Marc Michael Epstein. the Medieval Haggadah: Art, Narrative, and Reli- Gious Imagination (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011)

Book Reviews / Medieval Encounters 19 (2013) 221-257 243

Marc Michael Epstein. The Medieval Haggadah: Art, Narrative, and Reli- gious Imagination (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011). Hardcover: $65.00

This book is dedicated to a meticulous examination of the iconographic meanings and historical contexts of four illuminated haggadot: the so-called Bird’s Head Haggadah, currently in the Israel Museum in Jerusa- lem, MS 180/57, originally from southern Germany, possibly Mainz, dated to c. 1300; the Golden Haggadah, currently at the British Library in London, MS Add 27210, originally form Catalonia c. 1320-1330; the Rylands Haggadah, currently held in the John Rylands University Library, Manchester, MS Heb. 6, originally from Catalonia c. 1330-1340; and fĳinally the brother or “twin to the Rylands Haggadah, MS Or. 1404, currently located at the British Library London, originally from Catalonia, c. 1330-1340. Haggadot (singular: haggadah) are books containing the Jewish liturgy for the celebration of Passover, a holiday which commemorates the freeing of the Israelites from slavery under Egyptian rule and their travel to the promised land under the leadership of Moses as recounted in the Bible. For all of the artistic programs in these four haggadot, Marc Michael Epstein argues against some previous scholars’ contentions that the illuminations were done by Christian artists. Instead, by carefully analyzing the visual exegesis of the exodus story and other biblical narratives in the illuminations, he demonstrates that the images draw upon midrashic traditions within Jewish literature on the one hand, and frequently counter Christian visual, exegetical, and specifĳically anti-Jewish polemic, on the other. These characteristics, he suggests, point to Jewish direction of the artistic programs within these books, and prob- ably to Jewish artists. Epstein maintains that Jewish artists were not merely reacting to Christian motifs, however. Rather, certain symbols, such as the unicorn or grifffĳin, were shared by both religious communities, so that one may not say that their use proves a decidedly Christian or Jewish influ- ence on an artist’s choice of motifs. Medieval Jewish and Christian art, representation of self and other, and polemic were all part of a dynamic exchange that reflects not only diffferences and commonalities between Jews and Christians, but also the profound variety of views within each religious community, neither of which was monolithic or static. While all of the interpretations of his chosen manuscripts are thoughtful and nuanced, Epstein’s analyses of the Bird’s Head Haggadah are the most groundbreaking. In the illuminations to this haggadah, the Jewish actors are portrayed with human bodies, but topped with eagle-like birds’ heads,

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/15700674-12342135 244 Book Reviews / Medieval Encounters 19 (2013) 221-257 rather than possessing human faces. Furthermore, the fĳigures frequently wear the peculiarly “Jewish hat” that frequently marks Jews in medieval Christian artistic representations of Jews. These attributes have long mysti- fĳied art historians. Some have suggested that the use of animal heads indi- cates a strict adherence to the prohibition against human representation, whereas others have suggested that these animals indicate a rather playful attitude on the part of the artist. Ruth Mellinkofff, in herAntisemitic Hate signs in Hebrew illuminated manuscripts from medieval Germany (Jerusa- lem, 1999), went so far as to suggest that these images were produced by Christian artists who incorporated anti-Jewish imagery, such as pig’s ears on the birds’ heads, in the images, which the Jewish patron was either too gullible or too powerless to reject. Countering all of these theories, Epstein maintains that the birds’ heads with peculiarly mammalian ears are actu- ally grifffĳins, a choice which both refers back to the choice of creatures chosen because of their association with the Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple, and, potentially, to the Jews’ association with the German emperor (whose symbol was an eagle) and with the lion, symbolic of the Jewish tribe of Judah. These positive signifĳications, which connect Jews with holiness and royal power, contrast with the blank or vaguely human faces of angels, non-Jews, and celestial bodies, beings which lack free choice or any deeper spiritual existence besides the obviously physical existence. Even those who, in biblical lore, seem to have rejected Judaism, such as Esau, or Datan and Aviram who sided with the Egyptians against their own people, are represented with grifffĳin heads, suggesting that the artist or patron wished to insist that medieval collaborators or converts to Christianity remained Jewish despite their seeming defection. Furthermore, “Jewish hats”, rather than being negative, are symbols of status and leadership, a way of estab- lishing visual social and spiritual hierarchy among the Jews. The iconogra- phy of Abraham’s sacrifĳice of Isaac and of the Passover sacrifĳice emphasize the eternal, salvic validity of these events and, thus, refuting Christian pre- sentations of Jesus as the ultimate, soteriological sacrifĳice. Epstein places representations of heavenly manna and of the baking of mazah for Pass- over in the context of shifting Christian Eucharistic theology, in which Jesus was thought to be truly, physically present in the Eucharist, and Christian anti-Jewish polemic, in which Jews are accused of desecrating the host (Eucharistic bread) or of ritually murdering Christian children as a substi- tute for the redemptive sacrifĳice of Jesus. The quail, sent down with the manna, afffĳirms the presence of God’s spirit in the holy bread, mimicking and countering the dove, which in Christian manuscripts represents repre- senting the Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus. Extensive pictorial details of