ANTIOPE. (1) In Greek legend, the mother of Amphion and Zethus, and,

according to Homer (_Od_. xi. 260), a daughter of the Boeotian river-god

Asopus. In later poems she is called the daughter of Nycteus or

Lycurgus. Her beauty attracted Zeus, who, assuming the form of a satyr,

took her by force (Apollodorus iii. 5). After this she was carried off

by Epopeus, king of Sicyon, who would not give her up till compelled by

her uncle Lycus. On the way home she gave birth, in the neighbourhood of

Eleutherae on Mount Cithaeron, to the twins Amphion and Zethus, of whom

Amphion was the son of the god, and Zethus the son of Epopeus. Both were

left to be brought up by herdsmen. At Thebes Antiope now suffered from

the persecution of Dirce, the wife of Lycus, but at last escaped towards

Eleutherae, and there found shelter, unknowingly, in the house where her

two sons were living as herdsmen. Here she was discovered by Dirce, who

ordered the two young men to tie her to the horns of a wild bull. They

were about to obey, when the old herdsman, who had brought them up,

revealed his secret, and they carried out the punishment on Dirce

instead (Hyginus, _Fab._ 8). For this, it is said, Dionysus, to whose

worship Dirce had been devoted, visited Antiope with madness, which

caused her to wander restlessly all over Greece till she was cured, and

married by Phocus of Tithorca, on Mount Parnassus, where both were

buried in one grave (Pausanias ix. 17, x. 32).

(2) A second Antiope, daughter of Ares, and sister of Hippolyte, queen

of the Amazons, was the wife of Theseus. There are various accounts of

the manner in which Theseus became possessed of her, and of her

subsequent fortunes. Either she gave herself up to him out of love, when

with Heracles he captured Themiscyra, the seat of the Amazons, or she

fell to his lot as a captive (Diodorus iv. 16). Or again, Theseus

himself invaded the dominion of the Amazons and carried her off, the

consequence of which was a counter-invasion of Attica by the Amazons.

After four months of war peace was made, and Antiope left with Theseus

as a peace-offering. According to another account, she had joined the

Amazons against him because he had been untrue to her in desiring to

marry Phaedra. She is said to have been killed by another Amazon,

Molpadia, a rival in her affection for Theseus. Elsewhere it was

believed that he had himself killed her, and fulfilled an oracle to that

effect (Hyginus, _Fab_. 241). By Theseus she had a son, the well-known

Hippolytus (Plutarch, _Theseus_).

ANTIOQUIA, an interior department of the republic of Colombia, lying S.

of Bolivar, W. of the Magdalena river, and E. of Cauca. Area, 22,870 sq.

m.; pop. (est. 1899) 464,887. The greater part of its territory lies

between the Magdalena and Cauca rivers and includes the northern end of

the Central Cordillera. The country is covered with valuable forests,

and its mineral wealth renders it one of the most important mining

regions of the republic. The capital, Medellin (est. pop. 53,000 in

1902), is a thriving mining centre, 4822 ft. above sea-level, and 125 m.

from Puerto Berrio on the Magdalena. Other important towns are Manizales

(18,000) in the extreme south, the commercial centre of a rich gold and

grazing region; Antioquia, the old capital, on the Cauca; and Puerto

Berrio on the Magdalena, from which a railway has been started to the

capital.

ANTIPAROS (anc. _Oliaros_), an island of the kingdom of Greece, in the

modern eparchy of Naxos, separated by a strait (about 1-1/2 m. wide at

the narrowest point) from the west coast of Pares. It is 7 m. long by 3

broad, and contains about 700 inhabitants, most of whom live in Kastro,

a village on the north coast, and are employed in agriculture and

fishing. Formerly piracy was common. The only remarkable feature in the

island is a stalactite cavern on the south coast, which is reached by a

narrow passage broken by two steep and dangerous descents which are

accomplished by the aid of rope-ladders. The grotto itself, which is

about 150 ft. by 100, and 50 ft. high (not all can be seen from any

part, and probably some portions are still unexplored), shows many

remarkable examples of stalactite formations and incrustations of

dazzling brilliance. It is not mentioned by ancient writers; the first

western traveller to visit it was the marquis de Nointel (ambassador of

Louis XIV. to the Porte) who descended it with a numerous suite and held

high mass there on Christmas day 1673. There is, however, in the

entrance of the cavern an inscription recording the names of visitors in

ancient times.

See J.P. de Tournefort, _Relation d'un voyage au Levant_ (1717);

English edition, 1718, vol. i. p. 146, and guide-books to Greece.

ANTIPATER (398?-319 B.C.), Macedonian general, and regent of Macedonia

during Alexander's Eastern expedition (334-323). He had previously (346)

been sent as ambassador by Philip to Athens and negotiated peace after

the battle of Chaeroneia (338). About 332 he set out against the

rebellious tribes of Thrace; but before this insurrection was quelled,

the Spartan king Agis had risen against Macedonia. Having settled

affairs in Thrace as well as he could, Antipater hastened to the south,

and in a battle near Megalopolis (331) gained a complete victory over

the insurgents (Diodorus xvii. 62). His regency was greatly troubled by

the ambition of Olympias, mother of Alexander, and he was nominally

superseded by Craterus. But, on the death of Alexander in 323, he was,

by the first partition of the empire, left in command of Macedonia, and

in the Lamian War, at the battle of Crannon (322), crushed the Greeks

who had attempted to re-assert their independence. Later in the same

year he and Craterus were engaged in a war against the Aetolians, when

the news arrived from Asia which induced Antipater to conclude peace

with them; for Antigonus reported that Perdiccas contemplated making

himself sole master of the empire. Antipater and Craterus accordingly

prepared for war against Perdiccas, and allied themselves with Ptolemy,

the governor of Egypt. Antipater crossed over into Asia in 321; and

while still in Syria, he received information that Perdiccas had been

murdered by his own soldiers. Craterus fell in battle against Eumenes

(Diodorus xviii. 25-39). Antipater, now sole regent, made several new

regulations, and having quelled a mutiny of his troops and commissioned

Antigonus to continue the war against Eumenes and the other partisans of

Perdiccas, returned to Macedonia, where he arrived in 320 (Justin xiii.

6). Soon after he was seized by an illness which terminated his active

career, 319. Passing over his son Cassander, he appointed the aged

Polyperchon regent, a measure which gave rise to much confusion and

ill-feeling (Diodorus xvii., xviii).

ANTIPHANES, the most important writer of the Middle Attic comedy with

the exception of Alexis, lived from about 408 to 334 B.C. He was

apparently a foreigner who settled in Athens, where he began to write

about 387. He was extremely prolific: more than 200 of the 365 (or 260)

comedies attributed to him are known to us from the titles and

considerable fragments preserved in Athenaeus. They chiefly deal with

matters connected with the table, but contain many striking sentiments.

Fragments in Koch, _Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta_, ii. (1884); see

also Clinton, _Philological Museum_, i. (1832); Meineke, _Historia

Critica Comicorum Graecorum_ (1839).

ANTIPHILUS, a Greek painter, of the age of Alexander. He worked for

Philip of Macedon and Ptolemy I. of Egypt. Thus he was a contemporary of

Apelles, whose rival he is said to have been, but he seems to have

worked in quite another style. Quintilian speaks of his facility: the

descriptions of his works which have come down to us show that he

excelled in light and shade, in genre representations, and in

caricature.

See Brunn, _Geschichte der griechischen Kunstler_, ii. p. 249.

ANTIPHON, of Rhamnus in Attica, the earliest of the "ten" Attic orators,

was born in 480 B.C. He took an active part in political affairs at

Athens, and, as a zealous supporter of the oligarchical party, was

largely responsible for the establishment of the Four Hundred in 411

(see THERAMENES); on the restoration of the democracy he was accused of

treason and condemned to death. Thucydides (viii. 68) expresses a very

high opinion of him. Antiphon may be regarded as the founder of

political oratory, but he never addressed the people himself except on

the occasion of his trial. Fragments of his speech then delivered in

defence of his policy (called [Greek: Peri metastaseos]) have been

edited by J. Nicole (1907) from an Egyptian papyrus. His chief business

was that of a professional speech-writer ([Greek: logographos]), for

those who felt incompetent to conduct their own cases--as all disputants

were obliged to do--without expert assistance. Fifteen of Antiphon's

speeches are extant: twelve are mere school exercises on fictitious

cases, divided into tetralogies, each consisting of two speeches for

prosecution and defence--accusation, defence, reply, counter-reply;

three refer to actual legal processes. All deal with cases of homicide

([Greek: phonikai dikai]). Antiphon is also said to have composed a

[Greek: Techne] or art of Rhetoric.

Edition, with commentary, by Maetzner (1838); text by Blass (1881);

Jebb, _Attic Orators_; Plutarch, _Vitae X. Oratorum_; Philostratus,

_Vit. Sophistarum_, i. 15; van Cleef, _Index Antiphonteus_, Ithaca,

N.Y. (1895); see also RHETORIC.

ANTIPHONY (Gr. [Greek: anti], and [Greek: phone], a voice), a species of

psalmody in which the choir or congregation, being divided into two

parts, sing alternately. The peculiar structure of the Hebrew psalms

renders it probable that the antiphonal method originated in the service

of the ancient Jewish Church. According to the historian Socrates, its

introduction into Christian worship was due to Ignatius (died 115 A.D.),

who in a vision had seen the angels singing in alternate choirs. In the

Latin Church it was not practised until more than two centuries later,

when it was introduced by Ambrose, bishop of Milan, who compiled an

antiphonary, or collection of words suitable for antiphonal singing. The

antiphonary still in use in the Roman Catholic Church was compiled by

Gregory the Great (590 A.D.).

ANTIPODES (Gr. [Greek: anti], opposed to, and [Greek: podes], feet), a

term applied strictly to any two peoples or places on opposite sides of

the earth, so situated that a line drawn from the one to the other

passes through the centre of the globe and forms a true diameter. Any

two places having this relation--as London and, approximately, Antipodes

Island, near New Zealand--must be distant from each other by 180 deg. of

longitude, and the one must be as many degrees to the north of the

equator as the other is to the south, in other words, the latitudes are

numerically equal, but one is _north_ and the other _south_. Noon at the

one place is midnight at the other, the longest day corresponds to the

shortest, and mid-winter is contemporaneous with midsummer. In the

calculation of days and nights, midnight on the one side may be regarded

as corresponding to the noon either of the _previous_ or of the

_following_ day. If a voyager sail eastward, and thus anticipate the

sun, his dating will be twelve hours in advance, while the reckoning of

another who has been sailing westward will be as much in arrear. There

will thus be a difference of twenty-four hours between the two when they

meet. To avoid the confusion of dates which would thus arise, it is

necessary to determine a meridian at which dates should be brought into

agreement, i.e. a line the crossing of which would involve the changing

of the name of the day either forwards, when proceeding westwards, or

backwards, when proceeding eastwards. Mariners have generally adopted

the meridian 180 deg. from Greenwich, situated in the Pacific Ocean, as

a convenient line for co-ordinating dates. The so-called "International

Date Line," which is, however, practically only due to American

initiative, is designed to remove certain objections to the meridian of

180 deg. W., the most important of which is that groups of islands lying

about this meridian differ in date by a day although only a few miles

apart. Several forms have been suggested; these generally agree in

retaining the meridian of 180 deg. in the mid Pacific, with a bend in

the north in order to make the Aleutian Islands and Alaska of the same

time as America, and also in the south so as to bring certain of the

South Sea islands into line with Australia and New Zealand.

ANTIPYRINE (phenyldimethyl pyrazolone) (C11H12N2O), is prepared by the

condensation of phenylhydrazine with aceto-acetic ester, the resulting

phenyl methyl pyrazolone being heated with methyl iodide and methyl

alcohol to 100-110 deg. C.:

CH3.C=N \ CH3.C-N.CH3

>N.C6H5 -> || >N.C6H5

CH2-CO / HC-CO

Phenyl methyl pyrazolone Antipyrine

On the large scale phenylhydrazine is dissolved in dilute sulphuric

acid, the solution warmed to about 40 deg. C. and the aceto-acetic ester

added. When the reaction is complete the acid is neutralized with soda,

and the phenyl methyl pyrazolone extracted with ether and distilled _in

vacuo_. The portion distilling at about 200 deg. C. is then methylated

by means of methyl alcohol and methyl iodide at 100-110 deg. C., the

excess of methyl alcohol removed and the product obtained decolorized by

sulphuric acid. The residue is treated with a warm concentrated solution

of soda, and the oil which separates is removed by shaking with benzene.

The benzene layer on evaporation deposits the anti-pyrine as a

colourless crystalline solid which melts at 113 deg. C. and is soluble

in water. It is basic in character, and gives a red coloration on the

addition of ferric chloride. In medicine anti-pyrine ("phenazonum") has

been used as an analgesic and antipyretic. The dose is 5-20 grs., but on

account of its depressant action on the heart, and the toxic effects to

which it occasionally gives rise, it is now but little used. It is more

safely replaced by phenacetine.

ANTIQUARY, a person who devotes himself to the study of ancient learning

and "antiques," i.e. ancient objects of art or science. The London

Society of Antiquaries was formed in the 18th century to promote the

study of antiquities. As early as 1572 a society had been founded by

Bishop Matthew Parker, Sir Robert Cotton, William Camden and others for

the preservation of national antiquities. This body existed till 1604,

when it fell under suspicion of being political in its aims, and was

abolished by James I. Papers read at their meetings are preserved in the

Cottonian library and were printed by Thomas Hearne in 1720 under the

title _A Collection of Curious Discourses_, a second edition appearing

in 1771. In 1707 a number of English antiquaries began to hold regular

meetings for the discussion of their hobby and in 1717 the Society of

Antiquaries was formally reconstituted, finally receiving a charter from

George II. in 1751. In 1780 George III. granted the society apartments

in Somerset House, Strand. The society is governed by a council of

twenty and a president who is _ex officio_ a trustee of the British

Museum. The present headquarters of the society are at Burlington House,

Piccadilly.

The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland was founded in 1780, and has the

management of a large national antiquarian museum in Edinburgh. In

Ireland a society was founded in 1849 called the Kilkenny Archaeological

Society, holding its meetings at Kilkenny. In 1869 its name was changed

to the Royal Historical and Archaeological Association of Ireland, and

in 1890 to the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, its office being

transferred to Dublin. In France _La Societe Nationale des Antiquaires

de France_ was formed in 1814 by the reconstruction of the _Academie

Celtique_, which had existed since 1805. The American Antiquarian

Society was founded in 1812, with its headquarters at Worcester, Mass.

It has a library of upwards of 100,000 volumes and its transactions have

been published bi-annually since 1849. In Germany the _Gesamtverein der

Deutschen Geschichtsund Altertumsvereine_ was founded in 1852. _La

Societe Royale des Antiquaires du Nord_ at Copenhagen is among the best

known of European antiquarian societies.

ANTIQUE (Lat. _antiquus_, old), a term conventionally restricted to the

remains of ancient art, such as sculptures, gems, medals, seals, &c. In

a limited sense it applies only to Greek and Roman art, and includes

neither the artistic remains of other ancient nations nor any product of

classical art of a later date than the fall of the western empire.

ANTI-SEMITISM. In the political struggles of the concluding quarter of

the 19th century an important part was played by a religious, political

and social agitation against the Jews, known as "Anti-Semitism." The

origins of this remarkable movement already threaten to become obscured

by legend. The Jews contend that anti-Semitism is a mere atavistic

revival of the Jew-hatred of the middle ages. The extreme section of the

anti-Semites, who have given the movement its quasi-scientific name,

declare that it is a racial struggle--an incident of the eternal

conflict between Europe and Asia--and that the anti-Semites are engaged

in an effort to prevent what is called the Aryan race from being

subjugated by a Semitic immigration, and to save Aryan ideals from being

modified by an alien and demoralizing oriental _Anschauung_. There is no

essential foundation for either of these contentions. Religious

prejudices reaching back to the dawn of history have been reawakened by

the anti-Semitic agitation, but they did not originate it, and they have

not entirely controlled it. The alleged racial divergence is, too, only

a linguistic hypothesis on the physical evidence of which

anthropologists are not agreed (Topinard, _Anthropologie_, p. 444;

Taylor, _Origins of Aryans_, cap. i.), and, even if it were proved, it

has existed in Europe for so many centuries, and so many ethnic

modifications have occurred on both sides, that it cannot be accepted as

a practical issue. It is true that the ethnographical histories of the

Jews and the nations of Europe have proceeded on widely diverging lines,

but these lines have more than once crossed each other and become

interlaced. Thus Aryan elements are at the beginning of both; European

morals have been ineradicably semitized by Christianity, and the Jews

have been Europeans for over a thousand years, during which their

character has been modified and in some respects transformed by the

ecclesiastical and civil polities of the nations among whom they have

made their permanent home. Anti-Semitism is then exclusively a question

of European politics, and its origin is to be found, not in the long

struggle between Europe and Asia, or between the Church and the

Synagogue, which filled so much of ancient and medieval history, but in

the social conditions resulting from the emancipation of the Jews in the

middle of the 19th century.

If the emancipated Jews were Europeans in virtue of the antiquity of

their western settlements, and of the character impressed upon them by

the circumstances of their European history, they none the less

presented the appearance of a strange people to their Gentile

fellow-countrymen. They had been secluded in their ghettos for

centuries, and had consequently acquired a physical and moral

physiognomy differentiating them in a measure from their former

oppressors. This peculiar physiognomy was, on its moral side, not

essentially Jewish or even Semitic. It was an advanced development of

the main attributes of civilized life, to which Christendom in its

transition from feudalism had as yet only imperfectly adapted itself.

The ghetto, which had been designed as a sort of quarantine to safeguard

Christendom against the Jewish heresy, had in fact proved a storage

chamber for a portion of the political and social forces which were

destined to sweep away the last traces of feudalism from central Europe.

In the ghetto, the pastoral Semite, who had been made a wanderer by the

destruction of his nationality, was steadily trained, through centuries,

to become an urban European, with all the parasitic activities of urban

economics, and all the democratic tendencies of occidental

industrialism. Excluded from the army, the land, the trade corporations

and the artisan gilds, this quondam oriental peasant was gradually

transformed into a commercial middleman and a practised dealer in money.

Oppressed by the Church, and persecuted by the State, his theocratic and

monarchical traditions lost their hold on his daily life, and he became

saturated with a passionate devotion to the ideals of democratic

politics. Finally, this former bucolic victim of Phoenician exploitation

had his wits preternaturally sharpened, partly by the stress of his

struggle for life, and partly by his being compelled in his urban

seclusion to seek for recreation in literary exercises, chiefly the

subtle dialectics of the Talmudists (Loeb, _Juif de l'histoire_;

Jellinek, _Der Judische Stamm_). Thus, the Jew who emerged from the

ghetto was no longer a Palestinian Semite, but an essentially modern

European, who differed from his Christian fellow-countrymen only in the

circumstances that his religion was of the older Semitic form, and that

his physical type had become sharply defined through a slightly more

rigid exclusiveness in the matter of marriages than that practised by

Protestants and Roman Catholics (Andree, _Volkskunde der Juden_, p. 58).

Unfortunately, these distinctive elements, though not very serious in

themselves, became strongly accentuated by concentration. Had it been

possible to distribute the emancipated Jews uniformly throughout

Christian society, as was the case with other emancipated religious

denominations, there would have been no revival of the Jewish question.

The Jews, however, through no fault of their own, belonged to only one

class in European society--the industrial _bourgeoisie_. Into that class

all their strength was thrown, and owing to their ghetto preparation,

they rapidly took a leading place in it, politically and socially. When

the mid-century revolutions made the _bourgeoisie_ the ruling power in

Europe, the semblance of a Hebrew domination presented itself. It was

the exaggeration of this apparent domination, not by the _bourgeoisie_

itself, but by its enemies among the vanquished reactionaries on the one

hand, and by the extreme Radicals on the other, which created modern

anti-Semitism as a political force.

Germany.

The movement took its rise in Germany and Austria. Here the

concentration of the Jews in one class of the population was aggravated

by their excessive numbers. While in France the proportion to the total

population was, in the early'seventies, 0.14%, and in Italy, 0.12%, it

was 1.22% in Germany, and 3.85% in Austria-Hungary; Berlin had 4.36% of

Jews, and Vienna 6.62% (Andree, _Volkskunde_, pp. 287, 291, 294, 295).

The activity of the Jews consequently manifested itself in a far more

intense form in these countries than elsewhere. This was apparent even

before the emancipations of 1848. Towards the middle of the 18th

century, a limited number of wealthy Jews had been tolerated as

_Schutz-Juden_ outside the ghettos, and their sons, educated as Germans

under the influence of Moses Mendelssohn and his school (see JEWS),

supplied a majority of the leading spirits of the revolutionary

agitation. To this period belong the formidable names of Ludwig Borne

(1786-1837), Heinrich Heine (1799-1854), Edward Ganz (1798-1839),

Gabriel Riesser (1806-1863), Ferdinand Lassalle (1825-1864), Karl Marx

(1818-1883), Moses Hess (1812-1875), Ignatz Kuranda (1811-1884), and

Johann Jacobi (1805-1877). When the revolution was completed, and the

Jews entered in a body the national life of Germany and Austria, they

sustained this high average in all the intellectual branches of

middle-class activity. Here again, owing to the accidents of their

history, a further concentration became apparent. Their activity was

almost exclusively intellectual. The bulk of them flocked to the

financial and the distributive (as distinct from the productive) fields

of industry to which they had been confined in the ghettos. The

sharpened faculties of the younger generation at the same time carried

everything before them in the schools, with the result that they soon

crowded the professions, especially medicine, law and journalism

(Nossig, _Statistik des Jud. Stammes_, pp. 33-37; Jacobs, _Jew.

Statistics_, pp. 41-69). Thus the "Semitic domination," as it was

afterwards called, became every day more strongly accentuated. If it was

a long time in exciting resentment and jealousy, the reason was that it

was in no sense alien to the new conditions of the national life. The

competition was a fair one. The Jews might be more successful than their

Christian fellow-citizens, but it was in virtue of qualities which

complied with the national standards of conduct. They were as

law-abiding and patriotic as they were intelligent. Crime among them was

far below the average (Nossig, p. 31). Their complete assimilation of

the national spirit was brilliantly illustrated by the achievements in

German literature, art and science of such men as Heinrich Heine and

Berthold Auerbach (1812-1882), Felix Mendelssohn (-Bartholdy)

(1809-1847), and Jacob Meyerbeer (1794-1864), Karl Gustav Jacobi the

mathematician (1804-1851), Gabriel Gustav Valentin the physiologist

(1810-1883), and Moritz Lazarus (1824-1903) and Heymann Steinthal

(1823-1899) the national psychologists. In politics, too, Edward Lasker

(1829-1884) and Ludwig Bamberger (1823-1899) had shown how Jews could

put their country before party, when, at the turning-point of German

imperial history in 1866, they led the secession from the

_Fortschritts-Partei_ and founded the National Liberal party, which

enabled Prince Bismarck to accomplish German unity. Even their

financiers were not behind their Christian fellow-citizens in

patriotism. Prince Bismarck himself confessed that the money for

carrying on the 1866 campaign was obtained from the Jewish banker

Bleichroeder, in face of the refusal of the money-market to support the

war. Hence the voice of the old Jew-hatred--for in a weak way it was

still occasionally heard in obscurantist corners--was shamed into

silence, and it was only in the European twilight--in Russia and

Rumania--and in lands where medievalism still lingered, such as northern

Africa and Persia, that oppression and persecution continued to dog the

steps of the Jews.

The signal for the change came in 1873, and was given unconsciously by

one of the most distinguished Jews of his time, Edward Lasker, the

gifted lieutenant of Bennigsen in the leadership of the National Liberal

party. The unification of Germany in 1870, and the rapid payment of the

enormous French war indemnity, had given an unprecedented impulse to

industrial and financial activity throughout the empire. Money became

cheap and speculation universal. A company mania set in which was

favoured by the government, who granted railway and other concessions

with a prodigal hand. The inevitable result of this state of things was

first indicated by Jewish politicians and economists. On the 14th of

January 1873, Edward Lasker called the attention of the Prussian diet to

the dangers of the situation, while his colleague, Ludwig Bamberger, in

an able article in the _Preussischen Jahrbucher_, condemned the policy

which had permitted the milliards to glut the country instead of being

paid on a plan which would have facilitated their gradual digestion by

the economic machinery of the nation. Deeply impressed by the gravity of

the impending crisis, Lasker instituted a searching inquiry, with the

result that he discovered a series of grave company scandals in which

financial promoters and aristocratic directors were chiefly involved.

Undeterred by the fact that the leading spirit in these abuses, Bethel

Henry Strousberg (1823-1884), was a Jew, Lasker presented the results of

his inquiry to the diet on the 7th of February 1873, in a speech of

great power and full of sensational disclosures. The dramatic results of

this speech need not be dwelt upon here (for details see Blum, _Das

deutsche Reich zur Zelt Bismarcks_, pp. 153-181). It must suffice to say

that in the following May the great Vienna "Krach" occurred, and the

colossal bubble of speculation burst, bringing with it all the ruin

foretold by Lasker and Bamberger. From the position occupied by the Jews

in the commercial class, and especially in the financial section of that

class, it was inevitable that a considerable number of them should

figure in the scandals which followed. At this moment an obscure Hamburg

journalist, Wilhelm Marr, who as far back as 1862 had printed a

still-born tract against the Jews (_Judenspiegel_), published a

sensational pamphlet entitled _Der Sieg des Judenthums uber das

Germanthum_ ("The Victory of Judaism over Germanism"). The book fell

upon fruitful soil. It applied to the nascent controversy a theory of

nationality which, under the great sponsorship of Hegel, had seized on

the minds of the German youth, and to which the stirring events of 1870

had already given a deep practical significance. The state, according to

the Hegelians, should be rational, and the nation should be a unit

comprising individuals speaking the same language and of the same racial

origin. Heterogeneous elements might be absorbed, but if they could not

be reduced to the national type they should be eliminated. This was the

pseudo-scientific note of the new anti-Semitism, the theory which

differentiated it from the old religious Jew-hatred and sought to give

it a rational place in modern thought. Marr's pamphlet, which reviewed

the facts of the Jewish social concentration without noticing their

essentially transitional character, proved the pioneer of this teaching.

It was, however, in the passions of party politics that the new crusade

found its chief sources of vitality. The enemies of the _bourgeoisie_ at

once saw that the movement was calculated to discredit and weaken the

school of Manchester Liberalism, then in the ascendant. Agrarian

capitalism, which had been dethroned by industrial capitalism in 1848,

and had burnt its fingers in 1873, seized the opportunity of paying off

old scores. The clericals, smarting under the _Kutlturkampj_, which was

supported by the whole body of Jewish liberalism, joined eagerly in the

new cry. In 1876 another sensational pamphlet was published, Otto

Glogau's _Die Borsen und Grundergeschwindel in Berlin_ ("The Bourses and

the Company Swindles in Berlin"), dealing in detail with the Jewish

participation in the scandals first revealed by Lasker. The agitation

gradually swelled, its growth being helped by the sensitiveness and

_cacoethes scribendi_ of the Jews themselves, who contributed two

pamphlets and a much larger proportion of newspaper articles for every

one supplied by their opponents (Jacobs. _Bibliog. Jew. Question_, p.

xi.). Up to 1879, however, it was more of a literary than a political

agitation, and was generally regarded only as an ephemeral craze or a

passing spasm of popular passion.

Towards the end of 1879 it spread with sudden fury over the whole of

Germany. This outburst, at a moment when no new financial scandals or

other illustrations of Semitic demoralization and domination were before

the public, has never been fully explained. It is impossible to doubt,

however, that the secret springs of the new agitation were more or less

directly supplied by Prince Bismarck himself. Since 1877 the relations

between the chancellor and the National Liberals had gradually become

strained. The deficit in the budget had compelled the government to

think of new taxes, and in order to carry them through the Reichstag the

support of the National Liberals had been solicited. Until then the

National Liberals had faithfully supported the chancellor in nursing the

consolidation of the new empire, but the great dream of its leaders,

especially of Lasker and Bamberger, who had learnt their politics in

England, was to obtain a constitutional and economic _regime_ similar to

that of the British Isles. The organization of German unity was now

completed, and they regarded the new overtures of Prince Bismarck as an

opportunity for pressing their constitutional demands. These were

refused, the Reichstag was dissolved and Prince Bismarck boldly came

forward with a new fiscal policy, a combination of protection and state

socialism. Lasker and Bamberger thereupon led a powerful secession of

National Liberals into opposition, and the chancellor was compelled to

seek a new majority among the ultra-Conservatives and the Roman Catholic

Centre. This was the beginning of the famous "journey to Canossa."

Bismarck did not hide his mortification. He began to recognize in

anti-Semitism a means of "dishing" the Judaized liberals, and to his

creatures who assisted him in his press campaigns he dropped significant

hints in this sense (Busch, _Bismarck_, ii. 453-454, iii. 16). He even

spoke of a new _Kulturkampf_ against the Jews (_ibid_. ii. p. 484). How

these hints were acted upon has not been revealed, but it is

sufficiently instructive to notice that the final breach with the

National Liberals took place in July 1879, and that it was immediately

followed by a violent revival of the anti-Semitic agitation. Marr's

pamphlet was reprinted, and within a few months ran through nine further

editions. The historian Treitschke gave the sanction of his great name

to the movement. The Conservative and Ultramontane press rang with the

sins of the Jews. In October an anti-Semitic league was founded in

Berlin and Dresden (for statutes of the league see _Nineteenth Century_,

February 1881, p. 344).

The leadership of the agitation was now definitely assumed by a man who

combined with social influence, oratorical power and inexhaustible

energy, a definite scheme of social regeneration and an organization for

carrying it out. This man was Adolf Stocker (b. 1835), one of the court

preachers. He had embraced the doctrines of Christian socialism which

the Roman Catholics, under the guidance of Archbishop Ketteler, had

adopted from the teachings of the Jew Lassalle (Nitti, _Catholic

Socialism_, pp. 94-96, 122, 127), and he had formed a society called

"The Christian Social Working-man's Union." He was also a conspicuous

member of the Prussian diet, where he sat and voted with the

Conservatives. He found himself in strong sympathy with Prince

Bismarck's new economic policy, which, although also of Lassallian

origin (Kohut, _Ferdinand Lassalle_, pp. 144 et seq.), was claimed by

its author as being essentially Christian (Busch, p. 483). Under his

auspices the years 1880-1881 became a period of bitter and scandalous

conflict with the Jews. The Conservatives supported him, partly to

satisfy their old grudges against the Liberal _bourgeoisie_ and partly

because Christian Socialism, with its anti-Semitic appeal to ignorant

prejudice, was likely to weaken the hold of the Social Democrats on the

lower classes. The Lutheran clergy followed suit, in order to prevent

the Roman Catholics from obtaining a monopoly of Christian Socialism,

while the Ultramontanes readily adopted anti-Semitism, partly to

maintain their monopoly, and partly to avenge themselves on the Jewish

and Liberal supporters of the _Kulturkampf_. In this way a formidable

body of public opinion was recruited for the anti-Semites. Violent

debates took place in the Prussian diet. A petition to exclude the Jews

from the national schools and universities and to disable them from

holding public appointments was presented to Prince Bismarck. Jews were

boycotted and insulted. Duels between Jews and anti-Semites, many of

them fatal, became of daily occurrence. Even unruly demonstrations and

street riots were reported. Pamphlets attacking every phase and aspect

of Jewish life streamed by the hundred from the printing-press. On their

side the Jews did not want for friends, and it was owing to the strong

attitude adopted by the Liberals that the agitation failed to secure

legislative fruition. The crown prince (afterwards Emperor Frederick)

and crown princess boldly set themselves at the head of the party of

protest. The crown prince publicly declared that the agitation was "a

shame and a disgrace to Germany." A manifesto denouncing the movement as

a blot on German culture, a danger to German unity and a flagrant

injustice to the Jews themselves, was signed by a long list of

illustrious men, including Herr von Forckenbeck, Professors Mommsen,

Gneist, Droysen, Virchow, and Dr Werner Siemens (_Times_, November 18,

1880). During the Reichstag elections of 1881 the agitation played an

active part, but without much effect, although Stocker was elected. This

was due to the fact that the great Conservative parties, so far as

their political organizations were concerned, still remained chary of

publicly identifying themselves with a movement which, in its essence,

was of socialistic tendency. Hence the electoral returns of that year

supplied no sure guide to the strength of anti-Semitic opinion among the

German people.

The first severe blow suffered by the German anti-Semites was in 1881,

when, to the indignation of the whole civilized world, the barbarous

riots against the Jews in Russia and the revival of the medieval Blood

Accusation in Hungary (see _infra_) illustrated the liability of

unreasoning mobs to carry into violent practice the incendiary doctrines

of the new Jew-haters. From this blow anti-Semitism might have recovered

had it not been for the divisions and scandals in its own ranks, and the

artificial forms it subsequently assumed through factitious alliances

with political parties bent less on persecuting the Jews than on

profiting by the anti-Jewish agitation. The divisions showed themselves

at the first attempt to form a political party on an anti-Semitic basis.

Imperceptibly the agitators had grouped themselves into two classes,

economic and ethnological anti-Semites. The impracticable racial views

of Marr and Treitschke had not found favour with Stocker and the

Christian Socialists. They were disposed to leave the Jews in peace so

long as they behaved themselves properly, and although they carried on

their agitation against Jewish malpractices in a comprehensive form

which seemed superficially to identify them with the root-and-branch

anti-Semites, they were in reality not inclined to accept the racial

theory with its scheme of revived Jewish disabilities (Huret, _La

Question Sociale_--interview with Stocker). This feeling was

strengthened by a tendency on the part of an extreme wing of the racial

anti-Semites to extend their campaign against Judaism to its offspring,

Christianity. In 1879 Professor Sepp, arguing that Jesus was of no human

race, had proposed that Christianity should reject the Hebrew Scriptures

and seek a fresh historical basis in the cuneiform inscriptions. Later

Dr Eugen Dubring, in several brochures, notably _Die Judenfrage als

Frage des Rassencharakters_ (1881, 5th ed. Berlin, 1901), had attacked

Christianity as a manifestation of the Semitic spirit which was not

compatible with the theological and ethical conceptions of the

Scandinavian peoples. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche had also

adopted the same view, without noticing that it was a _reductio ad

absurdum_ of the whole agitation, in his _Menschliches,

Allzumenschliches_ (1878), _Jenseits von Gut und Bose_ (1886),

_Genealogie der Moral_ (1887). With these tendencies the Christian

Socialists could have no sympathy, and the consequence was that when in

March 1881 a political organization of anti-Semitism was attempted, two

rival bodies were created, the "Deutsche Volksverein," under the

Conservative auspices of Herr Liebermann von Sonnenberg (b. 1848) and

Herr Forster, and the "Sociale Reichsverein," led by the racial and

Radical anti-Semites, Ernst Henrici (b. 1854) and Otto Bockel (b. 1859).

In 1886, at an anti-Semitic congress held at Cassel a reunion was

effected under the name of the "Deutsche antisemitische Verein," but

this only lasted three years. In June 1889 the anti-Semitic Christian

Socialists under Stocker again seceded.

Meanwhile racial anti-Semitism with its wholesale radical proposals had

been making considerable progress among the ignorant lower classes. It

adapted itself better to popular passions and inherited prejudice than

the more academic conceptions of the Christian Socialists. The latter,

too, were largely Conservatives, and their points of contact with the

proletariat were at best artificial. Among the Hessian peasantry the

inflammatory appeals of Bockel secured many adherents. This paved the

way for a new anti-Semitic leader, Herrmann Ahlwardt (b. 1846), who,

towards the end of the 'eighties, eclipsed all the other anti-Semites by

the sensationalism and violence with which he prosecuted the campaign.

Ahlwardt was a person of evil notoriety. He was loaded with debt. In the

Manche decoration scandals it was proved that he had acted first as a

corrupt intermediary and afterwards as the betrayer of his confederates.

His anti-Semitism was adopted originally as a means of _chantage_, and

it was only when it failed to yield profit in this form that he came out

boldly as an agitator. The wildness, unscrupulousness, and

full-bloodedness of his propaganda enchanted the mob, and he bid fair to

become a powerful democratic leader. His pamphlets, full of scandalous

revelations of alleged malpractices of eminent Jews, were read with

avidity. No fewer than ten of them were written and published during

1892. Over and over again he was prosecuted for libel and convicted, but

this seemed only to strengthen his influence with his followers. The

Roman Catholic clergy and newspapers helped to inflame the popular

passions. The result was that anti-Jewish riots broke out. At Neustettin

the Jewish synagogue was burnt, and at Xanten the Blood Accusation was

revived, and a Jewish butcher was tried on the ancient charge of

murdering a Christian child for ritual purposes. The man was, of course,

acquitted, but the symptoms it revealed of reviving medievalism strongly

stirred the liberal and cultured mind of Germany. All protest, however,

seemed powerless, and the barbarian movement appeared destined to carry

everything before it.

German politics at this moment were in a very intricate state. Prince

Bismarck had retired, and Count Caprivi, with a programme of general

conciliation based on Liberal principles, was in power. Alarmed by the

non-renewal of the anti-Socialist law, and by the conclusion of

commercial treaties which made great concessions to German industry, the

landed gentry and the Conservative party became alienated from the new

chancellor. In January 1892 the split was completed by the withdrawal by

the government of the Primary Education bill, which had been designed to

place primary instruction on a religious basis. The Conservatives saw

their opportunity of posing as the party of Christianity against the

Liberals and Socialists, who had wrecked the bill, and they began to

look towards Ahlwardt as a possible ally. He had the advantages over

Stocker that he was not a Socialist, and that he was prepared to lead

his apparently large following to assist the agrarian movement and

weaken the Social Democrats. The intrigue gradually came to light.

Towards the end of the year Herr Liebknecht, the Social Democratic

leader, denounced the Conservatives to the Reichstag as being concerned

"in using the anti-Semitic movement as a bastard edition of Socialism

for the use of stupid people." (1st December). Two days later the charge

was confirmed. At a meeting of the party held on the 3rd of December the

following plank was added to the Conservative programme: "We combat the

oppressive and disintegrating Jewish influence on our national life; we

demand for our Christian people a Christian magistracy and Christian

teachers for Christian pupils; we repudiate the excesses of

anti-Semitism." In pursuance of the resolution Ahlwardt was returned to

the Reichstag at a by-election by the Conservative district of

Arnswalde-Friedeberg. The coalition was, however, not yet completed. The

intransigeant Conservatives, led by Baron von Hammerstein, the editor of

the _Kreuz-Zeitung_, justly felt that the concluding sentence of the

resolution of the 3rd of December repudiating "the excesses of

anti-Semitism" was calculated to hinder a full and loyal co-operation

between the two parties. Accordingly on the 9th of December another

meeting of the party was summoned. Twelve hundred members met at the

Tivoli Hall in Berlin, and with only seven dissentients solemnly

expunged the offending sentence from the resolution. The history of

political parties may be searched in vain for a parallel to this

discreditable transaction.

The capture of the Conservative party proved the high-water mark of

German anti-Semitism. From that moment the tide began to recede. All

that was best in German national life was scandalized by the cynical

tactics of the Conservatives. The emperor, strong Christian though he

was, was shocked at the idea of serving Christianity by a compact with

unscrupulous demagogues and ignorant fanatics. Prince Bismarck growled

out a stinging sarcasm from his retreat at Friedrichsruh. Even Stocker

raised his voice in protest against the "Ahlwardtismus" and

"Bockelianismus," and called upon his Conservative colleagues to

distinguish between "respectable and disreputable anti-Semitism." As for

the Liberals and Socialists, they filled the air with bitter laughter,

and declared from the housetops that the stupid party had at last been

overwhelmed by its own stupidity. The Conservatives began to suspect

that they had made a false step, and they were confirmed in this belief

by the conduct of their new ally in the Reichstag. His debut in

parliament was the signal for a succession of disgraceful scenes. His

whole campaign of calumny was transferred to the floor of the house, and

for some weeks the Reichstag discussed little else than his so-called

revelations. The Conservatives listened to his wild charges in

uncomfortable silence, and refused to support him. Stocker opposed him

in a violent speech. The Radicals and Socialists, taking an accurate

measure of the shallow vanity of the man, adopted the policy of giving

him "enough rope." Shortly after his election he was condemned to five

months' imprisonment for libel, and he would have been arrested but for

the interposition of the Socialist party, including five Jews, who

claimed for him the immunities of a member of parliament. When he moved

for a commission to inquire into his revelations, it was again the

Socialist party which supported him, with the result that all his

charges, without exception, were found to be absolutely baseless.

Ahlwardt was covered with ridicule, and when in May the Reichstag was

dissolved, he was marched off to prison to undergo the sentence for

libel from which his parliamentary privilege had up to that moment

protected him.

His hold on the anti-Semitic populace was, however, not diminished. On

the contrary, the action of the Conservatives at the Tivoli congress

could not be at once eradicated from the minds of the Conservative

voters, and when the electoral campaign began it was found impossible to

explain to them that the party leaders had changed their minds. The

result was that Ahlwardt, although in prison, was elected by two

constituencies. At Arnswalde-Friedeberg he was returned in the teeth of

the opposition of the official Conservatives, and at Neustettin he

defeated no less a person than his anti-Semitic opponent Stocker.

Fifteen other anti-Semites, all of the Ahlwardtian school, were elected.

This, however, represented little in the way of political influence; for

henceforth the party had to stand alone as one of the many minor

factions in the Reichstag, avoided by all the great parties, and too

weak to exercise any influence on the main course of affairs.

During the subsequent seven years it became more and more discredited.

The financial scandals connected with Forster's attempt to found a

Christian Socialist colony in Paraguay, the conviction of Baron von

Hammerstein, the anti-Semitic Conservative leader, for forgery and

swindling (1895-1896), and several minor scandals of the same unsavoury

character, covered the party with the very obloquy which it had

attempted to attach to the Jews. At the same time the Christian

Socialists who had remained with the Conservative party also suffered.

After the elections of 1893, Stocker was dismissed from his post of

court preacher, and publicly reprimanded for speaking familiarly of the

empress. Two years later the Christian Socialist, Pastor Neumann,

observing the tendency of the Conservatives to coalesce with the

moderate Liberals in antagonism to Social Democracy, declared against

the Conservative party. The following year the emperor publicly

condemned Christian Socialism and the "political pastors," and Stocker

was expelled from the Conservative party for refusing to modify the

socialistic propanganda of his organ, _Das Volk_. His fall was completed

by a quarrel with the Evangelical Social Union. He left the Union and

appealed to the Lutheran clergy to found a new church social

organization, but met with no response. Another blow to anti-Semitism

came from the Roman Catholics. They had become alarmed by the unbridled

violence of the Ahlwardtians, and when in 1894 Forster declared in an

address to the German anti-Semitic Union that anarchical outrages like

the murder of President Carnot were as much due to the "Anarchismus von

oben" as the "Anarchismus von unten," the Ultramontane _Germania_

publicly washed its hands of the Jew-baiters (1st of July 1894). Thus

gradually German anti-Semitism became stripped of every adventitious

alliance; and at the general election of 1898 it only managed to return

twelve members to the Reichstag, and in 1903 its party strength fell to

nine. A remarkable revival in its fortunes, however, took place between

1905 and 1907. Identifying itself with the extreme Chauvinists and

Anglophobes it profited by the anti-national errors of the Clericals and

Socialists, and won no fewer than twelve by-elections. At the general

election of 1907 its jingoism and aggressive Protestantism were rewarded

with twenty-five seats. It is clear, however, from the figures of the

second ballots that these successes owed far more to the tendencies of

the party in the field of general politics than to its anti-Semitism.

Indeed the specifically anti-Semitic movement has shown little activity

since 1893.

The causes of the decline of German anti-Semitism are not difficult to

determine. While it remained a theory of nationality and a fad of the

metaphysicians, it made considerable noise in the world, but without

exercising much practical influence. When it attempted to play an active

part in politics it became submerged by the ignorant and superstitious

voters, who could not understand its scientific justification, but who

were quite ready to declaim and riot against the Jew bogey. It thus

became a sort of Jacquerie which, being exploited by unscrupulous

demagogues, soon alienated all its respectable elements. Its moments of

real importance have been due not to inherent strength but to the uses

made of it by other political parties for their own purposes. These

coalitions are no longer of perilous significance so far as the Jews are

concerned, chiefly because, in face of the menace of democratic

socialism and its unholy alliance with the Roman Catholic Centrum, all

supporters of the present organization of society have found it

necessary to sink their differences. The new social struggle has

eclipsed the racial theory of nationality. The Social Democrat became

the enemy, and the new reaction counted on the support of the rich Jews

and the strongly individualist Jewish middle class to assist it in

preserving the existing social structure. Hence in Prince Billow's

"Bloc" (1908) anti-Semites figured side by side with Judeophil Radicals.

Russia.

More serious have been the effects of German anti-Semitic teachings on

the political and social life of the countries adjacent to the

empire--Russia, Austria and France. In Russia these effects were first

seriously felt owing to the fury of autocratic reaction to which the

tragic death of the tsar Alexander II. gave rise. This, however, like

the Strousberg _Krach_ in Germany, was only the proximate cause of the

outbreak. There were other elements which had created a _milieu_

peculiarly favourable to the transplantation of the German craze. In the

first place the medieval anti-Semitism was still an integral part of the

polity of the empire. The Jews were cooped up in one huge ghetto in the

western provinces, "marked out to all their fellow-countrymen as aliens,

and a pariah caste set apart for special and degrading treatment"

(_Persecution of the Jews in Russia_, 1891, p.5). In the next place,

owing to the emancipation of the serfs which had half ruined the

landowners, while creating a free but moneyless peasantry, the Jews, who

could be neither nobles nor peasants, had found a vocation as

money-lenders and as middlemen between the grain producers, and the

grain consumers and exporters. There is no evidence that this function

was performed, as a rule, in an exorbitant or oppressive way. On the

contrary, the fall in the value of cereals on all the provincial

markets, after the riots of 1881, shows that the Jewish competition had

previously assured full prices to the farmers (Schwabacher,

_Denkschrift_, 1882, p. 27). Nevertheless, the Jewish activity or

"exploitation," as it was called, was resented, and the ill-feeling it

caused among landowners and farmers was shared by non-Jewish middlemen

and merchants who had thereby been compelled to be satisfied with small

profits. Still there was but little thought of seeking a remedy in an

organized anti-Jewish movement. On the contrary, the abnormal situation

aggravated by the disappointments and depression caused by the Turkish

war, had stimulated a widespread demand for constitutional changes which

would enable the people to adopt a state-machinery more exactly suited

to their needs. Among the peasantry this demand was promoted and

fomented by the Nihilists, and among the landowners it was largely

adopted as a means of checking what threatened to become a new Jacquerie

(Walcker, _Gegertwartige Lage Russlands_, 1873; _Innere Krisis

Russlands_, 1876). The tsar, Alexander II., strongly sympathized with

this movement, and on the advice of Count Loris-Melikov and the council

of ministers a rudimentary scheme of parliamentary government had been

drafted and actually signed when the emperor was assassinated. Meanwhile

a nationalist and reactionary agitation, originating like its German

analogue in the Hegelianism of a section of the lettered public, had

manifested itself in Moscow. After some early vicissitudes, it had been

organized, under the auspices of Alexis Kireiev, Chomyakov, Aksakov and

Kochelev, into the Slavophil party, with a Romanticist programme of

reforms based on the old traditions of the pre-Petrine epoch. This party

gave a great impetus to Slav nationalism. Its final possibilities were

sanguinarily illustrated by Muraviev's campaign in Poland in 1863, and

in the war against Turkey in 1877, which was exclusively its handiwork

(Statement by General Kireiev: Schutz, _Das heutige Russland_, p. 104).

After the assassination of Alexander II. the Slavophil teaching, as

expounded by Ignatiev and Pobedonostsev, became paramount in the

government, and the new tsar was persuaded to cancel the constitutional

project of his father. The more liberal views of a section of the

Slavophils under Aksakov, who had been in favour of representative

institutions on traditional lines, were displaced by the reactionary

system of Pobedonostsev, who took his stand on absolutism, orthodoxy and

the racial unity of the Russian people. This was the situation on the

eve of Easter 1881. The hardening nationalism above, the increasing

discontent below, the economic activity of the Hebrew heretics and

aliens, and the echoes of anti-Semitism from over the western border

were combining for an explosion.

A scuffle in a tavern at Elisabethgrad in Kherson sufficed to ignite

this combustible material. The scuffle grew into a riot, the tavern was

sacked, and the drunken mob, hounded on by agitators who declared that

the Jews were using Christian blood for the manufacture of their Easter

bread, attacked and looted the Jewish quarter. The outbreak spread

rapidly. On the 7th of May there was a similar riot at Smiela, near

Cherkasy, and the following day there was a violent outbreak at Kiev,

which left 2000 Jews homeless. Within a few weeks the whole of western

Russia, from the Black Sea to the Baltic, was smoking with the ruins of

Jewish homes. Scores of Jewish women were dishonoured, hundreds of men,

women and children were slaughtered, and tens of thousands were reduced

to beggary and left without a shelter. Murderous riots or incendiary

outrages took place in no fewer than 167 towns and villages, including

Warsaw, Odessa and Kiev. Europe had witnessed no such scenes of mob

savagery since the Black Death massacres in the 14th century. As the

facts gradually filtered through to the western capitals they caused a

thrill of horror everywhere. An indignation meeting held at the Mansion

House in London, under the presidency of the lord mayor, was the signal

for a long series of popular demonstrations condemning the persecutions,

held in most of the chief cities of England and the continent.

Except as stimulated by the Judeophobe revival in Germany the Russian

outbreak in its earlier forms does not belong specifically to modern

anti-Semitism. It was essentially a medieval uprising animated by the

religious fanaticism, gross superstition and predatory instincts of a

people still in the medieval stage of their development. This is proved

by the fact that, although the Russian peasant was supposed to be a

victim of unbearable Jewish "exploitation," he was not moved to riot

until he had been brutalized by drink and excited by the old fable of

the Blood Accusation. The modern anti-Semitic element came from above

and followed closely on the heels of the riots. It has been freely

charged against the Russian government that it promoted the riots in

1881 in order to distract popular attention from the Nihilist propaganda

and from the political disappointments involved in the cancellation of

the previous tsar's constitutional project (Lazare, _L'Antisemitisme_,

p. 211). This seems to be true of General Ignatiev, then minister of the

interior, and the secret police (Semenoff, _The Russian Government and

the Massacres_, pp. 17, 32, 241). It is certain that the local

authorities, both civil and military, favoured the outbreak, and took no

steps to suppress it, and that the feudal bureaucracy who had just

escaped a great danger were not sorry to see the discontented populace

venting their passions on the Jews. In the higher circles of the

government, however, other views prevailed. The tsar himself was at

first persuaded that the riots were the work of Nihilists, and he

publicly promised his protection to the Jews. On the other hand, his

ministers, ardent Slavophils, thought they recognized in the outbreak an

endorsement of the nationalist teaching of which they were the apostles,

and, while reprobating the acts of violence, came to the conclusion that

the most reasonable solution was to aggravate the legal disabilities of

the persecuted aliens and heretics. To this view the tsar was won over,

partly by the clamorous indignation of western Europe, which had wounded

his national _amour propre_ to the quick, and partly by the strongly

partisan report of a commission appointed to inquire, not into the

administrative complaisance which had allowed riot to run loose over the

western and southern provinces, but into the "exploitation" alleged

against the Jews, the reasons why "the former laws limiting the rights

of the Jews" had been mitigated, and how these laws could be altered so

as "to stop the pernicious conduct of the Jews" (Rescript of the 3rd of

September 1881). The result of this report was the drafting of a

"Temporary Order concerning the Jews" by the minister of the interior,

which received the assent of the tsar on the 3rd of May 1882. This

order, which was so little temporary that it has not yet been repealed,

had the effect of creating a number of fresh ghettos within the pale of

Jewish settlement. The Jews were cooped up within the towns, and their

rural interests were arbitrarily confiscated. The doubtful incidence of

the order gave rise to a number of judgments of the senate, by which all

its persecuting possibilities were brought out, with the result that the

activities of the Jews were completely paralysed, and they became a prey

to unparalleled cruelty. As the gruesome effect of this legislation

became known, a fresh outburst of horror and indignation swelled up from

western Europe. It proved powerless. Count Ignatiev was dismissed owing

to the protests of high-placed Russians, who were disgusted by the new

_Kulturkampf_, but his work remained, and, under the influence of

Pobedonostsev, the procurator of the Holy Synod, the policy of the "May

Laws," as they were significantly called, was applied to every aspect of

Jewish life with pitiless rigour. The temper of the tsar may be judged

by the fact that when an appeal for mercy from an illustrious personage

in England was conveyed to him at Fredensborg through the gracious

medium of the tsaritsa, he angrily exclaimed within the hearing of an

Englishman in the ante-room who was the bearer of the message, "Never

let me hear you mention the name of that people again!"

The Russian May Laws are the most conspicuous legislative monument

achieved by modern anti-Semitism. It is true that they re-enacted

regulations which resemble the oppressive statutes introduced into

Poland through the influence of the Jesuits in the 16th century

(Sternberg, _Gesch. d. Juden in Polen_, pp. 141 et seq.), but their

Orthodox authors were as little conscious of this irony of history as

they were of the Teutonic origins of the whole Slavophil movement. These

laws are an experimental application of the political principles

extracted by Marr and his German disciples from the metaphysics of

Hegel, and as such they afford a valuable means of testing the practical

operation of modern anti-Semitism. Their result was a widespread

commercial depression which was felt all over the empire. Even before

the May Laws were definitely promulgated the passport registers showed

that the anti-Semitic movement had driven 67,900 Jews across the

frontier, and it was estimated that they had taken with them 13,000,000

roubles, representing a minimum loss of 60,000,000 roubles to the annual

turnover of the country's trade. Towards the end of 1882 it was

calculated that the agitation had cost Russia as much as the whole

Turkish war of 1877. Trade was everywhere paralysed. The enormous

increase of bankruptcies, the transfer of investments to foreign funds,

the consequent fall in the value of the rouble and the prices of Russian

stocks, the suspension of farming operations owing to advances on

growing crops being no longer available, the rise in the prices of the

necessaries of life, and lastly, the appearance of famine, filled half

the empire with gloom. Banks closed their doors, and the great

provincial fairs proved failures. When it was proposed to expel the Jews

from Moscow there was a loud outcry all over the sacred city, and even

the Orthodox merchants, realizing that the measure would ruin their

flourishing trade with the south and west, petitioned against it. The

Moscow Exhibition proved a failure. Nevertheless the government

persisted with its harsh policy, and Jewish refugees streamed by tens of

thousands across the western frontier to seek an asylum in other lands.

In 1891 the alarm caused by this emigration led to further protests from

abroad. The citizens of London again assembled at Guildhall, and

addressed a petition to the tsar on behalf of his Hebrew subjects. It

was handed back to the lord mayor by the Russian ambassador, with a curt

intimation that the emperor declined to receive it. At the same time

orders were defiantly given that the May Laws should be strictly

enforced. Meanwhile the Russian minister of finance was at his wits'

ends for money. Negotiations for a large loan had been entered upon with

the house of Rothschild, and a preliminary contract had been signed,

when, at the instance of the London firm, M. Wyshnigradski, the finance

minister, was informed that unless the persecutions of the Jews were

stopped the great banking-house would be compelled to withdraw from the

operation. Deeply mortified by this attempt to deal with him _de

puissance a puissance_, the tsar peremptorily broke off the

negotiations, and ordered that overtures should be made to a non-Jewish

French syndicate. In this way anti-Semitism, which had already so

profoundly influenced the domestic politics of Europe, set its mark on

the international relations of the powers, for it was the urgent need of

the Russian treasury quite as much as the termination of Prince

Bismarck's secret treaty of mutual neutrality which brought about the

Franco-Russian alliance (Daudet, _Hist. Dipl. de l'Alliance

Franco-Russe_, pp. 259 et. seq.).

For nearly three years more the persecutions continued. Elated by the

success of his crusade against the Jews, Pobedonostsev extended his

persecuting policy to other non-Orthodox denominations. The legislation

against the Protestant Stundists became almost as unbearable as that

imposed on the Jews. In the report of the Holy Synod, presented to the

tsar towards the end of 1893, the procurator called for repressive

measures against Roman Catholics, Moslems and Buddhists, and denounced

the rationalist tendency of the whole system of secular education in the

empire (_Neue Freie Presse_, 31st January 1894). A year later, however,

the tsar died, and his successor, without repealing any of the

persecuting laws, let it gradually be understood that their rigorous

application might be mitigated. The country was tired and exhausted by

the persecution, and the tolerant hints which came from high quarters

were acted upon with significant alacrity.

A new era of conflict dawned with the great constitutional struggle

towards the end of the century. The conditions, however, were very

different from those which prevailed in the 'eighties. The May Laws had

avenged themselves with singular fitness. By confining the Jews to the

towns at the very moment that Count Witte's policy of protection was

creating an enormous industrial proletariat they placed at the disposal

of the disaffected masses an ally powerful in numbers and intelligence,

and especially in its bitter sense of wrong, its reckless despair and

its cosmopolitan outlook and connexions. As early as 1885 the Jewish

workmen assisted by Jewish university students led the way in the

formation of trades unions. They also became the _colporteurs_ of

western European socialism, and they played an important part in the

organization of the Russian Social Democratic Federation which their

"Arbeiter Bund" joined in 1898 with no fewer than 30,000 members. The

Jewish element in the new democratic movement excited the resentment of

the government, and under the minister of the interior, M. Sipiaguine,

the persecuting laws were once more rigorously enforced. The "Bund"

replied in 1901 by proclaiming itself frankly political and

revolutionary, and at once took a leading place in the revolutionary

movement. The reactionaries were not slow to profit by this

circumstance. With the support of M. Plehve, the new minister of the

interior, and the whole of the bureaucratic class they denounced the

revolution as a Jewish conspiracy, engineered for exclusively Jewish

purposes and designed to establish a Jewish domination over the Russian

people. The government and even the intimates of the tsar became

persuaded that only by the terrorization of the Jews could the

revolutionary movement be effectually dealt with. For this purpose a

so-called League of True Russians was formed. Under high patronage, and

with the assistance of the secret police and a large number of the local

authorities, it set itself to stir up the populace, chiefly the fanatics

and the hooligans, against the Jews. Incendiary proclamations were

prepared and printed in the ministry of the interior itself, and were

circulated by the provincial governors and the police (Prince Urussov's

speech in the Duma, June 8 (21), 1906). The result was another series of

massacres which began at Kishinev in 1903 and culminated in wholesale

butchery at Odessa and Bielostok in October 1905. An attempt was made to

picture and excuse these outbreaks as a national upheaval against the

Jew-made revolution but it failed. They only embittered the

revolutionists and "intellectuals" throughout the country, and won for

them a great deal of outspoken sympathy abroad. The artificiality of the

anti-Jewish outbreak was illustrated by the first Duma elections.

Thirteen Jews were elected and every constituency which had been the

scene of a _pogrom_ returned a liberal member. Unfortunately the Jews

benefited little by the new parliamentary constitution. The privileges

of voting for members of the Duma and of sitting in the new assembly

were granted them, but all their civil and religious disabilities were

maintained. Both the first and the second Duma proposed to emancipate

them, but they were dissolved before any action could be taken. By the

modification of the electoral law under which the third Duma was elected

the voting power of the Jews was diminished and further restrictions

were imposed upon them through official intimidation during the

elections. The result was that only two Jews were elected, while the

reactionary tendency of the new electorate virtually removed the

question of their emancipation from the field of practical politics.

Rumania.

The only other country in Europe in which a legalized anti-Semitism

exists is Rumania. The conditions are very similar to those which obtain

in Russia, with the important difference that Rumania is a

constitutional country, and that the Jewish persecutions are the work of

the elected deputies of the nation. Like the _Bourgeois Gentilhomme_ who

wrote prose all his life without knowing it, the Rumanians practised the

nationalist doctrines of the Hegelian anti-Semites unconsciously long

before they were formulated in Germany. In the old days of Turkish

domination the lot of the Rumanian Jews was not conspicuously unhappy.

It was only when the nation began to be emancipated, and the struggle in

the East assumed the form of a crusade against Islam that the Jews were

persecuted. Rumanian politicians preached a nationalism limited

exclusively to indigenous Christians, and they were strongly supported

by all who felt the commercial competition of the Jews. Thus, although

the Jews had been settled in the land for many centuries, they were by

law declared aliens. This was done in defiance of the treaty of Paris of

1856 and the convention of 1858 which declared all Rumans to be equal

before the law. Under the influence of this distinction the Jews became

persecuted, and sanguinary riots were of frequent occurrence. The

realization of a Jewish question led to legislation imposing

disabilities on the Jews. In 1878 the congress of Berlin agreed to

recognize the independence of Rumania on condition that all religious

disabilities were removed. Rumania agreed to this condition, but

ultimately persuaded the powers to allow her to carry out the

emancipation of the Jews gradually. Persecutions, however, continued,

and in 1902 they led to a great exodus of Jews. The United States

addressed a strong remonstrance to the Rumanian government, but the

condition of the Jews was in no way improved. Their emancipation was in

1908 as far off as ever, and their disabilities heavier than those of

their brethren in Russia. For this state of things the example of the

anti-Semites in Germany, Russia, Austria and France was largely to

blame, since it had justified the intolerance of the Rumans. Owing,

also, to the fact that of late years Rumania had become a sort of

_annexe_ of the Triple Alliance, it was found impossible to induce the

signatories of the treaty of Berlin to take action to compel the state

to fulfil its obligations under that treaty.

Austria-Hungary.

In Austria-Hungary the anti-Semitic impulses came almost simultaneously

from the North and East. Already in the 'seventies the doctrinaire

anti-Semitism of Berlin had found an echo in Budapest. Two members of

the diet, Victor Istoczy and Geza Onody, together with a publicist named

Georg Marczianyi, busied themselves in making known the doctrine of Marr

in Hungary. Marczianyi, who translated the German Judeophobe pamphlets

into Magyar, and the Magyar works of Onody into German, was the chief

medium between the northern and southern schools. In 1880 Istoczy tried

to establish a "Nichtjuden Bund" in Hungary, with statutes literally

translated from those of the German anti-Semitic league. The movement,

however, made no progress, owing to the stalwart Liberalism of the

predominant political parties, and of the national principles inherited

from the revolution of 1848. The large part played by the Jews in that

struggle, and the fruitful patriotism with which they had worked for the

political and economic progress of the country, had created, too, a

strong claim on the gratitude of the best elements in the nation.

Nevertheless, among the ultramontane clergy, the higher aristocracy, the

ill-paid minor officials, and the ignorant peasantry, the seeds of a

tacit anti-Semitism were latent. It was probably the aversion of the

nobility from anything in the nature of a demagogic agitation which for

a time prevented these seeds from germinating. The news of the uprising

in Russia and the appearance of Jewish refugees on the frontier, had the

effect of giving a certain prominence to the agitation of Istoczy and

Onody and of exciting the rural communities, but it did not succeed in

impressing the public with the pseudo-scientific doctrines of the new

anti-Semitism. It was not until the agitators resorted to the Blood

Accusation--that never-failing decoy of obscurantism and

superstition--that Hungary took a definite place in the anti-Semitic

movement. The outbreak was short and fortunately bloodless, but while it

lasted its scandals shocked the whole of Europe.

Dr August Rohling, professor of Hebrew at the university of Prague, a

Roman Catholic theologian of high position but dubious learning, had for

some years assisted the Hungarian anti-Semites with _rechauffes_ of

Eisenmenger's _Enidecktes Judenthum_ (Frankfurt a/M. 1700). In 1881 he

made a solemn deposition before the Supreme Court accusing the Jews of

being bound by their law to work the moral and physical ruin of

non-Jews. He followed this up with an offer to depose on oath that the

murder of Christians for ritual purposes was a doctrine secretly taught

among Jews. Professor Delitzsch and other eminent Hebraists, both

Christian and Jewish, exposed and denounced the ignorance and

malevolence of Rohling, but were unable to stem the mischief he was

causing. In April 1882 a Christian girl named Esther Sobymossi was

missed from the Hungarian village of Tisza Eszlar, where a small

community of Jews were settled. The rumour got abroad that she had been

kidnapped and murdered by the Jews, but it remained the burden of idle

gossip, and gave rise to neither judicial complaint nor public

disorders. At this moment the question of the Bosnian Pacification

credits was before the diet. The unpopularity of the task assumed by

Austria-Hungary, under the treaty of Berlin, which was calculated to

strengthen the disaffected Croat element in the empire, had reduced the

government majority to very small proportions, and all the reactionary

factions in the country were accordingly in arms. The government was

violently and unscrupulously attacked on all sides. On the 23rd of May

there was a debate in the diet when M. Onody, in an incendiary harangue,

told the story of the missing girl at Tisza Eszlar, and accused

ministers of criminal indulgence to races alien to the national spirit.

In the then excited state of the public mind on the Croat question, the

manoeuvre was adroitly conceived. The government fell into the trap, and

treated the story with lofty disdain. Thereupon the anti-Semites set to

work on the case, and M. Joseph Bary, the magistrate at Nyiregyhaza, and

a noted anti-Semite, was induced to go to Tisza Eszlar and institute an

inquiry. All the anti-liberal elements in the country now became banded

together in this effort to discredit the liberal government, and for the

first time the Hungarian anti-Semites found themselves at the head of a

powerful party. Fifteen Jews were arrested and thrown into prison. No

pains were spared in preparing the case for trial. Perjury and even

forgery were freely resorted to. The son of one of the accused, a boy of

fourteen, was taken into custody by the police, and by threats and

cajoleries prevailed upon to give evidence for the prosecution. He was

elaborately coached for the terrible _role_ he was to play. The trial

opened at Nyiregyhaza on the 19th of June, and lasted till the 3rd of

August. It was one of the most dramatic _causes celebres_ of the

century. Under the brilliant cross-examination of the advocates for the

defence the whole of the shocking conspiracy was gradually exposed. The

public prosecutor thereupon withdrew from the case, and the four

judges--the chief of whom held strong anti-Semitic opinions--unanimously

acquitted all the prisoners. The case proved the death-blow of Hungarian

anti-Semitism. Although another phase of the Jewish question, which will

be referred to presently, had still to occupy the public mind, the shame

brought on the nation by the Tisza Eszlar conspiracy effectually

prevented the anti-Semites from raising their voices with any effect

again.

Meanwhile a more formidable and complicated outburst was preparing in

Austria itself. Here the lines of the German agitation were closely

followed, but with far more dramatic results. It was exclusively

political--that is to say, it appealed to anti-Jewish prejudices for

party purposes while it sought to rehabilitate them on a

pseudo-scientific basis, racial and economic. At first it was confined

to sporadic pamphleteers. By their side there gradually grew up a school

of Christian Socialists, recruited from the ultra-Clericals, for the

study and application of the doctrines preached at Mainz by Archbishop

Ketteler. This constituted a complete Austrian analogue to the

Evangelical-Socialist movement started in Germany by Herr Stocker. For

some years the two movements remained distinct, but signs of

approximation were early visible. Thus one of the first complaints of

the anti-Semites was that the Jews were becoming masters of the soil.

This found an echo in the agrarian principles of the Christian

Socialists, as expounded by Rudolph Meyer, in which individualism in

landed property was admitted on the condition that the landowners were

"the families of the nation" and not "cosmopolitan financiers." A

further indication of anti-Semitism is found in a speech delivered in

1878 by Prince Alois von Liechtenstein (b. 1846), the most prominent

disciple of Rudolph Meyer, who denounced the national debt as a tribute

paid by the state to cosmopolitan rentiers (Nitti, _Catholic Socialism_,

pp. 200, 201, 211, 216). The growing disorder in parliament, due to the

bitter struggle between the German and Czech parties, served to bring

anti-Semitism into the field of practical politics. Since 1867 the

German Liberals had been in power. They had made enemies of the

Clericals by tampering with the concordat, and they had split up their

own party by the federalist policy adopted by Count Taaffe. The Radical

secessionists in their turn found it difficult to agree, and an

ultra-national German wing formed itself into a separate party under the

leadership of Ritter von Schonerer (b. 1842), a Radical nationalist of

the most violent type. In 1882 two anti-Semitic leagues had been founded

in Vienna, and to these the Radical nationalists now appealed for

support. The growing importance of the party led the premier, Count

Taaffe, to angle for the support of the Clericals by accepting a portion

of the Christian Socialist programme. The hostility this excited in the

liberal press, largely written by Jews, served to bring the feudal

Christian Socialists and Radical anti-Semites together. In 1891 these

strangely assorted factions became consolidated, and during the

elections of that year Prince Liechtenstein came forward as an

anti-Semitic candidate and the acknowledged leader of the party. The

elections resulted in the return of fifteen anti-Semites to the

Reichsrath, chiefly from Vienna.

Although Prince Liechtenstein and the bulk of the Christian Socialists

had joined the anti-Semites with the support of the Clerical organ, the

_Vaterland_, the Clerical party as a whole still held aloof from the

Jew-baiters. The events of 1892-1895 put an end to their hesitation. The

Hungarian government, in compliance with long-standing pledges to the

liberal party, introduced into the diet a series of ecclesiastical

reform bills providing for civil marriage, freedom of worship, and the

legal recognition of Judasim on an equality with other denominations.

These proposals, which synchronized with Ahlwardt's turbulent agitation

in Germany, gave a great impulse to anti-Semitism and served to drive

into its ranks a large number of Clericals. The agitation was taken in

hand by the Roman Catholic clergy, and the pulpits resounded with

denunciations of the Jews. One clergyman, Father Deckert, was prosecuted

for preaching the Blood Accusation and convicted (1894). Cardinal

Schlauch, bishop of Grosswardein, declared in the Hungarian House of

Magnates that the Liberals were in league with "cosmopolitans" for the

ruin of the country. In October 1894 the magnates adopted two of the

ecclesiastical bills with amendments, but threw out the Jewish bill by a

majority of six. The crown sided with the magnates, and the ministry

resigned, although it had a majority in the Lower House. An effort was

made to form a Clerical cabinet, but it failed. Baron Banffy was then

entrusted with the construction of a fresh Liberal ministry. The

announcement that he would persist with the ecclesiastical bills lashed

the Clericals and anti-Semites into a fury, and the agitation broke out

afresh. The pope addressed a letter to Count Zichy encouraging the

magnates to resist, and once more two of the bills were amended, and the

third rejected. The papal nuncio, Mgr. Agliardi, now thought proper to

pay a visit to Budapest, where he allowed himself to be interviewed on

the crisis. This interference in the domestic concerns of Hungary was

deeply resented by the Liberals, and Baron Banffy requested Count

Kalnoky, the imperial minister of foreign affairs, to protest against it

at the Vatican. Count Kalnoky refused and tendered his resignation to

the emperor. Clerical sympathies were predominant in Vienna, and the

emperor was induced for a moment to decline the count's resignation. It

soon became clear, however, that the Hungarians were resolved to see the

crisis out, and that in the end Vienna would be compelled to give way.

The emperor accordingly retraced his steps, Count Kalnoky's resignation

was accepted, the papal nuncio was recalled, a batch of new magnates

were created, and the Hungarian ecclesiastical bills passed.

Simultaneously with this crisis another startling phase of the

anti-Semitic drama was being enacted in Vienna itself. Encouraged by the

support of the Clericals the anti-Semites resolved to make an effort to

carry the Vienna municipal elections. So far the alliance of the

Clericals with the anti-Semites had been unofficial, but on the eve of

the elections (January 1895) the pope, influenced partly by the

Hungarian crisis and partly by an idea of Cardinal Rampolla that the

best antidote to democratic socialism would be a clerically controlled

fusion of the Christian Socialists and anti-Semites, sent his blessing

to Prince Liechtenstein and his followers. This action alarmed the

government and a considerable body of the higher episcopate, who felt

assured that any permanent encouragement given to the anti-Semites would

in the end strengthen the parties of sedition and disorder. Cardinal

Schonborn was despatched in haste to Rome to expostulate with the

pontiff, and his representations were strongly supported by the French

and Belgian bishops. The mischief was however, done, and although the

pope sent a verbal message to Prince Liechtenstein excluding the

anti-Semites from his blessing, the elections resulted in a great

triumph for the Jew-haters. The municipal council was immediately

dissolved by the government, and new elections were ordered, but these

only strengthened the position of the anti-Semites, who carried 92 seats

out of a total of 138. A cabinet crisis followed, and the premiership

was entrusted to the Statthalter of Galicia, Count Badeni, who assumed

office with a pledge of war to the knife against anti-Semitism. In

October the new municipal council elected as burgomaster of Vienna Dr

Karl Lueger (b. 1844), a vehement anti-Semite, who had displaced Prince

Liechtenstein as leader of the party. The emperor declined to sanction

the election, but the council repeated it in face of the imperial

displeasure. Once more a dissolution was ordered, and for three months

the city was governed by administrative commissioners. In February 1896

elections were again held, and the anti-Semites were returned with an

increased majority. The emperor then capitulated, and after a temporary

arrangement, by which for one year Dr Lueger acted as vice-burgomaster

and handed over the burgomastership to an inoffensive nominee, permitted

the municipal council to have its way. The growing anarchy in parliament

at this moment served still further to strengthen the anti-Semites, and

their conquest of Vienna was speedily followed by a not less striking

conquest of the Landtag of Lower Austria (November 1896).

Since then a reaction of sanity has slowly but surely asserted itself.

In 1908 the anti-Semites had governed Vienna twelve years, and, although

they had accomplished much mischief, the millennium of which they were

supposed to be the heralds had not dawned. On the contrary, the

commercial interests of the city had suffered and the rates had been

enormously increased (_Neue Freie Presse_, 29th March 1901), while the

predatory hopes which secured them office had only been realized on a

small and select scale. The spectacle of a Clerico-anti-Semitic tammany

in Vienna had strengthened the resistance of the better elements in the

country. Time had also shown that Christian Socialism is only a disguise

for high Toryism, and that the German Radicals who were originally

induced to join the anti-Semites had been victimized by the Clericals.

The fruits of this disillusion began to show themselves in the general

elections of 1900-1901, when the anti-Semites lost six seats in the

Reichsrath. The elections were followed (26th January 1901) by a papal

encyclical on Christian democracy, in which Christian Socialism was

declared to be a term unacceptable to the Church, and the faithful were

adjured to abstain from agitation of a demagogic and revolutionary

character, and "to respect the rights of others." Nevertheless, in 1907

the Christian Socialists trebled their representation in the Reichsrath.

This, however, was due more to their alliance with the German national

parties than to any large increase of anti-Semitism in the electorate.

France.

The last country in Europe to make use of the teachings of German

anti-Semitism in its party politics was France. The fact that the

movement should have struck root in a republican country, where the

ideals of democratic freedom have been so passionately cultivated, has

been regarded as one of the paradoxes of our latter-day history. As a

matter of fact, it is more surprising that it was not adopted earlier.

All the social and political conditions which produced anti-Semitism in

Germany were present in France, but in an aggravated form due primarily

to the very republican _regime_ which at first sight seemed to be a

guarantee against it. In the monarchical states the dominance of the

_bourgeoisie_ was tempered in a measure by the power of the crown and

the political activity of the aristocracy, which carried with them a

very real restraining influence in the matter of political honour and

morality. In France these restraining influences were driven out of

public life by the republic. The nobility both of the _ancien regime_

and the empire stood aloof, and politics were abandoned for the most

part to professional adventurers, while the _bourgeoisie_ assumed the

form of an omnipotent plutocracy. This naturally attracted to France all

the financial adventurers in Europe, and in the train of the immigration

came not a few German Jews, alienated from their own country by the

agitation of Marr and Stocker. Thus the _bourgeoisie_ was not only more

powerful in France than in other countries, but the obnoxiousness of its

Jewish element was accentuated by a tinge of the national enemy. The

anti-clericalism of the _bourgeois_ republic and its unexampled series

of financial scandals, culminating in the Panama "Krach," thus sufficed

to give anti-Semitism a strong hold on the public mind.