient synagogue). Cathedra 60 (1991): 36–84 Hebrew. Levine, Lee Israel. Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven, 2000. Lew, Myer S. The Jews of Poland: Their Political, Economic, Social and Communal Life in the Sixteenth Century as Reflected in the Works of Rabbi Moses Isserls. London, 1944. Lewalski, Kenneth F. “Sigismund I of Poland: Renaissance King and Patron.” Studies in the Renaissance 14 (1967): 42−72. Lewański, Richard Casimir. Storia delle relazioni fra la Polonia e Bologna. Bologna, 1951. Lewin, Louis. “Deutsche Einwanderungen in polnische Ghetti.” Jahrbuch der jüdisch-literarischen Gesellschaft 4 (1906): 293–29. Lieben, S. H. “Der hebräische Buchdruck in Prag im 16. Jahrhundert.” In Die Juden in Prag, 88–106. Prague, 1927. Lifschitz, Baruch. Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives. Paris, 1967. Link-Lenczowski, Andrzej, “Myszkowski, Józef Władyslaw.” Polski słownik biograficzny, vol. 22, 373–75. Wrocław, 1977. Loukomski, George K. Jewish Art in European Synagogues: From the Middle Ages to the Eigh- teenth Century. London, 1947. Ludność żydowska w regionie świętokrzyskim. Materiały sesji naukowej w Starachowicach, 17 × 1987 r. Kielce, 1989. Ludwikowski, Leszek. The Old Synagogue of Cracow. Former Kazimierz District. Cracow, 1981. Luria, Solomon. Menorat Zahav Tahor (Menorah of Pure Gold). Cracow, 1585. Hebrew. Luzzato, Amos. “Espressioni culturali della Communitá Ebraica di Padova.” In Hatikwá, edited by Claudia De Benedetti. Vol. 1, 49–57. Padua, 1998. Luzzato, F. La Communità Ebraica di Conegliano Veneto ed i suoi Monumenti. Rome, 1957. bibliography 221

Łoś, J. and S. Kot, Stanisława Orzechowskiego polskie dialogi politychne. Rozmowa około egzekucyjej i Quincunx. 1563–1564. Cracow, 1919. Łoza, Stanisław. Architekci i budowniczowe w Polsce. Warsaw, 1954. Łuszczkiewicz, Władysław. Bartolomeo Berecci. Cracow, 1866. ———. Sprawozdanie Władysława Łuszczkiewicza z wypadku poszukiwań komisyi wyznac- zonej celem odszukania miejśca i zabytków budowlanych uniwersytetu, zalożonego przez Kazimierza Wielkiego. Cracow, 1865. ———. Sukiennice Krakowskie. Dzieje gmachu i jego obecnej przebudowy. [Cracow, 1899]. ———. Zabytki naszego budownictwa. Cracow, 1864. ———. “Z wycieczki do Zawichostu i Sandomierza.” In Sprawozdania komisji do badania historyi sztuki w Polsce. Vol. 5, IV–VI. Cracow, 1896. ———. Zabytki sztuk pięknych Krakowa. Vol. 1. Pomniki architektury od XI do XVIII wieku. Cracow, 1872. Mahler, Ozjasz. Przewodnik po Żydowskich zabytkach Krakowa. Cracow, [1932–35]. Malinowski, Bronisław. A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays. Chapel Hill, 1944. Mann, Vivian. “The Recovery of a Known Work.” Jewish Art 12–13 (1986–87): 269–78. Mannheimer, Moses. Die Juden in Worms. Frankfurt am Main, 1842. Mańkowski, Tadeusz. “Pochodzenie osiadłych we Lwowie budowniczych włoskich.” In Księga pamiątkowa ku czci Leona Pinińskiego, Vol. 2, 133–46. L’viv, 1936. ———. Dawny Lwów—jego sztuka i kultura artystyczna. London, 1974. Marcus, Simon. “Crete. Candia.” Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol. 5, 290. Detroit, 2007. Mark, Bernard and Franciszek Kupfer. “Żydzi Polscy w Okresie Odrodzenia.” Biuletyn Żydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego 6–7 (1953): 3–55. Markham Schulz, Anne. “Paolo Stella Milanese.” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Insti- tutes in Florenz 29, no. 1 (1985): 79–110. ———. Giammaria Mosca Called Padovano: A Renaissance Sculptor in Italy and Poland. Vol. 1. Pennsylvania, 1998. Martin, John Rupert. Baroque. London 1989. Maszczyński, Tadeusz. Szydłów. Kielce, 1967 Maurer-Kuhn, François. Romanische Kapitellplastik in der Schweiz. Bern, 1971. Maver, Giovanni. I Polacchi all’università di Padova. Rome, 1933. Meek, H. A. The Synagogue. London, 1995. Melamed, Abraham. “A Legitimating Myth: Ashkenazic Thinkers on the Purported Jewish Origins of Philosophy and Science.” Simon Dubnow Institute Yearbook 8 (2009): 299–315. Metzger, Thérèse and Mendel. Jewish Life in the Middle Ages. New York, 1982. Meyers, C. L. “Jachin and Boaz in Religious and Political Perspective.” In The Temple of An- tiquity, edited by T. G. Madsen, 135–50. Provo, 1984. Meyers, V. E. M. and C. L. “Ark in Art: A Ceramic Rendering of the Torah Shrine from Nabra- tein.” Eretz Israel 16, no. 1 (1982): 176–85 Miechowita, Maciej. Chronica Polonorum. Cracow, 1521. Między Padwą a Zamościem. Studia z historii sztuki i kultury nowożytnej ofiarowane profesorowi Jerzemu Kowalczykowi. Warsaw, 1993. Migliau, Bice. “Nuove prospettive di studio sulle Cinque Scole del ghetto di Roma: l’identifi cazione ed il recupero dell’arón di Scola Catalana.” Henoch 12 no. 2 (1990): 191–205. Miłobędzki, Adam. “Architecture under the Last Jagiellons in its Political and Social Con- text.” In The Polish Renaissance in Its European Context, edited by Samuel Fiszman, 291–99. Bloomington, 1988. Miłobędzki, Adam. Architektura Polska XVII wieku. 2 vols. Warsaw, 1980. Miodońska, Barbara. “Korona zamknięta w przekazach ikonograficznych z czasów Zyg- munta I.” Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 32, no. 1 (1970): 3–16. Miziołek, Jerzy. “Obeliski Rzymu i Krakowa w 2 połowie XVI w.” Barok 1, no. 2 (1994): 153–72. 222 bibliography

———. “Oculus Mundi... oculus coeli. Prolegomena do studium o kaplicy grobowej prymasa Uchanskiego.” In Między Padwą a Zamościem. Studia z historii sztuki i kultury nowożytnej ofiarowane profesorowi Jerzemu Kowalczykowi, 73–85. Warsaw, 1993. Monumenta Judaica. 2000 Jahre Geschichte und Kultur der Juden am Rhein. Edited by Konrad Schilling and Kurt Hackenberg. Cologne, 1964. Morka, Mieczysław. “Kaplica Zygmuntowska. Król Salomon—princeps fundator.” Biuletyn historii sztuki 67, no. 1–2 (2005): 59–96. Morpurgo, Edgardo. L’Università degli Ebrei in Padova nel XVI secolo. Padua, 1910 (offprint from Bolletino del Museo Civico di Padova 12 [1909], 1, 2 and 3]). Morris, J. U. “Holy Name, Iconography of.” New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. Vol. 7, 32–33. Washington, 2002. Mossakowski, Stanisław. “Mauzoleum Morsztynów w Warszawie a egiptologia XVII wieku.” In Stanisław Mossakowski, Sztuka jako świadectwo czasu. Studia z pogranicza historii sztuki i historii idei, 225–41. Warsaw, 1980. ———. Kaplica Zygmuntowska. 1515–1533. Problematyka artystyczna i ideowa mausoleum króla Zygmunta I. Warsaw, 2007. Mulder, S. I. Eene zeldzame medaille. Amsterdam, 1859. Müller, Eugeniusz. Żydzi w Krakowie w drugiej połowie XIV stulecia. Cracow, 1906. Münzer, Zdenka. “Die Altneusynagoge in Prag.” Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Juden in der Cechoslovakischen Republik 4 (1932): 63–105. Murray, Peter. The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance. New York, 1970. Museum i twórca. Studia z historii sztuki i kultury ku czci prof. dr. Stanisława Lorentza. War- saw, 1969. Nahon, Umberto. Aronot kodesh ve-Tashmishei kedusha mi-Italiyah b-Yisrael (‫Holy arks and ritual appurtenances from Italy in Israel). Tel Aviv, 1970. Hebrew. Narkiss, Bezalel and Aliza Cohen-Mushlin, “The Illumination of the Worms Mahzor.” In Worms Mahzor: Ms. Jewish National and University Library, Heb. 40 781/1, edited by Mala- chi Beit-Arié, 79–89. Vaduz, 1985. Narkiss, Bezalel. “A Scheme of the Sanctuary from the Time of Herod the Great.” Journal of Jewish Art 1 (1974): 6–15. ———. “On the Zoocephalic Phenomenon in Medieval Ashkenazi Manuscripts.” In Norms and Variations in Art: Essays in Honour of Moshe Barasch, 49–62. Jerusalem, 1983. ———. “The Menorah in Illuminated Hebrew Manuscripts of the Middle Ages.” In In the Light of the Menorah: Story of a Symbol. Israel Museum Catalogue no. 406, edited by Yael Israel, 81–86. Jerusalem, 1999. ———. “The Venice Haggadah of 1609.” In The Passover Haggadah: Venice, 1609, 1–15. Re- print. Jerusalem, 1974. ———. “Three Jewish Art Patrons in Medieval Italy.” In Festschrift Rëuben R. Hecht, 296–307. Jerusalem, 1984. ———. Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts in the British Isles: A Catalogue Raisonné. 2 vols. Jerusalem, 1982. Naveh, Joseph. Al psyfas ve-even: ha-Ktuvot ha-Aramyiot ve-ha-Ivryiot mi-Batei ha-Kneset ha-Atykim (On mosaic and stone: The Aramaic and Hebrew inscriptions from the synagogues). Tel Aviv, 1978. Hebrew. Nesselrath, Arnold. “Lotto as Raphael’s Collaborator in the Stanza di Eliodoro.” The Burling- ton Magazine 146, no. 1220 (2004): 732–41. New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., 15 vols. Washington, 2002. Norms and Variations in Art: Essays in Honour of Moshe Barasch. Jerusalem, 1983. O’Reilly, Jennifer. Studies in the Iconography of the Virtues and Vices in the Middle Ages. New York, 1988. Oakenshott, Walter. The Mosaics of Rome from the Third to the Fourteenth Centuries. London, 1967. bibliography 223

Ochser, Schulim. “Schul.” Jewish Encyclopedia. Vol. 8, 112–13. London, 1906. Orzechowski, Stanisław. Annales Polonici ab excessu Divi Sigismundi Primi. Cracow, 1554. ———. Fidelis subditus, Cracow, 1548. ———. Stanislai Orichovii Rutheni ornata et copiosa oratio habita in funere Sigismundi Jag- ellonis Poloniae regis, Venice, 1548. Osimo, Marco. Narrazione della strage compita nel 1547 contro gli ebrei d’Asolo. Casale Mon- ferrato, 1875. Osiński, Marjan. Zamek w Żółkwi. L’viv, 1933. Die österreichisch-ungarische Monarchie in Wort und Bild: Galizien. Vienna, 1898. Padoa Rizzo, Anna. “Luca della Robbia e Verrocchio. Un nuovo documento e una nuova interpretazione iconografica del tabernacolo di Peretola.” Mitteilungen des Kunsthisto- rischen Institutes in Florenz 38, no. 1 (1994): 48–68. Pamiatniki gradostroitel’stva i arkhitektury Ukrainskoi SSR (Monuments of City Planning and Architecture in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic). Edited by Nikolai L. Zharikov. Vol. 3. Kiev, 1985. Russian. Panofsky, Erwin. Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St. Denis and Its Art Treasures. Princ- eton, 1979. Pařík, Arno and Pavel Štecha, The Jewish Town of Prague. Prague, 1992 Passover Haggadah: Venice, 1609. Reprint. Jerusalem, 1974. Patai, Raphael. The Messiah Texts. Detroit, 1979. Paulus, Simon. Die Architektur der Synagoge im Mittelalter: Überlieferung und Bestand. Pe- tersberg, 2007. Penkalla, Adam. “Synagoga i gmina w Szydłowie.” Biuletyn Żydowskiego Instytutu Historyc- znego 1/2(121/22) (1982): 57–70. ———. Żydowskie ślady w województwie Kieleckim i Radomskim. Radom, 1992. Physics, Cosmology and Astronomy, 1300–1700. Edited by S. Unguru. Dordrecht, 1991. Piechotka, Maria and Kazimierz. Bóżnice drewniane. Warsaw, 1957. ———. Wooden Synagogues. Warsaw, 1959. ———. Bramy nieba: Bóżnice drewniane na ziemiach dawnej Rzeczypospolitej. Warsaw, 1996. ———. Bramy nieba: Bóżnice murowane na ziemiach dawnej Rzeczypospolitej. Warsaw, 1999. ———. Heaven’s Gates: Wooden Synagogues in the Territories of the Former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Warsaw, 2004. ———. Oppidum Judaeorum: Żydzi w przestrzeni miejskiej dawnej Rzeczypospolitej. Warsaw, 2004. Piekosiński, Franciszek Ksawery and Józef Szujski, Najstarsze księgi i rachunki miasta Kra- kowa od r. 1300 do 1400. Vol. 1. Cracow, 1877. Piekosiński, Franciszek. Kodeks dyplomatyczny miasta Krakowa. Vol. 1. Cracow, 1871. ———. Prawa, przywileje i statuta miasta Krakowa. Vol. 1. Cracow, 1885. Pieradzka, Krystyna. “Gucci, Carlo Calvanus.” Polski Słownik Biograficzny. Vol. 9, 131. (Wrocław, 1961). ———. “Gucci, Kaspar.” Polski Słownik Biograficzny. Vol. 9, 131–32. (Wrocław, 1961). ———. “Kraków w relacjach cudzoziemców X–XVII wieku.” Rocznik Krakowski 28 (1937): 185–86. Pilliod, Elizabeth. “A Widow’s Choice: Alessandro Allori’s Christ and the Adulteress in the Church of Santo Spirito at Florence.” In Beyond Isabella: Secular Women Patrons of Art in Renaissance Italy, edited by Sheryl E. Reiss and David G. Wilkins, 301–15. Kirksville, 2001. Pinkerfeld, Jacob. Batei ha-Knesset b-Italiyah me-Tekufat ha-Renesans ve-ad Yameinu (Syna- gogues of Italy: Their architectural development since the Renaissance). Jerusalem, 1954. Hebrew. Pińczowskie spotkania historyczne. Vol. 1. Pińczów za panowania pińczowskiej linii Oleśnickich. Materiały sesji naukowej 24 lutego 1997. Pińczów, 1997. 224 bibliography

Piotrowski, Antoni Tomasz. “Kaplica Karmelitańska Matki Boskiej Piaskowej w Krakowie. Nieznane dzieło architekta królewskiego Jana Trevano.” Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 46, no. 4 (1984): 345–54. Piotrowski, Josef. Lemberg und Umgebung. L‘viv, [n.d.]. Plaza, Santiago Palomero, Ana Maria López Alvarez and Yasmina Alvarez Delgado, “Excava- tions around the Samuel Halevi Synagogue (Del Tránsito) in Toledo.” Jewish Art 18 (1992): 49–57. Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry. Vol. 10, Jews in Early Modern Poland. Edited by G. D. Hundert. London, 1997. The Polish Renaissance in Its European Context. Edited by Samuel Fiszman. Bloomington, 1988. Polski słownik biograficzny, Cracow-Wrocław, since 1935, continuing. Porges, N. “Elie Capsali et sa chronique de Venice.” Revue des études juives 79 (1924): 28–60. Porton, Gary C. “The Grape-Cluster in Jewish Literature and Art of Late Antiquity.” Journal of Jewish Studies 27 (Autumn 1976): 159–176. Postel, Guillaume. Linguarum duodecim characteribus differentium alphabetum. Paris, 1538. ———. De orbis terrae Concordia Libri Quatuor. Basel, 1544. ———. Or nerot ha-Menorah (Light of the menorah’s candles). [s. l.], 1547[?]. Hebrew. [Postel, Guillaume]. Candelabri typici in Mosis tabernaculo iussu diuino expressi [...] interpretatio: opus [...] a Zohare et Behir caeterisq[ue] multis antiquissimis Cabalae monume[n] tis ad nos emanatu[m] nuperimeque in lucem editum. Venice, 1548. Prague Ghetto in the Renaissance Period. Edited by Otto Muneles. Prague, 1965. Preachers of the Italian Ghetto. Edited by David B. Ruderman. Berkeley, 1992. Przyboś, Adam. “Myszkowski, Władyslaw.” Polski słownik biograficzny. Vol. 22, 401–403. Wrocław, 1977. Przybyszewski, Bolesław. “Muratorzy i kamieniarze zajęci przy budowie zamku królews- kiego na Wawelu. 1502–1536.” Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 27, no. 1 (1955): 149–61. Ptaśnik, Jan. Cracovia artificum 1501–1550. Cracow, 1948. Putík, Alexandr. “The Origin of the Symbols of the Prague Jewish Town: The Banner of the Old-New Synagogue, David’s Shield and the ‘Swedish’ Hat.” Judaica Bohemiae 29 (1993): 4–37. Rabinovich, S. P. “Sledy svobodomysliya v pol’skom ravvinizme XVI veka”(Traces of the liberal thought in the Polish rabbinical scholarship of the 16th century). Evreyskaya starina 4 (1911): 3–6. Russian. Radwański, Kazimierz. “Odkrycie renesansowych i barokowych nagrobków Żydowskich na cmentarzu R’emuh w Krakowie.” Biuletyn Krakowski 2 (1960): 62–72. Rafeld, Meir. “Ha-Zikah she-beyin ha-Rema le-R. Shalom Shakhna” (The relationship of the Rema and R. Shalom Shakna). Sinai 107 (1991): 239–41. Hebrew. Raffaello a Roma: Il convegno del 1983. Edited by C. L. Frommel and M. Winner. Rome, 1986. Rączka, Jan. Krakowski Kazimierz. Cracow, 1982. Reiner, Elchanan. “The Ashkenazi Élite at the Beginning of the Modern Era: Manuscript versus Printed Book.” In Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry. Vol. 10, Jews in Early Modern Poland, edited by G. D. Hundert, 85–98. London, 1997. ———. “Asher kol gedolei ha-Areẓ ha-Zot hem Talmidav—Rabi Yakov Polak: Rishon ve- Rosh le-Ḥakhamei Krakov” (Rabbi Yaakov Pollack of Cracow: First and foremost among Cracow’s scholars). In Kroke-Kazimizh-Krakov: meḥkarim be-toldot yehudei Krakov, edited by Elchanan Reiner, 43–68. Tel Aviv, 2001. Hebrew. ———. “The Rise of an Urban Community: Some Insights on the Transition from the Me- dieval Ashkenazi to the 16-th Century Jewish Community in Poland.” Kwartalnik Histo- rii Żydów 3 (2003): 364–72. Rejduch-Samkowa, Izabella and Jan Samek, Dawna sztuka żydowska w Polsce. Warsaw, 2002. bibliography 225

Rejduch-Samkowa, Izabella. “Die kunsthistorischen Probleme der ältesten Krakauer Syna- gogen.” Wissenschaftlische Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Universität 37, no. 5 (1988): 54–62. ———. “Krakowskie bóżnice. część IV. Sefardyjska bóżnica tzw. Wysoka.” Fołks-Sztyme 12 [4719] (23.03.1985): 10–11. Renaissance Figures of Speech. Edited by Sylvia Adamson, Gavin Alexander and Katrin Ettenhuber. Cambridge, 1997. Renesans. Sztuka i ideologia. Warsaw, 1976. Revel-Neher, Elisabeth. “Antiquus populus, novus populus: Jerusalem and the People of God in the Germigny-des-Prés Carolingian Mosaic.” Jewish Art 23–24 (1997–98): 55–66. ———. “Yeḥezkel, perek lamed zayin: Mafteaḥ nosaf le-Ferush tokhnit ẓiyurei ha-Kir be- Veit Knesset shel Durah-Eyropos” (An additional key to the program of the Dura-Euro- pos synagogue frescoes: Ezekiel 37). In Ve-asu li mikdash: Batei-Kneset me-yamei kedem ve-ad Yameynu. Edited by Jacob Eshel, Ehud Netzer, David Amit and David Cassuto. Ariel, 2004. Hebrew. Revel-Neher, Elisabeth. Le signe de la rencontre: L’arche d’alliance dans l’art juif et chrétien du second au dixième siècles. Paris, 1984. Rodov, Ilia. “Dragons: A Symbol of Evil in Synagogue Decoration?” Ars Judaica 1 (2005): 63–84. ———. “The Development of Medieval and Renaissance Sculptural Decoration in Ashke- nazi Synagogues from Worms to the Cracow Area.” Ph.D. thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem, 2003. ———. “The Eagle, Its Twin Heads and Many Faces: Synagogue Chandeliers Surmounted by Double-headed Eagles.” Studia Rosenthaliana 37 (2004): 77–129. ———. “The King of the King of Kings: Images of Rulership in Late Medieval and Early Modern Christian Art and Synagogue Design.” In Between Syncretism and Independence: Models of Interaction between Judaism and Christianity, edited by Marcel Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz, 457–60. Leiden, 2009. Rokeah, Eleazar of Worms. Perushei sidur ha-Tefilah (Interpretations of the prayer book). Jerusalem, 1992. Hebrew. Rolet, Anne. “Une énigme hiéroglyphique: Le Mercure à la ménorah dans les Symbolicae Quaestiones d’Achille Bocchi.” In L’Enigmatique à la Renaissance: formes, significations, esthétiques. Actes du colloque organisé par l’Association “Renaissance, Humanisme, Réforme”, Lyon, 7–10 septembre 2005, edited by Daniel Martin, Pierre Servet, and André Tournon, 233–60. Paris, 2008. Romano, Giorgio. “Cimeli di antiche sinagoghe padovane trasterite in Israele.” Padova e la sua Provincia (May 1961): 26–31. Ronen, Avraham. “The Temple Menorah in Renaissance Art.” In In the Light of the Menorah: Story of a Symbol. Israel Museum Catalogue no. 406, edited by Yael Israeli, 122–25. Jeru- salem, 1999. Rosenau, Helen. “The Synagogue and Protestant Church Architecture.” Journal of the War- burg and Courtauld Institutes 4 (1941): 80–84. Röslin, Helisaeus. De Opere Dei Creationis, seu, de mundo hypotheses. Frankfurt on Main, 1597. Rossetti, Lucia. The University of Padua: An Outline of Its History. Padua, 1999. Roth, Cecil. “Stemmi di Famiglie ebraiche italiane.” In Scritti in Memoria di Leone Carpi, edited by Daniel Carpi, Attilio Milano and Alexander Rofé, 165–84. Jerusalem, 1967. Róth, Ernst. Die Alte Synagogue zu Worms. Frankfurt am Main, 1961. ———. “Das Licht im Jüdischen Brauchtum.” Udim: Zeitschrift der Rabbinerkonferenz in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 3 (1972): 81–91. Rowland, Ingrid D. “Render unto Caesar the Things Which Are Caesar’s: Humanism and the Arts in the Patronage of Agostino Chigi.” Renaissance Quarterly 39, no. 4 (1986): 673–730. 226 bibliography

Rożek, Michał. Żydowskie zabytki Krakowskiego Kazimierza. Cracow, 1990. Ruderman, David B. “The Impact of Science on Jewish Culture and Society in Venice. With Special Reference to Jewish Graduates of Padua’s Medical School.” In Gli Ebrei e Venezia. Secoli XIV–XVIII, edited by Gaetano Gozzi, 417–48. Milano, 1982. Rudolf, Conrad. Artistic Change at St-Denis: Abbot Suger’s Program and the Early Twelfth- Century Controversy over Art. Princeton, 1990. Sabar, Shalom. “Sẓenot ḥatunah al-gabei ḥitulim le-Sifrei Torah mi-Germaniah” (Wedding scenes on wrappings of the Torah scrolls from Germany). Rimonim 6 (1999): 47–49. Hebrew. ———. “The Beginings and Flourishing of Ketubbah Illustration in Italy: A Study in Popu- lar Imagery and Jewish Patronage during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.” Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 1987. Samek, Marta. “Kościół SS. Dominikanek na Gródku a architektura Krakowa drugiej i trzeciej ćwierci XVII wieku.” Rocznik Krakowski 53 (1987): 17–38. Sandel, Jósef, “Żydowska sztuka kultowa.” In Ministerstwo Kultury i Sztuki. Prace i materiały Biura Rewindykacji i odszkodowań. Vol. 13, Straty wojenne zbiorów polskich w dziedzinie rzemiosła artystycznego, part 2, 91–124. Warsaw, 1953. Sarfatti, Gad B. “The Tablets of the Law as a Symbol of Judaism.” In The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition, edited by Gershon Levi, 368–418. Jerusalem, 1990. Schiller, Gertrud. Iconography of Christian Art. 2 vols. London, 1971–72. ———. Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst. 6 vols. Gütersloh, 1971–91. Schlösser, Annelore and Karl. Keiner blieb verschont: die Judenverfolgung 1933–45 in Worms. Worms, 1989. Schochet, Elijah Judah. Rabbi Joel Sirkes: His Life, Works and Times. New York, 1971. Scholem, Gershom. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. New York, 1973. ———. The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays. New York, 1971. Schottmuller, Frida. Furniture and Interior Decoration of the Italian Renaissance. New York, 1921. Schreckenberg, Heinz. The Jews in Christian Art. New York, 1996. Schrire, Theodore. Hebrew Amulets: Their Decipherment and Interpretation. London, 1966. Schwarzfuchs, Simon. “I responsi di Rabbi Meir da Padova come fonte storica.” In Scritti in Memoria di Leone Carpi, edited by Daniel Carpi, Attilio Milano and Alexander Rofé, 112–32. Jerusalem, 1967. Scribner, W. For the Sake of Simple Folk: Popular Propaganda for the German Reformation. Cambridge, 1981. Scritti in Memoria di Leone Carpi. Edited by Daniel Carpi, Attilio Milano and Alexander Rofé. Jerusalem, 1967. Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture. Edited by Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks. 2 vols. New Haven, 1996. Secret, François. Guillaume Postel (1510–1581) et son interprétation du candélabre de Moyse en hébreu, latin, italien et français. Nieuwkoop, 1966. Seder yoẓerot (Litirgical hymns). Prague, 1536. Hebrew. Sedlmayr, H. Epochen und Werke. Wien, 1959. Sed-Rajna, Gabrielle and Sonia Fellous, Les manuscrits Hébreux enluminés des bibliothèques de France. Leiden 1994. Sed-Rajna, Gabrielle. “The History of a Hebrew Codex: A Hebrew Codex as History. Mai- monides’ Mishneh Torah at the Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.” In Stud- ies in Jewish manuscripts, edited by Joseph Dan, Klaus Herrmann, Johanna Hoornweg, and Manuela Petzoldt, 199–220. Tübingen, 1999. Sefer Haggadah shel Pesaḥ (Passover Haggadah). Venice 1609. Hebrew. Sefer Niẓaḥon Yashan (Old book of victory). Edited by Mordecai Breuer. Ramat Gan, 1978. Hebrew. bibliography 227

Serlio, Sebastiano. Extraordinario libro di Architettura di architetto del re christianissimo. Lion, 1551. ———. Il terzo libro di architettura di Sebastiano Serlio Bolognese nel qual si figurano e descrivono le antiquita di Roma e li alter cose che sono in Italia, e fuori d’Italia. Venice, 1540. ———. Regole generali d’architettura. Venice, 1537. Shalev Eyni, Sarit. Jews among Christians: Hebrew Book Illumination from Lake Constance. Turnhout, 2010. Shearman, John. “The Chigi Chapel in S. Maria del Popolo.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 24 (1961): 129–60. ———. “The Expulsion of Heliodorus.” In Raffaello a Roma: Il convegno del 1983, edited by C. L. Frommel and M. Winner, 75–87. Rome, 1986. Shilo, Sh. Dina de-Malkhuta dina (The law of the government is binding). Jerusalem, 1974. Hebrew. Shulvass, Moses A. The Jews in the World of the Renaissance. Leiden, 1973. ———. Avigdor. Jewish Culture in Eastern Europe: The Classical Period. New York, 1975. SHUT ha-Rema (Responsa of the Rema). Edited by Asher Siev. Jerusalem, 1970. Hebrew. Siev, Asher. “Maharam mi-Padovah” (Maharam of Padua). Ha-Darom 28 (1969): 160–95. ———. Rabeynu Moshe Iserles. Rema (Our Rabbi Moshe Isserles [Rema]). New York, 1972. Hebrew. Silver, Abba Hillel. A History of Messianic Speculation in Israel: From the First through the Seventeenth Centuries. Gloucester, 1978. Silver, Larry. Marketing Maximilian: The Visual Ideology of a Holy Roman Emperor. Princeton, 2008. Silverman, Edmond. “Postel, Guillaume.” Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol. 16, 770. Detroit, 2007. Simon, Karl. “Die Anlage zweischiffiger Räume in Deutschland.” Repertorium für Kunst- wissenschaft 25 (1902): 41–48. Sinko, Krystyna. Santi Gucci fiorentino i jego szkola. Cracow, 1933. Skinner, Quentin. “Paradiastole: Redescribing the Vices as Virtues.” In Renaissance Figures of Speech, edited by Sylvia Adamson, Alexander Gavin and Katrin Ettenhuber, 149–63. Cambridge, 1997. Skupio, Zbignew. “Kraków, Bóżnica Wysoka—Aron Hakodesz. Sprawozdanie z prac konserwatorskich i dokumentacja konserwatorska, PP. Pracownie Konserwacji Zabytków, Oddział Kraków, Pracownia Konserwacji Dzieł Sztuki.” Typescript. Cracow, 1972. Słoń, Julian. “Projekt fundamentowania oraz przytwierdzenia do ściany, szafy ołtarzowej Aron Kodesz w sali głównej synagogi w Pińczowie.” Typescript. Kielce, 1996. Słownik geograficzny królestwa Polskiego i innych krajów słowiańskich. 15 vols. Warsaw, 1880– 1900. Słownik artystów polskich i obcych w Polsce działających (zmarłych przed 1966 r.). Malarze, rzeźbiarze, graficy. Wrocław-Warsaw, since 1971, continuing. Słownik Geograﬁczny Królestwa Polskiego i innych krajów słowiańskich. 15 vols. Warsaw, 1880–1914. Sonne, Isaiah. “Expurgation of Hebrew Books—the Work of Jewish Scholars: A Contribu- tion to the History of the Censorship of Hebrew Books in Italy in the 16th century.” In Hebrew Printing and Bibliography, edited by Charles Berlin, 199–241. New York, 1976. Sperber, Daniel. “Between Jerusalem and Rome: The History of the Base of the Menorah as Depicted on the Arch of Titus.” In In the Light of the Menorah: Story of a Symbol. Israel Museum Catalogue no. 406, edited by Yael Israeli, 135–59. Jerusalem 1999. ———. Minhagei Yisrael (Jewish customs). 8 vols. Jerusalem, 1998–2007. Hebrew. Sperber, David. “Ha-Ḥupah be-mekorot ha-Halakhah ve-ha-Omanut” (The wedding in halachahic sources and in art). In Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael. Vol. 4, 136–78. Jerusa- lem, 1998/89. Hebrew. 228 bibliography

———. “Minhagei ḥupah be-Omanut Yehudit” (Wedding customs in Jewish art). Rimonim 6–7 (1999): 50–64. Hebrew. Spicer, Joaneath. “The Star of David and Jewish Culture in Prague around 1600, Reflected in Drawings of Roelandt Savery and Paulus van Vianen.” The Journal of the Walters Art Gal- lery 54 (1996): 203–25. Spirituality and Prayer: Jewish and Christian Understandings. Edited by Leon Klenicki and Gabe Huck. New York, 1983. St. Clair, Archer. “God’s House of Peace in Paradise: the Feast of Tabernacles on a Jewish Gold Glass.” Journal of Jewish Art 11 (1985): 6–15. Stankiewicz, Dariusz. “Synagoga w Orli.” Biuletyn konserwatorski województwa Białostockiego 1 (1995): 81–84. Stern, Selma. Josel of Rosheim in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. [s. l.], 1965. Stout, Ann M. “Jewelry as a Symbol of Status in the Roman Empire.” In The World of Roman Costume, eds. Judith Lynn Sebesta and Larissa Bonfante, 77–100. Madison, 2001. Stronczyński, Kazimierz. Obraz ogólny różnego rodzaju zabytków w Królestwie Polskim. Widoki zabytków starożytności w Królestwie Polskim służące do objaśnienia tychże starożytności, sporządzone przez Delegację wysłaną z polecenia Rady Administracyjnej Królestwa w latach 1844–1846. Vol. 1. Warsaw, 1850. Studia Renesansowe. Edited by Michał Walicki. 4 vols. Wrocław, 1956–64. Studies in Jewish manuscripts. Edited by Joseph Dan, Klaus Herrmann, Johanna Hoornweg, and Manuela Petzoldt. Tübingen, 1999. Sukenik, Eleazar Lipa. Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece. London, 1934. Swarzewski, A. “Badania architektoniczne spichrza w Wodzisławiu, pow. Jędrzejów, woj. Kieleckie.” Typescript. Cracow, 1967. Synagogen in Deutschland: Geschichte einer Baugattung im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. 1780–1933. Edited by Harold Hammer-Schenk. Hamburg, 1981. The Synagogue in Late Antiquity. Edited by Lee Israel Levine. Philadelphia, 1987. Sztuka jako świadectwo czasu. Studia z pogranicza historii sztuki i historii idei. Warsaw, 1980. Sztuka około roku 1600. Materiały sesji Stowarzyszenia historyków sztuki, Lublin, 1972. Warsaw, 1974. Szulakowska, Urszula. The Alchemy of Light: Geometry and Optics in Late Renaissance Al- chemical Illustration. Leiden, 2000. Szwejkowska, Helena. Książka drukowana XV–XVII wieku: Zarys Historyczny. Wrocław, 1987. Szyszko-Bohusz, Adolf. “Materiały do architektury bóżnic w Polsce.” Prace Komisji Historii Sztuki 4, no. 1 (1927): 1–25. Świszczowski, Stefan. “Miasto żydowskie na Kazimierzu w świetle nowych badań.” Biuletyn Krakowski 2 (1960): 47–61. ———. Miasto Kazimierz pod Krakowem. Cracow, 1981. Taddey, Gerhard. Kein kleines Jerusalem: Geschichte der Juden im Landkreis Schwäbisch Hall. Sigmaringen, 1992. Tal, Shlomo and David Derovan, “Isserles, Moses ben Israel.” Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol. 10, 770–72. Detroit, 2007. Tambor, Jarosław and Jerzy Znojek, Społeczeństwo żydowskie w Pińczowie. Pińczów, 1998. Tatarkiewicz, Władysław. Historia sztuki polskiej. Vol. 1. Sztuka średniowieczna. Cracow, 1962. Tazbir, Janusz. “Die Reformation in Polen und das Judentum.” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 31, no. 3 (1983): 386–400. The Temple of Antiquity. Edited by T. G. Madsen. Provo, 1984. The Temple of Solomon: Archaeological Fact and Medieval tradition in Christian, Islamic, and Jewish Art. Edited by Joseph Gutmann. Missoula, 1976. The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition. Edited by Gershon Levi. Jerusalem, 1990. Thieme, Ulrich, Felix Becker, and Hans Vollmer, Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler: von der Antike zur Gegenwart. 37 vols. Leipzig, 1907–1950. bibliography 229

Thulin, O. Cranach: Altäre der Reformation. Berlin, 1955. Tomkowicz, Stanisław. “Ślady Uniwersytetu Kazimierzowskiego.” Rocznik Krakowski 5 (1902): 183–95. ———. Napisy domów krakowskich. Cracow, 1899. ———. Teka grona konserwatorów Galicyi zachodniej. Vol. 1, Inwentaryzacya zabytków Gali- cyi zachodniej, part 4, Zabudowania Wawelu i ich dzieje. Cracow, 1908. Trzciński, Andrzej and Marcin Wodziński, “Wystrój malarski synagogi w Pińczowie.” Studia Judaica 2, no. 1(3) (1999): 87–102; 3 no. 1(5) (2000): 91–98. Trzciński, Andrzej. Śladami zabytków kultury żydowskiej na Lubelszczyźnie. Lublin, 1990. Tuzzato, Stefano. “Le trasformazioni edilizie nella storia del monumento.” In Hatikwá, edited by Claudia De Benedetti. Vol. 1, 75–95. Padua, 1998. Tyszkiewicz, Adam. “Motyw obelisku w sztuce nagrobnej Warszawy jako element europejskiej tradycji sepulkralnej.” Meander 3 (2005): 356–76. Ulewicz, Tadeusz. “Polish Humanism and its Italian Sources”. In The Polish Renaissance in Its European Context, edited by Samuel Fiszman, 215–35. Bloomington, 1988. Ułanowski, B. Materyjały do historyi ustawodawstwa synodalnego w Polsce w w. XVI. Cracow, 1895. Urban, Wacław. “Pińczów w okresie reformacji.” In Pińczowskie spotkania historyczne. Vol. 1, Pińczów za panowania pińczowskiej linii Oleśnickich. Materiały sesji naukowej 24 lutego 1997, 44–52. Pińczów, 1997. Vasari, Giorgio. The Lives of the Artists. Oxford 1998. Ve-asu li mikdash: Batei-Kneset me-yamei kedem ve-ad Yameynu (And let them make Me a Sanctuary: Synagogues from ancient times to the present day). Edited by Jacob Eshel, Ehud Netzer, David Amit and David Cassuto. Ariel, 2004. Hebrew. Venturi, Adolfo. Storia dell’Arte Italiana. Vol. 11. Architettura del cinquecento. Milan, 1940. Vicentin, Guido. Il ghetto vecchio di Padova e le sue sinagoghe: Note storico-urbanistiche. Padua, 1987. Vickers, Michael. “Mantegna and the Ara Pacis.” The J. Paul Getty Museum Journal 2 (1975) 109–20. Vilímková, Milada. The Prague Ghetto. Prague, 1993. Volavková, Hana. The Pinkas Synagogue. Prague, 1955. Waddington, Raymond B. “The Iconography of Silence and Chapman’s Hercules.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 33 (1970): 248–63. Walter Friedlaender zum 90. Geburtstag. Berlin, 1965. Warchal, Jan. “Żydzi polscy na Uniwersytecie padewskim.” Kwartalnik poświęcony badaniu przeszłości Żydów w Polsce 1, no. 3 (1913): 37–72. Ward-Perkins, Bryan. From Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages: Urban Public Building in Northern and Central Italy A.D. 300–850. Oxford, 1984. Weil, Gérard Emmanuel. Elie Levita: humaniste et massorete (1469–1549). Leiden, 1963. Weinryb, Bernard Dov. The Jews of Poland. Philadelphia, 1973. Weitzmann, Kurt and Herbert L. Kessler, The Frescoes of the Dura Europos Synagogue and Christian Art. Washington, 1990. Wencel-Homecka, Zofia. “Gucci, Aleksander.” Polski Słownik Biograficzny. Vol. 9, 131. Wrocław, 1960–61. ———.”Gucci, Mateusz.” Polski Słownik Biograficzny. Vol. 9, 132. Wrocław, 1960–61. Wengrov, Charles. Haggadah and Woodcut: An Introduction to the Passover Haggadah Com- pleted by Gershom Cohen in Prague, Sunday, 26 Teveth 5287 = December 30, 1526, to Ac- company Its Facsimile Edition. New York, 1976. Werner, Johannes. De triangulis sphæricis libri quatuor. Cracow, 1557. Wettstein, F. H. “Noch ein wort über die jüngst in Krakau aufgefunden Grabschriften.” Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 9 (45) (1901): 165–76. 230 bibliography

———. Mi-Pinkasei ha-Kahal be-Kroke: Le-Korot Yisrael ve-Ḥokhemav, Rabbanav ve-Manh- igav be-Polania bikhlal u-va-Kroke bifrat (From the minute books of the community in Cracow: To the history of the people of Israel and its sages, rabbis and leaders in Poland in general and in Cracow in particular). Wrocław, 1901. Hebrew. ———. Le-Toldot Yisrael ve-Ḥakhamav be-Folin (To the history of [the people of] Israel and its sages in Poland). Cracow, 1909. Hebrew. ———. “Le-Toldot Yisrael ve-Ḥakhamav be-Folin” (To the history of [the people of] Israel and its sages in Poland). Ha-Eshkol 6 (1913): 211–35; 7 (1913): 147–53. Hebrew. Wigoder, Geoffrey. The Story of the Synagogue: A Diaspora Museum Book. New York, 1986. Wiliński, Stanisław. “O renesansie wawelskim.” In Renesans. Sztuka i ideologia, 213–25. War- saw, 1976. ———. “Zygmunt Stary jako Salomon. Z listów Erazma z Rotterdamu.” Biuletyn historii sztuki 32, no. 1 (1970): 38–47. ———. ”Renaissance Sculpture in Poland in its European Context: Some Selected Prob- lems.” In The Polish Renaissance in Its European Context, edited by Samuel Fiszman, 281–90. Bloomington, 1988. Wind, Edgar. Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance. New York, 1968. Windakewicz, Stanisław. “Padwa. Studyum z dziejów cywilizacyi polskiej.” Przegląd Polski 25, no. 99 (1981): 258–98, 548–97. Wischnitzer, Rachel. The Architecture of the European Synagogue. Philadelphia, 1964. ———. “Mutual Influences between Eastern and Western Europe in Synagogue Architec- ture from the 12th to the 18th Centuries.” YIVO Annual of Jewish Social Sience 2–3 (1947– 48): 25–68. ———. “Maimonides’ Drawings of the Temple.” Journal of Jewish Art 1 (1974): 16–27. ———. From Dura to Rembrandt. Jerusalem, 1990. Wiśniewski, J. Historyczny opis kościołów, miast, zabytków i pamiątek w stopnickiem. Mar- jówka, 1929. Wittkower, Rudolf. Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism. London, 1967. ———. Selected Lectures of Rudolf Wittkower: the Impact of Non-European Civilizations on the Art of the West, edited by Donald Martin Reynolds. Cambridge, 1989. Wittmayer Baron, Salo. A Social and Religious History of the Jews. Vol. 12. Philadelphia, 1967. Władysław Łoziński, Sztuka lwowska w XVI i XVII wieku. Architektura i rzeżba. L’viv, 1901. The World of Roman Costume. Edited by Judith Lynn Sebesta and Larissa Bonfante. Madison, 2001. Wormald, Francis. “The Throne of Solomon and St. Edward’s Chair.” In De Artibus opuscula 40: Essays in Honour of Erwin Panofsky, edited by Millard Meiss, 532–39. New York, 1961. Worms Mahzor: Ms. Jewish National and University Library, Heb. 40 781/1. Edited by Malachi Beit-Arié. Vaduz, 1985. Wróblewski, Andrzej. “The Cracovian Background of Nicholas Copernicus.” In The Polish Renaissance in Its European Context, edited by Samuel Fiszman, 147–60. Bloomington, 1988. Wunder, Meir. Elef margaliot (A thousand pearls). Jerusalem, 1993. Hebrew. Wyrozumska, Bożena. “Did King Olbracht Banish the Jews from Cracow?” In The Jews in Poland, edited by Andrzej Paluch. Vol. 1, 27–37 Cracow, 1992. Wyrozumski, Bożena and Jerzy, “Mekorot Ḥadashim le-Toldot Yehudei Krakov be-Yamei ha-Beinayim” (New sources for the history of Cracow Jewry in the Middle Ages). In Kroke-Kazimizh-Krakov: meḥkarim be-toldot yehudei Krakov, edited by Elchanan Reiner, 29–42. Tel Aviv, 2001. Hebrew. Wyrozumski, Jerzy. “Żydzi w średniowiecznym Krakowie.” Krzysztofory 8 (1981) [in fact, after 1982]): 8–13. bibliography 231

Yaari, Abraham. Diglei ha-Madpisim ha-Ivryiym me-reshit ha-Defus ha-Ivri ve-ad Sof ha- Meah ha-Tesha-Esreh (Jewish printers’ marks from the beginning of Hebrew printing to the end of 19th century). Jerusalem, 1944. Hebrew. Yahalom, Josef. “Piyyut as Poetry.” In The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, edited by Lee Israel Levine, 111–26. Philadelphia, 1987. Yakobovich-Ashkenazi, Yoel. “Rabanei Pinchev le-doroteyhem” (Generations of the Pińczów rabbis). In In Pinchev togt shoyn nisht: Sefer zikaron le-Kehilat Pinchev, 113–25. Tel Aviv, 1970. Hebrew. Yaniv, Bracha. “The Cherubim on Torah Ark Valances.” Assaph 4 (1999): 155–70. ———. “The Origins of the ‘Two-column’ Motif in European Parokhot.” Jewish Art 15 (1989): 26–43. Yuhasz, Esther. “Ha-‘Shiviti-Menorah’—beyin mufshat le-homri: Iyunim be-yizug ha- Kodesh” (The ‘shiviti-menorah’: A representation of the sacred—between spirit and matter). Ph.D. thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem, 2004. Hebrew. Zadrożny, Tadeusz. “Starotestamentowa geneza relacji między twórcami Kaplicy Zyg- muntowskiej, królem i Berreccim.” Biuletyn historii sztuki 67, no. 1–2 (2005): 9–57. Zaggia, Stefano. “Il ghetto ebraico di Padova. 1603–1797.” M.A. thesis, Instituto Universitario di Architettura. Venice, 1990. ———. “Gli Ebrei e Padova: Tracce e memorie di una storia secolare (XIV–XVIII sec.)” In Hatikwá, edited by Claudia De Benedetti. Vol. 1, 3–23. Padua, 1998. ———. “La Scuola Grande di Padova: vicende storiche e architettura.” In Hatikwá, edited by Claudia De Benedetti. Vol. 1, 59–113. Padua, 1998. Zahorska, Stefanja. “O pierwszych śladach Odrodzenia w Polsce.” Prace Komisji Historji Sztuki 2 (1922): 101–22. Zajczyk, Szymon. “Bóżnice renesansowe w Polsce, I, Bóżnica w Pińczowie.” Wiadomości Krajoznawcze 14 (1933): 4–7. ———. “Muratorzy zamojscy (1583–1609).” Biuletyn Historii Sztuki i Kultury 7, no. 2 (1939): 201–12. Zanker, Paul. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Michigan, 1988. Zaremska, Hanna. “Rachela Fiszel: Żydowska wdowa w średniowiecznym Krakowie.” Jewish History Quarterly (Żydzi i miesczcanie w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej) 2 (207) (2003): 381–90. Zbudniewek, Janusz. “Klasztor paulinów w Pińczowie.” In Pińczowskie spotkania historyczne. Vol. 1, Pińczów za panowania pińczowskiej linii Oleśnickich. Materiały sesji naukowej 24 lutego 1997, 16–43. Pińczów, 1997. Żelewski, Roman. “Myszkowski Piotr.” Polski słownik biograficzny. Vol. 22, 390–92. Wrocław, 1977. Zunz, Yechiel Matityahu. Ir ha-Ẓedek (City of righteousness). L’viv, 1874. Hebrew. Zur Geschichte der Juden in Böhmen, Mähren und Schlesien von 906 bis 1620. Edited by Got- tlieb Bondy and Franz Dworský. 2 vols. Prague, 1906. Żychiewicz, Tadeusz. “Krakow-Kazimierz. Bóżnica R’emuh. Dokumentacja naukowa, Pra- cownia Architektoniczna P.K.Z.” Typescript. Cracow, 1953. Żydzi i Judaism we współczesnych badaniach Polskich. Materiały z konferencji, Kraków, 21–23, XI, 1995. Cracow, 1997. 232 bibliography index of names 233

Index of Names

Abraham ben Avigdor (16th century) of Boner, Jan the Younger (1516–62) 177 Prague 102 Boner, Seweryn (1486–1549) 32, 35, 118 Abraham Bohemus (alias Abraham the Bragadini (Bragadin), Alvise (16th centu- Czech; d. 1533) 21, 35 ry) 42 Abulafia, Samuel ha-Levi (d. 1360/61) 11–12, Buonaccorsi, Filippo (alias Callimachus; 69, 72, 150n32 1437–96) 29, 34 Alberti, Leon Battista (1404–72) 33, 85, 90, Burgkmair, Hans the Elder (1473–1531) 104 169, 170 Alexander Jagiellon (1461–1506), Polish king Capsali, Elijah ben Elkanah (ca. 1483– (1502–06) 20n91, 21, 31, 34 1555) 13n54, 68–69, 71 Anna Jagiellon (1523–96), Polish queen Caro, Joseph ben Ephraim (1480–1575) 8n31, (1575–86) 32 13n54, 37n48, 38, 47n96, 67–68, 70–72 Anton Floriantinus (16th century), possibly Casimir II (1138–94), High Duke of Poland the same as Antonio de Morosi 122–23, (1177–94) 5n21 129 Casimir III the Great (1310–70), Polish king Antonio de Morosi, see Anton Floriantinus (1333–70) 5n21, 123–24, 157 Arama, Isaac ben Moses (ca. 1420–94) 100, Casimir IV (1447–92), Polish king (1440– 103, 189 92) 21, 29, 158, 161 Archivolti, Samuel (1515–1611) 88 Castelazzo, Moses da (d. 1527), son of Abra- Aristotle (384 BCE–322 BCE) 40–41 ham Sachs 87n24 Assis, Yom-Tov 139 Castiglione, Nicolo (d. 1545) 121, 126 Auerbach, Moses (15th century) 36 Cestius, Caius (d. ca. 12 BCE) 176–77, 181 Cecylja the Swede (d. 1627) 164n86 Baḥye ben Asher ibn Halawa (alias Rabbenu Chigi, Agostino (1466–1520) 175–78, 188 Beḥaye; 1255–1340) 187–89 Chrząński, Teodor (1821–87) 158n67, Bąkowski, Klemens (1860–1938) 15 159n68 Bałaban, Majer (1847–1942) 16–17, 22, 51, Cini, Giovanni (Jan), of Siena (1490/1495– 119, 138, 197 Baltrušaitis, Jurgis Jr. (1903–1988) 57 ca. 1565) 31, 33, 34, 77–79, 122n21, 126, 128 Bandinelli, Baccio (1493–1560) 162 Cino Cini, Girolamo di (the 16th centu- Baranek (Baran), Stanisław (16th century) 175 ry) 53–54, 75 Cohen (ha-Cohen), Gershom ben Solomon Batory, Stephen (1533–86), Polish king (d. 1544) 39n62, 64, 99 (1576–86) 162, 167 Cohen (ha-Cohen), Mordechai ben Ger- Belski, Marcin (ca. 1495–1575) 5 shom (d. 1592) 39, 64 Benjamin of Tudela (1130–73) 182n74 Cohen (ha-Cohen), Solomon (13th centu- Berrecci, Bartolommeo (Bartolo) di Luca ry) 183n79 (1480/1485–1537) 31–33, 77, 79, 121, 123, Cohens, priestly tribe 68n56, 101n77, 138–39 125–26 Cranach, Lucas the Elder (1472–1553) 39, 111 Bernard, Mark (1908–66) 3 Cusanus, Nicolaus (1401–64) 40 Bernardino of Siena (1380–1444) 171n25 Czarny (Schwarz, Niger), Israel (16th cen- Bernini, Gian Lorenzo (1598–1680) 176n42 tury) 117 Bersohn, Mathias (1824–1908) 17 Czarny, Isaac ben Israel (16th century) 35 Bomberg, Daniel (d. between 1549 and Czarny, Mateusz and Anna (16th century) of 1553) 187–88 Cracow 81n1 Boner, Hans (Jan; b. before 1463, d. 1523) 31 Czerska, Zofia (d. ca. 1584) 163–64 234 index of names

Darshan, David ben Menassiah (16th cen- Fuggerei (15th to 17th centuries), dynas- tury) 43 ty 118 David ben Solomon ibn (ben) Abi Zimra (alias Radbaz, Hebrew acronym of Rabbi Gagara, Vassily Jakovlevich (17th century) David ben Abi Zimra; 1479–1573) 68–72 182n75 Dembowska, Zofia (d. 1588) 164 Gamrat, Piotr (1487–1545) 77 Długosz, Jan the Elder (1415–80) 2n7 Ghiberti, Lorenzo (born Lorenzo di Bartolo; Długosz, Jan the Younger (15th century) 2n7 1378–1455) 166–67 Dmochowski, Zbigniew (1906–82) 130 Ghirondi, Mordechai Samuel ben Benzion Dreisel (1562–1602), daughter of Moses Is- Aryeh (1799–1852) of Padua 82n6 serles 131n64 Giannottis (Gianotis), Bernardino Zanobi Droździewicz, Jan (1812–88) 46n95, 119, de (d. 1541) 31, 33, 77 120n23, 138n93 Gitl (d. 1552), paternal grandmother of Mo- ses Isserles 47 Eleazar bar Mordechai (18th century) 56 Giustiniani, Marco Antonio (ca. 1516–ca. Eliezer (Eleazar or Lazar; late 15th and early 1571) 42n81 16th century) of Brandenburg 35 Gocman (alias Gottesman), Błażej (second Elisabeth of Austria (1436–1505), Polish half of 16th and early 17th century) 163 queen consort (1454–92) 34–35 Golda (d. 1552), daughter of Shalom Shakh- Elisabeth of Austria (1526–45), Polish queen na, wife of Moses Isserles 37, 47 (1543–45) 78 Gonzaga, Vincenzo (1562–1612), Duke of Essenwein, August (1831–92) 15 Mantua (1587–1612) 146 Graziano, Abraham Joseph Solomon ben Mordechai (d. 1690) 66–68, 72 Felix the Jew (16th century) 122, 128, 130 Grotte, Alfred (1842–1943) 16, 116n4, Ficino, Marsilio (1433–99) 29, 40 168n14–15 Fiesole, Antonio da (d. in early 1540s) 33– Gucci, family 126 34, 77 Gucci, Alexander (d. before 1572) 121n25, Fiesole, Filippo di Bartolommeo da (1475/ 122, 124, 129 85–1540) 31, 33, 77, 79, 122n31, 128 Gucci, Carlo Calvanus 121n26 Fishel (Fiszel), family 18, 21, 34, 35 Gucci, Francisco (Franciszek; 16th centu- Fishel (Fiszel), Chwała (Falka; 16th century) 120–21, 124 ry) 35 Gucci, Gasparo (Kaspar; 16th centu- Fishel (Fiszel), Ephraim (Franczek; 16th ry) 121n26 century) 35 Gucci, Giovanni di Niccoló Albenghi (alias Fishel (Fiszel), Moses (d. ca. 1504) 18, 19, 21, della Camilla; 16th century) 121n26, 162 34 Gucci, Matteo (alias Matteo/Matheus the Fishel (Fiszel), Moses the Younger (d. 1542) Italian/Florentino/Fiorentin; d. 1550) 89 120–21 Fishel (Fiszel), Rachel (second half of 15th Gucci, Matteo the Younger(?) (active in late and early 16th century) 21, 34–35, 89 1550s) 121–24, 126, 162, 197 Fishel (Fiszel), Stefan (16th century) 34–35 Gucci, Santi (Ognisanti; ca. 1530–1600) Firlej, Elżbieta (d. ca. 1580) 175n36 32n16, 121n26, 162–64, 175, 178–79 Foa, Tobias ben Eliezer (16th centu- Guicciardini, Galeazzo (d. 1557) 175, 178 ry) 103n82 Fra Angelico (born Guido di Pietro; ca. Ḥarif, Moses (17th century) 144 1395–1455) 166 Hayim ben Aaron (17th century) 197 Franciscus (Franciszek) Italus or Florenti- Ḥasid (he-Ḥasid), David ben Judah (early nus (Florentczyk; d. 1516) 30, 121 14th century) 100 Frankowa (Frank; 16th century) of Kazimi- Ḥasid (he-Ḥasid), Judah ben Samuel (ca. erz 128 1150–1217) 7, 25–26 Frauberger, Heinrich (1845–1920) 81 Heigerlich, Moses (16th century) 37 index of names 235

Heinrich (active in Frankfurt am Main John Albrecht (Jan Olbracht; 1459–1501), around 1460) 123n36 Polish king (1493–1501) 5, 21, 30, 34, 158 Hertzog, Carl (19th century) 24 Jonah ben Abraham (16th century) 79, Hoffmann, Heinrich (19th century) 24 122n31, 128 Horowitz, family 52, 102, 127, 156 Josel (Joseph) ben Gershon (ca. 1478–1554) Horowitz, Aaron Meshulam Zalman ben of Rosheim 102 Isaiah ha-Levi (alias Munka; 1470–1545) Joseph (15th–16th centuries), father of Is- 42, 52, 99, 101, 102 rael Isserl 36 Horowitz, Isaiah, see Isaiah ben Asher ha- Joseph ben Eliezer (18th century) of Pińc Levi zów 172n30 Horowitz, Pinchas ben Israel (1535–1618), Judah Leib ben Isaac (18th century) 172n30 brother-in-law of Moses Isserles 42, 72, 103, 156 Katzenellenbogen, Meir ben Isaac (alias Hruzik, Jan Kanty (1809–91) 27 Maharam, Hebrew acronym of Our Huber, Jörg (active in late 15th century) 30 Teacher Rabbi Meir; 1473–1565) of Pad- ua 7–8, 10, 13, 37, 42, 68, 71–72, 83, 86–89, Idel, Moshe 181 97 Isaiah ben Asher ha-Levi (probably, Horow- Katzenellenbogen, Samuel Judah ben Meir itz; d. 1517) 100–101 (1521–97) 42–43, 87, 89 Israel Isserl ben Joseph (also Israeli Judaeo; Khunrath, Heinrich (1560–1605) 179 d. 1568) 8, 22, 27, 36–37, 43–53, 61, 66, Kirchheim, Juda Löw (d. 1632) 65 75–76, 79, 127, 151n38 Kochanowski, Jan (1530–84) 146 Israel, the people of 7n27, 44n87, 49n106, Kogman-Appel, Katrin 189 56n4, 107–108, 109n105, 114, 167, 172, Koniecki, Hieronim (born ca. 1564) 178–79 173n32, 180, 182–83, 206 Kowalczyk, Jerzy 164 Isserl, family (also the Isserls) 34, 42–45, 49, Kozakiewicz, Helena 76 51–53, 55–56, 58, 60–62, 66, 73–73, 81, Krasnowolski, Bogusław 53, 128 89–95, 98–99, 103, 106, 112, 114–17, 124–27, 129–30, 134–37, 140, 142, 144n5, 151n38, Krautheimer, Richard (1897–1994) 15, 160, 174n34, 193, 196, 200, 201n156, 205 22n101, 91 Isserlein, Israel ben Petaḥiah (1390–1460) Kriger, Ignacy (Izaak; 1817/20–89) – 124n38 36 Krochmal, Menachem Mendel ben Abra- Isserles, Moses ben Israel Isserl (alias the ham (alias Ẓemah Ẓedek; ca. 1600– Rema, Hebrew acronym of Rabbi Moses 61) 192–93 Isserles; ca. 1525–72) 8, 37–50, 56n5, 64, Krupnik, Bartolommeo (16th century) 78 66, 72, 87, 89, 94n50, 95, 102n81, 103, 107, Kupfer, Franciszek (Efrayim) 3 113, 117, 127, 131n64, 143, 188, 189n111, 191, 193n28, 195, 197 Lambert of Saint Omer (late 11th and early 12th century) 96 Jacob ben Asher (alias Ba‘al ha-Turim, ca. Lanckoroński, Jan (ca. 1490–1564) 153 1270–ca. 1343) 38, 86n19, 95, 143n4, 195 Lemel, Asher (second half of 15th and early Jacob ben David (11th century) of Worms 16th century) 19, 21 9–10 Leopolita, see Nicz, Jan Jacob Ezdrasz (Ezra; 16th century) 117 Levita (alias Baḥur), Elijah ben Asher ha- Jaffe, Mordechai ben Abraham (16th cen- Levi Ashkenazi (1468/69–1549) 188 tury) 43 Levites, priestly tribe 101, 138 Jan (Giovanni?) of Piacenza (16th centu- Lewko, son of Jordan (d. ca. 1395) 1, 12 ry) 178 Loyola, Ignatius (1491–1556) 171n25 Jan (Janusz; alias Jan Ochstat and Jan de Ludwikowski, Leszek (1925–90) 14 Thelnicz; 1499–1538), a half-brother of Luria, Jechiel ben Aaron (d. ca. 1470) 36–37 Sigismund II Augustus 78 Luria, Solomon ben Jehiel (alias Maharshal, Jan of Tęczyn (15th century) 2, 4n16–17, Hebrew acronym of Our Teacher Rabbi 236 index of names

Solomon Luria; 1510–73) of Lublin 37n41, Mojecki, Przesław (second half of 16th and 143, 188–194, 199–200, 202 early 17th century) 161 Łuszczkiewicz, Władysław (1828–1900) 15, Molcho, Solomon (born Diogo Pires; ca. 116, 120, 122 1500–32) 101–103 Luther, Martin (1483–1546) 39 Möllin, Jacob ben Moses ha-Levi (alias Ma- haril, Hebrew acronym of Our Teacher Maharam of Padua, see Katzenellenbogen, Rabbi Jacob ha-Levi; ca. 1360–1427) of Meir ben Isaac Mainz 66 Maharam of Rothenburg, see Meir ben Ba- Morosi, Antonio de (16th century) 122–23, ruch 129 Maharil of Mainz, see Möllin, Jacob Moses (16th century), son of Samuel bar Maharshal of Lublin, see Luria, Solomon Meshulam 43 ben Jehiel Moses da Castelazzo, see Castelazzo, Moses Mahler, Ozjasz (first half of 20th centu- da ry) 119, 120n20 (d. 1527), son of Abraham Sachs 87n24 Maimonides, see Moses ben Maimon Moses ben Joseph Trani (alias Ba‘al Ha- Malka (Dina Malka; d. 1552), daughter of Mabit, d. 1580) 68 Eleazar (Eliezer); wife of Israel Isserls, Moses ben Maimon (alias Rambam – He- and mother of Moses Isserles 36–37, 43, brew acronym of Our Teacher Moses ben 44n87, 45, 47, 49n106 Maimon – in rabbinical tradition, and Maneschin (active in Frankfurt am Main Maimonides in non-Jewish literature; around 1460) 123n36 1135–1204) 7n27, 40, 42n81, 59n12, Manya (or Monya?/Anya?) Schnitzer (17th 190n118, 195–96 Mülhausen, Yom Tov Lipmann ben Solo- century) 197 mon (14th–15th centuries) 2–3 Margolioth, Moses Mordechai (17th centu- Myszkowski, family 147, 148n24, 163 ry) 144 Myszkowski, Józef Władyslaw (ca. 1660– Mark the Jew (16th century) of Szydłów 158 1727) 148n24 Martin, John Rupert (1916–2000) 199 Myszkowski, Piotr (ca. 1510–91) 146, 155, 162 Matthias Corvinus (1443–90), Hungarian Myszkowski, Sigismund (Zygmunt) Gon- king (1458–90) 29, 30n6 zaga (ca. 1562–1615) 146–47, 155, 162, 170, Maximilian I (1459–1519), Holy Roman Em- 171n25 peror (1493–1519) 104 Myszkowski, Stanisław Kazimierz (ca. Medici, Lorenzo de’ (1449–92) 29 1660–84) 148 Meir ben Baruch (alias Maharam, Hebrew Myszkowski, Władyslaw (d. 1658) 147 acronym of Our Teacher Rabbi Meir; ca. 1215–93) of Rothenburg 70n63 Nachmanowicz (ben Naḥman), Isaac (d. Meisel, Mordechai (1528–1601) 131 1595) 167–69, 172 Mendeles, Moshe (second half of 16th and Neḥama Ḥayah (d. 19th century) of Kazimi- early 17th century) 143 erz 62n27 Miechowita, Maciej (1457–1523) 6, 16n66 Neu, Abraham (19th century) 24 Mielecki, Jan (16th century) of Cracow Nicz, Jan (also Leopolita; 1523–72) 112n119 54n120 Niszczycki, Bartłomiej (d. 1555) 178 Minz, Abraham ben Judah ha-Levi (d. 1525) 37, 86, 88 Oleśnicki, family 146 Minz (Mintz), Judah ben Eliezer ha-Levi Oleśnicki the Elder, Mikołaj (d. 1562) 144– (ca. 1408–1508) 13, 68, 71, 82–83, 87 45, 155 Miriam Beila (second half of 16th century), Oleśnicki, Zbigniew (1389–1455) 4n16, 144 sister of Moses Isserles and wife of Pin- Olivieri, Francesco (17th century) 116n4 chas ben Israel Horowitz 42n78 Orzechowski, Stanisław (alias Stanislaus Modena, Leon (1571–1648) 40, 88 Orichovius Ruthenus; 1513–66) 104–106, Moises doctor, see Isserles, Moses 114 index of names 237

Padovano, Jan Maria (Giammaria; alias il Ronkel, Solomon Zalman ben Jacob (d. Mosca; ca. 1493–ca. 1574) 34, 76–79, 1562) 89 118n17 Paolo (Paulus) Italus (alias Paweł Szczęśliwy; Samuel bar Meshulam (16th century) 36, d. 1610) 168 43 Paolo Romano (16th century) 168n15 Sangallo, Giuliano da (ca. 1433–1516) 31 Paulus, Simon 23 Sansovino, Jacopo d’Antonio (born Jacopo Pedro I (1334–69), King of Castile and León Tatti; 1466–1570) 166, 169 (1350–69) 11, 12n48, 12n49 Schedel, Hartmann (1440–1514) 14 Penkalla, Adam 158 Scholem, Gershom (1897–1982) 100 Perets the “Bohemian” (second half of 15th Scholz Wolfowicz, Jan (16th century) 169 and early 16th century) 19 Serlio, Sebastiano (1475–1554) 169–70, 177– Perroti, Niccolò (1429–80) 176 78, 181 Peurbach, George von (1423–61) 41 Shabtai, son of Abraham (17th century) of Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni (1463– Pińczów 147n23 94) 186 Shlomo Yitzhaki (alias Rashi, Hebrew acro- Pinkerfeld, Jacob (1897–1956) 83 nym of Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki; 1040– Plato (ca. 424 BCE–ca. 347 BCE) 40 1105) 96, 103–104, 190, 194, 195 Pliny the Elder (23 CE–79 CE) 182 Sforza, Bona (1493/4–1557), Polish queen Pluszyński, Antony 44 (1518–48) 33–36, 43, 117, 121n26, 129 Pollack (Polak), Jacob (1460/70–after Shakhna, Shalom (d. 1558) 37–38, 42, 89 1522) 18, 21, 89 Sigismund (Zygmunt) I the Old (1467–1548), Pomponio Leto, Giulio (alias Julius Pom- Polish king (1506–48) 18–21, 29–35, 37, ponius Laetus; 1425–98) 176 48, 74, 104n89, 123 Popper, Wolf (alias Bocian; 17th centu- Sigismund (Zygmunt) II Augustus (1520– ry) 115, 183 72), Polish king (1548–72) 33, 36, 49–51, Postel, Guillaume (1510–81) 186–92 104–106, 128–129, 162, 167 Przypkowski, Tadeusz (1905–77) 153–154, 156 Sigismund (Zygmunt) III (1566–1632), Pol- Ptak, Józef 124 ish king (1587–1632) 137, 161 Simson (or Mar Simson, probably mar Rachel (11th century), wife of Jacob ben Shimshon; active in Nuremberg around David of Worms 9–10 1296) 123n36 Rada (16th century) of Prague 131 Sirkes, Joel ben Samuel (alias BaḤ; ca. 1561– Radbaz, see David ben Solomon ibn Abi 1640) 143, 144n5 Zimra Słoński, Gabriel (ca. 1520–1598) 34, 78 Rambam, see Moses ben Maimon Sobieński, Wojciech (16th century) 178 Raphael Sanzio (1483–1520) 175–78, 185, 188 Sofer, Mordechai (active in early 16th cen- Rashi, see Shlomo Yitzhaki tury) of Prague 100n74 Reuben(?) (16th century) of Candia 68–72 Soncino, Eliezer ben Gershom (d. 1547) 74 Reubeni, David (ca. 1490– after 1535) 101, Stancaro (Stankar), Francesco (ca. 1501– 103 74) 145 Reuchlin, Johannes (1455–1522) 186 Stangen-Margolioth, Menachem-Mendl (d. Rheticus, Georg Joachim von Lauchen 1652) 144 (1514–74) 177 Stella, Pietro Paolo (d. 1522) of Milan 76n81 Ried, Benedict (alias Rejt; ca. 1454–1534) 30, Stoss (Stwosz), Veit (Wit; ca. 1448–1533) 42 30 Rieti, Ishmael and his sons (16th century) Strożecki, John (15th century) 14 87n23 Sussman, Eliezer ben Solomon (18th cen- Robbia, Luca della (1399/1400–1482) 166– tury) of Brody 201 67 Szydłowiecki, Krzysztof (1467–1532) 35 Roder, Pankratius (16th century) 131 Świszczowski, Stefan (1903–89) 17 238 index of names

Tęczyński, Andrzej (d. 1588) 164 Wertheim, Naphtali Hertz (d. 1509) 13, 71– Tęczyński, siblings (d. before 1579) 164, 72, 82, 86–87 174–75, 179 Wietor, Hieronymus (1480/85–1546) 6 Tęczyński, Jan, see Jan of Tęczyn Wilhelm (Guglielmo?; 16th century) of Flor- Tęczyński, Jan Baptist (d. 1563) 164n86 ence 33–34 Teitelbaum, Frida (20th century) of Cracow Wischnitzer, Rachel (1885–1989) 16–17, 76 62n27 Wyrozumska, Bożena 5, 6n23, 17 Thomas the Italian (de Robore; d. 1562) 122, 129 Yom Tov Lipmann ben Solomon Mülhau- Tomicki, Piotr (1464–1535) 33, 77, 125, 175 sen, see Mülhausen, Yom Tov Lipmann Trabot, Azriel (d. 1569) 66–67 ben Solomon Trevano, Giovanni (in Poland since 1595–d. 1644) 115, 116n4, 152 Zelman, Jekutiel (d. 1753 or 1766) of Kazimi- Trwały, Jacob (16th century) of L’viv 169n18 erz 62n27 Zacuto, Abraham ben Samuel (1452–ca. Velvel (17th century) of Kazimierz 197 1515) 40 Vital, David ben Solomon (first half of 16th Zadrożny, Tadeusz 123 century) 74, 97 Zajczyk, Szymon (1901–44) 148 Viterbo, Egidio (Aegidus) da (1469–1532) Zalman ben Aaron (17th century) 197 176, 188 Zamojski, family 164n86 Vladislas II Jagiellon (1456–1516), king of Zanobi de Giannottis (Gianotis), Bernardi- Bohemia (1471–1516) and Hungary (1490– no (d. 1541) 31 1516) 29, 30 Zápolya, Barbara (1490/96–1515), Polish queen (1512–15) 31 Walkier (16th century) of Cracow 54n120 Zborowski, Marcin (16th century) 158 Werner, Johannes (1468–1522) 177 Żychiewicz, Tadeusz (1922–94) 45, 52 index of places 239

Index of Places

Alsace, region 3, 36 Foa, Tobias 103n82 Aragon, region 66 France, region 24n110, 155, 189, 194, Ascoli Piceno 67–68, 72 Frankfurt am Main 123n36, 143, 179 Asia Minor, region 63n29 Fürth 65n40 Augsburg 118 Galilee, region 63n29 Balice 177 Germany, region 3, 7n26, 24n110, 25–26, Barcelona 194 31n13, 36, 65, 87n24, 99n69, 102, 144, 183 Beit Alpha 108–109 Giza, necropolis near Cairo 176n41, 177, 182 Bejsce 175n36 n74–75 Belarus, region 202 Graubünden (Grisons, Grigioni), region 168 Bohemia, region 3, 16, 18, 26, 29, 41, 89, 99 Greece, region 63n29, 97 Bologna 30n7 Brody 201 Hainburg an der Donau 23n102 Buda (now neighbourhood of Budapest) Hungary, region 29–31 29–30 Budapest 22n101, 26n118 Israel (the Land of Israel), region 62n29, 108 Italy, region 18, 30, 33–35, 37n42, 40–43, Candia (now Iráklion) 68–72, 130n59 66–69, 76n81, 78, 81–83, 87n24, 88–89, Castile, region 11–12 97–98, 103n82, 104n89, 111, 122, 129–30, Catalonia, region 66–67 146, 188, 193, 201, 205 Chęciny 150–51 Chełmce 153 Jawor (Jauer) 22n102 Cieszkowy 153 Jerusalem 7, 9n33, 10, 85n17, 90–92, 98, 113, Colmberg near Ansbach 201 169–70, 190–91, 194–96 Cologne (Köln) 22n101–102, 23, 25n112, 26n118, 63n20, 118n13, 195 Kazimierz (now neighbourhood of Cracow) Conegliano Veneto 84n15 1, 5–6, 8, 13–22, 26–27, 34–38, 42–44, 47, Constantinople (now Istanbul) 74, 98–99 50–54, 60–63, 66, 73–75, 79, 89, 106, 111, Copenhagen 189, 194, 201 115–17, 122–23, 128–31, 133, 137, 139–41, Cracow (Kraków) 1–9, 11–21, 27, 29–30, 33– 143–44, 148, 150, 152, 159–62, 164–65, 168– 36, 43, 51, 53, 60–61, 72, 76–81, 89, 106, 111, 69, 171–72, 174–75, 183, 192–93, 197, 199– 116, 118, 121–22, 126, 128, 136, 142–46, 160, 201, 205 162–63, 165, 169, 175, 177–78, 189, 191, 201 Klimontów 150 Cremona 41 Końskie 178 Crete, island 68 Kraśnik 164, 174–75, 179 Krobia 95n53 Dura-Europos 11, 108 Krosno 169n18

Ein Neshut 62–63n29 L’viv (Lwów, Lemberg, Lvov) 35–36, 144, Egypt, region 63n29, 68, 176, 181–83 167–69, 172 Erfurt 3, 22n101 Łańcut 133 Land of Israel, see Israel Ferrara 37n42, 43 León, region 12 Florence 29, 31, 34, 85, 88, 123, 162, 166n9, Lindau 3 175n28 Lisbon 99 240 index of places

Lithuania, region 31, 36, 202 Rouen 62, 64 Lublin 37, 41–43, 47, 143, 188 Lund 63–64 Sabbioneta 103n82 Lutsk (Łuck) 136 Safed 68 Saluzzo 201–202 Marburg 36 Sancygniów 153 Mirów (now neighborhood of Pińczów) Sardis 63n29 146–47, 170–71 Seville 12 Moravia, region 18 Silesia, region 18, 26 Mülhausen (Mulhouse) in Alsace 2–3 Siena 31, 146, 171n25 Sobków 156 Near East 63n29 Spain, region 8, 11–13, 18, 57–58, 100, 109, 139, Netherlands, country 155 189, 195 Nevoraya (Nabratein) 63n29 Stradom (now neighbourhood of Cracow) Neuchâtel (Neuenburg) 57 117n6, 128, 133n69 Neustadt 36 Strawczyn 153 Nuremberg (Nürnberg) 18, 97 Switzerland, region 168 Szczebrzeszyn 200 Oleśnica (Öls) 22n101, 26 Szydłów 35, 41, 47, 143–44, 157–61, 163–65, Orla 153–54 173–75, 179–81, 183, 185, 192 Ottoman Empire, state 18 Toledo 11, 66, 70, 82, 150 Padua (Padova) 7, 10, 13, 30n7, 34, 37, 42, Turkey, region 97 68–72, 81–90, 97, 111, 165, 205 Tykocin 181 Pakruojis (Pokroje) 202 Peretola 166n9 Ublinka 153 Pesaro 66–67 Ukraine, region 201 Pidhaytsi (Podhajce) 154 Unterlimpurg near Schwäbisch Hall 201 Piedmont, region 201 Pińczów 78, 143–175n36, 180 Veneto, region 41 Płock 178 Venice 13, 34–35, 40, 42–43, 67n50, 68, 70, 82, Podolia, region 154 85, 88, 117, 129, 130n159, 177, 181, 182n74, Poland, region 2–3, 8, 18, 26, 29–38, 40–43, 187–88 48, 61, 73–76, 88–89, 104–105, 111–12, 115, Vienna (Wien) 22n101, 26n118, 121–22, 131–32, 136, 143, 145, 151–52, 154– Vilnius (Vilna) 36, 51, 52n111, 78–79 55, 162–63, 168–69, 175, 177–78, 181, 183, Vittorio Veneto 84n15 188, 200–201, 205 Volyn, region 136 Pontassieve 31 Voupa (Wołpa) 202 Portugal, region 18 Prague 3, 7, 15–16, 18, 19, 21, 25–26, 30, 39, Warsaw 162 41–42, 52, 64, 72, 74, 80, 87, 89–90, 99–103, Wawel, castle in Cracow 4, 29–31, 33, 38, 74, 106, 110, 127, 131, 151, 156, 160, 165, 189, 77–79, 81, 111, 118, 120–22, 125–26, 132, 160, 191–92, 205 163, 175 Prostějov (Prossnitz) 192 Włochy near Pińczów 145 Przysucha 133 Wodzisław 151–54 Worms 9–10, 15, 22n101, 23–26, 59, 60n20, Regensburg 23–26, 36, 52, 101, 189, 194–95 65–66, 150 Rhineland, region 10 Würzburg 60n20 Rome 31, 66–67, 72, 88, 98, 110, 146, 162, 166, 175–77, 184–85, 188, 195 Zamość 163 index of places 241 242 index of places FIGURES

Figures

Fig. 1 Toledo, Samuel Ha-Levi Abulafia’s synagogue (El Tránsito). Prayer hall, ca. 1357 and later alterations.

Fig. 2 Toledo, Samuel Ha-Levi Abulafia’s synagogue (El Tránsito). Dedicatory inscription to left of Torah ark, ca. 1357. Figures Fig. 3 John Strożecki, “Cracow and Its Vicinities” in Hartmann Schedel, Liber Cronicarum (Nuremberg, 1493). Figures

Fig. 4 Worms, synagogue. Prayer hall, 1174/75, and later reconstructions. Photograph, before 1938. Figures

Fig. 5 Prague, Altneuschul. Southern nave of prayer hall, looking eastward, late-13th century. Figures

Fig. 6 Albrecht Altdorfer, “Prayer Hall of the Synagogue in Regensburg before Its Destruction.” Engraving, 1519. Figures

Fig. 7 Abraham Neu, “Interior of the Worms Synagogue.” Lithograph, before 1842. Figures

Fig. 8 Heinrich Hoffmann, “Interior of the Worms Synagogue.” Watercolour, before 1842.

Fig. 9 Carl Hertzog, “Interior of the Worms Synagogue.” Lithograph, ca. 1860. Figures Chapel: exterior, 1517–33. Fig. 11 Cracow, Wawel Cathedral. Bartolommeo Berrecci, Sigismund Huber, Tomb of John Albrecht, 1501–05. Fig. 10 Cracow, Wawel Cathedral. Franciscus Florentinus and Jörg and Florentinus Franciscus Cathedral. Wawel 10 Cracow, Fig. Figures

Fig. 12 Cracow, Wawel Cathedral, Sigismund Chapel. Bartolommeo Berrecci and his workshop, Chapel’s structure, wall decorations, royal throne (left) and tomb of Sigismund I (above, right), 1524–31; Santi Gucci, Tomb of Queen Anna (in front of throne), tomb of Sigismund Augustus (below, right) and alterations to tomb’s niche, 1574–75. Figures

Fig. 13 Moses Isserles (the Rema), Torat ha-Olah (Prague: Mordechai ha-Cohen, 1570), frontispiece. Figures

Fig. 14 Prague, Pinchas Synagogue: Ground plan (the building of the 1520s is marked in black). Drawing by R. Ječný.

Fig. 15 Prague, Pinchas Synagogue: Ground plan (the extension of 1535 is marked in black). Drawing by R. Ječný. Figures

Fig. 16 Neuchâtel, former monastery church. Carved impost, ca. 1170.

Fig. 17 Rūmī pattern engraved on ivory, Sicily, 11th or 12th century. Figures

Fig. 18 Worms, Cathedral. Lion sculpture in front of southern façade, 11th or 12th century.

Fig. 19 Verona, San Zeno. Master Nicolao, Lion sculpture supporting portico, ca. 1135. Figures - piece. (Prague: Gershom ha-Cohen, 1518), frontis Book of Exodus Fig. 21 altar, ca. 1080–1145. Fig. 20 Lund, Cathedral. Former bishop’s chair and St. Mary’s Figures

Fig. 22 Rome, Scola Catalana. Torah ark, 1522/23. Rome, Museo ebraico. Figures

Fig. 23 Cracow, Wawel Cathedral. Bartolommeo Fig. 24 Cracow, Wawel Cathedral. Bartolommeo Berrecci and his workshop, Sigismund Chapel; Berrecci and his workshop, Sigismund Chapel; de- detail: capital of pilaster to right of entrance arch, tail: coat of arms of Sigismund I on southern wall 1524–31. exterior, 1524–31.

Fig. 25 David ben Solomon Vital, Crown of the Torah (Constantinople: Eliezer Soncino, 1536), frontispiece.

Fig. 26 Book of Leviticus (Prague: Gershom ha-Cohen, 1530), frontispiece (detail). Figures Fig. 27 Prayer Book (Prague: Gershom ha-Cohen and companions, 1512), printers’ marks colophon. Figures Fig. 28 Cracow, Wawel Cathedral. Bartolommeo Berrecci and his workshop, Sigismund Chapel: southern tympanum, 1524–29. Figures vano and and vano do Drawing by Stanisław Cercha, 1899. his workshop, tomb of Archbishop Piotr Gamrat, 1545–47. Fig. 30 Cracow, Wawel Cathedral. Gian Maria Pa Maria Gian Cathedral. Wawel 30 Cracow, Fig. Bishop Piotr Tomicki, ca. 1535. Fig. 29 Cracow, WawelBartolommeo Berrecci or Cathedral,Gian Maria Padovano, tomb of Tomicki Chapel. Figures

Fig. 31 Cracow, St. Barbara’s Church. Cracow workshop, frame of unknown epitaph, mid-16th century. Figures

Fig. 32 Prague, Altneuschul. Arboreal relief in tympanum above entrance to prayer hall, late-13th century.

Fig. 33 Prague, Altneuschul. Pediment of Torah ark, late- 13th century. Figures

Fig. 34 Tarnów, cathedral. Cracow workshop, tomb of the three Jan Tarnowskis, 1550–ca. 1561. Figures

Fig. 35 Padua, Scuola Tedesca. Torah ark, ca. 1525. Photograph, before 1901. Figures

Fig. 36 Florence. Leon Battista Alberti, façade of Fig. 37 Rome, Arch of Constantine, 312–15 CE. Santa Maria Novella, 1456–70.

Fig. 38 Leon Battista Alberti, drawing of church fa- Fig. 39 Leon Battista Alberti, drawing of gate, De çade, De re ædificatoria, 1485, fol. 306r, detail. re ædificatoria, 1485, fol. 374v, detail. Figures 781/1, fol. 39v. fol. 781/1, 0 Fig. 41 “Weighing Shekels for the Temple,” Worms Mahzor, vol. I, Germany 4 Heb. Israel, of Library National Jerusalem, 1272. (Würzburg?), gate to Il Bò campus, 1540s. Fig. 40 Padua, University. Andrea Moroni, entrance Figures

Fig. 42 “Moses and Aaron in the Tabernacle of the Covenant,” Book of Numbers, Lobbes Bible, 1084. Tournai, Bibliothèque du Séminaire, MS 1, fol. 77r (detail). Figures

Fig. 43 “Christ, Ecclesia, and Synagoga,” Lambert of Saint Omer, Liber Floridus, Saint Omer, before 1121. Ghent, Centraale Bibliotheek van de Rijksuniversiteit, Cod. 1125(92), fol. 253r (detail).

Fig. 44 “The Cantor at the Torah Ark,” prayer book, Germany, ca. 1395–98. Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica, Cod. Vat. ebr. 324, fol. 73v (detail). Figures

Fig. 45 Pediment of Torah ark, ca. 1451, from a synagogue in Nuremberg. Photograph, before 1927.

Fig. 46 “Moses Receiving the Law on Mount Sinai,” Second Darmstadt Haggadah, Southern Italy, late-15th century. Darmstadt, Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek, Cod. Or. 28, fol. 9v. Figures

Fig. 47 Pediment of Torah ark, ca. 1543, from the Scuola Grande in Mantua. Jerusalem, Umberto Nahon Museum of Italian Jewish Art.

Fig. 48 Prague, Pinchas Synagogue. Frieze of portal in prayer hall, 1535. Drawing by Svetlana Sirota. Figures

Fig. 49 “Quincunx Polonia” in Stanisław Orzechowski, Rozmowa albo Dyjalog około egzekucyjej polskiej korony (Cracow, 1563). Figures

Fig. 50 “Pyramis ex quincunx” in Orzechowski, Fig. 51 “Typus poloniæ regni” in Orzechowski, Rozmowa. Rozmowa. Figures

Fig. 52 Lucas Cranach the Elder, “Altarpiece with the Lamentation, St. Peter, and St. Barnabas,” coloured etching, 1518–20. Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Preussischer Kultur besitz, Kupferstichkabinett - Sammlung der Zeichnungen und Druckgraphik, no 387A.

Fig. 53 Lucas Cranach the Elder, “Allegory of Law and Grace.” Woodcut, ca. 1529. Figures

Fig. 54 Daniel Hopfer, “Interior of St. Catherine in Augsburg.” Etching, ca. 1517.

Fig. 55 Cracow, Sukiennice (Cloth Hall). Santi Gucci, roof parapet, 1556–60. Figures

Fig. 56 Cracow, Wawel Castle. Bartolommeo Berrecci and his followers, entrance portal to courtyard, after 1534.

Fig. 57 Cracow, Wawel Castle. Courtyard, eastern and southern wings, 1507–36 and later reconstructions. Figures

Fig. 58 Cracow, Wawel Castle. First floor of southern gallery, 1530–48; detail: capital of attached column to right of left arch.

Fig. 59 Cracow, Wawel Cathedral. Bartolommeo Berrecci and his workshop, the Sigismund Chapel, 1524–31; detail: capital of pilaster to left of throne niche. Figures

Fig. 60 Prague, High Synagogue. Northern façade, 1568. Figures

Fig. 61 Przysucha, St. John of Nepomuk and St. Ignatius of Fig. 62 Łańcut, synagogue. Stucco reliefs on Loyola Church. Arch and spandrels above the entrance, bimah’s northern side, ca. 1761. 1780–86.

Fig. 63 Przysucha, synagogue, 1780–86: Torah ark, detail. Figures

Fig. 64 Cracow (Kazimierz), Monastery at Corpus Christi Church, window in western façade, ca. 1612.

Fig. 65 Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Jewish Cemetery near the Isserls’ Synagogue. Tomb of S[...], daughter of Moses Samuel Katz, first half of 17th century. Figures

Fig. 66 Chęciny, St. Bartholomew Church: central nave, looking eastward, 1603.

Fig. 67 Klimontów, St. Mary and St. Hyacinth Church: central nave, looking westward, 1617–20. Figures

Fig. 68 Wodzisław, synagogue: longitudinal section, looking southward; drawing by Tadeusz Bereżnicki, 1946.

Fig. 69 Wodzisław, synagogue, first half of 17th century: exterior, southwest corner. Photograph, 2007. Figures

Fig. 70 Cieszkowy, Calvinist church, 17th century.

Fig. 71 Szydłów, Royal Castle. Knights’ Hall, 14th century, renovated 1528. Figures

Fig. 72 Pińczów, St. John the Baptist Church: western façade, 1598–1615. Figures

Fig. 73 Janowiec, St. Stanislaus and St. Margaret Church. Santi Gucci, Tomb of Andrzej and Barbara Firlej, 1585. Figures

Fig. 74 Lorenzo Ghiberti (carvings) and Fra Angelico (paintings), Tabernacle of Arte de’Linaiuoli, ca. 1433; frame: wood, carved and painted, 270 × 520 cm. Museo di San Marco, Florence. Figures

Fig. 75 Peretola, Santa Maria Church. Luca della Robbia, Tabernacle, 1443, marble and glazed terracotta. Figures

Fig. 76 Rome, Sant Agostino Church. Jacopo Sansovino, Martelli Altarpiece (Madonna del Parto). Marble, 1518–21. Figures

Fig. 77 L’viv, St. Nicolas Church. Christ’s Passions altarpiece donated by Jan Scholz Wolfowicz. Drawing by J. Makarewicz, before 1901. Figures

Fig. 78 “Portal with Solomonic Columns” in Sebastiano Serlio, Extraordinario libro di Architettura di architetto del re christianissimo (Lion, 1551), fol. 24r.

Fig. 79 “Church Façade” in Sebastiano Serlio, Regole generali d’architettura (Venice 1537), fol. 175v. Figures

Fig. 80 Pińczów (Mirów), St. Mary’s Church: western façade, ca. 1615–19. Figures

Fig. 81 Cracow, Cloister in the Dominican Church. Epitaph of Zofia Czerska, ca. 1584. Figures

Fig. 82 Cracow, Wawel Cathedral, the Lady Chapel. Santi Gucci, Tomb of King Stephen Batory, 1595. Figures

Fig. 83 Kraśnik, St. Mary’s Ascension Church. Santi Gucci, Tomb of a son and daughter of Andrzej Tęczyński and Zofia Dembowska, before 1579. Figures

Fig. 84 Cracow, Cloister in the Dominican Church. Santi Gucci, Tomb of Galeazzo Guicciardini, ca. 1557. Figures

Fig. 86 Drawing of Roman coin (?) representing a funeral pyre. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. Lat. 3439, fol. 65r.

Fig. 85 Raphael, Tomb of Agostino Chigi, 1513–16, altered by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, 1652. Rome, S. Maria del Popolo, the Chigi Chapel.

Fig. 87 “Obelisk at St. Peter’s in Vatican” in Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro di architettura di Se bastiano Serlio Bolognese nel qual si figurano e descrivono le antiquita di Roma e li alter cose che sono in Italia, e fuori d’Italia Fig. 88 “Pyramid of Cheops and Sphinx” in Serlio, (Venice, 1540), fol. 68 (detail). Il terzo libro, fol. 94. Figures

Fig. 89 Końskie, Saint Nicholas Collegial Church. Tomb of Hieronim Koniecki (d. 1564). Drawing by Maksymilian Cercha, before 1904. Figures

Fig. 90 “Anthropos-Christ” in Heinrich Khunrath, Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae (Hamburg, 1595). Figures

Fig. 91 “We Were Pharaoh’s Slaves in Egypt” in Passover Haggadah (Venice: Daniel Zifroni; 1609), fol. 4r. Figures

Fig. 92 Rome, Arch of Titus. “Triumphal Procession Carrying the Me norah and Other Spoils from the Temple of Jerusalem,” relief, 81 CE.

Fig. 93 “Worship God in Silence” in Achille Bocchi, Symbolicarum quaestionum de universo genere quas serio ludebat libri quinque (Bologna, 1555), CXXXII. Figures Fig. 95 Guillaume Postel, Or nerot ha-Menorah ([s. l.], 1547[?]). - Candelabri typici in Mosis taber naculo (Venice, 1548), frontispiece. Fig. 94 Guillaume Postel, Figures 11v. Fig. 97 “The Ark, Menorah and Sanctuary Implements,” Pentateuch, fol. II, Hebr. Cod. Bibliotek, Kongelige Det Copenhagen, 1301. Catalonia, (Prague, 1581), 1581), (Prague, Menorat zahav tahor zahav Menorat fol. 1v. Fig. 96 “Menorah,” Solomon Luria, Luria, Solomon 96 “Menorah,” Fig. Figures

Fig. 98 Pakruojis, synagogue. Torah ark, 1801. Photograph, before 1939. Figures PLATES

Old Synagogue [Plate 1] Plate 1.1 Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Northern façade, late-15th century and later reconstructions additions. Ph otograph, 1920s. [Plate 1] Old Synagogue Plate 1.2 Cracow (Kazimierz). Town’s wall and Old Synagogue. Old Synagogue [Plate 1]

2. Women’s gallery; 3. “Singers’ hall”; 4. Vestibule; 5. Town’s wall. Plate 1.3 Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Ground plan: 1. Prayer hall; [Plate 1] Old Synagogue

Plate 1.4 Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Prayer hall, looking towards southeast. Photograph by Ignacy Krieger, ca. 1880. Old Synagogue [Plate 1]

Plate 1.5 Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Prayer hall, looking towards southeast.

Plate 1.6 Jan Kanty Hruzik, “The Day of Atonement in the Old Synagogue of Kazimierz in Cracow,” oil on canvas, 1875. Cracow, Historical Museum of the City of Cracow. [Plate 1] Old Synagogue

Plate 1.7 Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Torah Plate 1.8 Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. ark, late 1550s and later reconstructions. Torah ark. Old Synagogue [Plate 1]

Plate 1.9 Reconstruction of Torah ark of late 1550s in the Old Synagogue. Drawing by Anna and Olga Kalantarov. [Plate 1] Old Synagogue

Plate 1.10 Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Torah ark: pediment and attic panel. Old Synagogue [Plate 1] capital. Plate 1.12 Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Torah ark: Plate 1.11 Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Torah ark: column. ark: Torah Synagogue. Old (Kazimierz), 1.11 Cracow Plate [Plate 1] Old Synagogue

Plate 1.13 Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Alms box on eastern side of entrance to prayer hall, 1570.

Plate 1.14 Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Plate 1.15 Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Synagogue. Alms box on northern wall of prayer hall, 1638 (?). Alms box in vestibule, 1626 or 1632. Rema Synagogue [Plate 2]

Plate 2.1 Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue. Western façade, 1553, 1557–58 and later reconstructions.

Plate 2.2 Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue: a. Cross-section, looking eastward (prayer hall is marked in black); b. Longitudinal section, looking southward (prayer hall is marked in black). [Plate 2] Rema Synagogue

Plate 2.3 Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue: a. Ground plan of prayer hall of 1557–58 (marked in black); b. Plan of window level of prayer hall of 1557–58 (marked in black).

Plate 2.4 Reconstruction of ground plan of 1553 prayer hall in the Isserls’ Synagogue. Rema Synagogue [Plate 2]

Plate 2.5 Cracow (Kazimierz). Old Jewish cemetery, founded 1551–52, and the Isserls’ Synagogue.

Plate 2.6 Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Jewish cemetery. Plate 2.7 Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Tombstone of Rabbi Moses Isserles (d. 1572) at western Synagogue. Israel Isserl’s dedicatory inscrip- side of the Isserls’ Synagogue. tion, 1553, and its frame, 1557–58. [Plate 2] Rema Synagogue

Plate 2.8 Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue. Prayer hall, looking eastward. Photograph, 1932. Rema Synagogue [Plate 2]

Plate 2.9 Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue. Prayer hall, looking towards southeast. Photograph, ca. 1963. [Plate 2] Rema Synagogue

Plate 2.10 Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue. Prayer hall, looking towards southeast. Photograph, before 1939. Rema Synagogue [Plate 2]

Plate 2.11 Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue. Torah ark. [Plate 2] Rema Synagogue

Plate 2.12 Reconstruction of Torah ark of 1557–58 in the Isserls’ Synagogue. Drawing by Svetlana Sirota. Rema Synagogue [Plate 2]

Plate 2.13 Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Syna- Plate 2.14 Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Syna- gogue. Torah ark: pediment and attic panel. gogue. Torah ark: capitals.

Plate 2.15 Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue. Torah ark: crown relief, 1557–58, and inscription (Deut. 26:15), 1861.

Plate 2.16 Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue. Torah ark: dedicatory inscription under doors, 1798. [Plate 2] Rema Synagogue

Plate 2.17 Doors of Torah ark from the Isserls’ Syna- Plate 2.18 Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ gogue in Cracow (Kazimierz), 1648 (?). Painted lead Synagogue. Reconstruction of Torah ark with and tin alloy on wood. Jerusalem, Israel Museum, no. open doors. Collage based on Plates 2.12 and 195/5; 3704-9-64. 2.17. Rema Synagogue [Plate 2]

Plate 2.19 Cracow (Kazimierz), the Isserls’ Synagogue. Doors of bimah (formerly doors of Torah ark in an unknown synagogue), 1654/5 or 1694/5. [Plate 2] Rema Synagogue

Plate 2.20 Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Jewish Cemetery near the Isserls’ Synagogue. Sculpture of lion, 13th century (?). Photograph, 1998. Rema Synagogue [Plate 2]

Plate 2.21 Cracow (Kazimierz), Old Jewish Cemetery near the Isserls’ Synagogue. Sculpture of lion on stone supporting tomb of Jekutiel Zelman (d. 1753 or 1766) and Neḥama Ḥayah (d. 19th century). Photo- graph, 1998. [Plate 3] High Synagogue

Plate 3.1 Cracow (Kazimierz), Joseph Street (formerly Żydowska Street). High Syna- gogue, 1556–63. High Synagogue [Plate 3]

Plate 3.2 Cracow (Kazimierz), House at 36 Joseph Street and High Synagogue: 1. House at 36 Joseph Street (formerly 266/90 Żydowska Street), the western façade; 2. House at 36 Joseph Street, southern façade; 3. High Synagogue at 38 Joseph Street (formerly 267/89 Żydowska Street); 4. Cherub, detail of carved frame around door in southern façade, 36 Joseph Street; 5. Carved frame of window, next to High Synagogue, in southern façade of house at 36 Joseph Street; 6. Traces of old, walled-up windows; 7. Traces of stone mouldings and window frames coloured yellow; 8. Supposed position of the old windows is coloured pink. Drawing, ca. 1869. [Plate 3] High Synagogue

Plate 3.3 Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue. Keystone of entrance portal facing Joseph Street.

Plate 3.4 Cracow (Kazimierz), High Plate 3.5 Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue: Synagogue: a. Plan of basement floor; b. Cross-section, looking eastward. Plan of ground floor; c. Plan of prayer hall; d. Plan of prayer hall at window level. High Synagogue [Plate 3]

Plate 3.6 Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue. Prayer hall, looking towards northwest. Photograph, before 1939. [Plate 3] High Synagogue

Plate 3.7 Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue. Prayer hall, looking towards Torah ark. Photograph, 1920s. High Synagogue [Plate 3]

Plate 3.8 Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue. Torah ark, 1556–63 and later reconstructions. [Plate 3] High Synagogue

Plate 3.9 Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue. Plate 3.10 Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue. Pediment with arboreal relief above walled-up Panel with crown relief above door in northern wall door in western wall of prayer hall. (detail of Plate 3.6).

Plate 3.11 Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue. Prayer hall: Plate 3.12 Cracow (Kazimierz), House alms box near entrance door in northern wall. Photograph, at 40 Joseph Street. Alms box from before 1935. High Synagogue. High Synagogue [Plate 3]

Plate 3.13 Reconstruction of Torah ark of 1556–63 in High Synagogue. Drawing by Alexander Pechuro. [Plate 3] High Synagogue

Plate 3.14 Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue. Torah ark, detail: reliefs on inner side of doors, mid-17th century. Photograph, 1920s. High Synagogue [Plate 3]

Plate 3.15 Cracow (Kazimierz), High Synagogue. Torah ark, detail: reliefs on outer side of doors, late-18th century (?). Photograph, 1920s. [Plate 4] Kupah Synagogue

Plate 4.1 Cracow (Kazimierz), Kupah Synagogue. Southern façade, 1608–35 and later reconstructions.

Plate 4.2 Cracow (Kazimierz), Kupah Synagogue. Northern façade, 1608–35 and later reconstructions. Kupah Synagogue [Plate 4]

Plate 4.3 Cracow (Kazimierz), Kupah Synagogue: a. Ground plan; b. Plan at gallery level.

Plate 4.4 Reconstruction of ground plan of 1608–35 prayer hall in Kupah Synagogue. [Plate 4] Kupah Synagogue

Plate 4.5 Cracow (Kazimierz), Kupah Synagogue. Torah ark, 1608–35 and later reconstructions. Kupah Synagogue [Plate 4]

Plate 4.6 Reconstruction of 1608–35 Torah ark in Kupah Synagogue. Drawing by Alexander Pechuro. [Plate 4] Kupah Synagogue

Plate 4.7 Cracow (Kazimierz), Kupah Synagogue. Torah ark: pediment and attic panel. Kupah Synagogue [Plate 4]

Plate 4.8 Cracow (Kazimierz), Kupah Synagogue. Dedicatory inscription of Holy Society of Cohens and Levites, 1647. [Plate 5] Pińczów

Plate 5.1 Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Northeastern corner, before 1586 (?) and later reconstructions and additions. Pińczów [Plate 5]

Plate 5.2 Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Northeastern corner. Photograph, before 1939.

Plate 5.3 Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Western façade. Photograph by Szymon Zajczyk, before 1939. [Plate 5] Pińczów

Plate 5.4 Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Ground plan: 1. Antechamber; 2. Vestibule; 3. Niche; 4. Small chamber; 5. Communal office; 6. Prayer hall. Drawing, 1952.

Plate 5.5 Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Plan at upper-storey level: 1. Women’s gallery; 2. Prayer hall; 3. Alms box. Drawing, 1952. Pińczów [Plate 5]

Plate 5.6 Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Cross-section, looking westward: 1. Antechamber; 2. Ves- tibule; 3. Door to small chamber; 4. Women’s gallery; 5. Alms box; 6. Prayer hall; 7. Opening in western wall. Drawing, 1952.

Plate 5.7 Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Longitudinal section, looking northward. Drawing, 1952. [Plate 5] Pińczów

Plate 5.8 Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Prayer hall: vault.

Plate 5.9 Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Prayer hall, looking towards vestibule. Photograph by Szymon Zajczyk, before 1939. Pińczów [Plate 5]

Plate 5.10 Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Prayer hall, looking towards northeast. Photograph by Komornicki, 1917.

Plate 5.11 Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Prayer hall: eastern wall and Torah ark. [Plate 5] Pińczów

Plate 5.12 Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Torah ark, around 1600. Photograph by Szymon Zajczyk, before 1939. Pińczów [Plate 5]

Plate 5.13 Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Torah ark (detail) and remnants of wall painting. [Plate 5] Pińczów

Plate 5.14 Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Vestibule: entrance to prayer hall. Pińczów [Plate 5]

Plate 5.15 Pińczów, Old Synagogue. Prayer hall: exit to vestibule. Photograph by Cz. Olszewski, after 1945. [Plate 6] L’viv

Plate 6.1 L’viv, Nachmanowicz’s synagogue. Prayer hall, looking eastward. Photograph, before 1906. L’viv [Plate 6]

Plate 6.2 L’viv, Nachmanowicz’s synagogue. Torah ark, 1580–82. Photograph by Janusz Witwicki, 1941. [Plate 6] L’viv

Plate 6.3 Torah ark in Nachmanowicz’s synagogue. Drawing by M. Kowalczuk, before 1901.

Plate 6.4 L’viv, Nachmanowicz’s synagogue: a. Ground plan; b. Cross-section, looking eastward; c. Torah ark. Drawing, before 1915. Szydłów [Plate 7]

Plate 7.1 T. Chrząski, “Synagogue in Szydłów,” watercolour, 1844–46. [Plate 7] Szydłów

Plate 7.2 Szydłów, Synagogue. Southern façade, 1534–64 and later reconstructions and additions. Photograph, before 1939.

Plate 7.3 Szydłów, Synagogue. Southern façade. Szydłów [Plate 7]

Plate 7.4 Szydłów, Synagogue. a. Ground plan; b. Plan at window level. [Plate 7] Szydłów

Plate 7.5 Szydłów, Synagogue. Longitudinal section, looking northward.

Plate 7.6 Szydłów, Synagogue. a. Cross-section, looking eastward; b. Cross- section, looking westward. Szydłów [Plate 7]

Plate 7.7 Szydłów, Synagogue. Prayer hall: vault. [Plate 7] Szydłów Plate 7.8 Szydłów, Synagogue. Prayer hall, looking eastward. Photograph, before 1939. Szydłów [Plate 7]

Plate 7.9 Szydłów, Synagogue.Torah ark. Photograph, before 1939. [Plate 7] Szydłów

Plate 7.10 Szydłów, Synagogue.Torah ark. Photograph, 2004. Szydłów [Plate 7]

Plate 7.11 Szydłów, Synagogue.Torah ark: doors. Photograph, before 1939. [Plate 7] Szydłów