this was in itself a not unimportant factor in the new conditions by means of which Greek culture was exercising its influence upon them. Again, it was the policy of the Egyptian kings to foster free intercourse between their Hellenic and Asiatic subjects; the chief means whereby this was promoted was by planting Greek settlements in Palestine—following herein the example of Alexander[25]—which resulted in the rise of a number of new Greek cities in that country; the Greeks and Macedonians who consequently became settlers there constituted before long a numerous and influential element in the population[26]; in many cases they changed a city which had hitherto been wholly Semitic into one which became predominantly Greek; examples of this are Raphia, Gaza, Ascalon, Azotus, Cæsarea, Ptolemais, and others. Nor was this confined to Western Palestine; many cities in Eastern Palestine as well became centres of Greek influence. Invariably in cases of this kind the local government of the city was framed on the Greek model; this meant the independent organization of large municipal communities which, as Schürer points out, was of “fundamental importance in the political life of Palestine; this was,” he continues, “indeed, no novelty in Palestine, where from of old the large towns of the Philistine and Phœnician coasts had formed centres of political life. The influence of Hellenism marks, however, a turning-point in this respect also. For, on the one hand, it essentially transformed the existing communities, while, on the other, it founded numerous new ones and made the municipal communities in general _the basis of the political organization of the country_ in a far more thorough manner than before. Wherever Hellenism penetrated—especially on the Philistine coasts and the eastern boundaries of Palestine beyond the Jordan—the country districts were grouped around single large towns as their political centres. Each of such communities formed a comparatively independent whole, managing its own internal affairs; its dependence upon the rulers of Syria consisted only in the recognition of their military supremacy, the payment of taxes, and certain other performances. At the head of such a Hellenistically organized community was a democratic senate of several hundred members.”[27] It cannot be doubted that the organization on Greek models of the local government of Jewish cities must have brought a new mental outlook to the Jews. The political assemblies and annual elections in which each individual took his part must have tended to give to the Jew a sense of his personal importance such as he is not likely ever to have experienced before. In the past history of the Jewish State a _régime_ had obtained in which the ordinary individual was regarded as of little or no account; the vast bulk of the people took no part, not even the most humble, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct of affairs; they had no voice even in the smaller world