406 PECULIAR CONTROVERSIAL METHODS xi 



considerable "rural district" attached to it and 

 notwithstanding its distinctness, amenable to the 

 jurisdiction of the Gentile municipal authorities, 

 is one of the main points of my case. 



PROP. 2. He more fatally confounds the local civil 

 government and its following, including, perhaps, 

 the whole wealthy class and those attached to it, with 

 the ethnical character of the general population. 



Having survived confusion No. 1, which turns 

 out not to be on my side, I am now confronted in 

 No. 2 with a "more fatal" error and so it is, if 

 there be degrees of fatality ; but, again, it is Mr. 

 Gladstone's and not mine. It would appear, from 

 this proposition (about the grammatical interpre- 

 tation of which, however, I admit there are diffi- 

 culties), that Mr. Gladstone holds that the " local 

 civil government and its following among the 

 wealthy," were ethnically different from the 

 "general population." On p. 348, he further 

 admits that the " wealthy and the local governing 

 power " were friendly to the Romans. Are we 

 then to suppose that it was the persons of Jewish 

 " ethnical character " who favoured the Romans, 

 while those of Gentile " ethnical character " were 

 opposed to them? But, if that supposition is 

 absurd, the only alternative is that the local civil 

 government was ethnically Gentile. This is 

 exactly my contention. 



At pp. 379 to 391 of the essay on "The 

 Keepers of the Herd of Swine " I have fully 



