I asked a dozen colleagues what they thought might be the background of lawyer Iggie Lavinsky [1], carefully using only the words of the narrator in the story when I described this man: "... scum, a street fighter ... He'll do anything to win, anything: perjury, bribery ... anything". Not surprisingly, no one thought the unscrupulous Lavinsky might be from a family of Mongolian horsemen, Australian aborigines, Viking sailors, or Bedouin shepherds or that Iggie was short for Ignatius with Catholic roots in some Eastern European country. "Why, he's supposed to be Jewish; what else could he be!?" was everyone's response. The ancient, malicious stereotype of the shyster Jew was immediately recognized.

LaCombe is a skilled, accomplished writer, and, judging from his writing, he is an erudite, sensitive person. I regretfully assume that his story is based on a real-life experience. The moral and ethical issues it illustrates deserve contemplation. But did poor Mrs. Heath's salvation have to depend on such a blatant caricature of a Jew? LaCombe seems to have given the lawyers' names considerable thought, starting with clean Prudhomme, descending midway to Slattery, and literally hitting the floor with Iggie. Would the story have been less effective if the character Iggie had been named Ed Lavin or, for that matter, Jean Coutermarsh, Thomas O'Connor, J. P. Brown, Jr., or Ismail Ibn Said?

Even if this association was unintended, I think many Jewish readers will see in LaCombe's story a pointless, insensitive resurrection of an offensive racial stereotype. I am surprised at LaCombe and the Editors of Annals.