LTIt is an old and well-known truth that there is not a single definition of Antisemitism about which the majority of scholars can agree. One of the most frequently discussed problems in this context is the question of what is the relationship between the earlier forms of hostility to Jews and modern ‘scientifically’ based Antisemitism. In his book about Antisemitism in Lithuania in 1889–1914, the German historian Klaus Richter criticises the approach that radically separates the old and new (modern) hostility to Jews. Following Christhard Hoffmann, he points out that it is impossible to discern any clear phases between religious and modern Antisemitism. Therefore, the author of the book chooses a very broad understanding of Antisemitism, ‘manifestations of conflicts of interest’, thus a certain form of ‘making foreign’ (p. 25). The theme of hostility toward Jews in Lithuania is not new in historiography. Over the past few decades, historians, first of all in Lithuania, have written many works on the subject, and in one way or another, Richter uses them. This book differs from current Lithuanian historiography not only in the already mentioned definition of Antisemitism, the up to now not more broadly analysed analysis of the relations of various societies, first of all of consumers, toward hostility to Jews, but also the concept of ‘contact zones’. The author tries to explain how the Lithuanian intelligentsia and priests understood, described and tried to change these ‘contact zones’; what role these zones played in occurrences of collective violence; how, while establishing various cooperatives, efforts were made to change them [Darius Staliūnas. Lithuanian Historical Studies. 2015, vol. 19, p. 192].