The Maccabaean

few theatre-goers are lured into the theatre to see little Oliver, or Rose, or Harry Maylie. The principal attraction is Fagin, the "fence," who is impersonated with great skill, in all his grossness, By Mr. Nat C. Goodwin. It is Fagin and Bill Sykes and Nancy, who create the dramatic interest, with Fagin in the lead. And whatever one may think of the intentions of Charles Dickens when he drew this character, there can be no two opinions as to the fact that Fagin succeeds in arousing prejudice against Jews as a class. Bill Sykes may be a ruffian, but even his gross physical strength and his burglarious honesty create sympathy for him. There is no sympathy possible for Fagin. He is utterly loathsome. He has no redeeming trait. He is thief, coward, informer, cruel.

degraded. And he is at no time dissociated from the fact that he is a Jew. The Jew Fagin! As a disseminator of prejudice against the Jew —intended or not—the revival of "Oliver Twist" cannot be excelled. We referred last month to "The Return from Jerusalem." That play was a sensational abortion. Its Jews were untrue to type. The form of the drama was against its popular success. "Oliver Twist" is a melodrama; its story is simple, direct, and its characters are such as to render themselves understood by the simplest intelligence. From a Jewish point of view, we prefer "The Return from Jerusalem." At least it does not create prejudice.

LOUIS LIPSKY.

I Our festival of Redemption is canon- ized in the first of the Ten Words, "I am the Eternal, thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." This was the first of many needed redemptions from servitudes to which Israel has been subject in its checkered pilgrimage across the stage of history. Therefore in the very service of the freedom festival, it was always necessary to temper the paeon of liberty with the restricting refrain, "This year we are still slaves, but next year we hope to be free." This year we are still in exile, next year we hope to be in Zion. The later serv- itudes under which Israel chafed in its long Middle Age were both political and social. The term ghetto, actually and metaphorically, has come to stand for the mediaeval Egypt—whether the ghetto in Italy, Yudengasse in Teutonic lands, or the Pale of Settlement in Slavic, whether political disability, economic barrier or social ostracism. So changing the word

Egypt for ghetto, Israel has had many a time reason, in its career, to reiterate the first command, and pray for liberation from thralldom.

Whether "out of Egypt," or "out of the ghetto," the statement is clear as to the place of departure, with no definite information as to place of destination. Terminus a quo, but not terminus ad quem. Mark further that emergence from Egypt brought with it new peril and new obligation. The enslaved Israel that cried under the taskmaster's whip, was succeeded by the freed Israel that cried at the taste of the bitter waters of Marah. When the iron law of Pharaoh was removed, obedience to the moral law of God replaced it. Freedom never meant absolute irresponsibility, but only a change from a lower to a higher duty. So when Israel emerged triumphantly from the exile, it was first exposed to the perils of intermarriage, that would have spelt disintegration, and had finally to face the rigorous Ezra, and submit to his uncompromising code of the