in Numbers two bullocks, one ram and seven lambs, and in Leviticus seven lambs, one bullock and two rams are commanded to be offered. In the Talmud1 there is a discussion how this is to be understood; in the name of R. Akiba it is decided that both kinds of sacrifices were to be brought on Pentecost; that mentioned in Numbers as a festival offering (0), and that in Leviticus on account of the bread which had to be offered as a firstling ( 0171227 Bnbn). Philo appears to know nothing of this Halachic decision. He simply ignores the contradiction between the two passages in the Bible, and mentions for Pentecost only the offering prescribed in Numbers. Another deviation from the Palestinian Halacha appears in § 15, where the first offering of the priest (Levit. vi. 13 seq.) is spoken of. The indistinctness of the language of the Bible in this passage led to a discussion among the Rabbins concerning the mode of the offering. In the Talmud a distinction is made between the high priest and the ordinary priest (177 77). According to the Talmudic decision, the high priest brings the offering daily, commencing with the day of his anointing (217), the ordinary priest only on that day when he performed the service for the first time (71 ).2 Philo also explains the biblical word Tn (dià πavтòs LXX.) to mean that the offering had to be brought daily (κal' ¿káσtηv ňμépav); but he does not make the distinction which the Rabbins make, but refers the ordinance to the priests generally (iepeîs). 2 In the second chapter of his book Wendland gives the fragments of the lost portion of the work De Ebrietate, which originally consisted of two books. It was formerly disputed whether the IIepì μéens was the first or the second book. Wendland proves that it was the first, and then gives a collection of the fragments of the lost second book, with critical and exegetical notes. All these frag 1 Talm. Bab. Menachot, fol. 45, cf. Sifra on Lev. xxiii. 18. ments are to be found in a Christian Florilegium, which, in the MSS., is usually referred to Johannes Damascenus; Wendland uses the opportunity to give a review of the extant MSS. of this Florilegium (Sacra Parallela). The text of this Florilegium, which is of great importance to Philo and the older Church fathers, has not yet been edited in its complete form, and most of the MSS. have either been not at all or insufficiently utilised. Harris was the first, in his edition of the fragments of Philo, to turn an old Paris MS. to account. Still more valuable, however, are the so-called Codex Rupefucaldinus (which formerly belonged to the library of Sir Thomas Phillipps, in Cheltenham, and is now in Berlin), a Vatican MS., from both of which Wendland has made excerpts, and another Paris Codex which I have lately examined in Paris. The relation of the various MSS. to each other, and the origin of the whole work require to be more carefully investigated. The third and longest chapter of Wendland's book is of special importance. Therein Wendland proves that Procopius of Gaza (sixth century) in his commentary on the Bible, which has been preserved in a Munich MS., largely made use of, and frequently copied verbally from, Philo's Quæstiones on Genesis and Exodus. As, moreover, the Greek anthologies of the middle ages contain many quotations from Philo, we are in a position to reconstruct to a considerable extent the original Greek text of the Quæstiones in Genesim et Exodum. In an essay of my own I have added a supplement to this important discovery of Wendland. Wendland himself had already shown that in many places where Procopius employs Philo's Quæstiones, as well as in the printed Catena to the Pentateuch (Leipsic, 1772), Philo is quoted, or obviously used; hence it follows that Procopius must stand in a certain relation to the Catena. But we know that Procopius himself compiled a Catena. Now in my essay I have shown that the printed Catena, which has been handed down anonymously in the MSS., was the work of no other than Procopius; the commentary of the Munich MS. is only an extract from the Catena, in which there is a running explanation, and the names of the authors placed under contribution are omitted. As, moreover, Philo is frequently copied in the Catena, where he is not expressly mentioned by name, the gain to the text of the Quæstiones resulting from this discovery is a very important one. Unfortunately Procopius must have read the Quæstiones in the same imperfect condition as they assume for us in the Armenian translation. In the fourth and fifth chapters Wendland discusses the relation of Theodoret and Origen to Philo. Both made use of him, but did not appropriate his explanations so literally as Procopius. The sixth chapter treats of the original form of the work De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini. In the editions of Philo is to be found a small treatise Περὶ τοῦ μίσθωμα πόρνης εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν μὴ προδέχεσθαι, concerning which there has been some doubt into which larger work it should be fitted. Wendland proves that it has no right to form an independent treatise, but that it is a patch-work of two pieces, which originally belonged to two different writings of Philo. The larger piece (§§ 2-4) stands in most, as well as in the best, MSS. in the middle of the treatise De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (§ 5), and has there its appropriate place. The beginning (§ 1), which has been clumsily joined to the other piece, has its correct position in the work De Victimas Offerentibus (between § 4 and § 5), as a Florentine MS. testifies. LEOPOLD COHN. FURTHER NOTES ON THE JEWS OF ANGEVIN ENGLAND. (Continued from JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW, IV.) JEWISH BUSINESS AND DEEDS.-It is possible from the materials given by the records to obtain a tolerably clear idea of the way in which the Jews conducted their business of usury. In several instances we have an extremely full account of the whole history of a transaction or set of transactions, e.g. those of Richard Anesty, in Palgrave's Commonwealth of England, ii., pp. xxiv.-xxvii., of the Abbey of St. Edmond's, in Joce de Brakelond's Cronica, Cam. Soc., pp. 2-4, or of Benedict Pernaz, in Madox, Formulare Anglicanum, p. 77. We can in these cases trace the whole course of a debt from its beginning to the final payment to the Jews or to the King. I may be safely said that the only persons in the Kingom in want of coined money were of the upper classes, i.e., the nobles, gentry, and clergy. The vast mass of the people lived by barter, and had no need of coin. But the smaller nobles and gentry, if they wished to conduct a law-suit, or equip their retainers, or go on a crusade or build a castle-and no less than 1,115 of these were constructed in Stephen's reign-or erect a church, would have to get money from the Jews, who were the only large holders of it in the Kingdom. There were a few Christians who lent money without interest, e.g., William Fitz Isabel was the largest creditor of the Abbey of St. Edmond's (Brakelond, l.c.), but for the most part resort had to be made to the Jew. NOTE.-As before, numbers are to the items from the Pipe Rolls in Archæol. Res., Feb. 1889, pagination to my forthcoming Jews of Angevin England. As a general rule the security was good, i.e. landed property, but this was of little use to the Jew, who could not hold it under an overlord. The aim of the Jew, therefore, was to get a ready money return of some sort, chiefly of course the rent of the land usually paid by the vassals of the debtor. In one case, and that the earliest on record, the money was to be returned in the form of so many soams of hay, which was a very marketable commodity: in this case no mention is made of usury, though probably the value of the hay was higher than that of the money lent. Similarly we have frequent mention of loans to be repaid in a series of years without any payment of usury if the instalments are paid up to date. In such cases we may suspect that the sum mentioned in the deed and to be repaid was really much more than the sum lent (cf. remarks in Round, Ancient Deeds, Pipe Roll Soc., n. 82). Generally, however, usury is to be paid straightway, as in the case of Richard Anesty. The amount of usury varies from twopence in the pound per week (ie. about 43 per cent. per annum) to fourpence (ie. 86 per cent.), while a penny and threepence also occur. But this high rate seems only to have been current when the Jew did not have his pledge and mortgage. It naturally soon led to a state of affairs where the payment of interest became intolerable, and the debtor found it necessary to make a fine with the Jew, i.e., capitalise the interest, add the principal, and start afresh. He might do this either allowing interest again to accrue (as was done at St. Edmond's), or for a time the Jew could collect the rents till the whole was paid off (187), or the estate was saddled with a yearly rent to the Jew till the debt could be paid off. In this case the interest on the capitalised sum was to'eably moderate; 12 per cent., 13 per cent. (Round, l.c.), 10 per cent. (p. 188), 7 per cent. (Hall, Court Life, Hen. II., p. 231), though in case of non-payment of the interest. stringent conditions are imposed. But things did not always go so smoothly in the arrange |