TO ТHE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

Sir,—Since the appearance of my hasty remarks in The Times of November 22, anonymous. private, and printed letters have been poured in upon me. The former are probably addressed from the slums, containing words and expressions with which I am unacquainted. Thus I am unable to refer to their contents.

The second category is more comprehensible as to words, but it hardly refers to what I said. I may have expressed myself badly; the fault is therefore on my side. I have, however, to admit that, until I read these replies, I had not learned that the word “twaddle” can never be applied to any oratorical display in which dukes and poets have condescended to take part. “Right honourables,” under certain circumstances, when they are not in power, are less screened by the English grammar, and no reproach has been addressed to me on their behalf.

But while I plead guilty to this grammatical mistake, I must still insist that the Guildhall meeting is a great political and humanitarian blunder, and this is all I ventured to hint when writing in The Times a few days ago.

Women, when their hearts arc too full, when their nerves are overstrained, indulge in a good cry. This is a familiar fact, an old remedy. The solace of tears is the subject of many songs.

Englishmen, when their nervous system is upset, find their chief consolation in speechifying at public meetings. Well, why not? We Russians cannot stop them, and, being very conscious of our limited powers in that respect, and of the ridicule attached to vain attempts, we abstain from interfering.

But idle talk may degenerate into impertinence. We are not easily moved by mere verbiage, and have little respect even for fine oratorical displays, when those go beyond a wise limit. We prefer deeds and work, silence and meditation. Our church even prays for Divine help from exaggerated talk. (I wonder whether it would not be wise for the English Church to do the same?)

I referred to Mr. Booth’s “Darkest England,” to the Congo horrors, and to the most extraordinary declarations of the “Anglo-Australian” (The Times, November 14) that “those English who are accused of torturing natives to death, and of buying a girl in order to have her killed and eaten, are not worse than most of his compatriots,” not because I endorsed all these stories—how could I?—but because I thought they deserved to be thoroughly investigated, and, if possible, refuted.

A meeting, having for its object to elicit actual facts, was and is most desirable—that was almost all I said.

I further hinted that advice given to a great military nation of 110 millions of men by a handful of those whom I irreverently called “twaddlers” was somehow grotesque; only the delusion that it will have some good results can be more grotesque than the meeting itself.

I am assured—for there is nothing like coming from home to hear home news—that no Talmudist Jew is allowed to live at St. Petersburg. Why, then, are they building a beautiful synagogue at St. Petersburg, and why are there about 20 Talmudist places of worship at Moscow? Are they for the Greek Orthodox?

In a very long letter to The Times (November 22) Mr. Oswald Simon describes me as “one whom the whole Jewish race recognise аs their bitterest enemy.” It is not pleasant, indeed, to discuss personalities in print, but having that penalty to pay for occasionally taking the pen, I must tell my clever opponent that he is perfectly wrong.

I am a Greek Orthodox; our Church is not only opposed to lex talionis, but commands us to love our enemy. Personally I have several friends of Jewish origin, but they are no staunch Talmudists. The latter, to be consistent with their creed, have to be hostile to the Christians.

I do not suppose that even Lord Beaconsfield, with all his cleverness and talents, so charmingly described by Mr. Froode, could ever have been Prime Minister had he not embraced Christianity. If a man of his judgment gave up the faith in which he was born, he surely must have had reasons for doing so.

In fact, it is because I feel for our poor Talmudist Jews that I deeply regret the harm which will be the only result of the meeting organized by the Lord Mayor and his party.

ln the Pall Mall Gazette of Monday last (November 24) the arrival of 300 destitute Jews is already announced. Mark my word, many more will follow. What is the welcome these innocent people are going to have? Have you ready shelters for them? Have you collected large sums of money on their behalf ? How much? Are your purses as widely open for them as your hearts? If, on selling all they possessed, they are exposed to starvation and despair, what kind of help are you ready to offer?

It is simply madness to imagine that the Russian Government needs advice or guidance from the Guildhall. When Lord Beaconsfeld returned to his former religious sympathies, and seemed determined to declare war against a great Christian people, Mr. Gladstone and his party organized splendid meetings all over Great Britain, to save England from unnecessary loss of money and lives. But these meetings were held by Englishmen for the enlightenment of their own country men. The weapons they used were English weapons, the interests they appealed to were English interests.

If, contrary to our habits and tastes, we held meetings, advising England to make freeholders of the Irish peasantry, or to abolish her cat-o’-nine-tails in your prisons, could our advice be listened to and carried out? Of course not, and quite rightly not, for, though the Irish question is perhaps even more studied by Russians than the Jewish question by genuine Britons, you would be quite justified in saying to us even roughly, “Mind your own business, and don’t interfere in things you do not understand.”

The less hostile feelings are excited amongst human beings obliged to live together, the better. There are certain measures which might improve the Hebrew-Russian entente cordiale, but here again the Russian Government alone can effect this—viz., if there were a law prohibiting our Jews from lending money to Russians, and especially to boys under age, it would wipe out at once the greatest cause of the present indignation and protest in Russia.

However, this concerns Russian home policy, and I had better stop. When my duty compels me to speak, I prefer addressing myself to the people who have the power to help me. Bad examples are decidedly catching.

OLGA NOVIKOFF

Claridge’s Hotel. Brook-street, Nov. 26.