É. Apor (ed.): David Kaufmann Memorial Volume: Papers Presented at the David Kaufmann Memorial Conference, November 29, 1999, Budapest.

ORMOS, István: David Kaufmann and his Collection

ISTVÁN ORMOS In places one must at least doubt that they would not have comprehended these allusions. It is hardly believable, for instance, that pious Jews would not have been upset by the representations of wild boars in the so-called Second Nürnberg Haggadah (f.7r, f.27r). The interpretation of these scenes is controversial. In so far as one of the wild boars is carrying a device reminiscent of a tabernacle (in the Christian sense of the word) while the other is standing on the top of such a device inside which is seated the head of the family leading the festive ritual, they might symbolize the victory of good over evil, but it is equally possible that they are no more than simple decorations inspired by sudden whims of the illustrator. In any case, the pig has negative connotations in mediaeval Christian art in general: it is the symbol of gluttony and materialism.

1

4" The background for the choice of this tabernacle- or monstrance-like device is not clear either; it appears quite often in this manuscript and at times it is placed on the back of various animals and mythological creatures. In addition, quite a number of similar turret- and castle-like devices appear in various places in this manuscript, and King Solomon's throne is of similar structure too. Consequently, the use of this device as a motif of ornamentation need not necessarily be attributed to a deeper meaning related to the role of the tabernacle and the monstrance in the Roman Catholic Church, but may be rooted simply in the ornamentational vocabulary of the artist. We cannot be quite sure of this, though. This tabernacle also appears in other manuscripts of German origin: Kaufmann terms it "the favourite decoration of the German Haggadah" (diese Lieblingsdekoration der deutschen Haggada), which occurs in most representations of liturgical acts deserving special emphasis. Narkiss and Sed-Rajna use the neutral expression "architectural framework.'"

5

0 Metzger also mentions this motif listing it under the motif of canopy (baldachin) without comment.

15

1 In general, a tabernacle marks off a space of special rank, of pre-eminent importance.

15

2 The fact that only women and not men were portrayed with animals' heads can in Ruth Mellinkoffs view be explained by the fact that in mediaeval Germany men wore the pointed Jewish hat as a disreputable badge while women did not, so the artist portrayed them with the heads of disreputable animals instead.

15

1 She detects similar hidden anti-Jewish sentiments in an important illumination (f. 103v) displaying in the upper margin a grotesque, perhaps a clown, exhibiting his naked "" REAU 1955-1959. I. 131. 15

0 MÜLLER - VON SCHLOSSER, Bilderhaggaden 1898. 136, 157, Tafel XIX. VON SCHLOSSER, Bilderschmuck 1898. 236. KAUFMANN, Bilderzyklen. In: KAUFMANN 1908-1915. III. 235-240. Bezalel NARKISS - Gabrielle SED-RAJNA, Index of Jewish Art. Volume II/2 (1978). The Second Nürnberg Haggadah. München - New York - London - Paris 1981. Cards Nos. 35, 118. 15

1 METZGER 1973. 350": les tabernacles gothiques selon le mot de Müller-Schlosser et de Kaufmann. 15

2Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie 1968-1976. I. 240 [s.v. Ciborium, Baldachin]. 158