feel
himself to be personally identified with it; whence the hesitation on
the part of the majority of Jewish students to participate actively in
Zionism even though they would all admit it to be the logical sequel
of Jewish history.

For Zionism to them can never become a personal ideal, something
requisite for the salvation of their souls. It can at its best appeal
to them, in so far as they are consciously Jewish, as the cause of the
nation as a whole; and consequently the mere suspicion that their
affiliation with the movement might be held up against them as an
impugnment of their loyalty to the land of their birth and abode is
sufficient to keep them aloof from it. It was very interesting for me
to notice how everywhere, after a long manoeuvre of Zionist
discussions with good Jewish young men, they would finally halt at
their unshakable position that Zionists might arouse the suspicion of
their Gentile neighbors as to the loyalty and patriotism of the Jews.
Where people are obsessed by the fear of being misunderstood in doing
what they otherwise think to be good and impeccable, no arguments, of
course, can avail. They are in this respect characteristically Jewish.
In their Brand-like racial frame of mind, the Jews could never stop
midway between the two antipodes of roving world-citizenry and
hidebound mono-patriotism. It is probable that their attitude will
change as soon as it is generally realized that personal devotion and
loyalty to two causes are not psychologically a self-deception, and
that the serving of two masters is not a moral anomaly unless, as in
the original adage, one of the masters be Satanic.

[Illustration: Signature: Harry Wolfson]

Extract from a letter received from William Chadwick,
President of the Hebrew Congregation and the Adler
Society, Oxford University, England, commenting on the
section devoted to England in Mr. Wolfson's article in
our January number: "The remarks of Mr. Wolfson, whom
we remember very well, concerning Oxford, were very
apt for the time; but in Oxford, one particular type
of Judaism never remains for long; Judaism here is in
a state of perpetual flux, and to seize upon any one
moment and represent that view as a type of Oxford's
Judaism is very erroneous. I am sure that if Mr.
Wolfson were here now, he would not recognize the
services or the attitude now pr