valiant man, is changed most." The greater marvel had he been absolutely starry sky remains still, "yet do the unacquainted with its outlines. This starres and signes therein still move; poem of his, in fact, seems to me inand even itselfe is mov'd, as wizards tended as an indirect refutation of certain saine." doctrines held by one of the earliest adherents to the Copernican theory, the erratic and ill-fated Giordano Bruno of Nola. This philosopher, originally a Dominican, seems to have courted persecution and science with equal ardor and with equal success; and after enduring six years of misery in the Piombi at Venice, and two more in the dungeons of the Inquisition at Rome, finally expiated the crimes of free thought and an aggressive temper at the stake on February 17, 1600. In the course of his many wanderings, Bruno had made some considerable stay in England, apparently in the suite of the French ambassador Castelnau, and had there become acquainted with Sir Philip Sidney, to whom he dedicated two of his works. One of the "wizards" referred to is no doubt "the learned Ptolomae," who tells us "that inasmuch as the stars maintain their relative distances we may justly call them fixed, yet inasmuch as the whole sphere to which they are nailed is in motion, the word 'fixed' is but little appropriate; "but it is most likely that Spenser here refers more particularly to his own lines, prefixed to the fifth book of "The Faerie Queene," in which he speaks at large of the phenomena connected with the precession of the equinoxes. In these introductory lines too he remarks that "most is Mars amisse of all the rest," which is exactly paralleled by the sneer of Mutability at the unsteadfastness of "that valiant man." The notices of Saturn, however, in the two passages do not agree, and nothing at all is said of Mercury in the one from "The Faerie Queene," circumstances tending to show that the cantos of "6 Mutability" were written at a later date. The doctrine, however, which Spenser seems to be here combating is perhaps most compendiously stated in his " Trattato de la Causa, Principio et Uno," previously published in 1584, and dedicated to Castelnau. In the fifth dialogue in this work (p. 127, ed. Venice, 1584) he writes: Wherefore in your ears will not sound ill the opinion of Heraclitus, who said that all things are ONE, the which by MUTABILITY hath in itself all things; and because all forms are in it, consequently all definitions agree with it, and so far contradictory propositions are true . . . It was not till after Spenser's death that the real epoch of astronomical discovery commenced. Copernicus, indeed, more than half a century before had restored the sun to "his imperial throne, the guide and ruler of the family of planets revolving around him;" but the enunciation of his theory awakened only a dull and feeble response in the world of science until the invention of the telescope This notion of a universe which is itrendered its ultimate adoption inevitable. self Deity, maintaining its unity inviolate That the leaders of Catholic and Protes- in the midst of an infinite multiplicity of tant theology alike should denounce the phenomena in virtue of a mutability as new doctrine was of course to be expect- infinite, is not one to commend itself to ed, but it should be remembered that the piety and orthodoxy of Spenser's naamong its bitterest opponents were also ture. All things in nature change, he Tycho Brahe, the real founder of practi- admits, but change is not therefore an cal astronomy, and Francis Bacon, the attribute of Deity. On the contrary, as reputed restorer of philosophic method. his master Aristotle had taught, change At the time Spenser wrote, Kepler, al- is necessarily determined both at its beready an astronomer, had not yet under- ginning and its end, and cannot be etertaken his memorable researches with nal, consequently cannot be divine. God regard to the path of Mars: Galileo, is God, says Bruno in effect, in virtue of already in correspondence with Kepler, his infinite mutability. Not so, answers and smarting under his first experiences Spenser; God is God in virtue of his of persecution, had not yet learned to infinite stability. I grant you your infinwhisper even to himself, "E pur si muite mutability, but to me the indestructiOve. William Gilbert, indeed, had ac- bility of matter and of motion is the cepted the new teaching, but Spenser did not live to see the publication of his work "De Magnete" in 1600. It would have been a marvel indeed had Spenser accepted the theory, though perhaps a still diviner fact. Heaven and nature move and are changed, but heaven and nature depend on the unmoved Mover of the universe. Some day they will cease to move, but none the more will the First Mover cease to be. The plot, which | of energy is for others to determine. To by the way bears a vague generic resem me it seems practically undistinguishable, blance to that of Bruno's "Spaccio de la and if so, the phrase indestructibility of Bestia Trionfante," reflects with accu- motion is clearly preferable, as at once so racy the mental process by which Spen- co-ordinating the doctrine with its comser arrived at his conclusions. When he plementary one, the indestructibility of describes Mutability citing before the matter. At all events, Spenser has astribunal of nature the four elements of serted the indestructibility of both in which all things are made, and the vari- terms sufficiently explicit to entitle him ous times and seasons which do the to a high place amongst those who have world in being hold," we cannot mistake given a voice to the problem which has occupied his thoughts. It is indeed more intelligible in the form in which he presents it than it would have been in any scientific language known to the sixteenth century. Matter and motion, representing the fundamental categories of space and time in their objective aspects, are, he tells us, so far as the physical universe is concerned, inseparably and eternally connected. Matter without motion cannot exist any more than motion without matter. But matter cannot be in motion without change. Is change, then, the ultimate fact of the universe, or is there a generalization beyond, wide enough to embrace all the phenomena of change? In the solemn judgment delivered by the veiled goddess on the appeal of Mutability, Spenser announces that he has found this wider generalization. Change, he declares, has a subjective existence only, and is not supreme in the universe. Whatever changes may take place in either matter or motion, both are in truth indestructible and objective. Transpose, translate, transform them as you may, Of the wide world dreaming on things to come, From The Pall Mall Gazette. THE CIVIL CODE OF THE JEWS. OF the laws affecting transactions between debtor and creditor those having reference to usury are of course the most important. They will be found not a little noteworthy. The Biblical ordinances and also the Talmudic injunctions anent the exaction of interest have been so much misinterpreted and grossly distorted by modern Jews of a certain school that the Mischnic regulations in their simplicity cannot fail to prove interesting. The rabbinical laws are of course founded upon the texts of the Pentateuch which forbade usury. They will therefore clearly explain how Hebrew jurists understood and explained the Mosaic prohibition. It is startling to find thus fantastically tricked out in the garb of poetic Elizabethan allegory one of the latest doctrines of logical Victorian science. It is perhaps Any the most trifling payment or contoo much to credit Spenser with enun- sideration given for the loan of either ciating the theory that while every parti- money or produce was forbidden as usury; cle of matter is moved in every particle of and the rabbins knew no distinction betime, the sum of all matter and of all tween interest and usury. The Talmudic motion remains immutable; but a strict code took cognizance of two kinds of analysis of this poem will show that its usury; that prohibited by the Mosaic inconclusions cannot be translated into the junctions and that forbidden by the or terminology of modern physics by any dinances of the rabbins. The former less extensive proposition. Whether the was termed ribith ketzutzah, or definite doctrine of the indestructibility of motion interest; the latter abak ribith, or indefiis identical with that of the conservation | nite increase. Where one man lent an other say five pieces of money on condi- | from which he derived neither profit nor tion that six were to be repaid, or lent advantage for the benefit of the owner, four measures of produce in return for who was his creditor in respect of the which he was to receive five, the law other half. He was therefore regarded regarded it as a case of Biblical usury, as paying interest on a debt, his liability ribith ketzutzah. When no specified remaining always unquestioned. Hence amount was charged for the accommoda- the prohibition. The same principle aption for instance, if an individual lent plied to cases where money was lent for another a sum of money for business business purposes. If the creditor was purposes, receiving one-half the profits, guaranteed against all loss, the debtor unwhatever they might be the considera- dertaking to refund the entire amount, tion paid for the loan was considered abak ribith, usury forbidden by the rabbins only. Now the law in the two cases mentioned differed. The usury prohibited by the Bible, ribith ketzutzah, was at all times and under all circumstances ille gal. Even if the amount had already been paid by the debtor he could summon the lender before the local tribunal who could compel restitution. Those who accepted this form of interest were regarded as gazlanim, robbers, and as such they could be compelled to refund their gains. This enactment did not, however, apply to cases where the interest agreed upon was that prohibited by rabbinical ordinance only. To understand clearly the peculiarities of the Mischnic law in this regard it is necessary to explain the general principle upon which the Hebrew jurists based their prohibition, and the circumstances under which a transaction seemingly equitable and fair was deemed by them illegal. the agreement to share the profits was illegal. If, however, both parties contracted to share the losses, if any, as well as such profits as resulted, the arrangement was valid. The money thrown into the business was not in the nature of a loan; it was an affair of partnership. On like grounds it was forbidden to give to another merchandise or goods on condition of sharing the profits unless the owner at the same time agreed to share the losses. Το Nothing is more remarkable than the number of regulations formulated for the purpose of preventing usury in any shape or form whatsoever. Every transaction between producer and consumer, between vendor and purchaser, was carefully overhauled in order to render the conditions imposed upon either party incapable of yielding advantage of such a kind as to resemble anything like interest. For instance, it was customary for persons residing in towns and cities to arrange The leading principle underlying the with farmers and other owners of prodenactments having reference to the usury uce for a regular supply of commodities forbidden by the rabbins. i.e. interest required for consumption throughout the in the shape of profit, indefinite and not year. Now, the price of such commodi. prearranged, accruing from bonâ fide busi-ties was invariably lowest immediately ness transactions will be readily under- after the harvest and ingathering; rates stood. It admits of simple explanation invariably rose as the year grew on. in connection with the prohibition of what prevent any undue advantage on either is known as the undertaking of tzon bar-side the law declared invalid any contracts zel-literally, iron sheep. A person made before the prices of the respective engaged in rearing cattle was forbidden to commodities were fixed in the public take charge of a sheep, receiving in markets. The farmer's need was greatest return one-half the produce the wool or during the period of harvest and in the a lamb-if he was responsible for the interval between the ingathering and the return of the animal. The owner could fixing of the prices; ready money during sustain no loss - he was guaranteed the period would tempt him to part with against it; but he took one-half the profit his produce at rates below those which in any event. The animal was in fact so would subsequently be decided upon. much capital safely invested. It resem- Hence the buyer would gain an advan bled so much metal in that its value could tage which the law construed as usury: not deteriorate. Hence the appellation profit made of another's need. Such ́a tzon barzel, which designates in the Tal- bargain was therefore bad at law. The mud every description of property guar- agreement was likewise invalid if the anteed absolutely and unconditionally farmer at the time had not in his possesagainst damage or loss. Now, the rab- sion such produce as he contracted to bins argued, the person who took charge furnish -unless, be it noted, the produce of the sheep labored in respect of one-half was already in the market and its price 4: for the season fixed and known. In a place. For there was no debt until the similar manner the producer was forbid-term ended; and hence there was no conden to sell in autumn, after harvest, at sideration for time granted for payment. the enhanced prices likely to rule in the A creditor was not permitted to live in a spring of the year. A case recorded in debtor's house on payment of less rent the Talmud of one of the rabbins will than could otherwise be obtained. When explain the grounds of the law. The money was advanced to a farmer to imRabbin Papa was accustomed to make prove his holding, the owner was, howdate wine. This he sold in autumn at ever, entitled to increase the rent without spring prices. Payment of course was resting under any imputation of usury. to be made in the spring. He justified Payment in advance in order to obtain a his conduct by saying that his wine would loan, and payment subsequently in return keep, and he was not bound to dispose of for having obtained a loan, were also proit-not being pressed for money-im-hibited by rabbinical law. Even fair mediately after ingathering, when rates words to a creditor, courtesy which would were lowest. He would keep his wine not have been rendered to another but for until spring and then obtain better terms. the debt and obligation existing, were Schesheth, the Blind, explained to him forbidden, as "usury in speech." more clearly the law. "You," he said, In how far, it may be asked, were the "have regard to your own circumstances, regulations prohibiting usury in its sevbut you should also have consideration eral forms applicable to transactions with for those of the buyers. If they had aliens and pagans? The question is one money in autumn, when prices are every of considerable importance. It would, where low, they would not purchase of however, be out of place to give here the you at the higher price. Only because pros and cons of the discussions carried they have not the wherewithal to buy for on both in the Talmud and by the later cash in autumn do they come to you. rabbinists anent this matter. The opinThe difference is simply usury, which you ion of the Ghemara may be gathered from are receiving for the delay in payment." the following citation, which no inconsidFor like reasons the lending of a meas-erable portion of the Jewish community ure of produce - an equal measure to be prefer to ignore: "Rab Nahaman says, repaid by the borrower- was deemed Huna declared that the Jew who lent to a unlawful. The price of the commodity pagan and took of him usury Heaven might in the interval between the loan would punish as though he had exacted and repayment rise or fall. The differ- interest of a brother Jew." The punishence would constitute usury. Hence it ment of usurers was, according to a trawas customary to estimate the value of ditionary interpretation of one of the the produce at the time of lending and Psalms, that their property should be restore value for value, not measure for taken from them by Heaven, just as they measure. So far was this principle car- took it from their fellow-men. ried that in arranging between neighbors Significant as are the regulations of the for the exchange of a day's labor this legal code affecting the usurer, the moral consideration had weight. If one person anathema hurled at him everywhere in the asked another to do a day's weeding or Talmud are still more noteworthy. He is digging, promising in return to assist the termed a robber. He was disqualified other in like manner the following morn- not alone from acting as judge, but could ing, they were to remember that weeding not even give evidence in a court of jusor digging is a more laborious occupation tice. The garment he took from his poor on a wet than on a dry day; therefore a debtor was a public scandal. 'Behold," dry day's work was to be repaid by a dry says one of the kindliest of the rabbins, day's work, and a wet day's labor by an- Rab Josse, "how blind are these usurers. other wet day's labor; otherwise usury If any one hurt them, by terming them was held to have been exacted. A ven- wicked and godless, they would almost dor was not permitted to have two prices kill those who thus stigmatize them. But one for cash and one for credit. Any here, they themselves deliberately and in addition made for time given was usury. the presence of witnesses execute deeds When anything was simply hired, whether a thousandfold more scandalous. They house or movable, the case was different. The owner might charge one amount per term if paid in advance, and a higher rate if paid when really due at the expiration of the period for which the hiring took 66 call a writer to draw up and witnesses to attest and themselves affix their signa tures to documents wherein they deny the God of Israel!" "Ay," satirically says Rabbi Simon in a beraïtha, "they (the From Land and Water. usurers) treat Moses as a prophet and his | breakfasted off cooked elephant's foot law as true, saying if Moses our master and found it a whitish mass, slightly gelat had known that money was to be made by inous and sweet, like marrow, and quite usury he would not have forbidden it." delicious. The birds' nests we have Even more suggestive is the curious spoken of as being consumed by the agadic legend connected with the resur Chinese are procurable even in some rection depicted typically in the thirty- London shops. They are the nests of seventh chapter of Ezekiel's prophecies. swallows found in caverns on the sea"All the dead therein restored to life," shore of the Eastern Archipelago, and runs the agada, "had merited death. are of a gelatinous nature, from a peculiar They had adored the molten image which mucus which the bird secretes and disNebuchadnozor had set up for them to charges from its mouth whilst building worship. Nevertheless, Heaven in its the nest. Lizards again are partaken of mercy restored them. One alone among by the Chinese; so are snakes. Spiders them all was not given back to life, for," are relished by Bushmen, so are grassconcludes the legend, "he had practised hoppers. Locusts are eaten, both in the usury." fresh state and salted, by Persians, Egyptians, Arabians, Bushmen, and North American Indians. White ants, bees, moths, caterpillars, and grubs, all find admirers, especially among the lower savages. We have not got to the lowest CURIOSITIES OF OMNIVOROUS MANKIND. depths yet. Earth-eating is practised by THERE are numerous we had almost the Japanese, who make it into thin cakes said numberless curiosities in connec- called tanaampo, and eaten especially by tion with eating and drinking, even the women, who take it to produce slenalthough our observations are restricted to the human family. If our natural teeth are examined at maturity, they are found to point out their possessor as omnivorous, and if they did othewise, we should in the face of the following facts, regard them as false indicators, or, in other words, false teeth. Beef and bread are the typical foods in the British Isles, but nowhere else; almost every country has its own typical foods, together with miscellaneous articles of food of all descriptions. Dogs' flesh, cats, monkeys, birds' nests, are all savory morsels of the Chinese. The hedgehog is regarded as a "dainty dish to set before a king" in Barbary, and is largely consumed in Spain and Germany. Kangaroos are relished by the aborigines of Australia. The opossum is eaten in America, Australia, and the Indian islands. The walrus is eaten by the Esquimaux; whilst whale's flesh is eaten almost by all who inhabit regions far north or south, where whales are found. Mice and rats are considered delicate morsels in parts of Asia, Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. Horseflesh is gradually finding favor, and has for long formed quite the staple flesh food of the Indian horsemen of the Pampas, who eat neither bread, fruit, nor vegetables. The elephant is eaten in Abyssinia and in Sumatra. Three elephants were eaten by the Parisians during the siege, and were considered delicious, the liver more especially so. Dr. Livingstone says he derness of figure. It is generally an unc- "A The quantity of food taken is also a matter of curiosity when we have wellauthenticated instances of the extremes of going a long time without food at all, in eating next to none, and the other extreme of eating enormous quantities. In Siberia, Sir George Simpson procured a couple of men having a reputation for eating large quantities, and prepared a dinner for them of thirty-six pounds avoir. dupois of beef and eighteen pounds of butter for each. By the end of the first hour their "stomachs were like kettledrums," having taken half the dinner; in another two hours they had devoured the |