Goldwin Smith held the regius professorship of Modern History at Oxford from 1858 to 1866, that “ancient history, besides the still unequalled excellence of the writers, is the ‘best instrument for cultivating the historical sense.” His chief historical writings — The United Kingdom: a Political History (1899), and The United States: an Outline of Political History (1893) — though based on thorough familiarity with their subject, make no claim to original research, but are remarkable examples of terse and brilliant narrative.

In 1868 he threw up his career in England and settled in the United States, where he held the professorship of English and Constitutional History in the Department of History at Cornell University for a number of years. Goldwin Smith Hall, which is located in Cornell's Arts Quad, is named in his honour. In 1871 he moved to Toronto, where he edited the Canadian Monthly, and subsequently founded the Week and the Bystander, and where he lived the rest of his life living in The Grange manor.

He is not Jєωιѕн, far from it, although a spurious quote attributed him is frequently encountered on the internet.

A fascinating and very valuable essay, Smith also addresses the infamous "pogroms" in Russia of 1880s.  Smith explains how in response to horrific reports, the British government sent investigators who discovered that there was little or no truth in them.   Jєωιѕн propaganda efforts prevailed, however, and the lies live on in academia today.  For more on this subject, see Andrew Joyce's three-part series Revisiting the 19th-Century Russian Pogroms

The lurid tales were not to be matched until commencement of the h0Ɩ0h0αx Lie which began with the broadcast of h0Ɩ0cαųst (TV miniseries) in 1978.  

American heartstrings and tear ducts were prepared for this with the Roots series in 1977.  

Older readers will recall that there was no public discussion of "death camps," "gas chambers," etc prior to this.  As the older generation faded, it was simply a matter inundating the media with the lie so that 30 years later the great mass of the public is incapable of anything but a violent emotional denial when asked to question the Jєωιѕн narrative.

The text is from IHR, a once great h0Ɩ0h0αx revisionist site that has fallen into the hands of the traitorous shabbos goy, Mark Weber. (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n1p16_Smith.html)

    The following essay, originally entitled "The Jєωιѕн Question," is reprinted here from the second, revised edition of his book, Essays on Questions of the Day, published in 1894 by Macmillan (New York and London), and reprinted in 1972 by Books for Libraries Press (Freeport, New York).

    In this bold sketch, Smith shows that the "Jєωιѕн Question" has persisted since ancient times -- over many centuries and in diverse cultures. His observations and presentation of facts point up parallel problems in own era.

The Vexing 'Jєωιѕн Question': A Nineteenth-Century Scholar's View

Jєωιѕн ascendancy and the anti-Semitic movement provoked by it form an important feature of the European situation, and are beginning to excite attention in America. Mr. Arnold White, Baron Hirsch's commissioner, says, in a plea for the Russian Jєωs ("The Truth about the Russian Jєω," Contemporary Review, May 1892), that "almost without exception the press throughout Europe is in Jєωιѕн hands, and is largely produced by Jєωιѕн brains;" that "international finance is captive to Jєωιѕн energy and skill;" that in England the fall of the Barings has left the house of Rothschild alone in its supremacy; and that in every line the Jєωs are fast becoming our masters. Wind and tide, in a money-loving age, are in favor of the financial race.

At the same time the anti-Semitic movement gains ground. From Russia, Germany, Austria, and the Danubian Principalities, it spreads to the Ionian Islands; it has broken out in France; symptoms of it have appeared even in the United States. Yet there is a persistent misapprehension of the real nature of the agitation. It is assumed that the quarrel is religious. The αnтι-ѕємιтєs are supposed to be a party of fanatics renewing the persecutions to which the Jєωs were exposed on account of their faith in the dark ages, and every one who, handling the question critically, fails to show undivided sympathy with the Israelites is set down as a religious persecutor. The Jєωs naturally foster this impression, and, as Mr. Arnold White tells us, the press of Europe is in their hands.

Pogroms in Russia - In 1880, anti-Semitic disturbances broke out in Russia. A narrative of them entitled "The Persecution of the Jєωs in Russia," was put forth (in 1881) by the Jєωιѕн community in England as an appeal to the British heart. In that narrative the Russian Christians were charged with having committed the most fiendish atrocities on the most enormous scale. A tract of country equal in area to the British Islands and France combined had, it was averred, been the scene of horrors theretofore perpetrated only in times of war. Men had been ruthlessly murdered, tender infants had been dashed on the stones or roasted alive in their own homes, married women had been made the prey of a brutal lust which had in many cases caused their death, and young girls had been violated in sight of their relatives by soldiers who should have been guardians of their honor. Whole streets inhabited by Jєωs had been razed, and the Jєωιѕн quarters of towns had been systematically fired.

In one place, Elizabethgrad [or Elizavetgrad, now Kirovohrad, Ukraine], 30 Jєωesses at once had been outraged, two young girls in dread of violation had thrown themselves from the windows, and an old man, who was attempting to save his daughter from a fate worse than death, had been flung from the roof, while 20 soldiers proceeded to work their will on the maiden. This was a specimen of atrocities which had been committed over the whole area. The most atrocious charge of all was that against the Christian women of Russia, who were accused of assisting their friends to violate the Jєωesses by holding the victims down, their motive being, as the manifesto suggests, jealousy of the superiority of the Jєωesses in dress. The government was charged with criminal sympathy, the local authorities generally with criminal inaction, and some of the troops with active participation.

The British heart responded to the appeal. Great public meetings were held, at one of which the Archbishop of Canterbury, with a Roman Cardinal, as the representative of religious liberty in general, and especially of opposition to Jєω-burning, at his side, denounced the persecuting bigotry of the Russian Christians. Indignant addresses were largely signed. Russia was accused of re-enacting the worst crimes of the Middle Ages. It was taken for granted on all sides that religious fanaticism was the cause of the riots.

Exaggerated Accounts - Russia, as usual, was silent. But the British government directed its consuls at the different points to report upon the facts. The reports composed two Blue Books, in which, as very few probably took the pains to look into them, the unpopular truth lies buried (Correspondence Respecting the Treatment of Jєωs in Russia, Nos. 1 and 2, 1882, 1883).

Those who did read them learned, in the first place, that though the riots were deplorable and criminal, the Jєωιѕн account was in most cases exaggerated, and in some to an extravagant extent. The damage to Jєωιѕн property at Odessa, rated in the Jєωιѕн account at 1,137,381 rubles, or, according to their higher estimates, 3,000,000 rubles, was rated, Consul-General Stanley tells us, by a respectable Jєω on the spot at 50,000 rubles, while the Consul-General himself rates it at 20,000. At Elizabethgrad, instead of whole streets being razed to the ground, only one hut had been unroofed. It appeared that few Jєωs, if any, had been intentionally killed, though some died of injuries received in the riots. There were conflicts between the Jєωs who defended their houses and the rioters.

The outrages on women, by which public indignation in England had been most fiercely aroused, and of which, according to the Jєωιѕн accounts, there had been a frightful number, no less than 30 in one place and 25 in another, appeared, after careful inquiries by the consuls, to have been very rare. This is the more remarkable because the riots commonly began with the sacking of the gin shops, which were kept by the Jєωs, so that the passions of the mob must have been inflamed by drink. The horrible charge brought in the Jєωιѕн manifesto against the Russian women, of having incited men to outrage Jєωesses and held the Jєωesses down, is found to be utterly baseless. The charge of roasting children alive also falls to the ground. So does the charge of violating a Jєω's wife and then setting fire to his house. The Jєωιѕн manifesto states that a Jєωιѕн innkeeper was cooped in one of his own barrels and cast into the Dnieper. This turns out to be a fable, the village which was the alleged scene of it being ten miles from the Dnieper and near no other river of consequence.

The Russian peasant, Christian though he may be, is entitled to justice. As a rule, while ignorant and often intemperate, he is good-natured. There was much brutality in his riot, but fiendish atrocity there was not, and if he struck savagely, perhaps he had suffered long. For the belief that the mob was "doing the will of the Tsar," in other words, that the government was at the bottom of the rising, there does not appear to have been a shadow of foundation. The action of the authorities was not in all cases equally prompt. In some cases it was culpably slack. At Warsaw the commandant held back, though as Lord Granville, the British ambassador, bears witness, his motive for hesitation was humanity. But many of the rioters were shot down or bayoneted by the troops, hundreds were flogged, some were imprisoned, and some were sent to Siberia. That any of the military took part in the riots seems to be a fiction. It was not likely that the Russian government, menaced as it is by revolutionary conspiracy, would encourage ιnѕυrrєcтισn.

People of the upper class, who fancied that in the agitation they saw the work of Socialists, though they might dislike the Jєωs, would hardly sympathize with the rioters. Efforts were made by the government to restore Jєωιѕн property, and handsome sums were subscribed for the relief of the sufferers. Yet those who, while they heartily condemned outrage, were willing to accept proof that the Christian men and women of Russia had not behaved like demons, were saluted as modern counterparts of Haman by an eminent Rabbi, who, if the objects of his strictures had cared to retort, might have been asked whether the crucifixion of Haman's ten sons and the slaughter of 75,000 of the enemies of Israel in one day, which, after the lapse of so many centuries, the feast of Purim still joyously commemorates, were not horrors as great as any which have been shown to have actually occurred at Odessa or Elizabethgrad.

Cause of the Troubles - The most important part of the evidence given in the consuls' reports, however, is that which relates to the cause of the troubles. At Warsaw, where the people are Roman Catholics, there appears to have been a certain amount of passive sympathy with the insurgents on religious grounds. But everywhere else the concurrent testimony of the consuls is that the source of the agitation was economical and social, not religious. Bitterness produced by the exactions of the Jєω, envy of his wealth, irritation at the display of it in such things as the fine dresses of his women, jealousy of his ascendancy, combined in the lowest of the mob with the love of plunder, were the motives of the people for attacking him, not hatred of his faith. Vice-Consul Wagstaff, who seems to have paid particular attention to the question and made the most careful inquiry, after paying a tribute to the sober, laborious, thrifty character and the superior intelligence of the Jєω, and ascribing to these his increasing monopoly of commerce, proceeds (in Correspondence Respecting the Treatment of Jєωs in Russia, No. 1, 1882, pp. 11, 12):

    It is chiefly as brokers or middlemen that the Jєωs are so prominent. Seldom a business transaction of any kind takes place without their intervention, and from both sides they receive compensation. To enumerate some of their other occupations, constantly denounced by the public: they are the principal dealers in spirits; keepers of "vodka" (drinking) shops and houses of ill-fame; receivers of stolen goods; illegal pawnbrokers and usurers. A branch they also succeed in is as government contractors. With their knowledge of handling money, they collude with unscrupulous officials in defrauding the State to vast amounts annually. In fact, the malpractices of some of the Jєωιѕн community have a bad influence on those whom they come in contact with.

    It must, however, be said that there are many well educated, highly respectable, and honorable Jєωs in Russia, but they form a small minority. This class is not treated upon in this paper. They thoroughly condemn the occupations of their lower brethren, and one of the results of the late disturbances is noticed in the movement at present amongst the Jєωs. They themselves acknowledge the abuses practised by some of their own members, and suggest remedial measures to allay the irritation existing among the working classes.

    Another thing the Jєωs are accused of is that there exists among them a system of boycotting; they use their religion for business purposes. This is expressed by the words "koul," or "kagal," and "kherim." For instance, in Bessarabia, the produce of a vineyard is drawn for by lot, and falls, say to Jabob Levy; the other Jєωs of the district cannot compete with Levy, who buys the wine at his own price. In the leasing by auction of government and provincial lands, it is invariably a Jєω who outbids the others and afterwards re-lets plots to the peasantry at exorbitant prices. Very crying abuses of farming out land have lately come to light and greatly shocked public opinion. Again, where estates are farmed by Jєωs, it is distressing to see the pitiable condition in which they are handed over on the expiration of the lease. Experience also shows they are very bad colonists.

    Their fame as usurers is well known. Given a Jєωιѕн recruit with a few rubles' capital, it can be worked out, mathematically, what time it will take him to become the money-lender of his company or regiment, from the drummer to the colonel. Take the case of a peasant: if he once gets into the hands of this class, he is irretrievably lost. The proprietor, in his turn, from a small loan gradually mortgages and eventually loses his estate. A great deal of landed property in south Russia has of late years passed into the hands of the Israelites, but principally into the hands of intelligent and sober peasants.

    From first to last, the Jєω has his hand in everything. He advances the seed for sowing, which is generally returned in kind -- quarters for bushels. As harvest time comes round, money is required to gather in the crops. This is sometimes advanced on hard conditions; but the peasant has no choice; there is no one to lend him money, and it is better to secure something than to lose all. Very often the Jєω buys the whole crop as it stands in the field on his own terms. It is thus seen that they themselves do not raise agricultural products, but they reap the benefits of others' labor, and steadily become rich, while proprietors are gradually getting ruined. In their relation to Russia they are compared to parasites that have settled on a plant not vigorous enough to throw them off, and which is being sapped of its vitality.

The peasants, the vice-consul tells us, often say, when they look at the property of a Jєω, "That is my blood." In confirmation of his view he cites the list of demands formulated by the peasants and laid before a mixed committee of inquiry into the causes of the disorder. These demands are all economical or social, with the exception of the complaint that Russian girls in Jєωιѕн service forget their religion and with it lose their morals. Everything, in short, seems to bear out the statement of the Russian Minister of the Interior, in a manifesto given in the Blue Book, that "the movement had its main cause in circuмstances purely economical;" provided that to "economical" we add "social," and include all that is meant by the phrase "hatred of Jєωιѕн usurpation," used in another docuмent.

Vice-Consul Harford, at Sebastopol, is in contact with the Jєωs of the Crimea, who, he says, are of a superior order, while some of them are not тαℓмυdic Jєωs, but belong to the mild and Scriptural sect of the Karaites (Correspondence Respecting the Treatment of Jєωs in Russia, No. 2, 1883, p. 17) He says that in his quarter all goes well:

    The spirit of antagonism that animates the Russian against the Jєω is, in my opinion, in no way to be traced to the difference of creed. In this part of Russia, where we have more denominations of religion than in any other part, I have never, during a residence of 14 years, observed the slightest indication or sectarianism in any class. The peasant, though ignorant and superstitious, is so entirely free from bigotry that even the openly displayed contempt of the fanatical Mohammedan [Muslim] Crim Tartar for the rites and ceremonies of the Russian Church fails to excite in him the slightest feeling of personal animosity; his own feeling with regard to other religions is perfect indifference; he enters a mosque or ѕуηαgσgυє just as he would enter a theatre, and regards the ceremony in much the same manner that an English peasant would, neither knowing nor caring to know whether they worshipped God or the moon.

    As it is evident from this that race and creed are to the minds of the peasantry of no more consequence than they would be to a Zulu, the only conclusion is that the antipathy is against the usurer, and as civilization can only be expected to influence the rising generation of Russian peasantry, the remedy rests with the Jєω, who, if he will not refrain from speculating (in lawless parts of the Empire) on ignorance and drunkenness, must be prepared to defend himself and his property from the certain and natural result of such a policy.

An Official Russian View - All this confirms the statement of M. Pierre Botkine, Secretary of the Russian Legation in Washington, who, writing in the Century Magazine (Feb. 1893), says:

    Replying to the accusation against Russia in the matter of an alleged religious intolerance, I must first point out a great error I have repeatedly encountered here. The promulgation of the laws and regulations against [that is, enforcing] the laws is being generally ascribed in America to persecution on the part of the Orthodox Church. But the Hebrew question in Russia is neither religious nor political; it is purely an economical and administrative question. The actual meaning of the anti-Semitic measures prescribed by our government is not animosity to the religion of the Jєωs; neither are those measures a deliberate hunting down of the feeble by the powerful; they are an effort to relieve the Empire of the injurious struggle against those particular traits of Hebrew character that were obstructing the progress of our people along their own line of natural development. It may be said in general, that the anti-Semitic movement in Russia is a demonstration by the non-Hebrew part of the population against tendencies of Hebrews which have characterized them the world over, and to which they adhere in Russia.

    The Hebrew, as we know him in Russia, is "the eternal Jєω." Without a country of his own, and, as a rule, without any desire to become identified with the country he for the time inherits, he remains, as for hundreds of years he has been, morally unchangeable and without a faculty for adapting himself to sympathy with the people of the race which surrounds him. He is not homogeneous with us in Russia; he does not feel or desire solidarity with us. In Russia he remains a guest only -- a guest from long ago, and not an integral part of the community. When these guests without affinity became too many in Russia, when in serious localities their numbers were found injurious to the welfare and the prosperity of our own people as a whole, when they had grown into many wide-spreading ramifications of influence and power, and abused their opportunities as traders with or lenders of money to the poor -- when, in a word, they became dangerous and prejudicial to our people -- is there anything revolting or surprising in the fact that our government found it necessary to restrict their activity? We did not expel the Jєωs from the Empire, as is often mistakenly charged, though we did restrict their rights as to localities of domicile and as to kinds of occupations ... Is it just that those who have never had to confront such a situation should blame us for those measures?

Whatever may be said against the restrictions as to residence and occupation laid on the Jєωs in Russia, from the point of view of policy or humanity, it seems certain that their aim is economical and social, not religious. They fall under the same head with measures taken by the people of the United States to guard their nationality and their character against the invasion of the Chinese. There is apparently no expulsion of Jєωs from the provinces of Russia which were originally their chief settlements, and which they have hitherto been permitted by law to inhabit. They are only forbidden to spread and extend their financial operations over the rest of the Empire.

The Role of the Russian Orthodox Church - Persecution is not the tendency of the Russian or of the Church to which he belongs. The Eastern Church, while it has been superstitious and somewhat torpid, has been tolerant, and, compared with other orthodox churches, free from the stain of persecution. It has not been actively proselytizing, nor sent forth crusaders, unless the name of crusades can be given to the wars with the Turks, the main motive for which, though the pretext may have been religious, probably has been territorial ambition, and which were certainly not crusades when waged by Catherine, the patroness of Diderot and the correspondent of Voltaire. This is the more remarkable because the Russians had a struggle for their land with the Tartars like that which Spain had with the Moors.

Arthur P. Stanley, D.D., in his Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church (3rd ed., p. 35) dilates upon this characteristic of the Eastern Christians. He says that "a respectful reverence for every manifestation of religious feeling has withheld them from violent attacks on the rights of conscience and led them to extend a kindly patronage to forms of faith most removed from their own;" and he notices that the great philosophers of antiquity are honored by portraits in their churches as heralds of the gospel.

Sir D. Mackenzie Wallace, M.A., who is the best authority, while he admits the inferiority of the Russian priests in education, testifies (in Russia, pp. 58, 59) to their innocence of persecution, saying that "if they have less learning, culture, and refinement than the Roman Catholic priesthood, they have at the same time infinitely less fanaticism, less spiritual pride, and less intolerance toward the adherents of other faiths." The educated classes he represents as generally indifferent to theological questions. The peasantry are superstitious and blindly attached to their own faith, which they identify with their nationality; but they think it natural and right that a man of a different nationality should have a different religion. In Nizhnii-Novgorod, the city of the great fair, the Mahometan [Muslim] Mosque or the Armenian church and the Orthodox cathedral stand side by side. (See Hare's Studies in Russia, p. 360.) At one end of a village is the church, at the other the mosque, and the Mahometan spreads his prayer carpet on the deck of a steamer full of Orthodox Russians.

The ecclesiastical constitution of Russia is incompatible with religious equality, and therefore with full religious liberty. The Tsar is practically, though not theoretically, head of the Church as well as of the State; the commander of Holy Russia as a Caliph is the Commander of the Faithful. In the interest rather of national unity than of religious orthodoxy he restrains dissent. But it is against innovation and schism within the pale of the State Church rather than against misbelief that his power has been exerted. Some Tsars, such as Peter the Great and the Tsarina Catherine II, have been Liberals, and have patronized merit without regard to creed. Nicholas was full of orthodox sentiment and in all things a martinet, yet Sir Mackenzie Wallace has a pleasant anecdote of his commending the Jєωιѕн sentinel at his door who conscientiously refused to respond to the Tsar's customary salutation on Easter Day. No Tsar, however bigoted, has been guilty of such persecution as Philip II. of Spain, Ferdinand of Austria, or Louis XIV [of France]. Russia has had no Inquisition.

That the Jєωs have had liberty of worship and education, the existence of 6,319 ѕуηαgσgυєs and of 77 Jєωιѕн schools supported by the [Russian] State, besides 1,165 private and communal schools, seems clearly to prove. (See Statesman's Year-Book, 1891, pp. 854-856.) It does not seem to be alleged that any attempt has been made by the government at forcible conversion. Whatever may have been the harshness or even cruelty of the measures which it has taken to confine the Jєωs to their original districts and prevent their spreading over its dominions, its object appears to have been to protect the people against economical oppression and preserve the national character from being sapped by an alien influence, not to suppress the Jєωιѕн religion. The law excluding the Jєωs from Great Russia in fact belongs to the same category as the law of the United States excluding the Chinese.

Jєωs in the Roman Empire - That Christian fanaticism at all events was not the sole source of the unpopularity of the Jєωs might have been inferred from the fact that the relation was no better between the Jєω and the heathen races during the period of declining polytheism, when religious indifference prevailed and beneath the vast dome of the Roman Empire the religions of many nations slept and moldered side by side. Gibbon, well qualified to speak, for he was himself a citizen of the Roman Empire in sentiment, after narrating the massacres committed by the Jєωs on the Gentiles in Africa and Cyprus, has expressed in flamboyant phrase the hatred of the Roman world for the Jєωs, whom he designates as the "implacable enemies, not only of the Roman government but of human kind." (Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chap. xiv.)

Tacitus speaks of the Jєωs as enemies of all races but their own (adversus omnes alios hostile odium, in Histories, V, v), and Juvenal, in a well-known passage, speaks of them as people who would not show a wayfarer his road or guide the thirsty to a spring if he were not of their own faith. Those who maintain that there is nothing in the character, habits, or disposition of the Jєω to provoke antipathy have to bring the charge of fanatical prejudice not only against the Russians or against Christendom, but against mankind.
Central Europe

In Germany, in Austria, in Roumania, in all the countries of Europe where this deplorable contest of races is going on, the cause of quarrel appears to be fundamentally the same. It appears to be economical and social, not religious, or religious only in a secondary degree. Mr. S. Baring-Gould, M.A. (in Germany, Present and Past, Vol. I, pp. 114, 127), tells us that in Germany "there is scarce a village without some Jєωs in it, who do not cultivate land themselves, but lie in wait like spiders for the failing Bauer." A German who knew the peasantry well said to Mr. Gould that "he doubted whether there were a happier set of people under the sun;" but he added, after a pause, "so long as they are out of the clutch of the Jєω."

Of the German, as well as of the Russian, it may be said that he is not a religious persecutor. If persecution of a sanguinary or atrocious kind has sullied his annals, the arm of it was the house of Austria, with its Spanish connection, and the head was the world-roving Jesuit. In the case of Hungary, Mr. John Paget, who is a Liberal and advocates a Liberal policy towards the Jєωs, says (in Hungary and Translyvania, Vol. I, p. 136): "The Jєω is no less active in profiting by the vices and necessities of the peasant than by those of the noble. As sure as he gains a settlement in a village the peasantry become poor." "In Austrian Poland," says a Times reviewer, "the worst of the peasant's sluggish content is that it has given him over to the exactions of the Jєωs." "The Jєωs," he adds, "are in fact the lords of the country." They are lords not less alien to the people than the Norman was to the Saxon, and perhaps not always more merciful, though in their hands is the writ of ejection instead of the conqueror's sword.

If we cross the Mediterranean the same thing meets us. In Joseph Thomson's Travels in the Atlas and Southern Morocco (pp. 418, 419) we read:

    As money-lenders the Jєωs are as maggots and parasites, aggravating and feeding on the diseases of the land. I do not know, for my part, which exercises the greatest tyranny and oppression, the Sultan or the Jєω -- the one the embodiment of the foulest misgovernment, the other the essence of a dozen Shylocks, demanding, ay, and getting, not only his pound of flesh, but also the blood and nerves. By his outrageous exactions the Sultan drives the Moor into the hands of the Jєω, who affords him a temporary relief by lending him the necessary money on incredibly exorbitant terms. Once in the money-lender's clutches, he rarely escapes till he is squeezed dry, when he is either thrown aside, crushed and ruined, or cast into a dungeon, where, fettered and starved, he is probably left to die a slow and horrible death.

    To the position of the Jєωs in Morocco it would be difficult to find a parallel. Here we have a people alien, despised, and hated, actually living in the country under immeasurably better conditions than the dominant race, while they suck, and are assisted to suck, the very lifeblood of their hosts. The aim of every Jєω is to toil not, neither to spin, save the coils which as money-lender he may weave for the entanglement of his necessitous victims.

In the United States - Even if we cross the Atlantic we find the same phenomenon. Mr. Frederick Law Olmstead, in his Journeys and Explorations in the Cotton Kingdom (2nd ed., pp. 252, 253), says:

    A swarm of Jєωs has within the last ten years settled in nearly every Southern town, many of them men of no character, opening cheap clothing and trinket shops, ruining or driving out of business many of the old retailers, and engaging in an unlawful trade with the simple negroes, which is found very profitable.

And again (pp. 321, 322):

    If his [the planter's] first crop proves a bad one he must borrow money of the Jєωs at New Orleans to pay his first note. They will sell him this on the best terms they can, often at not less than 25 per cent per annum.

In Across the Plains (p. 100), Mr. Robert Louis Stevenson says of the Jєωs in San Francisco:

    Jєω storekeepers have already learned the advantage to be gained from this [unlimited credit]; they lead on the farmer into irretrievable indebtedness, and keep him ever after as their bond-slave hopelessly grinding in the mill. So the whirligig of time brings in its revenges, and except that the Jєω knows better than to foreclose, you may see Americans bound in the same chains with which they themselves had formerly bound the Mexicans.

These passages were not intended by the writers, nor are they here cited, as general pictures of the Jєωs, or as pictures of Jєωs exclusively. In the last, American sharp practice is included. The passages are cited as indications of the real source of the antagonism tending to show that it is economical not religious.

A Dawning Awareness - Light dawned on the writer's mind touching this question when he had been listening with sympathy to speeches in the British House of Commons on the anti-Semitic movement in Roumania, where, as in Russia, the number of Jєωs is particularly large and the feeling against them is proportionately intense. The Jєωιѕн member who appealed to the government on the subject, and the Minister who rose in response to the appeal, had both of them assumed that it was a case of religious persecution, and the Minister especially had dwelt on the mischievous influence of ecclesiastics; with how little justice, so far as the priests of the Eastern Church are oncerned, we have already seen.

The debate over, the writer was accosted by his friend, the late Dr. Humphry Sandwith, distinguished for his share in the defense of Kars [in Northeast Turkey] against the Russians, who knew the Danubian Principalities well. Dr. Sandwith said that the speakers had been entirely mistaken; that religion was not the motive of the agitation; that neither the people nor their priests were given to persecution; that the government had granted aid to a ѕуηαgσgυє; but that Jєωιѕн usurers got the simple-minded peasants into their toils and sold them out of their homesteads till the peasants would bear it no longer, and an outbreak ensued. Dr. Sandwith, being a thorough-going Liberal, would have been the last man to palliate religious persecution.

Medieval Religious Sensitivities - It is doubtful whether, even in the Middle Ages, the quarrel was not less religious and more economical or social than is supposed. That was the age of religious intolerance; Christian heretics, such as the Albigenses, were persecuted with fully as much cruelty as the Jєωs. Jєωs who had ventured to settle in the Catholic communities for the sake of gain, braved the same sort of peril which would have been braved by an enterprising trader who had thrust himself into Japan during its close period. But as a rule, though they were hated, they were not persecuted; they were tolerated and allowed to build their ѕуηαgσgυєs and worship God in their own way. They were regarded, not like heretics, as religious traitors, but as religious aliens. Their religious blindness, as well as their penal homelessness, was viewed as the act of God. They were privileged in misbelief.

Aquinas expressly lays it down that they are to be tolerated as a useful testimony borne, though by adversaries, to the truth of Christianity (Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae, Quaest. X, Art. xi). It is not true that the great Doctor of the Middle Ages sanctions the forcible conversion of the children of Jєωs. He raises the question and decides it in the negative (Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae, Art. xii). An argument stated by him only to be set aside has been taken for his conclusion. In the Corpus Juris Canoniei it is laid down that Jєωs shall not be baptized against their will or inclination, since enforced baptism does not make a Christian. Their persons are to be secure from violence, their graves from spoliation, their customary rights from invasion, their festivals from interruption, their servants from abduction, their cemeteries from profanation (Decret. Greg., Lib. V, Tit. vi).

During the Crusades - By the kings, and notably by the Angevin [Plantagenet] kings of England, the Jєωs were protected as the agents of royal extortion, sucking by usury the money from the people which was afterwards squeezed out of the usurer by the king. Of the common people it is not, so far as we can see, the tendency to persecute on account of religion, however superstitious they may be. It is rather by the possessors of ecclesiastical power and wealth, by Archbishops of Toledo and Prince Bishops of Germany, whom dissent threatens with dispossession, or by kings like Philip II and Louis XIV, under priestly influence, that the engines of persecution are set at work. At the time of the Crusades, Christian fanaticism being excited to frenzy, there were dreadful massacres of Jєωs, and forced conversions, though no reliance can be placed on the figures of medieval chroniclers, who set down at random 20,000 victims slain, or 200,000 forced conversions.

The Jєω at that time was odious not only as a misbeliever in the midst of the Christian camp, whose presence would turn from it the countenance of God, but as a suspected friend and ally at heart of the Oriental power. The Jєωs must have foreseen the storm, and might have escaped by flight, but they were perhaps tempted by the vast harvest afforded them in the general sale of possessions by the Crusaders to buy equipments, while by that traffic their unpopularity was increased. In ordinary times the main causes of the hatred of the Jєωs among the common people appear to have been usury and a social arrogance, which was particularly galling on the part of the alien and the enemy of Christ. In the riots the people made for the place in which the Jєωιѕн bonds were kept. At York, the scene of the worst anti-Jєωιѕн riot in England, the chronicler tells us there were two Jєωs, Benedict and Joce, who had built in the middle of the city houses like palaces, where they dwelt like princes of their own people and tyrants of the Christians, keeping almost royal state, and exercising harsh tyranny against those whom they oppressed with their usuries. The usury was grinding and ruthless.

In the Chronicle of Jocelin de Brakelond we see how rapidly a debt of 27 pounds, owed to a Jєω, grew to 880. Jєωs at Oxford were forbidden by edict to take more than 43 per cent. So it was generally. Political economy will say that this was justifiable, in the circuмstances perhaps useful, and the penalty due to the Christian superstition which made the lending of money at interest an unholy and therefore a perilous trade. Nevertheless, it was hateful, at least sure to engender hate. The Lombards and Cahorsins, who, when the Jєωs were for a time driven from the field, took up the business, incurred the same hatred, though in their case there was no religious or social feeling to aggravate the unpopularity of the trade. A Spanish Chancellor describes the Jєωs as the bloodsuckers of the afflicted people, as men who exact fifty per cent, eighty, a hundred, and through whom the land is desolate, their hard hearts being callous to tears and groans, and their ears deaf to petitions for delay. (See The History of the Jєωs from the War with Rome to the Present Time, by Rev. H. C. Adams, M.A., p. 245) ...

Usury Double Standard and Ostenatious Wealth - The law of the Jєωs themselves, be it observed, proscribes usury in the case of a tribal brother, permitting it in the case of a stranger. "Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent upon usury: unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it" (Deuteronomy 23: 19, 20). The Jєω, then, on the subject of usury is not less superstitious than the Christian. In truth the Christian superstition may be said to have been derived from the Jєωιѕн law. In practicing usury on the Christians among whom he dwelt the Jєω showed that he regarded them not as brethren but as strangers.

The Jєωs in the Middle Ages after all were not so maltreated as to prevent them from amassing what was for that time enormous wealth. Of this they appear in those days, as they sometimes do in these, to have made ostentatious and, in the eyes of natives and Christians, especially if they had been victims of extortion, offensive use. A Cortes in Portugal, in 1481, complained of Jєωιѕн luxury and display, of Jєωs who rode splendidly caparisoned [ornamentally covered] horses, wore silk doublets [ornamented jackets], carried Jєωel-hilted swords, and entered churches where they mocked the worship. Jєωιѕн haughtiness seems sometimes even to have indulged in insults to the popular religion. At Oxford it mocks the miracles of St. Frydeswide before her votaries, assaults a religious procession, and tramples on the cross. At Lynn the Jєωs attack a church to drag out a convert from Judaism to Christianity, for whose blood they thirsted, and the people of the place are half afraid to resist them, knowing that they are protected by the king.

Besides their usury, the Jєωs were suspected of clipping the coin. Their function as the middlemen of royal rapacity must have been most odious, not least when they handled for the king Church estates which he had wrongfully taken into his hands. In expelling them from England, Edward I, the best of kings, no doubt thought that he was doing a good deed, while his people were unquestionably grateful. The worthy Abbot Samson, of St. Edmondbury, in the same way earned the gratitude of the people of that place by ridding it of the Jєωs. The clearest, as well as the most terrible, case of persecution of the Jєωs for religion was in Spain, and there, it must be remembered, when the Jєω was burned, the Christian suspected of heresy was burned at his side.
Jєω and Muslim

Even in Spain it is not easy to say how much was hatred of religion, how much was hatred of race. For centuries the Spanish Christians had struggled for the land with Islam, and the history of Spain had been one long Crusade. The Jєω was identified with Islam. A Jєωιѕн writer, Lady Magnus, in her history of her race (About the Jєωs Since Bible Times, pp. 195-197), says:

    Both in the East and in the West the rise of Mohammedanism [Islam] was, in truth, as the dawn of a new day to the despised and dispersed Jєωs. If we except that one bitter quarrel between the earliest followers of the Prophet and the Jєωs of Arabia -- and that, we must note, was no organized or systematic persecution, but rather an ebullition of anger from an ardent enthusiast at his first unexpected rebuff -- we shall find that Judaism had much reason to rejoice at the rapid spread of Mohammedanism. Monotheists, like the Jєωs, abhorring like them all forms of image worship, worshipping in simple fashion their one God Allah, observing dietary laws like those of Moses, the Mohammedans both in their faith and in their practice naturally found more grounds for agreement with Jєωιѕн doctrine than with the Christian dogma of a complex Godhead, or with the undeveloped aspirations of the heathen. And besides some identity of principle and of race between the Mohammedan and the Jєω there soon discovered itself a certain hardly definable kinship of habit and custom -- a sort of sympathy, in fact, which is often more effectual than even more important causes in promoting friendly relations either nationally or individually. Then, also, there was the similarity of language; for Arabic, like Hebrew, belongs to what is called the Semitic group ...

    Nearly a century of experience of the political and social results of the Mohammedan conquests most, inevitably, have made the year 710 stand out to the Jєωs of that time as the beginning of a grand new era in their history. Centuries of cruelty had made the wise loyal counsel of Jeremiah to "pray for the peace of the land whither ye are led captive; its peace shall be your peace also," a hard task for the most loyal of consciences; and in that early year of the eighth century, when Spain was added to the list of the Mohammedan victories, and the triumphant flag of the Crescent was hoisted on tower and citadel, the liberty of conscience which it practically proclaimed must have been in the widest sense a cause for national rejoicing to the Jєωs.

The kindness of the Mahometan [Muslim] to the Jєω may here be overrated, but the sympathy between Judaism and Islam cannot be questioned, and it meant common antipathy to Christendom, which Christendom could not fail to reciprocate, especially in its crusading mood. We sit at ease and sneer at the fanaticism of the Crusaders. But some strong motive was needed to make men leave their homes and their wives and go to die as the vanguard of Christendom on Syrian battlefields. Let us not forget that the question whether Christianity and Christian civilization or Islam, with its despotism and its harem, should reign in Europe came to be decided, not without long and perilous debate, so near the heart of Christendom as the plain of Tours. The Jєωs of Southern France, like those of Spain, were suspected of inviting the invaders. If they did they were not without excuse. But their excuse could hardly be expected to pass muster with Charles Martel.

From religious intolerance in the Dark Ages, or long after the end of the Dark Ages, nobody was free. The Jєω was not. He had striven as long as he had a chance, by all means in his power, unscrupulously using the Roman or the Persian as his instruments, to crush Christianity. His own law punished blasphemy with death and bade the worshipper of Jehovah slaughter everything that breathed in a captured city of the heathen. [Among many examples, see: Numbers 21: 34-35; Deuteronomy 2:34, 20: 16-17; Joshua 11: 20-22; I Samuel 15: 3, 8.] It was hence, in fact, that the Inquisitor partly drew his inspiration. Medieval darkness had passed away when Judaism sought the life of Spinoza and scourged Uriel Acosta in the ѕуηαgσgυє.
Jєωs and Serfs in Medieval England

Although the lot of a Jєω in the Middle Ages was hard in itself, it was perhaps not so hard compared with that of other classes, notably with that of the serf, as the perpetual addition of piteous epithets to his name by common writers might lead us to suppose. Ivanhoe is not history; Freeman's works are. In The Reign of William Rufus and the Accession of Henry the First (Vol. I, p. 160), Edward A. Freeman says:

    In the wake of the conqueror the Jєωs of Rouen found their way to London, and before long we find settlements of the Hebrew race in the chief cities and boroughs of England: at York, Winchester, Lincoln, Bristol, Oxford, and even at the gate of the Abbot of St. Edmonds and St. Albans. They came as the king's special men, or more truly as his special chattels, strangers alike to the Church and the commonwealth, but strong in the protection of a master who commonly found it his interest to protect them against all others.

    Hated, feared, and loathed, but far too deeply feared to be scorned or oppressed, they stalked defiantly among the people of the land, on whose wants they throve, safe from harm or insult, save now and then, when popular wrath burst all bounds, when their proud mansions and fortified quarters could shelter them no longer from raging crowds who were eager to wash out their debts in the blood of their creditors. The romantic picture of the despised, trembling Jєω, cringing before every Christian whom he meets, is, in any age of English history, simply a romantic picture.

The Jєωs found it worth their while to buy their way back into lands from which they had been banished, and their existence in which is pictured by historians as a hell. If they were heavily taxed and sometimes pillaged, they were exempted from the most grievous of all taxes, service in war. Their badge, though a stigma, was also a protection, since it marked them as serfs of the king. Even the Ghetto, where there was one, would be comparatively a small grievance when nationalities, crafts, and family clans had their special quarters in cities. Any immigrant would have been less at home in the closely organized communities of feudalism and Catholicism than in the loose society of the Roman Empire. But the Jєω was there by his own choice. The tenure of land in a feudal realm, being military, land could hardly be held by a Jєω. But Jєωs were not forbidden by law to hold land in England till late in the reign of Henry III [1216-1272], when it was found that they were getting estates into their hands by mortgage, which would have been ruinous to the feudal system.

A community has a right to defend its territory and its national integrity against an invader, whether his weapon be the sword or foreclosure. In the territories of the Italian Republics the Jєωs might, so far as we see, have bought land and taken to farming had they pleased. But before this they had thoroughly taken to trade. Under the filling Empire they were the great slave traders, buying captives from barbarian invaders and probably acting as general brokers of spoils at the same time. They entered England in the train of the Norman conqueror. There was, no doubt, a perpetual struggle between their craft and the brute force of the feudal populations. But what moral prerogative has craft over force?

Mr. Arnold White tells the Russians that, if they would let Jєωιѕн intelligence have free course, Jєωs would soon fill all high employments and places of power to the exclusion of the natives, who now hold them. Russians are bidden to acquiesce and rather to rejoice in this by philosophers, who would perhaps not relish the cup if it were commended to their own lips. The law of evolution, it is said, prescribes the survival of the fittest. To which the Russian boor may reply, that if his force beats the fine intelligence of the Jєω the fittest will survive and the law of evolution will be fulfilled. It was force rather than fine intelligence which decided on the field of Zama that the Latin, not the Semite, should rule the ancient and mold the modern world.

Religious antipathy, no doubt, has always added and continues to add bitterness to the social quarrel. Among ignorant peasants it still takes grotesque, sometimes hideous, shapes, such as the cruel fancy that the Jєωs sacrifice Christian children and spread pestilence. The Jєω has always been felt to be a power of evil, and the peasant imagination lends to the power of evil horns and hoofs. But even the peasant imagination does not lend horns and hoofs to any power which is felt to be harmless, much less to one which has always been beneficent, as we are asked to believe that the Jєωs have been. The people are not everywhere fools or fiends. Let it be remembered, too, that the Jєωιѕн religion is not merely a religion of peculiar opinion. It is a religion of social exclusiveness, of arrogated superiority to Gentiles, and treatment of them as unclean, of the Pentateuch with its Chosen People, and of the feast of Purim. Milman thinks it possible that in the offensive celebration of the feast of Purim some of the calumnies about the Jєωs may have had their source.

People of a higher class, whom Jєωιѕн usury does not touch, object to Judaism on higher grounds. They object to it because it is at variance with the unity of the nation and threatens to eat out the core of nationality. Admitting the keenness of Jєωιѕн intelligence, they say that intelligence is not always beneficent, nor is submission to it always a matter of duty, especially when its ascendancy is gained by such means as the dexterous appropriation of the circulating medium, and when it is, as they believe, the result not of individual effort in a fair field, but of the collective effort of a united, though scattered race, aided by a press in Jєωιѕн hands. They demur to having the high places of their community monopolized, as Mr. Arnold White says they might be in Russia, by unsympathetic aliens turning the rest of the nation into hewers of wood and drawers of water. This feeling, if it is selfish, is natural, and should be charitably viewed by those who are free from the danger.

Some of the opposition to Jєωιѕн ascendancy arises from dread of materialism, the triumph of which over the spiritual character and aspirations of Christian communities would, it is apprehended, follow the victory of the Jєω, an impersonation of the power of wealth. Among the αnтι-ѕємιтєs are Christian Socialists seeking the liberation of the laboring class from the grasp of usury and the money power. [In Germany] Herr [Adolf] Stoecker [1835-1909] belongs, it seems, to this sect, and far from being an enemy of the Jєωιѕн people, is a devout believer in the Old Testament. To be opposed on social or patriotic ground to Judaism as a system is not to be a hater of the Jєωs, any more than to be opposed to Islam or Buddhism as a system is to be a hater of the Mahometan or the Buddhist.

Medieval Myths - The impression prevails that Judaism during the Middle Ages was a civilizing power, in fact the great civilizing power, while its beneficent action was repressed by a barbarous Christendom. The leading shoot of civilization, both material and intellectual, was republican Italy, where the Jєωs, though they were not persecuted, never played a leading part. You may read through Sismondi's History [of the Italian Republics in the Middle Ages] almost without being made aware of their existence. Intellectually superior in a certain sense no doubt they were; their wealth exempted them from manual labor, and gave them an advantage, as it does now, in the race of intelligence. They were also practically exempted from military service. They preserved Hebrew and Oriental learning, and to them Europe owed the transmission of the works of Aristotle through Arabic translations. But in their medieval roll of celebrated names the great majority are those of тαℓмυdists or Cabalists. The most illustrious is that of Maimonides, whose influence on the progress of humanity surely was not very great, albeit he was let and hindered only by the narrow and jealous orthodoxy of his own people. Jєωs were in request as physicians, though they seem to have drawn their knowledge from the Arabians. They had much to do with the foundation of the medical school of Montpellier; the origin of that at Salerno was Benedictine. But if they founded a medical science, what became of the medical science which they founded? At the close of the Middle Ages there was none. A Jєωιѕн physician, no doubt the most eminent of his class, is called in by Innocent VIII. His treatment is transfusion of blood. He kills three boys in the process and then runs away.

Of the money trade the Jєωs were generally the masters, though in Italy that, too, was in the hands of native houses, such as the Medici, Bardi, and Peruzzi, while at a later period the Fuggers of Augsburg were the Rothschilds of Germany. But the Jєωs never were the masters of the grand commerce or of that maritime enterprise in which the Middle Ages gloriously closed. Rosseeuw Saint-Hilaire has observed in his history of Spain that their addiction was to petty trade. Showing abundant sympathy for Jєωιѕн wrongs, he finds himself compelled to contrast the "narrowness and rapacity" of their commerce with the boldness and grandeur of Arab enterprise (Histoire d'Espagne, Vol. III, p. 147). The slave trade, which in the early Middle Ages was in Jєωιѕн hands, was not then the reproach that it is now, yet it never was a noble or a beneficent trade.

Spain is supposed to have owed her fall to the expulsion of the Jєωs, but the acme of her greatness came after their expulsion; and her fall was due to despotism, civil and religious, to her false commercial system, to the diversion of her energy from industry to gold-seeking and conquest, and not least to the overgrown and heterogeneous empire which was the supposed foundation of her grandeur. England, in the period between the expulsion of the Jєωs under Edward I [in 1290] and their readmission under Cromwell [in 1656], became a commercial nation and a famous naval power; and the greatness thus achieved was English, not Gibeonite, as it would have been under Jєωιѕн ascendancy; it was part of the fullness of national life, and was prolific not only of Whittingtons and Drakes, but of Shakespeares and Bacons. As financiers it is likely that the Jєωs were useful in advancing money for great works; they also furnished money for enterprises such as Strongbow's expedition to Ireland. But the assertion, often repeated, that they provided the means for building the churches, abbeys, and colleges of England must be qualified in face of the fact that the greater part of the edifices is of dates subsequent to the expulsion of the Jєωs. Salisbury Cathedral was built before the expulsion. But we happen to know that the 40,000 marks which it cost were supplied by contributions from the Prebendaries, collections from different dioceses, and grants from Alicia de Bruere and other benefactors. (See Murray's Handbook of the Cathedrals of England, Southern Div., Part I, p. 94).

No financial or material advantage at all events could have made up to a nation for the ascendancy of a tribe of alien usurers.

Judaism is now the great financial power of Europe, that is, it is the greatest power of all. It is no longer necessary, out of pity for it, to falsify history, and traduce Christendom.

The тαℓмυd - Of the two works on which, during the Middle Ages, Jєωιѕн intellect was chiefly employed, the Cabbala [or Kabbalah] is on all hands allowed to be mystical nonsense. Of the тαℓмυd, Dr. Rev. F. W. Farrar, D.D., F.R.S., assuredly no Jєω-baiter, in his introductory Preface to a volume of selections from it (A тαℓмυdic Miscellany. Compiled and translated by Paul Isaac Hershon), says:

    Wisdom there is in the тαℓмυd, and eloquence and high morality; of this the reader may learn something even in the small compass of the following pages. How could it be otherwise when we bear in mind that the тαℓмυd fills twelve large folio volumes, and represents the main literature of a nation during several hundred years? But yet I venture to say that it would be impossible to find less wisdom, less eloquence, and less high morality, imbedded in a vaster bulk of what is utterly valueless to mankind -- to say nothing of those parts of it which are indelicate and even obscene -- in any other national literature of the same extent. And even of the valuable residuum of true and holy thoughts, I doubt whether there is even one which had not long been anticipated, and which is not found more nobly set forth in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.

This judgment is fully borne out by the selections which follow, and which are made by Mr. Hershon, a known Hebrew scholar, on an impartial principle. It is supported by other independent critics, such as Thirlwall, who spoke of the тαℓмυd as an ocean of nonsense. The writer will not presume to speak, though he looks back upon the perusal of a Latin translation of the Mishna as one of the least pleasant labors of a student's life. Dr. Deutsch's counterfeit presentment of the тαℓмυd, to which Dr. Farrar refers, is a standing caution. In every page of Mr. Hershon's тαℓмυdic Miscellany we have such things as this:

    "There were two things which God first thought of creating on the eve of the Sabbath, which, however, were not created till after the Sabbath had closed. The first was fire, which Adam by divine suggestion drew forth by striking together two stones; and the second was the mule, produced by the crossing of two different animals." -- P'sachim, fol. 54, col 1.

    "The Rabbis have taught that there are three reasons why a person should not enter a ruin: 1. Because he may be suspected of evil intent; 2. Because the walls might tumble upon him; 3. And because of evil spirits that frequent such places." -- Berachoth, fol. 3, col 1.

    "The stone which Og, King of Bashan, meant to throw upon Israel is the subject of a tradition delivered on Sinai. 'The camp of Israel I see,' he said, 'extends three miles; I shall therefore go and root up a mountain three miles in extent and throw it upon them.' So off he went, and finding such a mountain, raised it on his head, but the Holy One -- blessed be He! -- sent an army of ants against him, which so bored the mountain over his head that it slipped down upon his shoulders, from which he could not lift it, because his teeth, protruding, had riveted it upon him." -- Berachoth, fol. 54, col. 2.

    "Three things are said respecting the finger-nails: He who trims his nails and buries the parings is a pious man; he who burns these is a righteous man; but he who throws them away is a wicked man, for mischance might follow, should a female step over them." -- Moed Katan, fol. 18, col 1.

More Nonsense - Abraham's height, according to the тαℓмυdists, was that of 74 men put together. His food, his dress, and his strength were those of 74 men. He built for the abode of his 17 children by Keturah, an iron city, the walls whereof were so lofty that the sun never penetrated them. He gave them a bowl full of precious stones, the brilliancy of which supplied them with light in the absence of the sun. He had a precious stone suspended from his neck, upon which every sick person who gazed was healed of his disease, and when he died God hung up the stone on the sphere of the sun. Before his time there was no such thing as a beard; but as many mistook Abraham and Isaac for each other, Abraham prayed to God for a beard to distinguish him, and it was granted him. Every one has a thousand malignant spirits at his left side, and ten thousand at his right. The crowding at the schools is caused by their pushing in. If one would discover traces of their presence, he has only to sift some ashes on the floor at his bedside, and next morning he will see the footmarks as of fowls. If he would see the demons themselves, he must burn to ashes the afterbirth of a first-born black kitten, the offspring of a first-born black cat, put some of the ashes into his eyes, and he will not fail to see the demons. The medical and physical apophthegms of the тαℓмυd do not give much evidence of science: "dropsy is a sign of sin, jaundice of hatred without a cause, and quinsy of slander"; "six things possess medicinal virtue: cabbage, lung-wort, beet-root, water, certain parts of the offal of animals, and, in the opinion of some, little fishes."

Mr. Hershon's collection abounds with nonsense on this subject as absurd as anything in medieval quackery. Other features of the work are an Oriental indelicacy, and a pride of Rabbinical learning which treats illiteracy as almost criminal, looking down upon the illiterate as an American would look down upon the Negro.

The most superstitious of Christian writings in the Dark Ages could not be more tainted with demonology and witchcraft, nor in any monkish chronicle do we find fables so gross. Few would set the тαℓмυd, as presented by Mr. Hershon, or the Cabbala, above the works of such writers as Anselm, Aquinas, the author of Imitatio Christi, the authors of hymns and liturgical compositions of the Christian Middle Ages; or, in the department of science, above the works of Roger Bacon.

We have been speaking, be it observed, of the тαℓмυd as the work and monument of Jєωιѕн intelligence and morality in the Dark Ages; we have not been speaking of the intelligence or morality of the Jєωs of the present day. The charge is constantly brought against Christendom of having by its barbarous bigotry repressed the beneficent action of Jєωιѕн intellect, which would otherwise have enlightened and civilized the world. The answer is apparently found in the Cabbala and the тαℓмυd. By the account of the Jєωιѕн historian [Heinrich] Graetz, it would seem that Rabbinical orthodoxy was not less opposed than Papal orthodoxy to science, philosophy, and culture. We are led to believe that, at last, тαℓмυdic bigotry and obscurantism had prevailed, when Judaism was rescued by Moses Mendelssohn, who himself owed his emancipation to Lessing. Nathan the Wise is a philosopher and philanthropist of the eighteenth century, not a тαℓмυdic Jєω.

A Tribal Morality - Still more notable, however, than the absurdities are the passages indicative of a tribal morality which prescribes one mode of dealing with those who are, and another mode of dealing with those who are not, of the tribe.

    "If the ox of an Israelite bruise the ox of a Gentile, t