accounts of
the history of these documents--accounts which differ so radically
that they cannot be reconciled.

Let us examine these various accounts very briefly. In the
introduction to the edition of 1905 Nilus tells us that in 1901 he
came into possession of the alleged protocols. He says that at the
close of a series of secret meetings of influential leaders of this
conspiracy, held under Masonic auspices, a woman stole from "one of
the most influential and most highly initiated leaders of Freemasonry"
certain documents which turned out to be disconnected portions of the
_proces-verbaux_ of lectures or reports made at the aforesaid meetings
of the Elders of Zion. He says that the protocols were "signed by
representatives of Zion of the Thirty-third Degree," but he does not
give the names of such signatories. This is of itself a suspicious
circumstance, but a close reading of the text reveals that it is only
one of several equally suspicious facts. Nilus does not claim to have
seen the actual stolen documents, the original protocols. On the
contrary, he tells us that what he received in 1901 was a document
which he was assured was an accurate translation of the stolen
documents. His own words are: "This document came into my possession
some four years ago (1901) with the positive assurance that it is a
true copy in translation of original documents stolen by a woman from
one of the most influential and the most highly initiated leaders of
Freemasonry." Nilus has not seen the original manuscript, nor has any
other known person. We have only the word of Professor Nilus that
somebody gave him assurance that certain manuscripts were true and
accurate translations of stolen documents of great international
importance. So far as Nilus himself knew, or cared, apparently, the
manuscript given, to him might well have been a forgery.

We do not even know the date of the alleged secret meetings of the
Elders of Zion at which the lectures or reports, or whatever they
were, recorded in these protocols were made and, presumably,
considered. We do not know the name of the "most influential and most
highly initiated" leader of Freemasonry from whom the documents were
said to have been stolen. Neither do we know the name of the thief.
We do not know the name of the author of the alleged protocols, though
obviously it would make all the difference in the world whether these
are summaries of statements made by a responsible leader of