and emotional limitations, is so far as it goes a sensible habit. Jews in these books, and indeed by general reputation, are said to be solicitous for the good things of this world. But why not? A man who cannot rough it lightly and gaily, if need be and for a sufficient purpose, is a poor sort of man, but a man who has the opportunity of faring well is unwise not to take it. That, too, is a limitation. I am of Dr. Johnson's frame of mind when he poured scorn on the "Smile with the simple and eat with the poor' precept. "What folly is this? Smile with the wise and eat with the rich." . . . But all deductions, allowances, and considerations being made, there is still left from these books the impression that the average well-to-do Jew is tougher fibred, more callous, more persistently self-seeking, than Gentiles of the same position, and that is the evidence of Jews. Suppleness, and inability to fight face to face-other charges brought against them-might be referred to the heritage of an oppressed race, but this callousness and selfishness cannot be so referred. Only has this moral toughness been a factor with the physical toughness and efficiency, of which Jews can fairly boast, in their strange persistence? It is a profoundly interesting question. I would vastly like to read its further and scientific elucidation.

father's prejudices. In Reuben Sachs a young aristocrat turns Jew, and all the Jews laugh at him behind his back-treatment I confess I think he deserved-and when he marries a Jewess the more orthodox Jews are shocked. In this case, however, consideration for his money and family induce the more progressive Jews graciously to pardon the mésalliance. I take it, then, that the lower the station the greater is the exclusiveness, which would be an indication that this exclusiveness may give way in time. But at present it is there, except in an infinitely small number of cases ; and whatever the advantages of intermarriage, from the artistic or picturesque point of view the passing away of the aloofness and compactness of this wonderful people will be a loss.

FOR

OR how wonderful it is! This Oriental people in our midst, so adaptable up to a certain point, so immovable beyond that point, so practical and so imaginative, so grotesque at times, at times so beautiful, a people of strange contrasts and stranger consistencies.

To laugh at such a people, a people which has conquered Time as this has, is inept laughter indeed. To like it or dislike it is not in our power to choose. But not to wonder at it, not to be interested in it, is to miss the significance of one of the strangest things humanity has produced for humanity to study. I have written uselessly about it, of course. I have raised questions I cannot answer, made suggestions which remain suggestions and nothing more-no doubt said a number of commonplace things. At least I hope I have written without offence, frankly, as it is due to such a subject to write. To ignore the differences is to miss too much. Some of these one regrets, some of them one admires, but I doubt if any of them are understood. So I am left, partly (in the accounts of these books) repelled, partly attracted, but wholly baffled by a mystery. It may or may not exist, but it is pleasant to be baffled by a mystery.

"A touch Sidonian-modern-brilliant

strange!"

G. S. STREET.