not count; at present, at any rate. And the orthodox view?. It has nothing to do with a man himself, but with a man’s doings and conduct—that outward self as distinguished from the inward self. Now, I do not deny an inward spirituality to Orthodoxy—I believe it is strong in that quality; but from the beginning of the Ghetto period, and even earlier, the Jew has largely been an artificial being. He adapted himself, and made for himself a new psychology ; he threw over his soul an over-soul, which is now thoroughly rivetted upon him, which is so much of him that we regard it as his whole content. This one Hittle detail—the seamed face of Herzl as the Jew—explains it. Our artists’ and our philosophers can only picture the bent- backed, sorrow-stricken jews, and whoever is unlike that is not the Jew of the Jews, even though. he be their leader. The real Jew was alive in Jerusalem when Titus beseiged it; he was alive when Bar Cochba made his heroic rebellion; he was still alive when the crusaders murdered and ravished the Jewish communities; but, except in in- dividualitiess, he has not been alive since. And the real Jew has only been alive in individualities since, because only the Jew who has achieved his emancipation from the Ghetto is real, is wholly human and bears some relation to the men who made the real pages of Jewish history.
I can imagine the thought that must pass through many a mind as I make these observations. According to your theory, Uriel Acosta and Spinoza, all the men outside Jewry, were the real Jews. I would not go so far as this myself, for Heine, for instance, was much more of what is termed the Eternal Jew, than many of the Jews within the community. What I do claim, however,
is that suffering is not necessarily Jewish, and that the Ghetto has not made the real Jew; though even the Ghetto Jew, "Die Wahre Talmud Jude," as one book calls him, be the only Jew we know.
An attempt has been made to discover the real Jew by anthropologic measurements, and no real type was found. This does not deny the existence of the Jew; it only proves that the varying layers of artificial environment have so affected the Jew that his types are localized, and not universal. And if one part of that artificiality is due to the stone walls of the Ghetto, the other part is due to the artificial content of life which followed that immuring.
The things that are real in man are force, power, strength and outwardness—these real qualities our ancestors possessed; the things cultivated are patience, humility, endurance of suffering and inwardness—these qualities were bred in the Ghetto, and bred so until the physical qualities of the Jews deteriorated, and their constructive ability, nationally and individually, ceased to be. Let us not hide from ourselves the truth that the charge of imitativeness is well founded.
Now, in a Herzl we saw nothing of the Ghetto, but everything that had place in ancient Palestine. Nature, in his case, indulged in one of her atavastic freaks. Often, when I was speaking to him, or rather listening to him, in ordinary conversation, I realized that this Jewish leader knew nothing of the Ghetto Jew, but that he sat mentally amongst the Maccabaeans, that he might have gone arm in arm with Judah into battle, or joined Jonathan and Simon in signing a treaty with Rome. Stephen Phillips makes "Herod draw in marble," and Herzl was of his regal