blue eyed, fair haired and fair complexioned." Just then a young man, clad in military uniform and whose physical appearance corresponded strikingly with this description, entered the café. "Ah!" said the Jew-hater, as his eyes lighted admiringly on this fine specimen of Germanic youth, "there you have the proof of the truth of what I have been telling you. Notice the splendid appearance of this genuine young German. How different from the ugly and repulsive Jewish type!" A burst of derisive laughter greeted this statement: for the splendid representative of the Germanic race, who had so aroused the admiration of the anti-Semite, was the son of the local Rabbi.

That the European peoples do not look upon the Jew as alien in race is clearly manifest through their conduct in those portions of the world, such as the Southern and Western States of this country, South Africa and Australia, where the white race is brought into close contact with the colored races and where their antipathy and opposition to these latter are very intense. Never, to my knowledge, has there been in those countries a suggestion of antagonism to the Jew on racial grounds. On the contrary, he is recognized there more fully and completely, perhaps, than anywhere else as a true Caucasian and his coöperation is sought in the struggle of the white peoples against the colored races, who are looked upon as the common enemy.' We may, therefore, safely dismiss the theory that Jew-hatred is a matter of racial antipathy. The prejudice against the Jew is emphatically not "race-prejudice."

*

The second reason given for antipathy to the Jew is his religion. The Jew is disliked, it is claimed, because he refuses to become a Christian and clings obstinately to the faith of his forefathers. This reason is certainly superior to the first mentioned, at least to the extent that once upon a time it was true. In pre-Christian antiquity the austere morality and the uncompromising antagonism to idolatry of the Jew brought down upon him the hatred of the heathen peoples to whose ethical laxity and degraded worship he was so strongly opposed. In the

* These words are not meant as an indorsement of the attitude of hostility against the colored races. They are intended merely to show the true racial status of the Jew.

Middle Ages, again, Christian bigotry and fanaticism were so intense that the mere fact that the Jew was a heretic was sufficient to arouse against him the most bitter hatred and antipathy. But these feelings have long since passed away in all really civilized countries. In this enlightened age men no longer hate each other because of differing theological views or religious practices, except, perhaps, in such backward lands as Russia, whose point of view, at least in Government circles, is still essentially medieval. Even in Russia it is practically certain that the antagonism to the Jew is not based on religious prejudice, but is a political policy employed as an aid in the suppression of liberty in general.

As far as America is concerned it is certain that there is no religious antagonism to the Jew. Religious liberty is the very breath of life to Americans, the right which they would never dream of denying to anyone. To the American way of thinking it appears absurd to have even the slightest dislike to any man because of the church which he attends, the day of rest which he observes or the food which he eats. In fact, there are a number of Christian sects which differ from the general standard of Christianity and approximate to Judaism in various of their views and practices without, on that account, arousing the slightest animosity. Thus the Unitarians reject the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and believe, like the Jews, in the unity of God. The Seventh-day Baptists and Adventists reject the Sunday and, like the Jews, observe the Saturday as the Sabbath, while some sects practise Vegetarianism and thus differ like the orthodox Jews in their dietary practices from the rest of the population. The Society of Friends or Quakers even wear a distinctive costume, like the Jews of Poland. Were these religious differences productive of prejudice there would be antipathy to these sects, as there is to the Jews. But there is not even an idea of such feelings against the members of these sects. It is, therefore, evident that difference in religion does not in America, nor, indeed, in any truly civilized country, constitute a ground of dislike and that anti-Jewish prejudice is not religious in nature.

The third cause frequently assigned for prejudice against

the Jew is his supposed economic superiority to the Gentile and the inability of the latter to compete with him. The phrase "rich as a Jew" voices the current sentiment that all Jews as such are economic successes, with the attendant implication that Gentiles as such are not. This motive, if it be such, is absurdly unjustified and in entire contradiction to the facts. Of course, the Jews possess their share of able and energetic men who have achieved success in commercial and industrial as in other vocations. But their number is not excessive and the success which they have achieved is usually but moderate. When one has mentioned a few names such as Rothschild, Bleichroeder, Schiff, Lewisohn and a handful of others, one has about exhausted the list of Jewish multi-millionaires. And even the wealth of these is, comparatively speaking, but moderate. Among the possessors of inordinate accumulations of capital, the Carnegies, Rockefellers, Fields, Goulds, Sages, Morgans and others of that type, one searches in vain for a Jewish name. On the other hand, the Jewish people contain an enormous proportion of helplessly poor and wretched individuals, dependent for mere existence on the charitable impulses of their brethren in faith, so that, as Zangwill puts it, "as poor as a Jew" would be a more correct phrase than its opposite, inasmuch as the Jews, instead of the richest, are really the poorest civilized people in the world. It is this fact of the vast amount of Jewish poverty and misery that is responsible for the existence of the magnificent chain of charitable organizations and institutions which have made Jewish benevolence universally famous. These facts are not unknown to non-Jews; indeed, they cannot escape the notice of the most superficial observer. What resident of or visitor to New York, for instance, could fail to observe that hundreds of thousands of Jews dwell in wretched tenements in the slums of the city and show every evidence of grinding poverty? These people, humble workmen and peddlers, most of them, cannot and do not arouse economic jealousy on the part of anyone. There undoubtedly do exist individual instances of individual enmity on the part of unsuccessful business or professional men against their successful Jewish competitors, but such instances are isolated and cannot affect the general senti

ment of Gentiles toward Jews as a whole. Economic causes cannot, therefore, be held responsible for anti-Jewish sentiment, and the allegation of such causes as a reason must be dismissed as insincere.

The fourth cause assigned for anti-Jewish feeling is social incompatibility. The idea prevails extensively that the Jew is inherently an unmannerly person, with peculiar and disagreeable characteristics of demeanor, and that association with him is, on that account, repugnant to those not of his kind. This is, of course, a very mild sort of prejudice. The possession of charming manners and attractive social forms, while a very desirable thing, is not in itself a matter of particular importance, the absence of which involves either danger or special inconvenience to the State or the people. But mild as it is, even this opinion is a prejudice pure and simple and in entire contradiction to the truth. The Jew, as a rule, is a model of courtesy and consideration, if anything too polite and deferential rather than the reverse. Of course, all Jews are not possessed of Chesterfieldian manners. A large element has been reared in wretched, poverty-stricken surroundings, and in forced association with the very dregs of humanity, and has been forcibly restrained from the acquisition of culture. It could hardly be expected that their manners should not show the effects of their rearing and environment. But it must be admitted that even these low-class Jews are not inferior, but superior, to non-Jews of the same social status. Drunkenness, wife-beating and the abuse of children are not characteristic even of the lowest classes of Jews. It is a well-known fact in New York City that public school teachers eagerly desire appointment in the so-called "Jewish" schools because the pupils, instead of torturing their teachers by their rudeness, boisterousness and insubordination, as is so frequently the case in the generality of schools, are almost invariably well-behaved, respectful and obedient. As for the more fortunate element of Jews, who have had the privilege of living under conditions of comfort and wealth, and acquiring the best and finest culture of the age, it cannot, in fairness, be denied that they are, by every test of refined living, the social equals of the best.

An interesting corroboration of this statement, from the antiSemitic standpoint, was given some years ago by Melville Dewey in explaining why the Adirondack Club had found it necessary to exclude Jews specifically and by name from the club. He said that many Jewish applicants for membership were so thoroughly refined in language and manners and such splendid types of true Americanism that no test based on personal characteristics would have sufficed to keep them out and it was, therefore, necessary to make a rule excluding Jews as such. Another proof of the fact that there is no social repulsion between Jews and Gentiles is given by the large number of intermarriages constantly occurring in countries where liberal sentiments prevail. Judaism, as is well known, strictly prohibits marriage between its adherents and those of other faiths. Yet despite this prohibition many Jews and Gentiles intermarry in all the countries of western Europe, in America, in South Africa and in Australia, in other words, wherever they are permitted to associate freely. According to the Jewish Encyclopædia (Article, Intermarriage, Vol. VI) intermarriages constitute about 9 per cent. of all marriages entered into to-day by Jews, but in some places, such as Berlin and Australia, the proportion is much higher, 25 per cent. or more.

We are not concerned now with the justification or nonjustification of intermarriage, but it must be clear to any unbiased observer that where, despite the strict prohibition of Judaism and, to some extent of Christianity, such a large proportion of intermarriages takes place, all talk of social antipathy between Jews and Gentiles as such is purely idle. It is also a well-known fact that Gentiles of strong anti-Jewish sentiments frequently, upon becoming acquainted with Jews, lose all their former antipathy and eagerly seek Jewish company. It is, therefore, evident that the idea of an innate antipathy of Gentiles to Jews on social grounds is absolutely unfounded and that the explanation of anti-Semitism as a sentiment due to social repulsion between Jews and Gentiles is incorrect.

The question now arises with increased pertinence, What is the reason for the hatred of the Jew? Since all alleged causes have been shown to be unsatisfactory, must we come to the con