IN HIS ARTICLE ‘Legends and History: Historians Read Hebrew Legends of the Middle Ages’, the folklorist Eli Yassif takes a conciliatory approach to historians. He states his hope for ‘cooperation between the two disciplines’, shows his willingness ‘to bring about mutual enrichment by learning from each other’, and employs more expressions in this spirit. However, from reading his article it is difficult to see what Yassif thinks folklorists can learn from historians. The article is primarily a critique of the work of three historians (Reuven (Robert) Bonfil, Ivan Marcus, and Elchanan Reiner) who based their studies on folkloristic sources, as well as being an admonition to historians in general. Yassif maintains that their methodological amateurishness in approaching folklore research prevented these historians from realizing the full potential of their sources and led to misguided historical interpretations. The conclusion: only someone who is a professionally trained folklorist can treat legendary material. As Yassif put it: ‘When he comes to deal with historical legends … a [historian] cannot give himself an exemption; he must be a “part-time folklorist” .’ The tone of the article makes it clear that few historians have attained the requisite knowledge that would qualify them to analyse this kind of source.

Yassif 's criticism should put historians on notice. He not only teaches an important lesson in how to utilize historical legends, but also raises a fundamental question about the historiographical enterprise: what is the methodology of history?

Kernels of Truth?

Yassif opens his article by making a bid to settle a perennial argument among researchers concerning the historical value of legends. In its latest incarnation this controversy finds, on one side, those who believe that legends contain ‘historical kernels’—whether in the form of realistic details or as ‘collective memory’—which ‘reflect’ the character and meaning of a hero, event, movement, or period. On the other side are those who claim ‘The folk legend does not preserve any past, it expresses a present. It does not describe its hero, but rather its teller. It tells nothing about the time in which it is set; it tells about the time in which it is told.’