Ibn Chiquitilla followed him to that city, and, if Graetz's statement is correct, it is possible that the desire to be near his old master drew him to the capital of Aragon. The information which has reached us goes to show that, after a time, he left Saragossa and anticipated Ibn Ezra, who has preserved to us so many fragments of his writings, in travelling from place to place, probably using his special gifts as a preacher as opportunity offered. (Dr Poznanski throws out the hint that rationalistic views possibly rendered it difficult for him to reside for any length of time in one place. That he was in advance of his time in his theological and other opinions may be safely inferred from the fragments of his works which have been preserved to us. But the information necessary to construct anything like a reliable biography is wanting. We are left to conjecture.)

It is a matter of deep regret that the most interesting and important works of Ibn Chiquitilla have been lost. His translation of Chayyug's Hebrew Grammar has been preserved, but his exegetical works, which would have been highly prized in these days, have reached us in a comparatively small number of fragments, most of which are translations. The thanks of Old Testament students are due to Dr Poznanski for collecting these fragments and giving them to the world as they are presented in the volume before us. The conclusion at which Dr Poznanski arrives regarding Ibn Chiquitilla as an exegete will probably be regarded, in most quarters, as reasonable, when regard is had to the scanty materials available for his estimate.

It has been observed that recent critical views on O.T. questions may largely be found in the literary works of Jewish scholars of the Middle Ages. And these fragments from the pen of Ibn Ch. pro tanto support the correctness of the observation. To speak generally, his opinions appear to have been characterised by a freshness of view and a freedom from prejudice remarkable for the times to which he belonged. This will probably be conceded, when regard is had to his critical opinions on some O.T. questions which, in our day, have been subjects of keen discussion. The second part of Isaiah he appears to have assigned to the exilic or postexilic period. The opening words of chap. xl. are applied to the But as the servant of chap. lii. 13 ffg. is Hezekiah, the unity of chs. xl.-lxvi. would have to be given up. This is one of the points on which we crave information, and the fragments which have reached us do not supply it.

.(על בית שני) Jews of the second temple

Ibn Ezra (Abraham) has generally received the credit of having suggested the Deutero-Isaiah. He held Ibn Chiquitilla in high repute. He speaks of him as the greatest grammarian and one of the most

famous Biblical exegetes. In his writings he has preserved to us more of the literary productions of his distinguished predecessor than any other Jewish scholar of the period.1 It is only reasonable to assume that he was familiar with Ib. Ch.'s opinion regarding the book of Isaiah. And it may be that Ib. Ezra simply adopted the view already propounded by his predecessor.

The reference of the words of Isa. lii. 13 ffg. to Hezekiah brings to the front another point of connection between Ib. Ch. and advanced critics of our own time. One of the most valuable results of recent discussions is that which directly connects O.T. prophecy with the times of the prophet. The prophet has a message to the men of his day. The interpretation and application of the prophetic message raise a more difficult problem. Anything like a consensus of opinion on this point can scarcely be expected at present. The whole question of Messianic prophecy is involved. No discussion of this subject can be attempted in a notice like this; but it may be of some interest to indicate what appears to have been the attitude of Ib. Ch. to this important question. An example may best serve the purpose. Take the well-known prophecy, Mic. iv. 11-v. 1 (Heb.). If the N.T. is authoritative, the words refer to Jesus Christ (cf. Matt. ii. 4-6). Of course the N.T. has no authority for Ib. Ch. The question is, "does he regard the prophecy as Messianic?" No! unless Zerubbabel is the Messiah. Jews in Jerusalem under Zerubbabel.

And the answer is,

The prophecy refers to the The prophet has the second The ruler (ch. v. 1) is

.(ידבר על בית שני) temple before his mind

Zerubbabel, for Zerubbabel was of the family of Jeconiah, the lineal descendant of David (cf. 1 Chron. iii. 15 ffg., etc.). This Zerubbabel is the person spoken of under the name of The Branch in Zech. vi. 12, and in v. 13 it is said of him that he shall sit and rule upon his throne. Farther, the words of Mic. iv. 13, are explained in connection with what is said of Zerubbabel (Zech. iv. 7), “who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel a plain!" Accordingly, this message which Micah delivers for the encouragement of

Zion-which promises to the Church a crushing defeat of the hostile world powers-(the result of which is to be the conversion of the resources of those powers to the service of the people of Jehovah), is explained in connection with a prince who, however worthy, had to maintain a continuous struggle against the petty tribes round about Jerusalem, and, if the history of the O.T. is trustworthy, did not succeed in rebuilding the temple till twenty years after the restoration from Babylon. The same line of remark may be followed in regard to the words of Zech. ix. 9. The king, in this

1 Abr. Ibn Ezra bildet die Hauptquelle für die Kenntniss der Bibelexegese und der Grammatik I. Ch.'s, p. 55.

passage, according to Ib. Ch., is Nehemiah; and Neh. vi. 7 is referred to in support of the opinion. When we turn to Nehemiah we find that, on four different occasions, Sanballat endeavoured to arrest the work of the patriotic Jew in Jerusalem. When these attempts failed this bitter enemy of the Jews circulated, through an open letter, a false report to the effect that it was the intention of the Jews to rebel and to make Nehemiah king. And it is apparently on this report that Ib. Ch. founds his view that the king referred to in Zech. ix. 9 is Nehemiah.

These examples may suffice to show how this distinguished Jewish scholar was disposed to handle O.T. prophecy. It may seem perilous to suggest a general view from one or two cases. Other passages might be referred to which are interpreted in a similar fashion. The exposition fails to do justice to the language. The historical references are unsuitable, and the conclusion arrived at frequently diverges as seriously from current Jewish as from Christian opinion. This, according to Dr Poznanski, sufficiently explains the disappearance of Ib. Ch.'s works. For a century or more

he was quoted by Jewish scholars, but after the thirteenth century his writings seem to have been lost. David Kimchi used them, and, if our author may be trusted, he was the last Western European scholar to do so. How is it, asks Dr Poznanski, that an age like this, which has brought to light so many literary works that were unknown or buried out of sight, has failed to discover any of the biblical writings of Ib. Ch.? The answer he suggests is that these writings are probably lost beyond the hope of recovery, and that, mainly, on account of the rationalistic views of the author. "If he had had the sense to conceal his free opinions, or to give expression to them in the form of suggestions, as Ibn Ezra did somewhat later, some at least of his commentaries might have been preserved. As it is, they have sunk and disappeared in the stream of time " (p. 69). The remark is significant. If Ib. Ch.'s works have been lost, for the reason suggested by Dr Poznanski, they are probably not the only works which have shared such a fate.

Fortunately his translation of the grammatical work of Judah b. David (Chayyug) remains. This great scholar (Chayyug) was the first to set Hebrew grammar on a scientific basis. "Among us,"

says Ibn Ezra, "there was no real knowledge of grammar till Rab. Judah b. David, the first of the grammarians, arose.' Chayyug devoted his attention mainly to verbs containing feeble and double letters. He established the principle that Hebrew roots consist of three consonants, and in this way laid the foundation for a scientific treatment of Hebrew grammar. Abulwalîd carried forward the work so well begun by Chayyug. The latter wrote in Arabic, which was an unknown tongue to many of the Jews in the West.

And Ib. Ch. rendered a service of high value to the Christian as well as to the Jewish world by his translation of Chayyug's grammatical treatises into Hebrew.1 An impulse was given to the study of Hebrew grammar, which was continued during the succeeding centuries through men like the Kimchis (and others) among the Jews, and Reuchlin (especially) among the Christians. The latter (Reuchlin) connected the Reformation of the sixteenth century with the best Hebrew scholarship of the centuries immediately preceding. Through him the grammatical results arrived at by Hebraists like Chayyug, Ib. Ch., the Kimchis, and others, were made available for Luther and the other scholars of the Reformation. In this way the accurate interpretation of Holy Scripture-which formed the foundation of the work undertaken by the Reformers-was rendered unspeakably more easy than it would otherwise have been. Accordingly, Ib. Ch. has a place of honour among the scholars who prepared the way for the Reformation. The theologians of the Reformation could not use his exegetical works as they used the commentaries of men like Raschi, Ibn Ezra, and Kimchi, because these works were already lost. Even if they had survived it is doubtful if they would have been of great value for the special work the Reformers had in hand. But his grammatical work rendered important service to those who desired to reach the exact meaning of the O.T. text, and this remains to us. GEO. G. CAMERON.

Santa Teresa: an Appreciation, with some of the best passages of the Saint's Writings.

Selected, Adapted and Arranged by Alexander Whyte, D.D. Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier. Cr. 8vo, pp. 81. Price 28.

THIS is an attractively got up little book of the sort that we are now pretty well accustomed to get from Dr Whyte. It will no doubt serve to introduce to a considerable number of English readers the Spanish lady who has been enshrined by the Roman Catholic Church among her saints under the name of Santa Teresa. Probably such readers, with very few exceptions, will be more than satisfied with what is here supplied, and will have no wish awakened within them to prosecute their studies by undertaking to read in detail any of the Saint's own writings, or any of the more lengthy and credulous accounts of her wonderful life. Dr Whyte, notwithstanding his unbounded appreciation of her character and genius, lets quite enough escape his lips to pre1 An English translation of this work of Ib. Ch.'s appeared in London in 1870 (Nutt).

vent his enthusiasm becoming contagious. It would, however, be a pity if the praise lavished upon her in this Appreciation and Introduction should cause readers to turn away altogether from the story and writings of this Spanish mystic. If we do not get much that is forcible or fresh in Teresa's writings, there are many not unfamiliar thoughts pleasantly and sweetly uttered.

Dr Whyte takes pains to show that he was not the first who was fascinated by what he calls "her sheer power of mind" and "her powerful understanding." Those who confess to have fallen under her spell are described as the highest in learning and rank and godliness, great and learned theologians, responsible church leaders, and even the secret inquisitors. It would seem that for one who fails to grow enthusiastic over Teresa and her writings there is left only a very humble place, which it might be unsafe or unkind more particularly to define. For such, however, there may be some consolation, or at least something that may save them from losing all self-respect, in the reflection that sweet as the Saint's words seem to have been, inquisitors read them, felt the spell of them, and went back to the work of the inquisition. Few probably will agree with Dr Whyte in characterising Vaughan's account of Teresa as an "indecent and disgraceful attack," "a contemptuous and malicious caricature," an 'extravagant misrepresentation." Those who are now sent back to read the chapter in the Hours with the Mystics will probably have their confidence in Vaughan's competence and sobriety largely confirmed.

The point at which most readers, and surely all careful students of the extravagances of mysticism, will be inclined to enter their protest and part company with Dr Whyte is his Appreciation of the locutions and visions of Teresa. Notwithstanding the threat that he will leave all who do not agree with him, and that he will call their seat the seat of the scorner, some may be bold enough to say that they prefer to account for those extraordinary manifestations in a simpler and more natural way. Zöckler, the author of able and much appreciated treatises on the Monkish Counter Reformation in Spain in the sixteenth century, contributes a very full and informing article on Teresa to Herzog's Real-Encyclopaedie 2 (xv., 313-328). He tells of a serious and long-continued illness from which she suffered in her twentieth year at the beginning of her conventual life, and of the mismanagement of the ignorant women and the cruelty of certain physicians which brought her to the gates of death. For four days she lay helpless in a sort of spasm, wholly unconscious, so that she did not feel burning wax when it was laid on her skin. Even when she returned to the convent she was coiled up like a ball, could only use one finger of the right hand, was carried in a linen cloth since the