almost entirely (see, however, Ben‐Jacob’s _Treasure_, p. 201, No. 827). III. _Pompous titles._ The largest contributions to this class were made by the mystical writers. Books which profess to know what is going on in the heavens above and the earth beneath cannot possibly be satisfied with modest titles. Thus we have the “Book of Brightness” (Zohar), “the shining book” (Bahir), “the Confidential Shepherd” (Moses).(233) The books which the Zohar quotes bear such titles as the Book of Adam, the Book of Enoch. The only excuse for the Zohar is that the manufacturing of such books with pseudo‐epigraphical titles had already begun in antiquity. It is not, however, till the Gaonic period that a whole apocryphal literature suddenly emerges which perplexes the Gaonim themselves. No one is spared. Angels, patriarchs, and martyrs are called upon to lend their names to these books. What one resents most is that history came within the range of the forger’s activity. There is, for instance, the Josippon, which professes to be written by Josephus, the well‐known Jewish historian of the first century. But in spite of all the care taken by the author to disguise himself in the garb of antiquity, the Josippon is a forgery of the ninth or tenth century. Of a similar kind is the Book of Jasher, containing legendary stories relating to Biblical personages. It pretends to be identical with the Book of Jasher quoted in Joshua x. 13 and 2 Sam. i. 18. Some sixty years ago a certain Mr. Samuel of Liverpool had the misfortune to make himself ridiculous by maintaining the pretensions of this book; for, indeed, it does not require much knowledge of the Agadic literature to see that the Book of Jasher is only a compilation of comparatively late Midrashim. IV. _Titles suggested by other Titles._ As an instance of this we may take Maimonides’ great Code of Law, which bears the title _Mishneh Torah_. The importance of the book made it the object of study for hundreds of scholars, who wrote their commentaries and glosses on it. Among the titles of the commentaries such Title‐genealogies may be discovered as Maggid _Mishneh_, _Mishneh_ Lammelech; which last word again suggested such titles as Emek ha‐_Melech_, Shaar ha‐_Melech_, and so on.(234) The same process may be observed in other standard works, the importance of which made them a subject of investigation and interpretation as the “Prepared Table,” one of the glosses to which is called _Mappah_, “Tablecloth,” whilst others provided it with the _Shewbread_ and with _New Fruit_.