anti-Semitism and the humiliating position of second-rate citizens.  The Jewish people can be restored, if, instead of many places of refuge scattered all over the globe, it will be concentrated in one politically guaranteed place of refuge.  For this purpose a general Jewish congress ought to be called which should be entrusted with the financial and political issues involved in the plan.  The present generation must take the first step towards this national restoration; posterity will do the rest.

Pinsker’s pamphlet, which was written in German and printed abroad [1] with the intention of appealing to the Jews of Western Europe, failed to produce any effect upon that assimilated section of the Jewish people.  In Russia, however, it became the catechism of the “Love of Zion” movement and eventually of Zionism and Territorialism.  The theory expounded in Pinsker’s pamphlet made a strong appeal to the Russian Jews, not only on account of its close reasoning but also because it gave powerful utterance to that pessimistic frame of mind which seemed to have seized upon them all.  Its weakest point lay in the fact that it rested on a wrong historic premise and on a narrow definition of the term “nation” in the sense of a territorial and political organism.  Pinaker seems to have overlooked that the Jews of the Diaspora, taken as a whole, have not ceased to form a nation, though of a type of its own, and that in modern political history nations of this “cultural” complexion have appeared on the scene more and more frequently.

[Footnote 1:  The first edition appeared in Berlin, in 1882.  It bears the sub-title:  “An Appeal to his Brethren by a Russian Jew,” It was published anonymously.]

Lacking a definite practical foundation, Pinsker’s doctrine could not but accomodate itself to the Palestinian colonization movement, although its insignificant dimensions were entirely out of proportion to the far-reaching plans conceived by the author of “Autoemancipation.”  Lilienblum and Pinsker were joined by the old nationalist Smolenskin and the former assimilator Levanda. Ha-Shahar and ha-Melitx in Hebrew and the Razsvyet in Russian became the literary vehicles of the new movement.  In opposition to these tendencies, the Voskhod of St. Petersburg[1] reflected the ideas of the progressive Russian-Jewish intelligenzia, and defended their old position which was that of civil emancipation and inner Jewish reforms.  In the middle between these two extremes stood the Russian weekly Russki Yevrey ("The Russian Jew"), in St. Petersburg, and the Hebrew weekly ha-Tzefirah ("The Dawn"), in Warsaw, voicing the moderate views of the Haskalah period, with a decided bent towards the nationalistic movement.

[Footnote 1:  See p. 221, It appeared simultaneously as a weekly and a monthly.]

3.  MISCARRIED RELIGIOUS REFORMS