526 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



so far as I know, there is no provision in the law against the 

 practice of the calling of a tax-gatherer by a Jew. The publican 

 was in fact very much in the position of an Irish process-server 

 at the present day more, rather than less, despised and hated on 

 account of the perfect legality of his occupation. Except for 

 certain sacrificial purposes, pigs were held in such abhorrence by 

 the ancient Egyptians that swineherds were not permitted to 

 enter a temple, or to intermarry with other castes ; and any one 

 who had, even accidentally, touched a pig was unclean. But 

 these very regulations prove that pig-keeping was not illegal ; 

 it merely involved certain civil and religious disabilities. For 

 the Jews, dogs were typically " unclean " animals ; but, when 

 that eminently pious Hebrew, Tobit, " went forth " with the 

 angel " the young man's dog " went " with them " (Tobit v, 16) 

 without apparent remonstrance from the celestial guide. I 

 really do not see how an appeal to the law could have justified 

 any one in drowning Tobit's dog, on the ground that his master 

 was keeping and feeding an animal quite as " unclean " as any 

 pig. Certainly the excellent Raguel must have failed to see the 

 harm of dog-keeping, for we are told that, on the travelers' 

 return homeward, " the dog went after them " (xi, 4). 



Until better light than I have been able to obtain is thrown 

 upon the subject, therefore, it is obvious that Mr. Gladstone's 

 argumentative house has been built upon an extremely slippery 

 quicksand ; perhaps even has no foundation at all. 



Yet another " point " does not seem to have occurred to Mr. 

 Gladstone, who is so much shocked that I attach no overwhelming 

 weight to the assertions contained in the synoptic Gospels, even 

 when all three concur. These Gospels agree in stating, in the 

 most express, and, to some extent verbally identical, terms, that 

 the devils entered the pigs at their own request,* and the third 

 Gospel (viii, 31) tells us what the motive of the demons was in 

 asking the singular boon : " They entreated him that he would 

 not command them to depart into the abyss." From this, it would 

 seem that the devils thought to exchange the heavy punishment 

 of transportation to the abyss, for the lighter penalty of imprison- 

 ment in swine. And some commentators, more ingenious than 

 respectful to the supposed chief actor in this extraordinary fable, 

 have dwelt, with satisfaction, upon the very unpleasant quarter 

 of an hour which the evil spirits must have had, when the head- 

 long rush of their maddened tenements convinced them how com- 

 pletely they were taken in. In the whole story, there is not one 



* First Gospel: "And the devils besought him saying, If thou cast us out send us away 

 into the herd of swine." Second Gospel : " They besought him saying, Send us into the 

 swine." Third Gospel : " They entreated him that he would give them leave to enter into 

 them." 



