Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 15, Slice 5

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 15, Slice 5 - "Joints" to "Justinian I."
Author: Various
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 15, Slice 5 - "Joints" to "Justinian I."" ***

Transcriber's notes:

(1) Numbers following letters (without space) like C2 were originally
printed in subscript. Letter subscripts are preceded by an
underscore, like C_n.

(2) Characters following a carat (^) were printed in superscript.

(3) Side-notes were relocated to function as titles of their respective
paragraphs.

(4) Macrons and breves above letters and dots below letters were not
inserted.

(5) [root] stands for the root symbol; [alpha], [beta], etc. for greek
letters.

(6) The following typographical errors have been corrected:

ARTICLE JONES, INIGO: "... and in the capacity of designer of the
masques he came into collision with Ben Jonson, who frequently made
him the butt of his satire." 'collision' amended from 'collison'.

ARTICLE JOPLIN: "Joplin is the trade centre of a rich agricultural
and fruit-growing district, but its growth has been chiefly due to
its situation in one of the most productive zinc and lead regions
in the country, for which it is the commercial centre." 'most'
amended from 'must'.

ARTICLE JORDANES: "... and their differentiation into Visigoths and
Ostrogoths, are next described. Chs. v.-xiii. contain an account of
the intrusive Geto-Scythian element before alluded to." 'next'
amended from 'nest'.

ARTICLE JURASSIC: "... similarly at the top of the system there is
a passage from the Jurassic to the Cretaceous rocks (Alps)."
'system' amended from 'sytsem'.

ARTICLE JURY: "... 'copied from this or that kindred institution to
be found in this or that German or Scandinavian land,' or brought
over ready made by Hengist or by William." 'or' amended from 'of'.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA

A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE
AND GENERAL INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

VOLUME XV, SLICE V

Joints to Justinian I.

ARTICLES IN THIS SLICE:

JOINTS (anatomy) JUBILEES, BOOK OF
JOINTS (engineering) JUBILEE YEAR
JOINTS (geology) JÚCAR
JOINTURE JUD, LEO
JOINVILLE JUDAEA
JOINVILLE, FRANÇOIS LOUIS MARIE JUDAH
JOINVILLE, JEAN JUDAS ISCARIOT
JOIST JUDAS-TREE
JÓKAI, MAURUS JUDD, SYLVESTER
JOKJAKARTA JUDE, THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF
JOLIET JUDGE
JOLLY JUDGE-ADVOCATE-GENERAL
JOLY DE LOTBINIÈRE, GUSTAVE JUDGES, THE BOOK OF
JOMINI, ANTOINE HENRI JUDGMENT
JOMMELLI, NICCOLA JUDGMENT DEBTOR
JONAH (prophet) JUDGMENT SUMMONS
JONAH, RABBI JUDICATURE ACTS
JONAS, JUSTUS JUDITH, THE BOOK OF
JONATHAN JUDSON, ADONIRAM
JONCIÈRES, VICTORIN JUEL, JENS
JONES, ALFRED GILPIN JUEL, NIELS
JONES, SIR ALFRED LEWIS JUG
JONES, EBENEZER JUGE, BOFFILLE DE
JONES, ERNEST CHARLES JUGGERNAUT
JONES, HENRY JUGGLER
JONES, HENRY ARTHUR JUGURTHA
JONES, INIGO JUJU
JONES, JOHN JUJUBE
JONES, JOHN PAUL JU-JUTSU or JIU-JITSU
JONES, MICHAEL JUJUY
JONES, OWEN (Welsh antiquary) JUKES, JOSEPH BEETE
JONES, OWEN (British architect) JULIAN
JONES, RICHARD JÜLICH
JONES, THOMAS RUPERT JULIEN, STANISLAS
JONES, WILLIAM JULIUS
JONES, SIR WILLIAM JULLIEN, LOUIS ANTOINE
JÖNKÖPING JULLUNDUR
JONSON, BEN JULY
JOPLIN JUMALA
JOPPA JUMIÈGES
JORDAENS, JACOB JUMILLA
JORDAN, CAMILLE JUMNA
JORDAN, DOROTHEA JUMPING
JORDAN, THOMAS JUMPING-HARE
JORDAN, WILHELM JUMPING-MOUSE
JORDAN (river) JUMPING-SHREW
JORDANES JUNAGARH
JORDANUS JUNCACEAE
JORIS, DAVID JUNCTION CITY
JORTIN, JOHN JUNE
JOSEPH (Old Testament) JUNEAU
JOSEPH (New Testament) JUNG, JOHANN HEINRICH
JOSEPH OF ARIMATHAEA JUNG BAHADUR, SIR
JOSEPH I. JUNG-BUNZLAU
JOSEPH II. JUNGFRAU
JOSEPH, FATHER JUNGLE
JOSEPHINE JUNIN
JOSEPHUS, FLAVIUS JUNIPER
JOSHEKAN JUNIUS
JOSHUA, BOOK OF JUNIUS, FRANZ
JOSHUA THE STYLITE JUNK
JOSIAH JUNKER, WILHELM
JÓSIKA, MIKLOS [NICHOLAS] JUNKET
JOSIPPON JUNO
JOSS JUNOT, ANDOCHE
JOST, ISAAK MARKUS JUNOT, LAURE
JOTUNHEIM JUNTA
JOUBERT, BARTHÉLEMY CATHERINE JUPITER (Roman deity)
JOUBERT, JOSEPH JUPITER (planet)
JOUBERT, PETRUS JACOBUS JUR
JOUFFROY, JEAN JURA (department of France)
JOUFFROY, THÉODORE SIMON JURA (island)
JOUGS JURA (mountains)
JOULE, JAMES PRESCOTT JURASSIC
JOURDAN, JEAN BAPTISTE JURAT
JOURNAL JURIEN DE LA GRAVIÈRE, JEAN EDMOND
JOURNEY JURIEU, PIERRE
JOUVENET, JEAN JURIS
JOUY, VICTOR JOSEPH ÉTIENNE DE JURISDICTION
JOVELLANOS, GASPAR MELCHOR DE JURISPRUDENCE
JOVELLAR Y SOLER, JOAQUIN JURISPRUDENCE, COMPARATIVE
JOVIAN JURJANI
JOVINIANUS JURY
JOVIUS, PAULUS JUS PRIMAE NOCTIS
JOWETT, BENJAMIN JUS RELICTAE
JOYEUSE JUSSERAND, JEAN ADRIEN ANTOINE JULES
JOYEUSE ENTRÉE JUSSIEU, DE
JUAN FERNANDEZ ISLANDS JUSTICE
JUANGS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
JUAN MANUEL, DON JUSTICIAR
JUAREZ, BENITO PABLO JUSTICIARY, HIGH COURT OF
JUBA (kings of Numidia) JUSTIFICATION
JUBA (African river) JUSTIN I.
JUBBULPORE JUSTIN II.
JUBÉ JUSTIN (Roman historian)
JUBILEE (or Jubile), YEAR OF JUSTINIAN I.

JOINTS, in anatomy. The study of joints, or articulations, is known as
Arthrology (Gr. [Greek: arthron]), and naturally begins with the
definition of a joint. Anatomically the term is used for any connexion
between two or more adjacent parts of the skeleton, whether they be bone
or cartilage. Joints may be immovable, like those of the skull, or
movable, like the knee.

[Illustration: FIG. 1.--Vertical section through a synchondrosis. b, b,
the two bones; Sc, the interposed cartilage; l, the fibrous membrane
which plays the part of a ligament.]

[Illustration: FIG. 2.--Vertical section through a cranial suture, b, b,
the two bones; s, opposite the suture; l, the fibrous membrane, or
periosteum, passing between the two bones, which plays the part of a
ligament, and which is continuous with the interposed fibrous membrane.]

Immovable joints, or _synarthroses_, are usually adaptations to growth
rather than mobility, and are always between bones. When growth ceases
the bones often unite, and the joint is then obliterated by a process
known as _synostosis_, though whether the union of the bones is the
cause or the effect of the stoppage of growth is obscure. Immovable
joints never have a cavity between the two bones; there is simply a
layer of the substance in which the bone has been laid down, and this
remains unaltered. If the bone is being deposited in cartilage a layer
of cartilage intervenes, and the joint is called _synchondrosis_ (fig.
1), but if in membrane a thin layer of fibrous tissue persists, and
the joint is then known as a _suture_ (fig. 2). Good examples of
synchondroses are the epiphysial lines which separate the epiphyses
from the shafts of developing long bones, or the occipito-sphenoid
synchondrosis in the base of the skull. Examples of sutures are
plentiful in the vault of the skull, and are given special names, such
as sutura dentata, s. serrata, s. squamosa, according to the plan of
their outline. There are two kinds of fibrous synarthroses, which
differ from sutures in that they do not synostose. One of these is a
_schindylesis_, in which a thin plate of one bone is received into a
slot in another, as in the joint between the sphenoid and vomer. The
other is a peg and socket joint, or _gomphosis_, found where the fangs
of the teeth fit into the alveoli or tooth sockets in the jaws.

[Illustration: FIG. 3.--Vertical section through an amphiarthrodial
joint. b, b, the two bones; c, c, the plate of cartilage on the
articular surface of each bone; Fc, the intermediate fibro-cartilage;
l, l, the external ligaments.]

Movable joints, or _diarthroses_, are divided into those in which
there is much and little movement. When there is little movement the
term half-joint or _amphiarthrosis_ is used. The simplest kind of
amphiarthrosis is that in which two bones are connected by bundles of
fibrous tissue which pass at right angles from the one to the other;
such a joint only differs from a suture in the fact that the
intervening fibrous tissue is more plentiful and is organized into
definite bundles, to which the name of _interosseous ligaments_ is
given, and also that it does not synostose when growth stops. A joint
of this kind is called a _syndesmosis_, though probably the
distinction is a very arbitrary one, and depends upon the amount of
movement which is brought about by the muscles on the two bones. As an
instance of this the inferior tibio-fibular joint of mammals may be
cited. In man this is an excellent example of a syndesmosis, and there
is only a slight play between the two bones. In the mouse there is no
movement, and the two bones form a synchondrosis between them which
speedily becomes a synostosis, while in many Marsupials there is free
mobility between the tibia and fibula, and a definite synovial cavity
is established. The other variety of amphiarthrosis or half-joint is
the _symphysis_, which differs from the syndesmosis in having both
bony surfaces lined with cartilage and between the two cartilages a
layer of fibro-cartilage, the centre of which often softens and forms
a small synovial cavity. Examples of this are the symphysis pubis, the
mesosternal joint, and the joints between the bodies of the vertebrae
(fig. 3).

The _true diarthroses_ are joints in which there is either fairly free
or very free movement. The opposing surfaces of the bones are lined
with articular cartilage, which is the unossified remnant of the
cartilaginous model in which they are formed and is called the
_cartilage of encrustment_ (fig. 4, c). Between the two cartilages is
the _joint cavity_, while surrounding the joint is the _capsule_ (fig.
4, l), which is formed chiefly by the superficial layers of the
original periosteum or perichondrium, but it may be strengthened
externally by surrounding fibrous structures, such as the tendons of
muscles, which become modified and acquire fresh attachments for the
purpose. It may be said generally that the greater the intermittent
strain on any part of the capsule the more it responds by increasing
in thickness. Lining the interior of the capsule, and all other parts
of the joint cavity except where the articular cartilage is present,
is the _synovial membrane_ (fig. 4, dotted line); this is a layer of
endothelial cells which secrete the synovial fluid to lubricate the
interior of the joint by means of a small percentage of mucin, albumin
and fatty matter which it contains.

[Illustration: FIG. 4.--Vertical section through a diarthrodial joint.
b, b, the two bones; c, c, the plate of cartilage on the articular
surface of each bone; l, l, the investing ligament, the dotted line
within which represents the synovial membrane. The letter s is placed
in the cavity of the joint.]

[Illustration: FIG. 5.--Vertical section through a diarthrodial joint,
in which the cavity is subdivided into two by an interposed
fibro-cartilage or meniscus, Fc. The other letters as in fig. 4.]

A _compound diarthrodial joint_ is one in which the joint cavity is
divided partly or wholly into two by a _meniscus_ or _interarticular
fibro-cartilage_ (fig. 5, Fc).

The shape of the joint cavity varies greatly, and the different
divisions of movable joints depend upon it. It is often assumed that
the structure of a joint determines its movement, but there is
something to be said for the view that the movements to which a joint
is subject determine its shape. As an example of this it has been
found that the mobility of the metacarpo-phalangeal joint of the thumb
in a large number of working men is less than it is in a large number
of women who use needles and thread, or in a large number of medical
students who use pens and scalpels, and that the slightly movable
thumb has quite a differently shaped articular surface from the freely
movable one (see _J. Anat. and Phys._ xxix. 446). R. Fick, too, has
demonstrated that the concavity or convexity of the joint surface
depends on the position of the chief muscles which move the joint, and
has enunciated the law that when the chief muscle or muscles are
attached close to the articular end of the skeletal element that end
becomes concave, while, when they are attached far off or are not
attached at all, as in the case of the phalanges, the articular end is
convex. His mechanical explanation is ingenious and to the present
writer convincing (see _Handbuch der Gelenke_, by R. Fick, Jena,
1904). Bernays, however, pointed out that the articular ends were
moulded before the muscular tissue was differentiated (_Morph. Jahrb._
iv. 403), but to this Fick replies by pointing out that muscular
movements begin before the muscle fibres are formed, and may be seen
in the chick as early as the second day of incubation.

The freely movable joints (true diarthrosis) are classified as
follows:--

(1) _Gliding joints_ (_Arthrodia_), in which the articular surfaces
are flat, as in the carpal and tarsal bones.

(2) _Hinge joints_ (_Ginglymus_), such as the elbow and
interphalangeal joints.

(3) _Condyloid joints_ (_Condylarthrosis_), allowing flexion and
extension as well as lateral movement, but no rotation. The
metacarpo-phalangeal and wrist joints are examples of this.

(4) _Saddle-shaped joints_ (_Articulus sellaris_), allowing the same
movements as the last with greater strength. The carpo-metacarpal
joint of the thumb is an example.

(5) _Ball and socket joints_ (_Enarthrosis_), allowing free movement
in any direction, as in the shoulder and hip.

(6) _Pivot-joint_ (_Trochoides_), allowing only rotation round a
longitudinal axis, as in the radio-ulnar joints.

_Embryology._

Joints are developed in the mesenchyme, or that part of the mesoderm
which is not concerned in the formation of the serous cavities. The
synarthroses may be looked upon merely as a delay in development,
because, as the embryonic tissue of the mesenchyme passes from a fibrous
to a bony state, the fibrous tissue may remain along a certain line and
so form a suture, or, when chondrification has preceded ossification,
the cartilage may remain at a certain place and so form a synchondrosis.
The diarthroses represent an arrest of development at an earlier stage,
for a part of the original embryonic tissue remains as a plate of round
cells, while the neighbouring two rods chondrify and ossify. This plate
may become converted into fibro-cartilage, in which case an
amphiarthrodial joint results, or it may become absorbed in the centre
to form a joint cavity, or, if this absorption occurs in two places, two
joint cavities with an intervening meniscus may result. Although,
ontogenetically, there is little doubt that menisci arise in the way
just mentioned, the teaching of comparative anatomy suggests that,
phylogenetically, they originate as an ingrowth from the capsule pushing
the synovial membrane in front of them. The subject will be returned to
when the comparative anatomy of the individual joints is reviewed. In
the human foetus the joint cavities are all formed by the tenth week of
intra-uterine life.

ANATOMY

_Joints of the Axial Skeleton._

The bodies of the vertebrae except those of the sacrum and coccyx are
separated, and at the same time connected, by the _intervertebral
disks_. These are formed of alternating concentric rings of fibrous
tissue and fibro-cartilage, with an elastic mass in the centre known as
the _nucleus pulposus_. The bodies are also bound together by _anterior_
and _posterior common ligaments_. The odontoid process of the axis fits
into a pivot joint formed by the anterior arch of the atlas in front and
the _transverse ligament_ behind; it is attached to the basioccipital
bone by two strong _lateral check ligaments_, and, in the mid line, by a
feebler _middle check ligament_ which is regarded morphologically as
containing the remains of the notochord. This _atlanto-axial joint_ is
the one which allows the head to be shaken from side to side. Nodding
the head occurs at the _occipito-atlantal joint_, which consists of the
two occipital condyles received into the cup-shaped articular facets on
the atlas and surrounded by capsular ligaments. The neural arches of the
vertebrae articulate one with another by the _articular facets_, each of
which has a capsular ligament. In addition to these the laminae are
connected by the very elastic _ligamenta subflava_. The spinous
processes are joined by _interspinous ligaments_, and their tips by a
_supraspinous ligament_, which in the neck is continued from the spine
of the seventh cervical vertebra to the external occipital crest and
protuberance as the _ligamentum nuchae_, a thin, fibrous, median septum
between the muscles of the back of the neck.

The combined effect of all these joints and ligaments is to allow the
spinal column to be bent in any direction or to be rotated, though only
a small amount of movement occurs between any two vertebrae.

The heads of the ribs articulate with the bodies of two contiguous
thoracic vertebrae and the disk between. The ligaments which connect
them are called _costo-central_, and are two in number. The anterior of
these is the _stellate ligament_, which has three bands radiating from
the head of the rib to the two vertebrae and the intervening disk. The
other one is the _interarticular ligament_, which connects the ridge,
dividing the two articular cavities on the head of the rib, to the disk;
it is absent in the first and three lowest ribs.

The _costo-transverse ligaments_ bind the ribs to the transverse
processes of the thoracic vertebrae. The _superior costo-transverse
ligament_ binds the neck of the rib to the transverse process of the
vertebra above; the _middle_ or _interosseous_ connects the back of the
neck to the front of its own transverse process; while the _posterior_
runs from the tip of the transverse process to the outer part of the
tubercle of the rib. The inner and lower part of each tubercle forms a
diarthrodial joint with the upper and fore part of its own transverse
process, except in the eleventh and twelfth ribs. At the junction of the
ribs with their cartilages no diarthrodial joint is formed; the
periosteum simply becomes perichondrium and binds the two structures
together. Where the cartilages, however, join the sternum, or where they
join one another, diarthrodial joints with synovial cavities are
established. In the case of the second rib this is double, and in that
of the first usually wanting. The _mesosternal joint_, between the pre-
and mesosternum, has already been given as an example of a symphysis.

_Comparative Anatomy._--For the convexity or concavity of the
vertebral centra in different classes of vertebrates, see SKELETON:
_axial_. The intervertebral disks first appear in the Crocodilia, the
highest existing order of reptilia. In many Mammals the middle
fasciculus of the stellate ligament is continued right across the
ventral surface of the disk into the ligament of the opposite side,
and is probably serially homologous with the ventral arch of the
atlas. A similar ligament joins the heads of the ribs dorsal to the
disk. To these bands the names of anterior (ventral) and posterior
(dorsal) _conjugal ligaments_ have been given, and they may be
demonstrated in a seven months' human foetus (see B. Sutton,
_Ligaments_, London, 1902). The _ligamentum nuchae_ is a strong
elastic band in the Ungulata which supports the weight of the head. In
the Carnivora it only reaches as far forward as the spine of the axis.

The JAW JOINT, or _temporo-mandibular articulation_, occurs between the
sigmoid cavity of the temporal bone and the condyle of the jaw. Between
the two there is an interarticular fibro-cartilage or meniscus, and the
joint is surrounded by a capsule of which the outer part is the
thickest. On first opening the mouth, the joint acts as a hinge, but
very soon the condyle begins to glide forward on to the eminentia
articularis (see SKULL) and takes the meniscus with it. This gliding
movement between the meniscus and temporal bone may be separately
brought about by protruding the lower teeth in front of the upper, or,
on one side only, by moving the jaw across to the opposite side.

_Comparative Anatomy._--The joint between the temporal and mandibular
bones is only found in Mammals; in the lower vertebrates the jaw opens
between the quadrate and articular bones. In the Carnivora it is a
perfect hinge; in many Rodents only the antero-posterior gliding
movement is present; while in the Ruminants the lateralizing movement
is the chief one. Sometimes, as in the Ornithorhynchus, the meniscus
is absent.

_Joints of the Upper Extremity._

The _sterno-clavicular articulation_, between the presternum and
clavicle, is a gliding joint, and allows slight upward and downward and
forward and backward movements. The two bony surfaces are separated by a
meniscus, the vertical movements taking place outside and the
antero-posterior inside this. There is a well-marked capsule, of which
the anterior part is strongest. The two clavicles are joined across the
top of the presternum by an _interclavicular ligament_.

The _acromio-clavicular articulation_ is also a gliding joint, but
allows a swinging or pendulum movement of the scapula on the clavicle.
The upper part of the capsule is strongest, and from it hangs down a
partial meniscus into the cavity.

_Comparative Anatomy._--Bland Sutton regards the interclavicular
ligament as a vestige of the interclavicle of Reptiles and Monotremes.
The menisci are only found in the Primates, but it must be borne in
mind that many Mammals have no clavicle, or a very rudimentary one. By
some the meniscus of the sterno-clavicular joint is regarded as the
homologue of the lateral part of the interclavicle, but the fact that
it only occurs in the Primates where movements in different planes are
fairly free is suggestive of a physiological rather than a
morphological origin for it.

The SHOULDER JOINT is a good example of the ball and socket or
enarthrodial variety. Its most striking characteristic is mobility at
the expense of strength. The small size of the glenoid cavity in
comparison with the head of the humerus, and the great laxity of the
capsule, favour this, although the glenoid cavity is slightly deepened
by a fibrous lip, called the _glenoid ligament_, round its margin. The
presence of the coracoid and acromial processes of the scapula, with the
_coraco-acromial ligament_ between them, serves as an overhanging
protection to the joint, while the biceps tendon runs over the head of
the humerus, inside the capsule, though surrounded by a sheath of
synovial membrane. Were it not for these two extra safeguards the
shoulder would be even more liable to dislocation than it is. The upper
part of the capsule, which is attached to the base of the coracoid
process, is thickened, and known as the _coracohumeral ligament_, while
inside the front of the capsule are three folds of synovial membrane,
called _gleno-humeral folds_.

_Comparative Anatomy._--In the lower Vertebrates the shoulder is
adapted to support rather than prehension and is not so freely movable
as in the Primates. The tendon of the biceps has evidently sunk
through the capsule into the joint, and even when it is intra-capsular
there is usually a double fold connecting its sheath of synovial
membrane with that lining the capsule. In Man this has been broken
through, but remains of it persist in the _superior gleno-humeral
fold_. The _middle gleno-humeral fold_ is the vestige of a strong
ligament which steadies and limits the range of movement of the joint
in many lower Mammals.

The ELBOW JOINT is an excellent example of the ginglymus or hinge,
though its transverse axis of movement is not quite at right angles to
the central axis of the limb, but is lower internally than externally.
This tends to bring the forearm towards the body when the elbow is bent.
The elbow is a great contrast to the shoulder, as the trochlea and
capitellum of the humerus are closely adapted to the sigmoid cavity of
the ulna and head of the radius (see SKELETON: _appendicular_);
consequently movement in one plane only is allowed, and the joint is a
strong one. The capsule is divided into anterior, posterior, and two
lateral ligaments, though these are all really continuous. The joint
cavity communicates freely with that of the superior radio-ulnar
articulation.

The _radio-ulnar joints_ are three: the upper one is an example of a
pivot joint, and in it the disk-shaped head of the radius rotates in a
circle formed by the lesser sigmoid cavity of the ulna internally and
the _orbicular ligament_ in the other three quarters.

The _middle radio-ulnar articulation_ is simply an interosseous
membrane, the fibres of which run downward and inward from the radius to
the ulna.

The _inferior radio-ulnar joint_ is formed by the disk-shaped lower end
of the ulna fitting into the slightly concave sigmoid cavity of the
radius. Below, the cavity of this joint is shut off from that of the
wrist by a _triangular fibro-cartilage_. The movements allowed at these
three articulations are called pronation and supination of the radius.
The head of that bone twists, in the orbicular ligament, round its
central vertical axis for about half a circle. Below, however, the whole
lower end of the radius circles round the lower end of the ulna, the
centre of rotation being close to the styloid process of the ulna. The
radius, therefore, in its pronation, describes half a cone, the base of
which is below, and the hand follows the radius.

_Comparative Anatomy._--In pronograde Mammals the forearm is usually
permanently pronated, and the head of the radius, instead of being
circular and at the side of the upper end of the ulna, is transversely
oval and in front of that bone, occupying the same place that the
coronoid process of the ulna does in Man. This type of elbow, which is
adapted simply to support and progression, is best seen in the
Ungulata; in them both lateral ligaments are attached to the head of
the radius, and there is no orbicular ligament, since the shape of the
head of the radius does not allow of any supination. The olecranon
process of the ulna forms merely a posterior guide or guard to the
joint, but transmits no weight. No better example of the maximum
changes which the uses of support and prehension bring about can be
found than in contrasting the elbow of the Sheep or other Ungulate
with that of Man. Towards one or other of these types the elbows of
all Mammals tend. It may be roughly stated that, when pronation and
supination to the extent of a quarter of a circle are possible, an
orbicular ligament appears.

The WRIST JOINT, or _radio-carpal articulation_, lies between the radius
and triangular fibro-cartilage above, and the scaphoid, semilunar, and
cuneiform bones below. It is a condyloid joint allowing flexion and
extension round one axis, and slight lateral movement (abduction and
adduction) round the other. There is a well-marked capsule, divided into
anterior, posterior, and lateral ligaments. The joint cavity is shut off
from the inferior radio-ulnar joint above, and the intercarpal joints
below.

The _intercarpal joints_ are gliding articulations, the various bones
being connected by palmar, dorsal, and a few interosseous ligaments, but
only those connecting the first row of bones are complete, and so
isolate one joint cavity from another. That part of the intercarpal
joints which lies between the first and second rows of carpal bones is
called the _transverse carpal joint_, and at this a good deal of the
movement which seems to take place at the wrist really occurs.

The _carpo-metacarpal articulations_ are, with the exception of that of
the thumb, gliding joints, and continuous with the great intercarpal
joint cavity. The carpo-metacarpal joint of the thumb is the best
example of a saddle-shaped joint in Man. It allows forward and backward
and lateral movement, and is very strong.

The _metacarpo-phalangeal joints_ are condyloid joints like the wrist,
and are remarkable for the great thickness of the palmar ligaments of
their capsules. In the four inner fingers these _glenoid ligaments_, as
they are called, are joined together by the _transverse metacarpal
ligament_.

The _interphalangeal articulations_ are simple hinges surrounded by a
capsule, of which the dorsal part is very thin.

_Comparative Anatomy._--The wrist joint of the lower Mammals allows
less lateral movement than does that of Man, while the lower end of
the ulna is better developed and is received into a cup-shaped socket
formed by the cuneiform and pisiform bones. At the same time, unless
there is pretty free pronation and supination, the triangular
fibro-cartilage is only represented by an interosseous ligament, which
may be continuous above with the interosseous membrane between the
radius and ulna, and suggests the possibility that the fibro-cartilage
is largely a derivative of this membrane. In most Mammals the wrist is
divided into two lateral parts, as it is in the human foetus, but free
pronation and supination seem to cause the disappearance of the
septum.

_Joints of the Lower Extremity._

The _sacro-innominate articulation_ consists of the _sacro-iliac joint_
and the _sacro-sciatic ligaments_. The former is one of the
amphiarthroses or half-joints by which the sacrum is bound to the ilium.
The mechanism of the human sacrum is that of a suspension bridge slung
between the two pillars or ilia by the very strong _posterior
sacro-iliac_ ligaments which represent the chains. The axis of the joint
passes through the second sacral vertebra, but the sacrum is so nearly
horizontal that the weight of the body, which is transmitted to the
first sacral vertebra, tends to tilt that part down. This tendency is
corrected by the great and small _sacro-sciatic ligaments_, which
fasten the lower part of the sacrum to the tuberosity and spine of the
ischium respectively, so that, although the sacrum is a suspension
bridge when looked at from behind, it is a lever of the first kind when
seen from the side or in sagittal section.

The _pubic symphysis_ is the union between the two pubic bones. It has
all the characteristics of a symphysis, already described, and may have
a small median cavity.

[Illustration: (From David Hepburn, Cunningham's _Text-book of
Anatomy_.)

FIG. 6.--Dissection of the Hip Joint from the front.]

The HIP JOINT, like the shoulder, is a ball and socket, but does not
allow such free movement; this is due to the fact that the socket or
acetabulum is deeper than the glenoid cavity and that the capsule is not
so lax. At the same time the loss of mobility is made up for by
increased strength. The capsule has three thickened bands, of which the
most important is the _ilio-femoral_ or _Y-shaped ligament of Bigelow_.
The stalk of the Y is attached to the anterior inferior spine of the
ilium, while the two limbs are fastened to the upper and lower parts of
the spiral line of the femur. The ligament is so strong that it hardly
ever ruptures in a dislocation of the hip. As a plumb-line, dropped from
the centre of gravity of the body, passes behind the centre of the hip
joint, this ligament, lying as it does in front of the joint, takes the
strain in Man's erect position. The other two thickened parts of the
capsule are known as _pubo-femoral_ and _ischio-femoral_, from their
attachments. Inside the capsule, and deepening the margin of the
acetabulum, is a fibrous rim known as the _cotyloid ligament_, which
grips the spherical head of the femur and is continued across the
cotyloid notch as the _transverse ligament_. The floor of the acetabulum
has a horseshoe-shaped surface of articular cartilage, concave downward,
and, occupying the "frog" of the horse's hoof, is a mass of fat called
the _Haversian pad_. Attached to the inner margin of the horseshoe, and
to the transverse ligament where that is deficient, is a reflexion of
synovial membrane which forms a covering for the pad and is continued as
a tube to the depression on the head of the femur called the _fossa
capitis_. This reflexion carries blood-vessels and nerves to the femur,
and also contains fibrous tissue from outside the joint. It is known as
the _ligamentum teres_.

_Comparative Anatomy._--Bland Sutton regards the _ilio-femoral
ligament_ as an altered muscle, the scansorius, though against this is
the fact that, in those cases in which a scansorius is present in Man,
the ligament is as strong as usual, and indeed, if it were not there
in these cases, the erect position would be difficult to maintain. He
also looks upon the _ligamentum teres_ as the divorced tendon of the
pectineus muscle. The subject requires much more investigation, but
there is every reason to believe that it is a tendon which has sunk
into the joint, though whether that of the pectineus is doubtful,
since the intra-capsular tendon comes from the ischium in Reptiles. In
many Mammals, and among them the Orang, there is no ligamentum teres.
In others, such as the Armadillo, the structure has not sunk right
into the joint, but is connected with the pubo-femoral part of the
capsule.

The KNEE JOINT is a hinge formed by the condyles and trochlea of the
femur, the patella, and the head of the tibia. The capsule is formed in
front by the ligamentum patellae, and on each side special bands form
the lateral ligaments. On the outer side there are two of these: the
anterior or _long external lateral ligament_ is a round cord running
from the external condyle to the head of the fibula, while the posterior
is slighter and passes from the same place to the styloid process of the
fibula. The _internal lateral ligament_ is a flat band which runs from
the inner condyle of the femur to the internal surface of the tibia some
two inches below the level of the knee joint. The posterior part of the
capsule is strengthened by an oblique bundle of fibres running upward
and outward from the semimembranosus tendon, and called the _posterior
ligament of Winslow_.

The intra-articular structures are numerous and interesting. Passing
from the head of the tibia, in front and behind the spine, are the
_anterior_ and _posterior crucial ligaments_; the former is attached to
the outer side of the intercondylar notch above, and the latter to the
inner side. These two ligaments cross like an X. The _semilunar
fibro-cartilages_--external and internal--are partial menisci, each of
which has an anterior and a posterior cornu by which they are attached
to the head of the tibia in front and behind the spine. They are also
attached round the margin of the tibial head by a _coronary ligament_,
but the external one is more movable than the internal, and this perhaps
accounts for its coronary ligament being less often ruptured and the
cartilage displaced than the inner one is. In addition to these the
external cartilage has a fibrous band, called the _ligament of
Wrisberg_, which runs up to the femur just behind the posterior crucial
ligament. The external cartilage is broader, and forms more of a circle
than the internal. The synovial cavity of the knee runs up, deep to the
extensor muscles of the thigh, for about two inches above the top of the
patella, forming the _bursa suprapatellaris_. At the lower part of the
patella it covers a pad of fat, which lies between the ligamentum
patellae and the front of the head of the tibia, and is carried up as a
narrow tube to the lower margin of the trochlear surface of the femur.
This prolongation is known as the _ligamentum mucosum_, and from the
sides of its base spring two lateral folds called the _ligamenta
alaria_. The tendon of the popliteus muscle is an intra-capsular
structure, and is therefore covered with a synovial sheath. There are a
large number of bursae near the knee joint, one of which, common to the
inner head of the gastrocnemius and the semimembranosus, often
communicates with the joint. The hinge movement of the knee is
accompanied by a small amount of external rotation at the end of
extension, and a compensatory internal rotation during flexion. This
slight twist is enough to tighten up almost all the ligaments so that
they may take a share in resisting over-extension, because, in the erect
position, a vertical line from the centre of gravity of the body passes
in front of the knee.

_Comparative Anatomy._--In some Mammals, e.g. Bradypus and
Ornithorhynchus, the knee is divided into three parts, two
condylo-tibial and one trochleo-patellar, by synovial folds which in
Man are represented by the ligamentum mucosum. In a typical Mammal the
external _semilunar cartilage_ is attached by its posterior horn to
the internal condyle of the femur only, and this explains the
_ligament of Wrisberg_ already mentioned. In the Monkeys and
anthropoid Apes this cartilage is circular. The _semilunar cartilages_
first appear in the Amphibia, and, according to B. Sutton, are derived
from muscles which are drawn into the joint. When only one kind of
movement (hinge) is allowed, as in the fruit bat, the cartilages are
not found. In most Mammals the superior tibio-fibular joint
communicates with the knee.

The _tibio-fibular articulations_ resemble the radio-ulnar in position
but are much less movable. The superior in Man is usually cut off i
from the knee and is a gliding joint; the middle is the interosseous
membrane, while the lower has been already used as an example of a
syndesmosis or fibrous half joint.

The ANKLE JOINT is a hinge, the astragalus being received into a lateral
arch formed by the lower ends of the tibia and fibula. Backward
dislocation is prevented by the articular surface of the astragalus
being broader in front than behind. The anterior and posterior parts of
the capsule are feeble, but the lateral ligaments are very strong, the
external consisting of three separate fasciculi which bind the fibula to
the astragalus and calcaneum. To avoid confusion it is best to speak of
the movements of the ankle as dorsal and plantar flexion.

[Illustration: (From D. Hepburn, _Cunningham's Text-book of Anatomy_.)

FIG. 7.--Dissection of the Knee-joint from the front: Patella thrown
down.]

The _tarsal joints_ resemble the carpal in being gliding articulations.
There are two between the astragalus and calcaneum, and at these
inversion and eversion of the foot largely occur. The inner arch of the
foot is maintained by a very important ligament called the
_calcaneo-navicular_ or _spring ligament_; it connects the sustentaculum
tali of the calcaneum with the navicular, and upon it the head of the
astragalus rests. When it becomes stretched, flat-foot results. The
tarsal bones are connected by dorsal, plantar and interosseous
ligaments. The _long_ and _short calcaneocuboid_ are plantar ligaments
of special importance, and maintain the outer arch of the foot.

The _tarso-metatarsal_, _metatarso-phalangeal_ and _interphalangeal
joints_ closely resemble those of the hand, except that the
tarso-metatarsal joint of the great toe is not saddle-shaped.

_Comparative Anatomy._--The anterior fasciculus of the external
lateral ligament of the ankle is only found in Man, and is probably an
adaptation to the erect position. In animals with a long foot, such as
the Ungulates and the Kangaroo, the lateral ligaments of the ankle are
in the form of an X, to give greater protection against lateral
movement. In certain marsupials a fibro-cartilage is developed between
the external malleolus and the astragalus, and its origin from the
deeper fibres of the external lateral ligament of the ankle can be
traced. These animals have a rotatory movement of the fibula on its
long axis, in addition to the hinge movement of the ankle.

For further details of joints see R. Fick, _Handbuch der Gelenke_
(Jena, 1904); H. Morris, _Anatomy of the Joints_ (London, 1879);
Quain's, Gray's and Cunningham's _Text-books of Anatomy_; J. Bland
Sutton, _Ligaments, their Nature and Morphology_ (London, 1902); F. G.
Parsons, "Hunterian Lectures on the Joints of Mammals," _Journ. Anat.
& Phys._, xxxiv. 41 and 301. (F. G. P.)

DISEASES AND INJURIES OF JOINTS

The affection of the joints of the human body by specific diseases is
dealt with under various headings (RHEUMATISM, &c.); in the present
article the more direct forms of ailment are discussed. In most
joint-diseases the trouble starts either in the synovial lining or in
the bone--rarely in the articular cartilage or ligaments. As a rule, the
disease begins after an injury. There are three principal types of
injury: (1) sprain or strain, in which the ligamentous and tendinous
structures are stretched or lacerated; (2) contusion, in which the
opposing bones are driven forcibly together; (3) dislocation, in which
the articular surfaces are separated from one another.

A _sprain_ or _strain_ of a joint means that as the result of violence
the ligaments holding the bones together have been suddenly stretched
or even torn. On the inner aspect the ligaments are lined by a
synovial membrane, so when the ligaments are stretched the synovial
membrane is necessarily damaged. Small blood-vessels are also torn,
and bleeding occurs into the joint, which may become full and
distended. If, however, bleeding does not take place, the swelling is
not immediate, but synovitis having been set up, serous effusion comes
on sooner or later. There is often a good deal of heat of the
surrounding skin and of pain accompanying the synovitis. In the case
of a healthy individual the effects of a sprain may quickly pass off,
but in a rheumatic or gouty person chronic synovitis may obstinately
remain. In a person with a tuberculous history, or of tuberculous
descent, a sprain is apt to be the beginning of serious disease of the
joint, and it should, therefore, be treated with continuous rest and
prolonged supervision. In a person of health and vigour, a sprained
joint should be at once bandaged. This may be the only treatment
needed. It gives support and comfort, and the even pressure around the
joint checks effusion into it. Wide pieces of adhesive strapping,
layer on layer, form a still more useful support, and with the joint
so treated the person may be able at once to use the limb. If
strapping is not employed, the bandage may be taken off from time to
time in order that the limb and the joint may be massaged. If the
sprain is followed by much synovitis a plaster of Paris or leather
splint may be applied, complete rest being secured for the limb. Later
on, blistering or even "firing" may be found advisable.

_Synovitis._--When a joint has been injured, inflammation occurs in
the damaged tissue; that is inevitable. But sometimes the attack of
inflammation is so slight and transitory as to be scarcely noticeable.
This is specially likely to occur if the joint-tissues were in a state
of perfect nutrition at the time of the hurt. But if the individual or
the joint were at that time in a state of imperfect nutrition, the
effects are likely to be more serious. As a rule, it is the synovial
membrane lining the fibrous capsule of the joint which first and
chiefly suffers; the condition is termed _synovitis_. Synovitis may,
however, be due to other causes than mechanical injury, as when the
interior of the joint is attacked by the micro-organisms of pyæmia
(blood-poisoning), typhoid fever, pneumonia, rheumatism, gonorrhoea or
syphilis. Under judicious treatment the synovitis generally clears up,
but it may linger on and cause the formation of adhesions which may
temporarily stiffen the joint; or it may, especially in tuberculous,
septic or pyæmic infections, involve the cartilages, ligaments and
bones in such serious changes as to destroy the joint, and possibly
call for resection or amputation.

The symptoms of synovitis include stiffness and tenderness in the
joint. The patient notices that movements cause pain. Effusion of
fluid takes place, and there is marked fullness in the neighbourhood.
If the inflammation is advancing, the skin over the joint may be
flushed, and if the hand is placed on the skin it feels hot.
Especially is this the case if the joint is near the surface, as at
the knee, wrist or ankle.

The treatment of an inflamed joint demands rest. This may be
conveniently obtained by the use of a light wooden splint, padding and
bandages. Slight compression of the joint by a bandage is useful in
promoting absorption of the fluid. If the inflamed joint is in the
lower extremity, the patient had best remain in bed, or on the sofa;
if in the upper extremity, he should wear his arm in a sling. The
muscles acting on the joint must be kept in complete control. If the
inflammation is extremely acute a few leeches, followed by a
fomentation, will give relief; or an icebag or an evaporating lotion
may, by causing constriction of the blood-vessels, lessen the
congestion of the part and the associated pain. As the inflammation is
passing off, massage of the limb and of the joint will prove useful.
If the inflammation is long continued, the limb must still be kept at
rest. By this time it may be found that some other material for the
retentive apparatus is more convenient and comfortable, as, for
instance, undressed leather which has been moulded on wet and allowed
to dry and harden; poro-plastic felt, which has been softened by heat
and applied limp, or house-flannel which has been dipped in a creamy
mixture of plaster-of-Paris and water, and secured by a bandage.

_Chronic Disease of a Joint_ may be the tailing off of an acute
affection, and under the influence of alternate douchings of hot and
cold water, of counter-irritation by blistering or "firing," and of
massage, it may eventually clear up, especially if the general health
of the individual is looked after. But if chronic disease lingers in
the joint of a child or young person, the probability of its being
under the influence of tuberculous infection must be considered. In
such a case prolonged and absolute rest is the one thing necessary. If
the disease be in the hip, knee, ankle or foot, the patient may be
fitted with an appropriate Thomas's splint and allowed to walk about,
for it is highly important to have these patients out in the fresh
air. If the disease be in the shoulder, elbow, wrist or hand, a
leather or poro-plastic splint should be moulded on, and the arm worn
in a sling. There must be no hurry; convalescence will needs be slow.
And if the child can be sent to a bracing sea-side place it will be
much in his favour.

As the disease clears up, the surface heat, the pains and the
tenderness having disappeared, and the joint having so diminished in
size as to be scarcely larger than its fellow--though the wasting of
the muscles of the limb may cause it still to appear considerably
enlarged--the splint may be gradually left off. This remission may be
for an hour or two every other day; then every other night; then every
other day, and so on, the freedom being gained little by little, and
the surgeon watching the case carefully. On the slightest indication
of return of trouble, the former restrictive measures must be again
resorted to. Massage and gentle exercises may be given day by day, but
there must be no thought of "breaking down the stiffness." Many a
joint has in such circumstances been wrecked by the manipulations of a
"bone-setter."

_Permanent Stiffness._--During the treatment of a case of chronic
disease of a joint, the question naturally arises as to whether the
joint will be left permanently stiff. People have the idea that if an
inflamed joint is kept long on a splint, it may eventually be found
permanently stiff. And this is quite correct. But it should be clearly
understood that it is not the _rest_ of the inflamed joint which
causes the stiffness. The matter should be put thus: in tuberculous
and other forms of chronic disease stiffness may ensue in spite of
long-continued rest. It is the destructive disease, not the enforced
rest which causes it; for inflammation of a joint rest is absolutely
necessary.

The _Causes of permanent Stiffness_ are the destructive changes
wrought by the inflammation. In one case it may be that the synovial
membrane is so far destroyed by the tuberculous or septic invasion
that its future usefulness is lost, and the joint ever afterwards
creaks at its work and easily becomes tired and painful. Thus the
joint is crippled but not destroyed. In another case the ligaments and
the cartilages are implicated as well as the synovial membrane, and
when the disease clears up, the bones are more or less locked, only a
small range of motion being left, which forcible flexion and other
methods of vigorous treatment are unable materially to improve. In
another set of cases the inflammatory germs quickly destroy the soft
tissues of the joint, and then invade the bones, and, the disease
having at last come to an end, the softened ends of the bones solidly
join together like the broken fragments in simple fracture. As a
result, osseous solidification of the joint (_synostosis_) ensues
without, of course, the possibility of any movement. And, inasmuch as
the surgeon cannot tell in any case whether the disease may not
advance in this direction, he is careful to place the limb in that
position in which it will be most useful if the bony union should
occur. Thus, the leg is kept straight, and the elbow bent.

In the course of a tuberculous or other chronic disease of a joint,
the germs of septic disease may find access to the inflamed area,
through a wound or ulceration into the joint, or by the germs being
carried thither by the blood-stream. A _joint-abscess_ results, which
has to be treated by incision and fomentations. If chronic suppuration
continues, it may become necessary to scrape out or to excise the
joint, or even to amputate the limb. And if tuberculous disease of the
joint is steadily progressing in spite of treatment, vigorous measures
may be needed to prevent the fluid from quietly ulcerating its way out
and thus inviting the entrance of septic germs. The fluid may need to
be drawn off by aspiration, and direct treatment of the diseased
synovial membrane may be undertaken by injections of chloride of zinc
or some other reagent. Or the joint may need scraping out with a sharp
spoon with the view of getting rid of the tuberculous material. Later,
excision may be deemed necessary, or in extreme cases, amputation. But
before these measures are considered, A. C. G. Bier's method of
treatment by passive congestion, and the treatment by serum
injection, will probably have been tried. If a joint is left
permanently stiff in an awkward and useless position, the limb may be
greatly improved by excision of the joint. Thus, if the knee is left
bent and the joint is excised a useful, straight limb may be obtained,
somewhat shortened, and, of course, permanently stiff. If after
disease of the hip-joint the thigh remains fixed in a faulty position,
it may be brought down straight by dividing the bone near the upper
end. A stiff shoulder or elbow may be converted into a useful, movable
joint by excision of the articular ends of the bones.

A _stiff joint_ may remain as the result of long continued
inflammation; the unused muscles are wasted and the joint in
consequence looks large. Careful measurement, however, may show that
it is not materially larger than its fellow. And though all tenderness
may have passed away, and though the neighbouring skin is no longer
hot, still the joint remains stiff and useless. No progress being made
under the influence of massage, or of gentle exercises, the surgeon
may advise that the lingering adhesion be broken down under an
anaesthetic, after which the function of the joint may quickly return.

There are the cases over which the "bone-setter" secures his greatest
triumphs. A qualified practitioner may have been for months
judiciously treating an inflamed joint by rest, and then feels a
hesitation with regard to suddenly flexing the stiffened limb. The
"bone-setter," however, has no such qualms, and when the case passes
out of the hands of the perhaps over-careful surgeon, the unqualified
practitioner (because he, from a scientific point of view, knows
nothing) fears nothing, and, breaking down inflammatory adhesions,
sets the joint free. And his manipulations prove triumphantly
successful. But, knowing nothing and fearing nothing, he is apt to do
grievous harm in carrying out his rough treatment in other cases.
Malignant disease at the end of a bone (sarcoma), tuberculosis of a
joint, and a joint stiffened by old inflammation are to him the same
thing. "A small bone is out of place," or, "The bone is out of its
socket; it has never been put in," and a breaking down of everything
that resists his force is the result of the case being taken to him.
For the "bone-setter" has only one line of treatment. Of the
improvement which he often effects as if by magic the public are told
much. Of the cases over which the doctor has been too long devoting
skill and care, and which are set free by the "bone-setter," everybody
hears--and sometimes to the discomfiture of the medical man. But of
the cases in which irreparable damage follows his vigorous
manipulation nothing is said--of his rough usage of a tuberculous hip,
or of a sarcomatous shoulder-joint, and of the inevitable disaster and
disappointment, those most concerned are least inclined to talk! A
practical surgeon with common-sense has nothing to learn from the
"bone-setter."

_Rheumatoid Arthritis_, or chronic _Osteo-arthritis_, is generally
found in persons beyond middle age; but it is not rare in young
people, though with them it need not be the progressive disease which
it too often is in their elders. It is an obscure affection of the
cartilage covering the joint surfaces of the bones, and it eventually
involves the bones and the ligaments. A favourite joint for it is the
knee or hip, and when one large joint is thus affected the other
joints may escape. But when the hands or feet are implicated pretty
nearly all the small joints are apt to suffer. Whether the joint is
large or small, the cartilages wear away and new bone is developed
about the ends of the bones, so that the joint is large and
mis-shapen, the fingers being knotted and the hands deformed. When the
spine is affected it becomes bowed and stiff. This is the disease
which has crippled the old people in the workhouses and almshouses,
and with them it is steadily progressive. Its early signs are
stiffness and creaking or cracking in the joints, with discomfort and
pain after exercise, and with a little effusion into the capsule of
the joint. As regards _treatment_, medicines are of no great value.
Wet, cold and damp being bad for the patient, he should be, if
possible, got into a dry, bright, sunny place, and he should dress
warmly. Perhaps there is no better place for him in the winter than
Assuan. Cairo is not so suitable as it used to be before the dam was
made, when its climate was drier. For the spring and summer certain
British and Continental watering-places serve well. But if this luxury
cannot be afforded, the patient must make himself as happy as he can
with such hot douchings and massage as he can obtain, keeping himself
warm, and his joints covered by flannel bandages and rubbed with
stimulating liniments. In people advanced or advancing in years, the
disease, as a rule, gets slowly worse, sometimes very slowly, but
sometimes rapidly, especially when its makes its appearance in the
hip, shoulder or knee as the result of an injury. In young people,
however, its course may be cut short by attention being given to the
principles stated above.

_Charcot's Disease_ resembles osteo-arthritis in that it causes
destruction of a joint and greatly deforms it. The deformity, however,
comes on rapidly and without pain or tenderness. It is usually
associated with the symptoms of locomotor ataxy, and depends upon
disease of the nerves which preside over the nutrition of the joints.
It is incurable.

_A Loose Cartilage, or a Displaced Cartilage in the Knee Joint_ is apt
to become caught in the hinge between the thigh bone and the leg bone,
and by causing a sudden stretching of the ligaments of the joint to
give rise to intense pain. When this happens the individual is apt to
be thrown down as he walks, for it comes on with great suddenness. And
thus he feels himself to be in a condition of perpetual insecurity.
After the joint has thus gone wrong, bleeding and serous effusion take
place into it, and it becomes greatly swollen. And if the cartilage
still remains in the grip of the bones he is unable to straighten or
bend his knee. But the surgeon by suddenly flexing and twisting the
leg may manage to unhitch the cartilage and restore comfort and
usefulness to the limb. As a rule, the slipping of a cartilage first
occurs as the result of a serious fall or of a sudden and violent
action--often it happens when the man is "dodging" at football, the
foot being firmly fixed on the ground and the body being violently
twisted at the knee. After the slipping has occurred many times, the
amount of swelling, distress and lameness may diminish with each
subsequent slipping, and the individual may become somewhat reconciled
to his condition. As regards _treatment_, a tightly fitting steel
cage-like splint, which, gripping the thigh and leg, limits the
movements of the knee to flexion and extension, may prove useful. But
for a muscular, athletic individual the wearing of this apparatus may
prove vexatious and disappointing. The only alternative is to open the
joint and remove the loose cartilage. The cartilage may be found on
operation to be split, torn or crumpled, and lying right across
between the joint-surfaces of the bones, from which nothing but an
operation could possibly have removed it. The operation is almost sure
to give complete and permanent relief to the condition, the individual
being able to resume his old exercises and amusements without fear of
the knee playing him false. It is, however, one that should not be
undertaken without due consideration and circumspection, and the
details of the operation should be carried out with the utmost care
and cleanliness.

An accidental _wound of a joint_, as from the blade of a knife, or a
spike, entering the knee is a very serious affair, because of the risk
of septic germs entering the synovial cavity either at the time of the
injury or later. If the joint becomes thus infected there is great
swelling of the part, with redness of the skin, and with the escape of
blood-stained or purulent synovia. Absorption takes place of the
poisonous substances produced by the action of the germs, and, as a
result, great constitutional disturbance arises. Blood-poisoning may
thus threaten life, and in many cases life is saved only by
amputation. The best treatment is freely to open the joint, to wash it
out with a strong antiseptic fluid, and to make arrangement for
thorough drainage, the limb being fixed on a splint. Help may also be
obtained by increasing the patient's power of resistance to the effect
of the poisoning by injections of a serum prepared by cultivation of
the septic germs in question. If the limb is saved, there is a great
chance of the knee being permanently stiff.

_Dislocation._--The ease with which the joint-end of a bone is
dislocated varies with its form and structure, and with the position
in which it happens to be placed when the violence is applied. The
relative frequency of fracture of the bone and dislocation of the
joint depends on the strength of the bones above and below the joint
relatively to the strength of the joint itself. The strength of the
various joints in the body is dependent upon either ligament or
muscle, or upon the shape of the bones. In the hip, for instance, all
three sources of strength are present; therefore, considering the
great leverage of the long thigh bone, the hip is rarely dislocated.
The shoulder, in order to allow of extensive movement, has no osseus
or ligamentous strength; it is, therefore, frequently dislocated. The
wrist and ankle are rarely dislocated; as the result of violence at
the wrist the radius gives way, at the ankle the fibula, these bones
being relatively weaker than the respective joints. The wrist owes its
strength to ligaments, the elbow and the ankle to the shape of the
bones. The symptoms of a dislocation are distortion and limited
movement, with absence of the grating sensation felt in fracture when
the broken ends of the bone are rubbed together. The treatment
consists in reducing the dislocation, and the sooner this replacement
is effected the better--the longer the delay the more difficult it
becomes to put things right. After a variable period, depending on the
nature of the joint and the age of the person, it may be impossible to
replace the bones. The result will be a more or less useless joint.
The administration of an anaesthetic, by relaxing the muscles, greatly
assists the operation of reduction. The length of time that a joint
has to be kept quiet after it has been restored to its normal shape
depends on its form, but, as a rule, early movement is advisable. But
when by the formation of the bones a joint is weak, as at the outer
end of the collar-bone, and at the elbow-end of the radius, prolonged
rest for the joint is necessary or dislocation may recur.

_Congenital Dislocation at the Hip._--Possibly as a result of faulty
position of the subject during intra-uterine life, the head of the
thigh-bone leaves, or fails throughout to occupy, its normal situation
on the haunch-bone. The defect, which is a very serious one, is
probably not discovered until the child begins to walk, when its
peculiar rolling gait attracts attention. The want of fixation at the
joint permits of the surgeon thrusting up the thigh-bone, or drawing
it down in a painless, characteristic manner.

The first thing to be done is to find out by means of the X-rays
whether a socket exists into which, under an anaesthetic, the surgeon
may fortunately be enabled to lodge the end of the thigh-bone. If this
offers no prospect of success, there are three courses open: First,
to try under an anaesthetic to manipulate the limb until the head of
the thigh-bone rests as nearly as possible in its normal position, and
then to endeavour to fix it there by splints, weights and bandaging
until a new joint is formed; second, to cut down upon the site of the
joint, to scoop out a new socket in the haunch-bone, and thrust the
end of the thigh-bone into it, keeping it fixed there as just
described; and third, to allow the child to run about as it pleases,
merely raising the sole of the foot of the short leg by a thick boot,
so as to keep the lower part of the trunk fairly level, lest secondary
curvature of the spine ensue. The first and second methods demand many
months of careful treatment in bed. The ultimate result of the second
is so often disappointing that the surgeon now rarely advises its
adoption. But, if under an anaesthetic, as the result of skilful
manipulation the head of the thigh-bone can be made to enter a more or
less rudimentary socket, the case is worth all the time, care and
attention bestowed upon it. Sometimes the results of prolonged
treatment are so good that the child eventually is able to walk with
scarce a limp. But a vigorous attempt at placing the head of the bone
in its proper position should be made in every case. (E. O.*)

JOINTS, in engineering, may be classed either (a) according to their
material, as in stone or brick, wood or metal; or (b) according to their
object, to prevent leakage of air, steam or water, or to transmit force,
which may be thrust, pull or shear; or (c) according as they are
stationary or moving ("working" in technical language). Many joints,
like those of ship-plates and boiler-plates, have simultaneously to
fulfil both objects mentioned under (b).

All stone joints of any consequence are stationary. It being
uneconomical to dress the surfaces of the stones resting on each other
smoothly and so as to be accurately flat, a layer of mortar or other
cementing material is laid between them. This hardens and serves to
transmit the pressure from stone to stone without its being concentrated
at the "high places." If the ingredients of the cement are chosen so
that when hard the cement has about the same coefficient of
compressibility as the stone or brick, the pressure will be nearly
uniformly distributed. The cement also adheres to the surfaces of the
stone or brick, and allows a certain amount of tension to be borne by
the joint. It likewise prevents the stones from slipping one on the
other, i.e. it gives the joint very considerable shearing strength. The
composition of the cement is chosen according as it has to "set" in air
or water. The joints are made impervious to air or water by "pointing"
their outer edges with a superior quality of cement.

Wood joints are also nearly all stationary. They are made partially
fluid-tight by "grooving and tenoning," and by "caulking" with oakum or
similar material. If the wood is saturated with water, it swells, the
edges of the joints press closer together, and the joints become tighter
the greater the water-pressure is which tends to produce leakage.
Relatively to its weaker general strength, wood is a better material
than iron so far as regards the transmission of a thrust past a joint.
So soon as a heavy pressure comes on the joint all the small
irregularities of the surfaces in contact are crushed up, and there
results an approximately uniform distribution of the pressure over the
whole area (i.e. if there be no bending forces), so that no part of the
material is unduly stressed. To attain this result the abutting surfaces
should be well fitted together, and the bolts binding the pieces
together should be arranged so as to ensure that they will not interfere
with the timber surfaces coming into this close contact. Owing to its
weak shearing strength on sections parallel to the fibre, timber is
peculiarly unfitted for tension joints. If the pieces exerting the pull
are simply bolted together with wooden or iron bolts, the joint cannot
be trusted to transmit any considerable force with safety. The stresses
become intensely localized in the immediate neighborhood of the bolts. A
tolerably strong timber tension-joint can, however, be made by making
the two pieces abut, and connecting them by means of iron plates
covering the joint and bolted to the sides of the timbers by bolts
passing through the wood. These plates should have their surfaces which
lie against the wood ribbed in a direction transverse to the pull. The
bolts should fit their holes slackly, and should be well tightened up so
as to make the ribs sink into the surface of the timber. There will then
be very little localized shearing stress brought upon the interior
portions of the wood.

Iron and the other commonly used metals possess in variously high
degrees the qualities desirable in substances out of which joints are to
be made. The joint ends of metal pieces can easily be fashioned to any
advantageous form and size without waste of material. Also these metals
offer peculiar facilities for the cutting of their surfaces at a
comparatively small cost so smoothly and evenly as to ensure the close
contact over their whole areas of surfaces placed against each other.
This is of the highest importance, especially in joints designed to
transmit force. Wrought iron and mild steel are above all other metals
suitable for tension joints where there is not continuous rapid motion.
Where such motion occurs, a layer, or, as it is technically termed, a
"bush," of brass is inserted underneath the iron. The joint then
possesses the high strength of a wrought-iron one and at the same time
the good frictional qualities of a brass surface. Leakage past moving
metal joints can be prevented by cutting the surfaces very accurately to
fit each other. Steam-engine slide-valves and their seats, and piston
"packing-rings" and the cylinders they work to and fro in, may be cited
as examples. A subsidiary compressible "packing" is in other situations
employed, an instance of which may be seen in the "stuffing boxes" which
prevent the escape of steam from steam-engine cylinders through the
piston-rod hole in the cylinder cover. Fixed metal joints are made fluid
tight--(a) by caulking a riveted joint, i.e. by hammering in the edge of
the metal with a square-edged chisel (the tighter the joint requires to
be against leakage the closer must be the spacing of the rivets--compare
the rivet-spacing in bridge, ship and boiler-plate joints); (b) by the
insertion between the surfaces of a layer of one or other of various
kinds of cement, the layer being thick or thin according to
circumstances; (c) by the insertion of a layer of soft solid substance
called "packing" or "insertion."

Apart from cemented and glued joints, most joints are formed by cutting
one or more holes in the ends of the pieces to be joined, and inserting
in these holes a corresponding number of pins. The word "pin" is
technically restricted to mean a cylindrical pin in a movable joint. The
word "bolt" is used when the cylindrical pin is screwed up tight with a
nut so as to be immovable. When the pin is not screwed, but is fastened
by being beaten down on either end, it is called a "rivet." The pin is
sometimes rectangular in section, and tapered or parallel lengthwise.
"Gibs" and "cottars" are examples of the latter. It is very rarely the
case that fixed joints have their pins subject to simple compression in
the direction of their length, though they are frequently subject to
simple tension in that direction. A good example is the joint between a
steam cylinder and its cover, where the bolts have to resist the whole
thrust of the steam, and at the same time to keep the joint steam-tight.

JOINTS, in geology. All rocks are traversed more or less completely by
vertical or highly inclined divisional planes termed _joints_. Soft
rocks, indeed, such as loose sand and uncompacted clay, do not show
these planes; but even a soft loam after standing for some time,
consolidated by its own weight, will usually be found to have acquired
them. Joints vary in sharpness of definition, in the regularity of their
perpendicular or horizontal course, in their lateral persistence, in
number and in the directions of their intersections. As a rule, they are
most sharply defined in proportion to the fineness of grain of the rock.
They are often quite invisible, being merely planes of potential
weakness, until revealed by the slow disintegrating effects of the
weather, which induces fracture along their planes in preference to
other directions in the rock; it is along the same planes that a rock
breaks most readily under the blow of a hammer. In coarse-textured
rocks, on the other hand, joints are apt to show themselves as irregular
rents along which the rock has been shattered, so that they present an
uneven sinuous course, branching off in different directions. In many
rocks they descend vertically at not very unequal distances, so that the
spaces between them are marked off into so many wall-like masses. But
this symmetry often gives place to a more or less tortuous course with
lateral joints in various apparently random directions, more especially
where in stratified rocks the beds have diverse lithological characters.
A single joint may be traced sometimes for many yards or even for
several miles, more particularly when the rock is fine-grained and
fairly rigid, as in limestone. Where the texture is coarse and unequal,
the joints, though abundant, run into each other in such a way that no
one in particular can be identified for so great a distance. The number
of joints in a mass of rock varies within wide limits. Among rocks which
have undergone little disturbance the joints may be separated from each
other by intervals of several yards. In other cases where the
terrestrial movement appears to have been considerable, the rocks are so
jointed as to have acquired therefrom a fissile character that has
almost obliterated their tendency to split along the lines of bedding.

_The Cause of Jointing in Rocks._--The continual state of movement in
the crust of the earth is the primary cause of the majority of joints.
It is to the outermost layers of the lithosphere that joints are
confined; in what van Hise has described as the "zone of fracture,"
which he estimates may extend to a depth of 12,000 metres in the case
of rigid rocks. Below the zone of fracture, joints cannot be formed,
for there the rocks tend to flow rather than break. The rocky crust,
as it slowly accommodates itself to the shrinking interior of the
earth, is subjected unceasingly to stresses which induce jointing by
tension, compression and torsion. Thus joints are produced during the
slow cyclical movements of elevation and depression as well as by the
more vigorous movements of earthquakes. Tension-joints are the most
widely spread; they are naturally most numerous over areas of
upheaval. Compression-joints are generally associated with the more
intense movements which have involved shearing, minor-faulting and
slaty cleavage. A minor cause of tension-jointing is shrinkage, due
either to cooling or to desiccation. The most striking type of
jointing is that produced by the cooling of igneous rocks, whereby a
regularly columnar structure is developed, often called basaltic
structure, such as is found at the Giant's Causeway. This structure is
described in connexion with modern volcanic rocks, but it is met with
in igneous rocks of all ages. It is as well displayed among the
felsites of the Lower Old Red Sandstone, and the basalts of
Carboniferous Limestone age as among the Tertiary lavas of Auvergne
and Vivarais. This type of jointing may cause the rock to split up
into roughly hexagonal prisms no thicker than a lead pencil; on the
other hand, in many dolerites and diorites the prisms are much
coarser, having a diameter of 3 ft. or more, and they are more
irregular in form; they may be so long as to extend up the face of a
cliff for 300 or 400 ft. A columnar jointing has often been
superinduced upon stratified rocks by contact with intrusive igneous
masses. Sandstones, shales and coal may be observed in this condition.
The columns diverge perpendicularly from the surface of the injected
altering substance, so that when the latter is vertical, the columns
are horizontal; or when it undulates the columns follow its
curvatures. Beautiful examples of this character occur among the
coal-seams of Ayrshire. Occasionally a prismatic form of jointing may
be observed in unaltered strata; in this case it is usually among
those which have been chemically formed, as in gypsum, where, as
noticed by Jukes in the Paris Basin, some beds are divided from top to
bottom by vertical hexagonal prisms. Desiccation, as shown by the
cracks formed in mud when it dries, has probably been instrumental in
causing jointing in a limited number of cases among stratified rocks.

_Movement along Joint Planes._--In some conglomerates the joints may
be seen traversing the enclosed pebbles as well as the surrounding
matrix; large blocks of hard quartz are cut through by them as sharply
as if they had been sliced by a lapidary's machine. A similar
phenomenon may be observed in flints as they lie embedded in the
chalk, and the same joints may be traced continuously through many
yards of rock. Such facts show that the agency to which the jointing
of rocks was due must have operated with considerable force. Further
indication of movement is supplied by the rubbed and striated surfaces
of some joints. These surfaces, termed _slickensides_, have evidently
been ground against each other.

_Influence of Joints on Water-flow and Scenery._--Joints form natural
paths for the passage downward and upward of subterranean water and
have an important bearing upon water supply. Water obtained directly
from highly jointed rock is more liable to become contaminated by
surface impurities than that from a more compact rock through which it
has had to soak its way; for this reason many limestones are objected
to as sources of potable water. On exposed surfaces joints have great
influence in determining the rate and type of weathering. They furnish
an effective lodgment for surface water, which, frozen by lowering of
temperature, expands into ice and wedges off blocks of the rock; and
the more numerous the joints the more rapidly does the action proceed.
As they serve, in conjunction with bedding, to divide stratified rocks
into large quadrangular blocks, their effect on cliffs and other
exposed places is seen in the splintered and dislocated aspect so
familiar in mountain scenery. Not infrequently, by directing the
initial activity of weathering agents, joints have been responsible
for the course taken by large streams as well as for the type of
scenery on their banks. In limestones, which succumb readily to the
solvent action of water, the joints are liable to be gradually
enlarged along the course of the underground waterflow until caves are
formed of great size and intricacy.

_Infilled Joints._--Joints which have been so enlarged by solution are
sometimes filled again completely or partially by minerals brought
thither in solution by the water traversing the rock; calcite, barytes
and ores of lead and copper may be so deposited. In this way many
valuable mineral veins have been formed. Widened joints may also be
filled in by detritus from the surface, or, in deep-seated portions of
the crust, by heated igneous rock, forced from below along the planes
of least resistance. Occasionally even sedimentary rocks may be forced
up joints from below, as in the case of the so-called "sandstone
dykes."

[Illustration: Joints in Limestone Quarry near Mallow, co. Cork. (G.
V. Du Noyer.)]

_Practical Utility of Joints._--An important feature in the joints of
stratified rocks is the direction in which they intersect each other.
As the result of observations we learn that they possess two dominant
trends, one coincident in a general way with the direction in which
the strata are inclined to the horizon, the other running transversely
approximately at right angles. The former set is known as
_dip-joints_, because they run with the _dip_ or inclination of the
rocks, the latter is termed _strike-joints_, inasmuch as they conform
to the general _strike_ or mean outcrop. It is owing to the existence
of this double series of joints that ordinary quarrying operations can
be carried on. Large quadrangular blocks can be wedged off that would
be shattered if exposed to the risk of blasting. A quarry is usually
worked on the dip of the rock, hence strike-joints form clean-cut
faces in front of the workmen as they advance. These are known as
_backs_, and the dip-joints which traverse them as _cutters_. The way
in which this double set of joints occurs in a quarry may be seen in
the figure, where the parallel lines which traverse the shaded and
unshaded faces mark the successive strata. The broad white spaces
running along the length of the quarry behind the seated figure are
strike-joints or backs, traversed by some highly inclined lines which
mark the position of the dip-joints or cutters. The shaded ends
looking towards the spectator are cutters from which the rock has been
quarried away on one side. In crystalline (igneous) rocks, bedding is
absent and very often there is no horizontal jointing to take its
place; the joint planes break up the mass more irregularly than in
stratified rocks. Granite, for example, is usually traversed by two
sets of chief or _master-joints_ cutting each other somewhat
obliquely. Their effect is to divide the rock into long quadrangular,
rhomboidal, or even polygonal columns. But a third set may often be
noticed cutting across the columns, though less continuous and
dominant than the others. When these transverse joints are few in
number, columns many feet in length can be quarried out entire. Such
monoliths have been from early times employed in the construction of
obelisks and pillars. (J. A. H.)

JOINTURE, in law, a provision for a wife after the death of her husband.
As defined by Sir E. Coke, it is "a competent livelihood of freehold for
the wife, of lands or tenements, to take effect presently in possession
or profit after the death of her husband, for the life of the wife at
least, if she herself be not the cause of determination or forfeiture of
it" (Co. Litt. 36b). A jointure is of two kinds, legal and equitable. A
legal jointure was first authorized by the Statute of Uses. Before this
statute a husband had no legal seisin in such lands as were vested in
another to his "use," but merely an equitable estate. Consequently it
was usual to make settlements on marriage, the most general form being
the settlement by deed of an estate to the use of the husband and wife
for their lives in joint tenancy (or "jointure"), so that the whole
would go to the survivor. Although, strictly speaking, a jointure is a
joint estate limited to both husband and wife, in common acceptation the
word extends also to a sole estate limited to the wife only. The
requisites of a legal jointure are: (1) the jointure must take effect
immediately after the husband's death; (2) it must be for the wife's
life or for a greater estate, or be determinable by her own act; (3) it
must be made before marriage--if after, it is voidable at the wife's
election, on the death of the husband; (4) it must be expressed to be in
satisfaction of dower and not of part of it. In equity, any provision
made for a wife before marriage and accepted by her (not being an
infant) in lieu of dower was a bar to such. If the provision was made
after marriage, the wife was not barred by such provision, though
expressly stated to be in lieu of dower; she was put to her election
between jointure and dower (see DOWER).

JOINVILLE, the name of a French noble family of Champagne, which traced
its descent from Étienne de Vaux, who lived at the beginning of the 11th
century. Geoffroi III. (d. 1184), sire de Joinville, who accompanied
Henry the Liberal, count of Champagne, to the Holy Land in 1147,
received from him the office of seneschal, and this office became
hereditary in the house of Joinville. In 1203 Geoffroi V., sire de
Joinville, died while on a crusade, leaving no children. He was
succeeded by his brother Simon, who married Beatrice of Burgundy,
daughter of the count of Auxonne, and had as his son Jean (q.v.), the
historian and friend of St Louis. Henri (d. 1374), sire de Joinville,
the grandson of Jean, became count of Vaudémont, through his mother,
Marguerite de Vaudémont. His daughter, Marguerite de Joinville, married
in 1393 Ferry of Lorraine (d. 1415), to whom she brought the lands of
Joinville. In 1552, Joinville was made into a principality for the house
of Lorraine. Mlle de Montpensier, the heiress of Mlle de Guise,
bequeathed the principality of Joinville to Philip, duke of Orleans
(1693). The castle, which overhung the Marne, was sold in 1791 to be
demolished. The title of prince de Joinville (q.v.) was given later to
the third son of King Louis Philippe. Two branches of the house of
Joinville have settled in other countries: one in England, descended
from Geoffroi de Joinville, sire de Vaucouleurs, and brother of the
historian, who served under Henry III. and Edward I.; the other,
descended from Geoffroi de Joinville, sire de Briquenay, and son of
Jean, settled in the kingdom of Naples.

See J. Simonnet, _Essai sur l'histoire et la généalogie des seigneurs
de Joinville_ (1875); H. F. Delaborde, _Jean de Joinville et les
seigneurs de Joinville_ (1894). (M. P.*)

JOINVILLE, FRANÇOIS FERDINAND PHILIPPE LOUIS MARIE, PRINCE DE
(1818-1900), third son of Louis Phllippe, duc d'Orléans, afterwards king
of the French, was born at Neuilly on the 14th of August 1818. He was
educated for the navy, and became lieutenant in 1836. His first
conspicuous service was at the bombardment of San Juan de Ulloa, in
November 1838, when he headed a landing party and took the Mexican
general Arista prisoner with his own hand at Vera Cruz. He was promoted
captain, and in 1840 was entrusted with the charge of bringing the
remains of Napoleon from St Helena to France. In 1844 he conducted naval
operations on the coast of Morocco, bombarding Tangier and occupying
Mogador, and was recompensed with the grade of vice-admiral. In the
following year he published in the _Revue des deux mondes_ an article on
the deficiencies of the French navy which attracted considerable
attention, and by his hostility to the Guizot ministry, as well as by an
affectation of ill-will towards Great Britain, he gained considerable
popularity. The revolution of 1848 nevertheless swept him away with the
other Orleans princes. He hastened to quit Algeria, where he was then
serving, and took refuge at Claremont, in Surrey, with the rest of his
family. In 1861, upon the breaking out of the American Civil War, he
proceeded to Washington, and placed the services of his son and two of
his nephews at the disposal of the United States government. Otherwise,
he was little heard of until the overthrow of the Empire in 1870, when
he re-entered France, only to be promptly expelled by the government of
national defence. Returning incognito, he joined the army of General
d'Aurelle de Paladines, under the assumed name of Colonel Lutherod,
fought bravely before Orleans, and afterwards, divulging his identity,
formally sought permission to serve. Gambretta, however, arrested him
and sent him back to England. In the National Assembly, elected in
February 1871, the prince was returned by two departments and elected to
sit for the Haute Marne, but, by an arrangement with Thiers, did not
take his seat until the latter had been chosen president of the
provincial republic. His deafness prevented him from making any figure
in the assembly, and he resigned his seat in 1876. In 1886 the
provisions of the law against pretenders to the throne deprived him of
his rank as vice-admiral, but he continued to live in France, and died
in Paris on the 16th of June 1900. He had married in 1843 the princess
Francisca, sister of Pedro II., emperor of Brazil, and had a son, the
duc de Penthièvre (born in 1845), also brought up to the navy, and a
daughter Françoise (1844- ) who married the duc de Chartres in 1863.

The prince de Joinville was the author of several essays and pamphlets
on naval affairs and other matters of public interest, which were
originally published for the most part either unsigned or
pseudonymously, and subsequently republished under his own name after
the fall of the Empire. They include _Essais sur la marine française_
(1853); _Études sur la marine_ (1859 and 1870); _La Guerre d'Amérique,
campagne du Potomac_ (1862 and 1872); _Encore un mot sur Sadowa_
(Brussels, 1868); and _Vieux souvenirs_ (1894).

JOINVILLE, JEAN, SIRE DE (1224-1319), was the second great writer of
history in Old French, and in a manner occupies the interval between
Villehardouin and Froissart. Numerous minor chroniclers fill up the
gaps, but no one of them has the idiosyncrasy which distinguishes these
three writers, who illustrate the three periods of the middle
ages--adolescence, complete manhood, and decadence. Joinville was the
head of a noble family of the province of Champagne (see JOINVILLE,
above). The provincial court of the counts of Champagne had long been a
distinguished one, and the action of Thibaut the poet, together with the
proximity of the district to Paris, made the province less rebellious
than most of the great feudal divisions of France to the royal
authority. Joinville's first appearance at the king's court was in 1241,
on the occasion of the knighting of Louis IX.'s younger brother
Alphonse. Seven years afterwards he took the cross, thereby giving St
Louis a valuable follower, and supplying himself with the occasion of an
eternal memory. The crusade, in which he distinguished himself equally
by wisdom and prowess, taught his practical spirit several lessons. He
returned with the king in 1254. But, though his reverence for the
personal character of his prince seems to have known no bounds, he had
probably gauged the strategic faculties of the saintly king, and he
certainly had imbibed the spirit of the dictum that a man's first duties
are those to his own house. He was in the intervals of residence on his
own fief a constant attendant on the court, but he declined to accompany
the king on his last and fatal expedition. In 1282 he was one of the
witnesses whose testimony was formally given at St Denis in the matter
of the canonization of Louis, and in 1298 he was present at the
exhumation of the saint's body. It was not till even later that he began
his literary work, the occasion being a request from Jeanne of Navarre,
the wife of Philippe le Bel and the mother of Louis le Hutin. The great
interval between his experiences and the period of the composition of
his history is important for the due comprehension of the latter. Some
years passed before the task was completed, on its own showing, in
October 1309. Jeanne was by this time dead, and Joinville presented his
book to her son Louis the Quarreller. This original manuscript is now
lost, whereby hangs a tale. Great as was his age, Joinville had not
ceased to be actively loyal, and in 1315 he complied with the royal
summons to bear arms against the Flemings. He was at Joinville again in
1317, and on the 11th of July 1319 he died at the age of ninety-five,
leaving his possessions and his position as seneschal of Champagne to
his second son Anselm. He was buried in the neighbouring church of St
Laurent, where during the Revolution his bones underwent profanation.
Besides his _Histoire de Saint Louis_ and his _Credo_ or "Confession of
Faith" written much earlier, a considerable number, relatively speaking,
of letters and business documents concerning the fief of Joinville and
so forth are extant. These have an importance which we shall consider
further on; but Joinville owes his place in general estimation only to
his history of his crusading experiences and of the subsequent fate of
St Louis.

Of the famous French history books of the middle ages Joinville's bears
the most vivid impress of the personal characteristics of its composer.
It does not, like Villehardouin, give us a picture of the temper and
habits of a whole order or cast of men during a heroic period of human
history; it falls far short of Froissart in vivid portraying of the
picturesque and external aspects of social life; but it is a more
personal book than either. The age and circumstances of the writer must
not be forgotten in reading it. He is a very old man telling of
circumstances which occurred in his youth. He evidently thinks that the
times have not changed for the better--what with the frequency with
which the devil is invoked in modern France, and the sinful expenditure
common in the matter of embroidered silk coats. But this laudation of
times past concentrates itself almost wholly on the person of the
sainted king whom, while with feudal independence he had declined to
swear fealty to him, "because I was not his man," he evidently regarded
with an unlimited reverence. His age, too, while garrulous to a degree,
seems to have been free from the slightest taint of boasting. No one
perhaps ever took less trouble to make himself out a hero than
Joinville. He is constantly admitting that on such and such an occasion
he was terribly afraid; he confesses without the least shame that, when
one of his followers suggested defiance of the Saracens and voluntary
death, he (Joinville) paid not the least attention to him; nor does he
attempt to gloss in any way his refusal to accompany St Louis on his
unlucky second crusade, or his invincible conviction that it was better
to be in mortal sin than to have the leprosy, or his decided preference
for wine as little watered as might be, or any other weakness. Yet he
was a sincerely religious man, as the curious _Credo_, written at Acre
and forming a kind of anticipatory appendix to the history, sufficiently
shows. He presents himself as an altogether human person, brave enough
in the field, and, at least when young, capable of extravagant devotion
to an ideal, provided the ideal was fashionable, but having at bottom a
sufficient respect for his own skin and a full consciousness of the side
on which his bread is buttered. Nor can he be said to be in all respects
an intelligent traveller. There were in him what may be called
glimmerings of deliberate literature, but they were hardly more than
glimmerings. His famous description of Greek fire has a most provoking
mixture of circumstantial detail with absence of verifying particulars.
It is as matter-of-fact and comparative as Dante, without a touch of
Dante's genius. "The fashion of Greek fire was such that it came to us
as great as a tun of verjuice, and the fiery tail of it was as big as a
mighty lance; it made such noise in the coming that it seemed like the
thunder from heaven, and looked like a dragon flying through the air; so
great a light did it throw that throughout the host men saw as though it
were day for the light it threw." Certainly the excellent seneschal has
not stinted himself of comparisons here, yet they can hardly be said to
be luminous. That the thing made a great flame, a great noise, and
struck terror into the beholder is about the sum of it all. Every now
and then indeed a striking circumstance, strikingly told, occurs in
Joinville, such as the famous incident of the woman who carried in one
hand a chafing dish of fire, in the other a phial of water, that she
might burn heaven and quench hell, lest in future any man should serve
God merely for hope of the one or fear of the other. But in these cases
the author only repeats what he has heard from others. On his own
account he is much more interested in small personal details than in
greater things. How the Saracens, when they took him prisoner, he being
half dead with a complication of diseases, kindly left him "un mien
couverture d'écarlate" which his mother had given him, and which he put
over him, having made a hole therein and bound it round him with a cord;
how when he came to Acre in a pitiable condition an old servant of his
house presented himself, and "brought me clean white hoods and combed my
hair most comfortably", how he bought a hundred tuns of wine and served
it--the best first, according to high authority--well-watered to his
private soldiers, somewhat less watered to the squires, and to the
knights neat, but with a suggestive phial of the weaker liquid to mix
"si comme ils vouloient"--these are the details in which he seems to
take greatest pleasure, and for readers six hundred years after date
perhaps they are not the least interesting details.

It would, however, be a mistake to imagine that Joinville's book is
exclusively or even mainly a chronicle of small beer. If he is not a
Villehardouin or a Carlyle, his battlepieces are vivid and truthful, and
he has occasional passages of no small episodic importance, such as that
dealing with the Old Man of the Mountain. But, above all, the central
figure of his book redeems it from the possibility of the charge of
being commonplace or ignoble. To St Louis Joinville is a nobler Boswell;
and hero-worshipper, hero, and heroic ideal all have something of the
sublime about them. The very pettiness of the details in which the good
seneschal indulges as to his own weakness only serves to enhance the
sublime unworldliness of the king. Joinville is a better warrior than
Louis, but, while the former frankly prays for his own safety, the
latter only thinks of his army's when they have escaped from the hands
of the aliens. One of the king's knights boasts that ten thousand pieces
have been "forcontés" (counted short) to the Saracens; and it is with
the utmost trouble that Joinville and the rest can persuade the king
that this is a joke, and that the Saracens are much more likely to have
got the advantage. He warns Joinville against wine-bibbing, against bad
language, against all manner of foibles small and great; and the pupil
acknowledges that this physician at any rate had healed himself in these
respects. It is true that he is severe towards infidels; and his
approval of the knight who, finding a Jew likely to get the better of a
theological argument, resorted to the baculine variety of logic, does
not meet the views of the 20th century. But Louis was not of the 20th
century but of the 13th, and after his kind he certainly deserved
Joinville's admiration. Side by side with his indignation at the idea of
cheating his Saracen enemies may be mentioned his answer to those who
after Taillebourg complained that he had let off Henry III. too easily.
"He is my man now, and he was not before," said the king, a most
unpractical person certainly, and in some ways a sore saint for France.
But it is easy to understand the half-despairing adoration with which a
shrewd and somewhat prosaic person like Joinville must have regarded
this flower of chivalry born out of due time. He has had his reward, for
assuredly the portrait of St Louis, from the early collection of
anecdotes to the last hearsay sketch of the woeful end at Tunis, with
the famous _enseignement_ which is still the best summary of the
theoretical duties of a Christian king in medieval times, is such as to
take away all charge of vulgarity or mere _commérage_ from Joinville, a
charge to which otherwise he might perhaps have been exposed.

The arrangement of the book is, considering its circumstances and the
date of its composition, sufficiently methodical. According to its own
account it is divided into three parts--the first dealing generally with
the character and conduct of the hero; the second with his acts and
deeds in Egypt, Palestine, &c., as Joinville knew them; the third with
his subsequent life and death. Of these the last is very brief, the
first not long; the middle constitutes the bulk of the work. The
contents of the first part are, as might be expected, miscellaneous
enough, and consist chiefly of stories chosen to show the valour of
Louis, his piety, his justice, his personal temperance, and so forth.
The second part enters upon the history of the crusade itself, and tells
how Joinville pledged all his land save so much as would bring in a
thousand livres a year, and started with a brave retinue of nine knights
(two of whom besides himself wore bannerets), and shared a ship with the
sire d'Aspremont, leaving Joinville without raising his eyes, "pour ce
que le cuer ne me attendrisist du biau chastel que je lessoie et de mes
deux enfans"; how they could not get out of sight of a high mountainous
island (Lampedusa or Pantellaria) till they had made a procession round
the masts in honour of the Virgin; how they reached first Cyprus and
then Egypt; how they took Damietta, and then entangled themselves in the
Delta. Bad generalship, which is sufficiently obvious, unwholesome
food--it was Lent, and they ate the Nile fish which had been feasting on
the carcases of the slain--and Greek fire did the rest, and personal
valour was of little avail, not merely against superior numbers and
better generals, but against dysentery and a certain "mal de l'ost"
which attacked the mouth and the legs, a curious human version of a
well-known bestial malady. After ransom Acre was the chief scene of
Louis's stay in the East, and here Joinville lived in some state, and
saw not a few interesting things, hearing besides much gossip as to the
inferior affairs of Asia from ambassadors, merchants and others. At last
they journeyed back again to France, not without considerable
experiences of the perils of the deep, which Joinville tells with a good
deal of spirit. The remainder of the book is very brief. Some anecdotes
of the king's "justice," his favourite and distinguishing attribute
during the sixteen years which intervened between the two crusades, are
given; then comes the story of Joinville's own refusal to join the
second expedition, a refusal which bluntly alleged the harm done by the
king's men who stayed at home to the vassals of those who went abroad as
the reason of Joinville's resolution to remain behind. The death of the
king at Tunis, his _enseignement_ to his son, and the story of his
canonization complete the work.

The book in which this interesting story is told has had a literary
history which less affects its matter than the vicissitudes to which
Froissart has been subjected, but which is hardly less curious in its
way. There is no reason for supposing that Joinville indulged in
various editions, such as those which have given Kervyn de Lettenhove
and Siméon Luce so much trouble, and which make so vast a difference
between the first and the last redaction of the chronicler of the
Hundred Years' War. Indeed the great age of the seneschal of
Champagne, and his intimate first-hand acquaintance with his subject,
made such variations extremely improbable. But, whereas there is no
great difficulty (though much labour) in ascertaining the original and
all subsequent texts of Froissart, the original text of Joinville was
until recently unknown, and even now may be said to be in the state of
a conjectural restoration. It has been said that the book was
presented to Louis le Hutin. Now we have a catalogue of Louis le
Hutin's library, and, strange to say, Joinville does not figure in it.
His book seems to have undergone very much the same fate as that which
befell the originals of the first two volumes of the _Paston Letters_
which Sir John Fenn presented to George the Third. Several royal
library catalogues of the 14th century are known, but in none of these
does the _Histoire de St Louis_ appear. It does appear in that of
Charles V. (1411), but apparently no copy even of this survives. As
everybody knows, however, books could be and were multiplied by the
process of copying tolerably freely, and a copy at first or second
hand which belonged to the fiddler king René of Provence in the 15th
century was used for the first printed edition in 1547. Other editions
were printed from other versions, all evidently posterior to the
original. But in 1741 the well-known medievalist La Curne de St Palaye
found at Lucca a manuscript of the 16th century, evidently
representing an older text than any yet printed. Three years later a
14th-century copy was found at Brussels, and this is the standard
manuscript authority for the text of Joinville. Those who prefer to
rest on MS. authority will probably hold to this text, which appears
in the well-known collection of Michaud and Poujoulat as well as that
of Buchon, and in a careful and useful separate edition by Francisque
Michel. The modern science of critical editing, however, which applies
to medieval texts the principles long recognized in editing the
classics, has discovered in the 16th-century manuscript, and still
more in the original miscellaneous works of Joinville, the letters,
deeds, &c., already alluded to, the materials for what we have already
called a conjectural restoration, which is not without its interest,
though perhaps it is possible for that interest to be exaggerated.

For merely general readers Buchon's or Michaud's editions of Joinville
will amply suffice. Both include translations into modern French,
which, however, are hardly necessary, for the language is very easy.
Natalis de Wailly's editions of 1868 and particularly 1874 are
critical editions, embodying the modern research connected with the
text, the value of which is considerable, but contestable. They are
accompanied by ample annotations and appendices, with illustrations of
great merit and value. Much valuable information appeared for the
first time in the edition of F. Michel (1859). To these may be added
A. F. Didot's _Études sur Joinville_ (1870) and H. F. Delaborde's
_Jean de Joinville_ (1894). A good sketch of the whole subject will be
found in Aubertin's _Histoire de la langue et de la littérature
françaises au moyen âge_, ii. 196-211; see also Gaston Paris, _Litt.
française au moyen âge_ (1893), and A. Debidour, _Les Chroniqueurs_
(1888). There are English translations by T. Johnes (1807), J. Hutton
(1868), Ethel Wedgwood (1906), and (more literally) Sir F. T. Marzials
("Everyman's Library," 1908). (G. Sa.)

JOIST, in building, one of a row or tier of beams set edgewise from one
wall or partition to another and carrying the flooring boards on the
upper edge and the laths of the ceiling on the lower. In double flooring
there are three series of joists, _binding_, _bridging_, and _ceiling_
joists. The binding joists are the real support of the floor, running
from wall to wall, and carrying the bridging joists above and the
ceiling joists below (see CARPENTRY), The Mid. Eng. form of the word
was _giste_ or _gyste_, and was adapted from O. Fr. _giste_, modern
_gîte_, a beam supporting the platform of a gun. By origin the word
meant that on which anything lies or rests (_gésir_, to lie; Lat.
_jacere_).

The English word "gist," in such phrases as "the gist of the matter,"
the main or central point in an argument, is a doublet of joist.
According to Skeat, the origin of this meaning is an O. Fr. proverbial
expression, _Je sçay bien où gist le lièvre_, I know well where the hare
lies, i.e. I know the real point of the matter.

JÓKAI, MAURUS (1825-1904), Hungarian novelist, was born at Rév-Komárom
on the 19th of February 1825. His father, Joseph, was a member of the
Asva branch of the ancient Jókay family; his mother was a scion of the
noble Pulays. The lad was timid and delicate, and therefore educated at
home till his tenth year, when he was sent to Pressburg, subsequently
completing his education at the Calvinist college at Pápá, where he
first met Petöfi, Alexander Kozma, and several other brilliant young men
who subsequently became famous. His family had meant him to follow the
law, his father's profession, and accordingly the youth, always
singularly assiduous, plodded conscientiously through the usual
curriculum at Kecskemet and Pest, and as a full-blown advocate actually
succeeded in winning his first case. But the drudgery of a lawyer's
office was uncongenial to the ardently poetical youth, and, encouraged
by the encomiums pronounced by the Hungarian Academy upon his first
play, _Zsidó fiu_ ("The Jew Boy"), he flitted, when barely twenty, to
Pest in 1845 with a MS. romance in his pocket; he was introduced by
Petöfi to the literary notabilities of the Hungarian capital, and the
same year his first notable romance _Hétköznapok_ ("Working Days"),
appeared, first in the columns of the _Pesti Dievatlap_, and
subsequently, in 1846, in book form. _Hétköznapok_, despite its manifest
crudities and extravagances, was instantly recognized by all the leading
critics as a work of original genius, and in the following year Jókai
was appointed the editor of _Életképek_, the leading Hungarian literary
journal, and gathered round him all the rising talent of the country. On
the outbreak of the revolution of 1848 the young editor enthusiastically
adopted the national cause, and served it with both pen and sword. Now,
as ever, he was a moderate Liberal, setting his face steadily against
all excesses; but, carried away by the Hungarian triumphs of April and
May 1849, he supported Kossuth's fatal blunder of deposing the Hapsburg
dynasty, and though, after the war was over, his life was saved by an
ingenious stratagem of his wife, the great tragic actress, Roza Benke
Laborfalvi, whom he had married on the 29th of August 1848, he lived for
the next fourteen years the life of a political suspect. Yet this was
perhaps the most glorious period of his existence, for during it he
devoted himself to the rehabilitation of the proscribed and humiliated
Magyar language, composing in it no fewer than thirty great romances,
besides innumerable volumes of tales, essays, criticisms and facetiæ.
This was the period of such masterpieces as _Erdély Arany Kord_ ("The
Golden Age of Transylvania"), with its sequel _Törökvilág
Magyarországon_ ("The Turks in Hungary"), _Egy Magyar Nábob_ ("A
Hungarian Nabob"), _Karpáthy Zoltán, Janicsárok végnapjai_ ("The Last
Days of the Janissaries"), _Szomorú napok_ ("Sad Days"). On the
re-establishment of the Hungarian constitution by the Composition of
1867, Jókai took an active part in politics. As a constant supporter of
the Tisza administration, not only in parliament, where he sat
continuously for more than twenty years, but also as the editor of the
government organ, _Hon_, founded by him in 1863, he became a power in
the state, and, though he never took office himself, frequently
extricated the government from difficult places. In 1897 the emperor
appointed him a member of the upper house. As a suave, practical and
witty debater he was particularly successful. Yet it was to literature
that he continued to devote most of his time, and his productiveness
after 1870 was stupendous, amounting to some hundreds of volumes.
Stranger still, none of this work is slipshod, and the best of it
deserves to endure. Amongst the finest of his later works may be
mentioned the unique and incomparable _Az arany ember_ ("A Man of
Gold")--translated into English under the title of _Timar's Two
Worlds_--and _A téngerzemü hölgy_ ("Eyes like the Sea"), the latter of
which won the Academy's prize in 1890. He died at Budapest on the 5th of
May 1904; his wife having predeceased him in 1886. Jókai was an
arch-romantic, with a perfervid Oriental imagination, and humour of the
purest, rarest description. If one can imagine a combination, in almost
equal parts, of Walter Scott, William Beckford, Dumas _père_, and
Charles Dickens, together with the native originality of an ardent
Magyar, one may perhaps form a fair idea of the great Hungarian
romancer's indisputable genius.

See Névy László, _Jókai Mór_; Hegedúsis Sándor, _Jókai Mórról_; H. W.
Temperley, "Maurus Jokai and the Historical Novel," _Contemporary
Review_ (July 1904).

JOKJAKARTA, or JOKJOKARTA (more correctly JOKYAKARTA; Du.
_Djokjakarta_), a residency of the island of Java, Dutch East Indies,
bounded N. by Kedu and Surakarta, E. by Surakarta, S. by the Indian
Ocean, W. by Bagelen. Pop. (1897), 858,392. The country is mountainous
with the exception of a wedge-like strip in the middle between the
rivers Progo and Upak. In the north-west are the southern slopes of the
volcano Merapi, and in the east the Kidul hills and the plateau of Sewu.
The last-named is an arid and scantily populated chalk range, with
numerous small summits, whence it is also known as the Thousand Hills.
The remainder of the residency is well-watered and fertile, important
irrigation works having been carried out. Sugar, rice and indigo are
cultivated; salt-making is practised on the coast. The minerals include
coal-beds in the Kidul hills and near Nangulan, marble and gold in the
neighbourhood of Kalasan. The natives are poor, owing chiefly to
maladministration, the use of opium and the usury practised by
foreigners (Chinese, Arabs, &c.). The principality is divided between
the sultan (vassal of the Dutch government) and the so-called
independent prince Paku Alam; Ngawen and Imogiri are enclaves of
Surakarta. There are good roads, and railways connect the chief town
with Batavia, Samarang, Surakarta, &c. The town of Jokjakarta (see JAVA)
the seat of the resident, the sultan and the Paku Alam princes; its most
remarkable section is the _kraton_ or citadel of the sultan. Imogiri,
S.W. of the capital, the burial-place of the princes of Surakarta and
Jokjakarta, is guarded by priests and officials. Sentolo, Nangulan,
Brosot, Kalasan, Tempel, Wonosari are considerable villages. There are
numerous remains of Hindu temples, particularly in the neighbourhood of
Kalasan near the border of Surakarta and Prambanan, which is just across
it. Remarkable sacred grottoes are found on the coast, namely, the
so-called Nyabi Kidul and Rongkob, and at Selarong, south-east of
Jokjakarta.

JOLIET, a city and the county-seat of Will county, Illinois, U.S.A., in
the township of Joliet, in the N.E. part of the state, on the Des
Plaines river, 40 m. S.W. of Chicago. Pop. (1890), 23,264; (1900),
29,353, of whom 8536 were foreign-born, 1889 being German, 1579
Austrian, 1206 Irish and 951 Swedish; (1910 census) 34,670. In addition
there is a large population in the immediate suburbs: that of the
township including the city was 27,438 in 1890, and 50,640 in 1910.
Joliet is served by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé, the Chicago &
Alton, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, the Michigan Central, the
Illinois, Iowa & Minnesota, and the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern railways, by
interurban electric lines, and is on the Illinois & Michigan canal and
the Chicago Sanitary (ship) canal. The city is situated in a narrow
valley, on both sides of the river. It is the seat of the northern
Illinois penitentiary, and has a public library (in front of which is a
statue, by S. Asbjornsen, of Louis Joliet), the township high school,
two hospitals, two Catholic academies and a club-house, erected by the
Illinois Steel Company for the use of its employees. There are two
municipal parks, West Park and Highland Park; Dellwood Park is an
amusement resort, owned by the Chicago & Joliet Electric Railway
Company. In the vicinity are large deposits of calcareous building
stone, cement and fireclay, and there are coal mines 20 m. distant.
Mineral resources and water-power have facilitated the development of
manufactures. The factory product in 1905 was valued at $33,788,700
(20.3% more than in 1900), a large part of which was represented by
iron and steel goods. There are large industrial establishments just
outside the city limits. The first settlement on the site of Joliet
(1833) was called Juliet, in honour of the daughter of James B.
Campbell, one of the settlers. The present name was adopted in 1845, in
memory of Louis Joliet (1645-1700), the French Canadian explorer of the
Mississippi, and in 1852 a city charter was secured.

JOLLY (from O. Fr. _jolif_; Fr. _joli_, the French word is obscure in
origin; it may be from late Lat. _gaudivus_, from _gaudere_, to rejoice,
the change of _d_ to _l_ being paralleled by _cigada_ and _cigale_, or
from O. Norse _jol_, Eng. "yule," the northern festival of midwinter),
and adjective meaning gay, cheerful, jovial, high-spirited. The
colloquial use of the term as an intensive adverb, meaning extremely,
very, was in early usage quite literary; thus John Trapp (1601-1669),
_Commentaries on the New Testament, Matthew_ (1647), writes, "All was
jolly quiet at Ephesus before St Paul came hither." In the royal navy
"jolly" used as a substantive, is the slang name for a marine. To
"jolly" is a slang synonym for "chaff." The word "jolly-boat," the name
of a ship's small broad boat, usually clinker-built, is of doubtful
etymology. It occurs in English in the 18th century, and is usually
connected with Dan. or Swed. _jolle_, Dutch _jol_, a small ship's boat;
these words are properly represented in English by "yawl" originally a
ship's small boat, now chiefly used of a rig of sailing vessels, with a
cutter-rigged foremast and a small mizzen stepped far aft, with a
spanker sail (see RIGGING). A connexion has been suggested with a word
of much earlier appearance in English, _jolywat_, or _gellywatte_. This
occurs at the end of the 15th century and is used of a smaller type of
ship's boat. This is supposed to be a corruption of the French _galiote_
or Dutch _galjoot_, galliot (see GALLEY). The galliot was, however, a
large vessel.

JOLY DE LOTBINIÈRE, SIR HENRI GUSTAVE (1829-1908), Canadian politician,
was born at Epernay in France on the 5th of December 1829. His father,
Gaspard Pierre Gustave Joly, the owner of famous vineyards at Epernay,
was of Huguenot descent, and married Julie Christine, grand-daughter of
Eustache Gaspard Michel Chartier de Lotbinière, marquis de Lotbinière
(one of Montcalm's engineers at Quebec); he thus became seigneur de
Lotbinière. Henri Gustave adopted the name of de Lotbinière in 1888,
under a statute of the province of Quebec. He was educated in Paris, and
called to the bar of lower Canada in 1858. On the 6th of May 1856 he
married Margaretta Josepha (d. 1904), daughter of Hammond Gowen, of
Quebec. At the general election of 1861 he was elected to the house of
assembly of the province of Canada as Liberal member for the county of
Lotbinière, and from 1867 to 1874 he represented the same county in the
House of Commons, Ottawa, and in the legislative assembly, Quebec. Joly
was opposed to confederation and supported Dorion in the stand which he
took on this question. In 1878 he was called by Luc Letellier de St
Just, lieutenant-governor of Quebec, to form an administration, which
was defeated in 1879, and until 1883 he was leader of the opposition.
During his brief administration he adopted a policy of retrenchment, and
endeavoured to abolish the legislative council. In 1885, as a protest
against the attitude of his party towards Louis Riel, who was tried and
executed for high treason, he retired from public life. Early in the
year 1895 he was induced again to take an active part in the campaign of
his party, and at the general election of 1896 he was returned as member
for the county of Portneuf. He had already in 1895 been created K.C.M.G.
On the formation of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's administration he accepted the
office of controller of inland revenue, and a year later he became a
privy councillor, as minister of inland revenue. From 1900 to 1906 he
was lieutenant-governor of the province of British Columbia. He twice
declined a seat in the senate, but rendered eminent service to Canada by
promoting the interest of agriculture, horticulture and of forestry. He
died on the 17th of November 1908. (A. G. D.)

JOMINI, ANTOINE HENRI, BARON (1779-1869), general in the French and
afterwards in the Russian service, and one of the most celebrated
writers on the art of war, was born on the 6th of March 1779 at Payerne
in the canton of Vaud, Switzerland, where his father was syndic. His
youthful preference for a military life was disappointed by the
dissolution of the Swiss regiments of France at the Revolution. For some
time he was a clerk in a Paris banking-house, until the outbreak of the
Swiss revolution. At the age of nineteen he was appointed to a post on
the Swiss headquarters staff, and when scarcely twenty-one to the
command of a battalion. At the peace of Lunéville in 1801 he returned to
business life in Paris, but devoted himself chiefly to preparing the
celebrated _Traité des grandes opérations militaires_, which was
published in 1804-1805. Introduced to Marshal Ney, he served in the
campaign of Austerlitz as a volunteer aide-de-camp on Ney's personal
staff. In December 1805 Napoleon, being much impressed by a chapter in
Jomini's treatise, made him a colonel in the French service. Ney
thereupon made him his principal aide-de-camp. In 1806 Jomini published
his views as to the conduct of the impending war with Prussia, and this,
along with his knowledge of Frederick the Great's campaigns, which he
had described in the _Traité_, led Napoleon to attach him to his own
headquarters. He was present with Napoleon at the battle of Jena, and at
Eylau won the cross of the Legion of Honour. After the peace of Tilsit
he was made chief of the staff to Ney, and created a baron. In the
Spanish campaign of 1808 his advice was often of the highest value to
the marshal, but Jomini quarrelled with his chief, and was left almost
at the mercy of his numerous enemies, especially Berthier, the emperor's
chief of staff. Overtures had been made to him, as early as 1807, to
enter the Russian service, but Napoleon, hearing of his intention to
leave the French army, compelled him to remain in the service with the
rank of general of brigade. For some years thereafter Jomini held both a
French and a Russian commission, with the consent of both sovereigns.
But when war between France and Russia broke out, he was in a difficult
position, which he ended by taking a command on the line of
communication. He was thus engaged when the retreat from Moscow and the
uprising of Prussia transferred the seat of war to central Germany. He
promptly rejoined Ney, took part in the battle of Lützen and, as chief
of the staff of Ney's group of corps, rendered distinguished services
before and at the battle of Bautzen, and was recommended for the rank of
general of division. Berthier, however, not only erased Jomini's name
from the list, but put him under arrest and censured him in army orders
for failing to supply certain returns that had been called for. How far
Jomini was held responsible for certain misunderstandings which
prevented the attainment of all the results hoped for from Ney's attack
(see BAUTZEN) there is no means of knowing. But the pretext for censure
was trivial and baseless, and during the armistice Jomini did as he had
intended to do in 1809-10, and went into the Russian service. As things
then were, this was tantamount to deserting to the enemy, and so it was
regarded by Napoleon and by the French army, and by not a few of his new
comrades. It must be observed, in Jomini's defence, that he had for
years held a dormant commission in the Russian army, that he had
declined to take part in the invasion of Russia in 1812, and that he was
a Swiss and not a Frenchman. His patriotism was indeed unquestioned, and
he withdrew from the Allied Army in 1814 when he found that he could not
prevent the violation of Swiss neutrality. Apart from love of his own
country, the desire to study, to teach and to practise the art of war
was his ruling motive. At the critical moment of the battle of Eylau he
exclaimed, "If I were the Russian commander for two hours!" On joining
the allies he received the rank of lieutenant-general and the
appointment of aide-de-camp from the tsar, and rendered important
assistance during the German campaign, though the charge that he
betrayed the numbers, positions and intentions of the French to the
enemy was later acknowledged by Napoleon to be without foundation. He
declined as a Swiss patriot and as a French officer to take part in the
passage of the Rhine at Basel and the subsequent invasion of France.

In 1815 he was with the emperor Alexander in Paris, and attempted in
vain to save the life of his old commander Ney. This almost cost him
his position in the Russian service, but he succeeded in making head
against his enemies, and took part in the congress of Vienna. Resuming,
after a period of several years of retirement and literary work, his
post in the Russian army, he was about 1823 made a full general, and
thenceforward until his retirement in 1829 he was principally employed
in the military education of the tsarevich Nicholas (afterwards emperor)
and in the organization of the Russian staff college, which was opened
in 1832 and still bears its original name of the Nicholas academy. In
1828 he was employed in the field in the Russo-Turkish War, and at the
siege of Varna he was given the grand cordon of the Alexander order.
This was his last active service. In 1829 he settled at Brussels where
he chiefly lived for the next thirty years. In 1853, after trying
without success to bring about a political understanding between France
and Russia, Jomini was called to St Petersburg to act as a military
adviser to the tsar during the Crimean War. He returned to Brussels on
the conclusion of peace in 1856 and some years afterwards settled at
Passy near Paris. He was busily employed up to the end of his life in
writing treatises, pamphlets and open letters on subjects of military
art and history, and in 1859 he was asked by Napoleon III. to furnish a
plan of campaign in the Italian War. One of his last essays dealt with
the war of 1866 and the influence of the breech-loading rifle, and he
died at Passy on the 24th of March 1869 only a year before the
Franco-German War. Thus one of the earliest of the great military
theorists lived to speculate on the tactics of the present day.

Amongst his numerous works the principal, besides the _Traité_, are:
_Histoire critique et militaire des campagnes de la Révolution_ (1806;
new ed. 1819-1824); _Vie politique et militaire de Napoléon racontée
par lui-même_ (1827) and, perhaps the best known of all his
publications, the theoretical _Précis de l'art de la guerre_ (1836).

See Ferdinand Lecomte, _Le Général Jomini, sa vie et ses écrits_
(1861; new ed. 1888); C. A. Saint-Beuve, _Le Général Jomini_ (1869);
A. Pascal, _Observations historiques sur la vie, &c., du général
Jomini_ (1842).

JOMMELLI, NICCOLA (1714-1774), Italian composer, was born at Aversa near
Naples on the 10th of September 1714. He received his musical education
at two of the famous music schools of that capital, being a pupil of the
Conservatorio de' poveri di Gesù Cristo under Feo, and also of the
Conservatorio della pietà dei Turchini under Prota, Mancini and Leo. His
first opera, _L'Errore amoroso_, was successfully produced at Naples
(under a pseudonym) when Jommelli was only twenty-three. Three years
afterwards he went to Rome to bring out two new operas, and thence to
Bologna, where he profited by the advice of Padre Martini, the greatest
contrapuntist of his age. In the meantime Jommelli's fame began to
spread beyond the limits of his country, and in 1748 he went for the
first time to Vienna, where one of his finest operas, _Didone_, was
produced. Three years later he returned to Italy, and in 1753 he
obtained the post of chapel-master to the duke of Württemberg at
Stuttgart, which city he made his home for a number of years. In the
same year he had ten commissions to write operas for princely courts. In
Stuttgart he permitted no operas but his own to be produced, and he
modified his style in accordance with German taste, so much that, when
after an absence of fifteen years he returned to Naples, his countrymen
hissed two of his operas off the stage. He retired in consequence to his
native village, and only occasionally emerged from his solitude to take
part in the musical life of the capital. His death took place on the
25th of August 1774, his last composition being the celebrated
_Miserere_, a setting for two female voices of Saverio Mattei's Italian
paraphrase of Psalm li. Jommelli is the most representative composer of
the generation following Leo and Durante. He approaches very closely to
Mozart in his style, and is important as one of the composers who, by
welding together German and Italian characteristics, helped to form the
musical language of the great composers of the classical period of
Vienna.

JONAH, in the Bible, a prophet born at Gath-hepher in Zebulun, perhaps
under Jeroboam (2) (781-741 B.C.?), who foretold the deliverance of
Israel from the Aramaeans (2 Kings xiv. 25). This prophet may also be
the hero of the much later book of Jonah, but how different a man is
he! It is, however, the later Jonah who chiefly interests us. New
problems have arisen out of the book which relates to him, but here we
can only attempt to consider what, in a certain sense, may be called the
surface meaning of the text.

This, then is what we appear to be told. The prophet Jonah is summoned
to go to Nineveh, a great and wicked city (cf. 4 Esdras ii. 8, 9), and
prophesy against it. Jonah, however, is afraid (iv. 2) that the
Ninevites may repent, so, instead of going to Nineveh, he proceeds to
Joppa, and takes his passage in a ship bound for Tarshish. But soon a
storm arises, and, supplication to the gods failing, the sailors cast
lots to discover the guilty man who has brought this great trouble. The
lot falls on Jonah, who has been roughly awakened by the captain, and
when questioned frankly owns that he is a Hebrew and a worshipper of the
divine creator Yahweh, from whom he has sought to flee (as if He were
only the god of Canaan). Jonah advises the sailors to throw him into the
sea. This, after praying to Yahweh, they actually do; at once the sea
becomes calm and they sacrifice to Yahweh. Meantime God has "appointed a
great fish" which swallows up Jonah. Three days and three nights he is
in the fish's belly, till, at a word from Yahweh, it vomits Jonah on to
the dry ground. Again Jonah receives the divine call. This time he
obeys. After delivering his message to Nineveh he makes himself a booth
outside the walls and waits in vain for the destruction of the city
(probably iv. 5 is misplaced and should stand after iii. 4). Thereupon
Jonah beseeches Yahweh to take away his worthless life. As an answer
Yahweh "appoints" a small quickly-growing tree with large leaves (the
castor-oil plant) to come up over the angry prophet and shelter him from
the sun. But the next day the beneficent tree perishes by God's
"appointment" from a worm-bite. Once more God "appoints" something; it
is the east wind, which, together with the fierce heat, brings Jonah
again to desperation. The close is fine, and reminds us of Job. God
himself gives short-sighted man a lesson. Jonah has pitied the tree, and
should not God have pity on so great a city?

Two results of criticism are widely accepted. One relates to the psalm
in ch. ii., which has been transferred from some other place; it is in
fact an anticipatory thanksgiving for the deliverance of Israel, mostly
composed of phrases from other psalms. The other is that the narrative
before us is not historical but an imaginative story (such as was called
a Midrash) based upon Biblical data and tending to edification. It is,
however, a story of high type. The narrator considered that Israel had
to be a prophet to the "nations" at large, that Israel had, like Jonah,
neglected its duty and for its punishment was "swallowed up" in foreign
lands. God had watched over His people and prepared its choicer members
to fulfil His purpose. This company of faithful but not always
sufficiently charitable men represented their people, so that it might
be said that Israel itself (the second Isaiah's "Servant of Yahweh"--see
ISAIAH) had taken up its duty, but in an ungenial spirit which grieved
the All-merciful One. The book, which is post-exilic, may therefore be
grouped with another Midrash, the Book of Ruth, which also appears to
represent a current of thought opposed to the exclusive spirit of Jewish
legalism.

Some critics, however, think that the key of symbolism needs to be
supplemented by that of mythology. The "great fish" especially has a
very mythological appearance. The Babylonian dragon myth (see COSMOGONY)
is often alluded to in the Old Testament, e.g. in Jer. li. 44, which, as
the present writer long since pointed out, may supply the missing link
between Jonah i. 17 and the original myth. For the "great fish" is
ultimately Tiamat, the dragon of chaos, represented historically by
Nebuchadrezzar, by whom for a time God permitted or "appointed" Israel
to be swallowed up.

For further details see T. K. Cheyne, _Ency. Bib._, "Jonah"; and his
article "Jonah, a Study in Jewish Folklore and Religion," _Theological
Review_ (1877), pp. 211-219. König, Hastings's _Dict. Bible_, "Jonah,"
is full but not lucid; C. H. H. Wright, _Biblical Studies_ (1886)
argues ably for the symbolic theory. Against Cheyne, see Marti's work
on the _Minor Prophets_ (1894); the "great fish" and the "three days
and three nights" remain unexplained by this writer. On these points
see Zimmern, _K.A.T._ (3), pp. 366, 389, 508. The difficulties of the
mission of a Hebrew prophet to Asshur are diminished by Cheyne's later
theory, _Critica Biblica_ (1904), pp. 150-152. (T. K. C.)

JONAH, RABBI (ABULWALID MERWAN IBN JANAH, also R. MARINUS) (c. 990-c.
1050), the greatest Hebrew grammarian and lexicographer of the middle
ages. He was born before the year 990, in Cordova, studied in Lucena,
left his native city in 1012, and, after somewhat protracted wanderings,
settled in Saragossa, where he died before 1050. He was a physician, and
Ibn Abi Usaibia, in his treatise on Arabian doctors, mentions him as the
author of a medical work. But Rabbi Jonah saw the true vocation of his
life in the scientific investigation of the Hebrew language and in a
rational biblical exegesis based upon sound linguistic knowledge. It is
true, he wrote no actual commentary on the Bible, but his philological
works exercised the greatest influence on Judaic exegesis. His first
work--composed, like all the rest, in Arabic--bears the title
_Almustalha_, and forms, as is indicated by the word, a criticism and at
the same time a supplement to the two works of Yehuda 'Hayyuj on the
verbs with weak-sounding and double-sounding roots. These two tractates,
with which 'Hayyuj had laid the foundations of scientific Hebrew
grammar, were recognized by Abulwalid as the basis of his own
grammatical investigations, and Abraham Ibn Daud, when enumerating the
great Spanish Jews in his history, sums up the significance of R. Jonah
in the words: "He completed what 'Hayyuj had begun." The principal work
of R. Jonah is the _Kitab al Tankih_ ("Book of Exact Investigation"),
which consists of two parts, regarded as two distinct books--the _Kitab
al-Luma_ ("Book of Many-coloured Flower-beds") and the _Kitab al-usul_
("Book of Roots"). The former (ed. J. Derenbourg, Paris, 1886) contains
the grammar, the latter (ed. Ad. Neubauer, Oxford, 1875) the lexicon of
the Hebrew language. Both works are also published in the Hebrew
translation of Yehuda Ibn Tibbon (_Sefer Ha-Rikmah_, ed. B. Goldberg,
Frankfurt am Main, 1855; _Sefer Ha-Schoraschim_, ed. W. Bacher, Berlin,
1897). The other writings of Rabbi Jonah, so far as extant, have
appeared in an edition of the Arabic original accompanied by a French
translation (_Opuscules et traités d'Abou'l Walid_, ed. Joseph and
Hartwig Derenbourg, Paris 1880). A few fragments and numerous quotations
in his principal book form our only knowledge of the _Kitab al-Tashwir_
("Book of Refutation") a controversial work in four parts, in which
Rabbi Jonah successfully repelled the attacks of the opponents of his
first treatise. At the head of this opposition stood the famous Samuel
Ibn Nagdela (S. Ha-Nagid) a disciple of 'Hayyuj. The grammatical work of
Rabbi Jonah extended, moreover, to the domain of rhetoric and biblical
hermeneutics, and his lexicon contains many exegetical excursuses. This
lexicon is of especial importance by reason of its ample contribution to
the comparative philology of the Semitic languages--Hebrew and Arabic,
in particular. Abulwalid's works mark the culminating point of Hebrew
scholarship during the middle ages, and he attained a level which was
not surpassed till the modern development of philological science in the
19th century.

See S. Munk, _Notice sur Abou'l Walid_ (Paris, 1851); W. Bacher,
_Leben und Werke des Abulwalid und die Quellen seiner
Schrifterklärung_ (Leipzig, 1885); id., _Aus der Schrifterklärung des
Abulwalid_ (Leipzig, 1889); id., _Die hebr.-arabische
Sprachvergleichung des Abulwalid_ (Vienna, 1884); id., _Die
hebräisch-neuhebräische und hebr.-aramäische Sprachvergleichung des
Abulwalid_ (Vienna, 1885). (W. Ba.)

JONAS, JUSTUS (1493-1555), German Protestant reformer, was born at
Nordhausen in Thuringia, on the 5th of June 1493. His real name was
Jodokus (Jobst) Koch, which he changed according to the common custom of
German scholars in the 16th century, when at the university of Erfurt.
He entered that university in 1506, studied law and the humanities, and
became Master of Arts in 1510. In 1511 he went to Wittenberg, where he
took his bachelor's degree in law. He returned to Erfurt in 1514 or
1515, was ordained priest, and in 1518 was promoted doctor in both
faculties and appointed to a well-endowed canonry in the church of St
Severus, to which a professorship of law was attached. His great
admiration for Erasmus first led him to Greek and biblical studies, and
his election in May 1519 as rector of the university was regarded as a
triumph for the partisans of the New Learning. It was not, however,
until after the Leipzig disputation with Eck that Luther won his
allegiance. He accompanied Luther to Worms in 1521, and there was
appointed by the elector of Saxony professor of canon law at Wittenberg.
During Luther's stay in the Wartburg Jonas was one of the most active of
the Wittenberg reformers. Giving himself up to preaching and polemics,
he aided the Reformation by his gift as a translator, turning Luther's
and Melanchthon's works into German or Latin as the case might be, thus
becoming a sort of double of both. He was busied in conferences and
visitations during the next twenty years, and in diplomatic work with
the princes. In 1541 he began a successful preaching crusade in Halle;
he became superintendent of its churches in 1542. In 1546 he was present
at Luther's deathbed at Eisleben, and preached the funeral sermon; but
in the same year was banished from the duchy by Maurice, duke (later
elector) of Saxony. From that time until his death, Jonas was unable to
secure a satisfactory living. He wandered from place to place preaching,
and finally went to Eisfeld (1553), where he died. He had been married
three times.

See _Briefswechsel des Justus Jonas, gesammelt und bearbeitet von G.
Kawerau_ (2 vols., Halle, 1884-1885); Kawerau's article in
Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopädie_, ed. 3, with bibliography.

JONATHAN (Heb. "Yah [weh] gives"). Of the many Jewish bearers of this
name, three are well known: (1) the grandson of Moses, who was priest at
Dan (Judg. xviii. 30). The reading Manasseh (see R.V. mg.; obtained by
inserting _n_ above the consonantal text in the Hebrew) is apparently
intended to suggest that he was the son of that idolatrous king. (2) The
eldest son of Saul, who, together with his father, freed Israel from the
crushing oppression of the Philistines (1 Sam. xiii. seq.). Both are
lauded in an elegy quoted from the Book of Jashar (2 Sam. i.) for their
warm mutual love, their heroism, and their labours on behalf of the
people. Jonathan's name is most familiar for the firm friendship which
subsisted between him and David (1 Sam. xviii. 1-4; xix. 1-7; xx., xxii.
8; xxiii. 16-18), and when he fell at the battle of Gilboa and left
behind him a young child (1 Sam. xxxi.; 2 Sam. iv. 4), David took charge
of the youth and gave him a place at his court (2 Sam. ix.). See further
DAVID, SAUL. (3) The Maccabee (see JEWS; MACCABEES).

JONCIÈRES, VICTORIN (1839-1903), French composer, was born in Paris on
the 12th of April 1839. He first devoted his attention to painting, but
afterwards took up the serious study of music. He entered the Paris
Conservatoire, but did not remain there long, because he had espoused
too warmly the cause of Wagner against his professor. He composed the
following operas: _Sardanapale_ (1867), _Le Dernier jour de Pompéi_
(1869), _Dimitri_ (1876), _La Reine Berthe_ (1878), _Le Chevalier Jean_
(1885), _Lancelot_ (1900). He also wrote incidental music to _Hamlet_, a
symphony, and other works. Joncières' admiration for Wagner asserted
itself rather in a musical than a dramatic sense. The influence of the
German master's earlier style can be traced in his operas. Joncières,
however, adhered to the recognized forms of the French opera and did not
model his works according to the later developments of the Wagnerian
"music drama." He may indeed be said to have been at least as much
influenced by Gounod as by Wagner. From 1871 he was musical critic for
_La Liberté_. He died on the 26th of October 1903.

JONES, ALFRED GILPIN (1824-1906), Canadian politician, was born at
Weymouth, Nova Scotia, in September 1824, the son of Guy C. Jones of
Yarmouth, and grandson of a United Empire Loyalist. In 1865 he opposed
the federation of the British American provinces, and, in his anger at
the refusal of the British government to repeal such portions of the
British North America Act as referred to Nova Scotia, made a speech
which won for him the name of Haul-down-the-flag Jones. He was for many
years a member of the Federal Parliament, and for a few months in 1878
was minister of militia under the Liberal government. Largely owing to
his influence the Liberal party refused in 1878 to abandon its Free
Trade policy, an obstinacy which led to its defeat in that year. In 1900
he was appointed lieutenant-governor of his native province, and held
this position till his death on the 15th of March 1906.

JONES, SIR ALFRED LEWIS (1845-1909), British shipowner, was born in
Carmarthenshire, in 1845. At the age of twelve he was apprenticed to the
managers of the African Steamship Company at Liverpool, making several
voyages to the west coast of Africa. By the time he was twenty-six he
had risen to be manager of the business. Not finding sufficient scope in
this post, he borrowed money to purchase two or three small sailing
vessels, and started in the shipping business on his own account. The
venture succeeded, and he made additions to his fleet, but after a few
years' successful trading, realizing that sailing ships were about to be
superseded by steamers, he sold his vessels. About this time (1891)
Messrs. Elder, Dempster & Co., who purchased the business of the old
African Steamship Company, offered him a managerial post. This offer he
accepted, subject to Messrs. Elder, Dempster selling him a number of
their shares, and he thus acquired an interest in the business, and
subsequently, by further share purchases, its control. See further
STEAMSHIP LINES. In 1901 he was knighted. Sir Alfred Jones took a keen
interest in imperial affairs, and was instrumental in founding the
Liverpool school of tropical medicine. He acquired considerable
territorial interests in West Africa, and financial interests in many of
the companies engaged in opening up and developing that part of the
world. He also took the leading part in opening up a new line of
communication with the West Indies, and stimulating the Jamaica fruit
trade and tourist traffic. He died on the 13th of December 1909, leaving
large charitable bequests.

JONES, EBENEZER (1820-1860), British poet, was born in Islington,
London, on the 20th of January 1820. His father, who was of Welsh
extraction, was a strict Calvinist, and Ebenezer was educated at a dull,
middle-class school. The death of his father obliged him to become a
clerk in the office of a tea merchant. Shelley and Carlyle were his
spiritual masters, and he spent all his spare time in reading and
writing; but he developed an exaggerated style of thought and
expression, due partly to a defective education. The unkind reception of
his _Studies of Sensation and Event_ (1843) seemed to be the last drop
in his bitter cup of life. Baffled and disheartened, he destroyed his
manuscripts. He earned his living as an accountant and by literary hack
work, and it was not until he was rapidly dying of consumption that he
wrote his three remarkable poems, "Winter Hymn to the Snow," "When the
World is Burning" and "To Death." The fame that these and some of the
pieces in the early volume brought to their author came too late. He
died on the 14th of September 1860.

It was not till 1870 that Dante Gabriel Rossetti praised his work in
_Notes and Queries_. Rossetti's example was followed by W. B. Scott,
Theodore Watts-Dunton, who contributed some papers on the subject to
the _Athenaeum_ (September and October 1878), and R. H. Sheppard, who
edited _Studies of Sensation and Event_ in 1879.

JONES, ERNEST CHARLES (1819-1869), English Chartist, was born at Berlin
on the 25th of January 1819, and educated in Germany. His father, an
officer in the British army, was then equerry to the duke of
Cumberland--afterwards king of Hanover. In 1838 Jones came to England,
and in 1841 published anonymously _The Wood Spirit_, a romantic novel.
This was followed by some songs and poems. In 1844 he was called to the
bar at the Middle Temple. In 1845 he joined the Chartist agitation,
quickly becoming its most prominent figure, and vigorously carrying on
the party's campaign on the platform and in the press. His speeches, in
which he openly advocated physical force, led to his prosecution, and he
was sentenced in 1848 to two years' imprisonment for sedition. While in
prison he wrote, it is said in his own blood on leaves torn from a
prayer-book, _The Revolt of Hindostan_, an epic poem. On his release he
again became the leader of what remained of the Chartist party and
editor of its organ. But he was almost its only public speaker; he was
out of sympathy with the other leading Chartists, and soon joined the
advanced Radical party. Thenceforward he devoted himself to law and
literature, writing novels, tales and political songs. He made several
unsuccessful attempts to enter parliament, and was about to contest
Manchester, with the certainty of being returned, when he died there on
the 26th of January 1869. He is believed to have sacrificed a
considerable fortune rather than abandon his Chartist principles. His
wife was Jane Atherley; and his son, Llewellyn Atherley-Jones, K.C. (b.
1851), became a well-known barrister and Liberal member of parliament.

JONES, HENRY (1831-1899), English author, well known as a writer on
whist under his _nom de guerre_ "Cavendish," was born in London on the
2nd of November 1831, being the eldest son of Henry D. Jones, a medical
practitioner. He adopted his father's profession, established himself in
1852 and continued for sixteen years in practice in London. The father
was a keen devotee of whist, and under his eye the son became early in
life a good player. He was a member of several whist clubs, among them
the "Cavendish," and in 1862 appeared his _Principles of Whist, stated
and explained by_ "_Cavendish_," which was destined to become the
leading authority as to the practice of the game. This work was followed
by treatises on the laws of piquet and écarté. "Cavendish" also wrote on
billiards, lawn tennis and croquet, and contributed articles on whist
and other games to the ninth edition of the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_.
"'Cavendish' was not a law-maker, but he codified and commented upon the
laws which had been made during many generations of card-playing." One
of the most noteworthy points in his character was the manner in which
he kept himself abreast of improvements in his favourite game. He died
on the 10th of February 1899.

JONES, HENRY ARTHUR (1851- ), English dramatist, was born at
Grandborough, Buckinghamshire, on the 28th of September 1851 the son of
Silvanus Jones, a farmer. He began to earn his living early, his spare
time being given to literary pursuits. He was twenty-seven before his
first piece, _Only Round the Corner_, was produced at the Exeter
Theatre, but within four years of his début as a dramatist he scored a
great success by _The Silver King_ (November 1882), written with Henry
Herman, a melodrama produced by Wilson Barrett at the Princess's
Theatre. Its financial success enabled the author to write a play "to
please himself." _Saints and Sinners_ (1884), which ran for two hundred
nights, placed on the stage a picture of middle-class life and religion
in a country town, and the introduction of the religious element raised
considerable outcry. The author defended himself in an article published
in the _Nineteenth Century_ (January 1885), taking for his
starting-point a quotation from the preface to Molière's _Tartuffe_. His
next serious piece was _The Middleman_ (1889), followed by _Judah_
(1890), both powerful plays, which established his reputation. Later
plays were _The Dancing Girl_ (1891), _The Crusaders_ (1891), _The
Bauble Shop_ (1893), _The Tempter_ (1893), _The Masqueraders_ (1894),
_The Case of Rebellious Susan_ (1894), _The Triumph of the Philistines_
(1895), _Michael and his Lost Angel_ (1896), _The Rogue's Comedy_
(1896), _The Physician_ (1897), _The Liars_ (1897), _Carnac Sahib_
(1899), _The Manoeuvres of Jane_ (1899), _The Lackeys' Carnival_ (1900),
_Mrs Dane's Defence_ (1900), _The Princess's Nose_ (1902), _Chance the
Idol_ (1902), _Whitewashing Julia_ (1903), _Joseph Entangled_ (1904),
_The Chevalier_ (1904), &c. A uniform edition of his plays began to be
issued in 1891; and his own views of dramatic art have been expressed
from time to time in lectures and essays, collected in 1895 as _The
Renascence of the English Drama_.

JONES, INIGO (1573-1651), English architect, sometimes called the
"English Palladio," the son of a cloth-worker, was born in London on the
15th of July 1573. It is stated that he was apprenticed to a joiner, but
at any rate his talent for drawing attracted the attention of Thomas
Howard, earl of Arundel (some say William, 3rd earl of Pembroke),
through whose help he went to study landscape-painting in Italy. His
preference soon transferred itself to architecture, and, following
chiefly the style of Palladio, he acquired at Venice such a reputation
that in 1604 he was invited by Christian IV. to Denmark, where he is
said to have designed the two great royal palaces of Rosenborg and
Frederiksborg. In the following year he accompanied Anne of Denmark to
the court of James I. of England, where, besides being appointed
architect to the queen and Prince Henry, he was employed in supplying
the designs and decorations of the court masques. After a second visit
to Italy in 1612, Jones was appointed surveyor-general of royal
buildings by James I., and was engaged to prepare designs for a new
palace at Whitehall. In 1620 he was employed by the king to investigate
the origin of Stonehenge, when he came to the absurd conclusion that it
had been a Roman temple. Shortly afterwards he was appointed one of the
commissioners for the repair of St Paul's, but the work was not begun
till 1633. Under Charles I. he enjoyed the same offices as under his
predecessor, and in the capacity of designer of the masques he came into
collision with Ben Jonson, who frequently made him the butt of his
satire. After the Civil War Jones was forced to pay heavy fines as a
courtier and malignant. He died in poverty on the 5th of July 1651.

A list of the principal buildings designed by Jones is given in
Dallaway's edition of Walpole's _Anecdotes of Painting_, and for an
estimate of him as an architect see Fergusson's _History of Modern
Architecture_. _The Architecture of Palladio_, in 4 books, by Inigo
Jones, appeared in 1715; _The Most Notable Antiquity of Great Britain,
called Stonehenge, restored by Inigo Jones_, in 1655 (ed. with memoir,
1725); the _Designs of Inigo Jones_, by W. Kent, in 1727; and _The
Designs of Inigo Jones_, by J. Ware, in 1757. See also G. H. Birch,
_London Churches of the XVIIth and XVIIIth Centuries_ (1896); W. J.
Loftie, _Inigo Jones and Wren, or the Rise and Decline of Modern
Architecture in England_ (1893).

JONES, JOHN (c. 1800-1882), English art collector, was born about 1800
in or near London. He was apprenticed to a tailor, and about 1825 opened
a shop of his own in the west-end of London. In 1850 he was able to
retire from active management with a large fortune. When quite a young
man he had begun to collect articles of _vertu_. The rooms over his shop
in which he at first lived were soon crowded, and even the bedrooms of
his new house in Piccadilly were filled with art treasures. His
collection was valued at approximately £250,000. Jones died in London on
the 7th of January 1882, leaving his pictures, furniture and objects of
art to the South Kensington Museum.

A _Catalogue of the Jones Bequest_ was published by the Museum in
1882, and a _Handbook_, with memoir, in 1883.

JONES, JOHN PAUL (1747-1792), American naval officer, was born on the
6th of July 1747, on the estate of Arbigland, in the parish of Kirkbean
and the stewartry of Kirkcudbright, Scotland. His father, John Paul, was
gardener to Robert Craik, a member of parliament; and his mother, Jean
Macduff, was the daughter of a Highlander. Young John Paul, at the age
of twelve, became shipmaster's apprentice to a merchant of Whitehaven,
named Younger. At seventeen he shipped as second mate and in the next
year as first mate in one of his master's vessels; on being released
from his indentures, he acquired an interest in a ship, and as first
mate made two voyages between Jamaica and the Guinea coast, trading in
slaves. Becoming dissatisfied with this kind of employment, he sold his
share in the ship and embarked for England. During the voyage both the
captain and the mate died of fever, and John Paul took command and
brought the ship safely to port. The owners gave him and the crew 10% of
the cargo; after 1768, as captain of one of their merchantmen, John Paul
made several voyages to America; but for unknown reasons he suddenly
gave up his command to live in America in poverty and obscurity until
1775. During this period he assumed the name of Jones, apparently out of
regard for Willie Jones, a wealthy planter and prominent political
leader of North Carolina, who had befriended John Paul in his days of
poverty.

When war broke out between England and her American colonies, John Paul
Jones was commissioned as a first lieutenant by the Continental
Congress, on the 22nd of December 1775. In 1776 he participated in the
unsuccessful attack on the island of New Providence, and as commander
first of the "Providence" and then of the "Alfred" he cruised between
Bermuda and Nova Scotia, inflicting much damage on British shipping and
fisheries. On the 10th of October 1776 he was promoted captain. On the
1st of November 1777 he sailed in the sloop-of-war "Ranger" for France
with despatches for the American commissioners, announcing the surrender
of Burgoyne and asking that Jones should be supplied with a swift
frigate for harassing the coasts of England. Failing to secure a
frigate, Jones sailed from Brest in the "Ranger" on the 10th of April
1778. A few days later he surprised the garrisons of the two forts
commanding the harbour of Whitehaven, a port with which he was familiar
from boyhood, spiked the guns and made an unsuccessful attempt to fire
the shipping. Four days thereafter he encountered the British
sloop-of-war "Drake," a vessel slightly superior to his in fighting
capacity, and after an hour's engagement the British ship struck her
colours and was taken to Brest. By this exploit Jones became a great
hero in the eyes of the French, just beginning a war with Great Britain.
With the rank of commodore he was now put at the head of a squadron of
five ships. His flagship, the "Duras," a re-fitted East Indiaman, was
re-named by him the "Bonhomme Richard," as a compliment to Benjamin
Franklin, whose _Poor Richard's Almanac_ was then popular in France. On
the 14th of August the five ships sailed from L'Orient, accompanied by
two French privateers. Several of the French commanders under Jones
proved insubordinate, and the privateers and three of the men-of-war
soon deserted him. With the others, however, he continued to take
prizes, and even planned to attack the port of Leith, but was prevented
by unfavourable winds. On the evening of the 23rd of September the three
men-of-war sighted two British men-of-war, the "Serapis" and the
"Countess of Scarbrough," off Flamborough Head. The "Alliance,"
commanded by Captain Landais, made off, leaving the "Bonhomme Richard"
and the "Pallas" to engage the Englishmen. Jones engaged the greatly
superior "Serapis," and after a desperate battle of three and a half
hours compelled the English ship to surrender. The "Countess of
Scarbrough" had meanwhile struck to the more formidable "Pallas." Jones
transferred his men and supplies to the "Serapis," and the next day the
"Bonhomme Richard" sank.

During the following year Jones spent much of his time in Paris. Louis
XVI. gave him a gold-hilted sword and the royal order of military merit,
and made him chevalier of France. Early in 1781 Jones returned to
America to secure a new command. Congress offered him the command of the
"America," a frigate then building, but the vessel was shortly
afterwards given to France. In November 1783 he was sent to Paris as
agent for the prizes captured in European waters under his own command,
and although he gave much attention to social affairs and engaged in
several private business enterprises, he was very successful in
collecting the prize money. Early in 1787 he returned to America and
received a gold medal from Congress in recognition of his services.

In 1788 Jones entered the service of the empress Catherine of Russia,
avowing his intention, however, "to preserve the condition of an
American citizen and officer." As a rear-admiral he took part in the
naval campaign in the Liman (an arm of the Black Sea, into which flow
the Bug and Dnieper rivers) against the Turks, but the jealous intrigues
of Russian officers caused him to be recalled to St Petersburg for the
pretended purpose of being transferred to a command in the North Sea.
Here he was compelled to remain in idleness, while rival officers
plotted against him and even maliciously assailed his private character.
In August 1789 he left St Petersburg a bitterly disappointed man. In May
1790 he arrived in Paris, where he remained in retirement during the
rest of his life, although he made several efforts to re-enter the
Russian service.

Undue exertion and exposure had wasted his strength before he reached
the prime of life, and after an illness, in which he was attended by the
queen's physician, he died on the 18th of July 1792. His body was
interred in the St Louis cemetery for foreign Protestants, the funeral
expenses being paid from the private purse of Pierrot François
Simmoneau, the king's commissary. In the confusion during the following
years the burial place of Paul Jones was forgotten; but in June 1899
General Horace Porter, American ambassador to France, began a systematic
search for the body, and after excavations on the site of the old
Protestant cemetery, now covered with houses, a leaden coffin was
discovered, which contained the body in a remarkable state of
preservation. In July 1905 a fleet of American war-ships carried the
body to Annapolis, where it now rests in one of the buildings of the
naval academy.

Jones was a seaman of great bravery and technical ability, but
over-jealous of his reputation and inclined to be querulous and
boastful. The charges by the English that he was a pirate were
particularly galling to him. Although of unprepossessing appearance, 5
ft. 7 in. in height and slightly round-shouldered, he was noted for his
pleasant manners and was welcomed into the most brilliant courts of
Europe.

Romance has played with the memory of Paul Jones to such an extent
that few accounts of his life are correct. Of the early biographies
the best are Sherburne's (London, 1825), chiefly a collection of
Jones's correspondence; the _Janette-Taylor Collection_ (New York,
1830), containing numerous extracts from his letters and journals; and
the life by A. S. MacKenzie (2 vols., New York, 1846). In recent years
a number of new biographies have appeared, including A. C. Buell's (2
vols., 1900), the trustworthiness of which has been discredited, and
Hutchins Hapgood's in the Riverside Biographical Series (1901). The
life by Cyrus Townsend Brady in the "Great Commanders Series" (1900)
is perhaps the best.

JONES, MICHAEL (d. 1649), British soldier. His father was bishop of
Killaloe in Ireland. At the outbreak of the English Civil War he was
studying law, but he soon took service in the army of the king in
Ireland. He was present with Ormonde's army in many of the expeditions
and combats of the devastating Irish War, but upon the conclusion of the
"Irish Cessation" (see ORMONDE, JAMES BUTLER, DUKE OF) he resolved to
leave the king's service for that of the parliament, in which he soon
distinguished himself by his activity and skill. In the Welsh War, and
especially at the last great victory at Rowton Heath, Jones's cavalry
was always far superior to that of the Royalists, and in reward for his
services he was made governor of Chester when that city fell into the
hands of the parliament. Soon afterwards Jones was sent again to the
Irish War, in the capacity of commander-in-chief. He began his work by
reorganizing the army in the neighbourhood of Dublin, and for some time
he carried on a desultory war of posts, necessarily more concerned for
his supplies than for a victory. But at Dungan Hill he obtained a
complete success over the army of General Preston, and though the war
was by no means ended, Jones was able to hold a large tract of country
for the parliament. But on the execution of Charles I., the war entered
upon a new phase, and garrison after garrison fell to Ormonde's
Royalists. Soon Jones was shut up in Dublin, and then followed a siege
which was regarded both in England and Ireland with the most intense
interest. On the 2nd of August 1649 the Dublin garrison relieved itself
by the brilliant action of Rathmines, in which the royal army was
practically destroyed. A fortnight later Cromwell landed with heavy
reinforcements from England. Jones, his lieutenant-general, took the
field; but on the 19th of December 1649 he died, worn out by the
fatigues of the campaign.

JONES, OWEN (1741-1814), Welsh antiquary, was born on the 3rd of
September 1741 at Llanvihangel Glyn y Myvyr in Denbighshire. In 1760 he
entered the service of a London firm of furriers, to whose business he
ultimately succeeded. He had from boyhood studied Welsh literature, and
later devoted time and money to its collection. Assisted by Edward
William of Glamorgan (Iolo Morganwg) and Dr. Owen Pughe, he published,
at a cost of more than £1000, the well-known _Myvyrian Archaiology of
Wales_ (1801-1807), a collection of pieces dating from the 6th to the
14th century. The manuscripts which he had brought together are
deposited in the British Museum; the material not utilized in the
_Myvyrian Archaiology_ amounts to 100 volumes, containing 16,000 pages
of verse and 15,300 pages of prose. Jones was the founder of the
Gwyneddigion Society (1772) in London for the encouragement of Welsh
studies and literature; and he began in 1805 a miscellany--the
_Greal_--of which only one volume appeared. An edition of the poems of
_Davydd ab Gwilym_ was also issued at his expense. He died on the 26th
of December 1814 at his business premises in Upper Thames Street,
London.

JONES, OWEN (1809-1874), British architect and art decorator, son of
Owen Jones, a Welsh antiquary, was born in London. After an
apprenticeship of six years in an architect's office, he travelled for
four years in Italy, Greece, Turkey, Egypt and Spain, making a special
study of the Alhambra. On his return to England in 1836 he busied
himself in his professional work. His forte was interior decoration, for
which his formula was: "Form without colour is like a body without a
soul." He was one of the superintendents of works for the Exhibition of
1851 and was responsible for the general decoration of the Crystal
Palace at Sydenham. Along with Digby Wyatt, Jones collected the casts of
works of art with which the palace was filled. He died in London on the
19th of April 1874.

Owen Jones was described in the _Builder_ for 1874 as "the most potent
apostle of colour that architectural England has had in these days."
His range of activity is to be traced in his works: _Plans, Elevations
and Details of the Alhambra_ (1835-1845), in which he was assisted by
MM. Goury and Gayangos; _Designs for Mosaic and Tesselated Pavements_
(1842); _Polychromatic Ornament of Italy_ (1845); _An Attempt to
Define the Principles which regulate the Employment of Colour in
Decorative Arts_ (1852); _Handbook to the Alhambra Court_ (1854);
_Grammar of Ornament_ (1856), a very important work; _One Thousand and
One Initial Letters_ (1864); _Seven Hundred and Two Monograms_ (1864);
and _Examples of Chinese Ornament_ (1867).

JONES, RICHARD (1790-1855), English economist, was born at Tunbridge
Wells. The son of a solicitor, he was intended for the legal profession,
and was educated at Caius College, Cambridge. Owing to ill-health, he
abandoned the idea of the law and took orders soon after leaving
Cambridge. For several years he held curacies in Sussex and Kent. In
1833 he was appointed professor of political economy at King's College,
London, resigning this post in 1835 to succeed T. R. Malthus in the
chair of political economy and history at the East India College at
Haileybury. He took an active part in the commutation of tithes in 1836
and showed great ability as a tithe commissioner, an office which he
filled till 1851. He was for some time, also, a charity commissioner. He
died at Haileybury, shortly after he had resigned his professorship, on
the 26th of January 1855. In 1831 Jones published his _Essay on the
Distribution of Wealth and on the Sources of Taxation_, his most
important work. In it he showed himself a thorough-going critic of the
Ricardian system.

Jones's method is inductive; his conclusions are founded on a wide
observation of contemporary facts, aided by the study of history. The
world he professed to study was not an imaginary world, inhabited by
abstract "economic men," but the real world with the different forms
which the ownership and cultivation of land, and, in general, the
conditions of production and distribution, assume at different times
and places. His recognition of such different systems of life in
communities occupying different stages in the progress of civilization
led to his proposal of what he called a "political economy of
nations." This was a protest against the practice of taking the
exceptional state of facts which exists, and is indeed only partially
realized, in a small corner of our planet as representing the uniform
type of human societies, and ignoring the effects of the early history
and special development of each community as influencing its economic
phenomena. Jones is remarkable for his freedom from exaggeration and
one-sided statement; thus, whilst holding Malthus in, perhaps, undue
esteem, he declines to accept the proposition that an increase of the
means of subsistence is necessarily followed by an increase of
population; and he maintains what is undoubtedly true, that with the
growth of population, in all well-governed and prosperous states, the
command over food, instead of diminishing, increases.

A collected edition of Jones's works, with a preface by W. Whewell,
was published in 1859.

JONES, THOMAS RUPERT (1819- ), English geologist and palaeontologist,
was born in London on the 1st of October 1819. While at a private school
at Ilminster, his attention was attracted to geology by the fossils that
are so abundant in the Lias quarries. In 1835 he was apprenticed to a
surgeon at Taunton, and he completed his apprenticeship in 1842 at
Newbury in Berkshire. He was then engaged in practice mainly in London,
till in 1849 he was appointed assistant secretary to the Geological
Society of London. In 1862 he was made professor of geology at the Royal
Military College, Sandhurst. Having devoted his especial attention to
fossil microzoa, he now became the highest authority in England on the
Foraminifera and Entomostraca. He edited the 2nd edition of Mantell's
_Medals of Creation_ (1854), the 3rd edition of Mantell's _Geological
Excursions round the Isle of Wight_ (1854), and the 7th edition of
Mantell's _Wonders of Geology_ (1857); he also edited the 2nd edition of
Dixon's _Geology of Sussex_ (1878). He was elected F.R.S. in 1872 and
was awarded the Lyell medal by the Geological Society in 1890. For many
years he was specially interested in the geology of South Africa.

His publications include _A Monograph of the Entomostraca of the
Cretaceous Formation of England_ (Palaeontograph. Soc., 1849); _A
Monograph of the Tertiary Entomostraca of England_ (ibid. 1857); _A
Monograph of the Fossil Estheriae_ (ibid. 1862); _A Monograph of the
Foraminifera of the Crag_ (ibid. 1866, &c., with H. B. Brady); and
numerous articles in the _Annals and Magazine of Natural History_, the
_Geological Magazine_, the _Proceedings of the Geologists'
Association_, and other journals.

JONES, WILLIAM (1726-1800), English divine, was born at Lowick, in
Northamptonshire on the 30th of July 1726. He was descended from an old
Welsh family and one of his progenitors was Colonel John Jones,
brother-in-law of Cromwell. He was educated at Charterhouse School, and
at University College, Oxford. There a kindred taste for music, as well
as a similarity in regard to other points of character, led to his close
intimacy with George Horne (q.v.), afterwards bishop of Norwich, whom he
induced to study Hutchinsonian doctrines. After obtaining his bachelor's
degree in 1749, Jones held various preferments. In 1777 he obtained the
perpetual curacy of Nayland, Suffolk, and on Horne's appointment to
Norwich became his chaplain, afterwards writing his life. His vicarage
became the centre of a High Church coterie, and Jones himself was a link
between the non-jurors and the Oxford movement. He could write
intelligibly on abstruse topics. He died on the 6th of January 1800.

In 1756 Jones published his tractate _On the Catholic Doctrine of the
Trinity_, a statement of the doctrine from the Hutchinsonian point of
view, with a succinct and able summary of biblical proofs. This was
followed in 1762 by an _Essay on the First Principles of Natural
Philosophy_, in which he maintained the theories of Hutchinson in
opposition to those of Sir Isaac Newton, and in 1781 he dealt with the
same subject in _Physiological Disquisitions_. Jones was also the
originator of the _British Critic_ (May 1793). His collected works,
with a life by William Stevens, appeared in 1801, in 12 vols., and
were condensed into 6 vols. in 1810. A life of Jones, forming pt. 5 of
the _Biography of English Divines_, was published in 1849.

JONES, SIR WILLIAM (1746-1794), British Orientalist and jurist, was born
in London on the 28th of September 1746. He distinguished himself at
Harrow, and during his last three years there applied himself to the
study of Oriental languages, teaching himself the rudiments of Arabic,
and reading Hebrew with tolerable ease. In his vacations he improved his
acquaintance with French and Italian. In 1764 Jones entered University
College, Oxford, where he continued to study Oriental literature, and
perfected himself in Persian and Arabic by the aid of a Syrian Mirza,
whom he had discovered and brought from London. He added to his
knowledge of Hebrew and made considerable progress in Italian, Spanish
and Portuguese. He began the study of Chinese, and made himself master
of the radical characters of that language. During five years he partly
supported himself by acting as tutor to Lord Althorpe, afterwards the
second Earl Spencer, and in 1766 he obtained a fellowship. Though but
twenty-two years of age, he was already becoming famous as an
Orientalist, and when Christian VII. of Denmark visited England in 1768,
bringing with him a life of Nadir Shah in Persian, Jones was requested
to translate the MS. into French. The translation appeared in 1770, with
an introduction containing a description of Asia and a short history of
Persia. This was followed in the same year by a _Traité sur la poésie
orientale_, and by a French metrical translation of the odes of Hafiz.
In 1771 he published a _Dissertation sur la littérature orientale_,
defending Oxford scholars against the criticisms made by Anquetil Du
Perron in the introduction to his translation of the _Zend-Avesta_. In
the same year appeared his _Grammar of the Persian Language_. In 1772
Jones published a volume of _Poems, Chiefly Translations from Asiatick
Languages, together with Two Essays on the Poetry of Eastern Nations and
on the Arts commonly called Imitative_, and in 1774 a treatise entitled
_Poeseos Asiaticae commentatorium libri sex_, which definitely confirmed
his authority as an Oriental scholar.

Finding that some more financially profitable occupation was necessary,
Jones devoted himself with his customary energy to the study of the law,
and was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in 1774. He studied not
merely the technicalities, but the philosophy, of law, and within two
years had acquired so considerable a reputation that he was in 1776
appointed commissioner in bankruptcy. Besides writing an _Essay on the
Law of Bailments_, which enjoyed a high reputation both in England and
America, Jones translated, in 1778, the speeches of Isaeus on the
Athenian right of inheritance. In 1780 he was a parliamentary candidate
for the university of Oxford, but withdrew from the contest before the
day of election, as he found he had no chance of success owing to his
Liberal opinions, especially on the questions of the American War and of
the slave trade.

In 1783 was published his translation of the seven ancient Arabic poems
called _Moallakât_. In the same year he was appointed judge of the
supreme court of judicature at Calcutta, then "Fort William," and was
knighted. Shortly after his arrival in India he founded, in January
1784, the Bengal Asiatic Society, of which he remained president till
his death. Convinced as he was of the great importance of consulting the
Hindu legal authorities in the original, he at once began the study of
Sanskrit, and undertook, in 1788, the colossal task of compiling a
digest of Hindu and Mahommedan law. This he did not live to complete,
but he published the admirable beginnings of it in his _Institutes of
Hindu Law, or the Ordinances of Manu_ (1794); his _Mohammedan Law of
Succession to Property of Intestates_; and his _Mohammedan Law of
Inheritance_ (1792). In 1789 Jones had completed his translation of
Kalidasa's most famous drama, _Sakuntala_. He also translated the
collection of fables entitled the _Hitopadesa_, the _Gitagovinda_, and
considerable portions of the Vedas, besides editing the text of
Kalidasa's poem _Ritusamhara_. He was a large contributor also to his
society's volumes of _Asiatic Researches_.

His unremitting literary labours, together with his heavy judicial work,
told on his health after a ten years' residence in Bengal; and he died
at Calcutta on the 27th of April 1794. An extraordinary linguist,
knowing thirteen languages well, and having a moderate acquaintance with
twenty-eight others, his range of knowledge was enormous. As a pioneer
in Sanskrit learning and as founder of the Asiatic Society he rendered
the language and literature of the ancient Hindus accessible to European
scholars, and thus became the indirect cause of later achievements in
the field of Sanskrit and comparative philology. A monument to his
memory was erected by the East India Company in St Paul's, London, and a
statue in Calcutta.

See the _Memoir_ (1804) by Lord Teignmouth, published in the collected
edition of Sir W. Jones's works.

JÖNKÖPING, a town of Sweden, capital of the district (_län_) of
Jönköping, 230 m. S.W. of Stockholm by rail. Pop. (1900), 23,143. It
occupies a beautiful but somewhat unhealthy position between the
southern end of Lake Vetter and two small lakes, Roksjö and Munksjö. Two
quarters of the town, Svenska Mad and Tyska Mad, recall the time when
the site was a marsh (_mad_), and buildings were constructed on piles.
The residential suburbs among the hills, especially Dunkehallar, are
attractive and healthier than the town. The church of St Kristine (c.
1650), the court-houses, town-hall, government buildings, and high
school, are noteworthy. The town is one of the leading industrial
centres in Sweden. The match manufacture, for which it is principally
famous, was founded by Johan Edvard Lundström in 1844. The well-known
brand of _säkerhets-tändstickor_ (safety-matches) was introduced later.
There are also textile manufactures, paper-factories (on Munksjö), and
mechanical works. There is a large fire-arms factory at Huskvarna, 5 m.
E. Water-power is supplied here by a fine series of falls. The hill
Taberg, 8 m. S., is a mass of magnetic iron ore, rising 410 ft. above
the surrounding country, 2950 ft. long and 1475 ft. broad, but the
percentage of iron is low as compared with the rich ores of other parts,
and the deposit is little worked. Jönköping is the seat of one of the
three courts of appeal in Sweden.

Jönköping received the earliest extant Swedish charter in 1284 from
Magnus I. The castle is mentioned in 1263, when Waldemar Birgersson
married the Danish princess Sophia. Jönköping was afterwards the scene
of many events of moment in Scandinavian history--of parliaments in
1357, 1439, and 1599; of the meeting of the Danish and Swedish
plenipotentiaries in 1448; and of the death of Sten Sture, the elder, in
1503. In 1612 Gustavus Adolphus caused the inhabitants to destroy their
town lest it should fall into the hands of the Danes; but it was rebuilt
soon after, and in 1620 received special privileges from the king. At
this period a textile industry was started here, the first of any
importance in Sweden. It was from the Dutch and German workmen,
introduced at this time, that the quarter Tyska Mad received its name.
On the 10th of December 1809 the plenipotentiaries of Sweden and Denmark
concluded peace in the town.

JONSON, BEN[1] (1573-1637), English dramatist, was born, probably in
Westminster, in the beginning of the year 1573 (or possibly, if he
reckoned by the unadopted modern calendar, 1572; see Castelain, p. 4,
note 1). By the poet's account his grandfather had been a gentleman who
"came from" Carlisle, and originally, the grandson thought, from
Annandale. His arms, "three spindles or rhombi," are the family device
of the Johnstones of Annandale, a fact which confirms his assertion of
Border descent. Ben Jonson further related that he was born a month
after the death of his father, who, after suffering in estate and person
under Queen Mary, had in the end "turned minister." Two years after the
birth of her son the widow married again; she may be supposed to have
loved him in a passionate way peculiar to herself, since on one occasion
we find her revealing an almost ferocious determination to save his
honour at the cost of both his life and her own. Jonson's stepfather was
a master bricklayer, living in Hartshorn Lane, near Charing Cross, who
provided his stepson with the foundations of a good education. After
attending a private school in St Martin's Lane, the boy was sent to
Westminster School at the expense, it is said, of William Camden.
Jonson's gratitude for an education to which in truth he owed an almost
inestimable debt concentrated itself upon the "most reverend head" of
his benefactor, then second and afterwards head master of the famous
school, and the firm friend of his pupil in later life.

After reaching the highest form at Westminster, Jonson is stated, but on
unsatisfactory evidence, to have proceeded to Cambridge--according to
Fuller, to St John's College. (For reasons in support of the tradition
that he was a member of St John's College, see J. B. Mullinger, the
_Eagle_, No. xxv.) He says, however, himself that he studied at neither
university, but was put to a trade immediately on leaving school. He
soon had enough of the trade, which was no doubt his father's
bricklaying, for Henslowe in writing to Edward Alleyne of his affair
with Gabriel Spenser calls him "bergemen [_sic_] Jonson, bricklayer."
Either before or after his marriage--more probably before, as Sir
Francis Vere's three English regiments were not removed from the Low
Countries till 1592--he spent some time in that country soldiering, much
to his own subsequent satisfaction when the days of self-conscious
retrospect arrived, but to no further purpose beyond that of seeing
something of the world.

Ben Jonson married not later than 1592. The registers of St Martin's
Church state that his eldest daughter Maria died in November 1593 when
she was, Jonson tells us (epigram 22), only six months old. His eldest
son Benjamin died of the plague ten years later (epigram 45). (A
younger Benjamin died in 1635.) His wife Jonson characterized to
Drummond as "a shrew, but honest"; and for a period (undated) of five
years he preferred to live without her, enjoying the hospitality of Lord
Aubigny (afterwards duke of Lennox). Long burnings of oil among his
books, and long spells of recreation at the tavern, such as Jonson
loved, are not the most favoured accompaniments of family life. But
Jonson was no stranger to the tenderest of affections: two at least of
the several children whom his wife bore to him he commemorated in
touching little tributes of verse; nor in speaking of his lost eldest
daughter did he forget "her mother's tears." By the middle of 1597 we
come across further documentary evidence of him at home in London in the
shape of an entry in Philip Henslowe's diary (July 28) of 3s. 6d.
"received of Bengemenes Johnsones share." He was therefore by this
time--when Shakespeare, his senior by nearly nine years, was already in
prosperous circumstances and good esteem--at least a regular member of
the acting profession, with a fixed engagement in the lord admiral's
company, then performing under Henslowe's management at the Rose.
Perhaps he had previously acted at the Curtain (a former house of the
lord admiral's men), and "taken mad Jeronimo's part" on a play-wagon in
the highway. This latter appearance, if it ever took place, would, as
was pointed out by Gifford, probably have been in Thomas Kyd's _Spanish
Tragedy_, since in _The First Part of Jeronimo_ Jonson would have had,
most inappropriately, to dwell on the "smallness" of his "bulk." He was
at a subsequent date (1601) employed by Henslowe to write up _The
Spanish Tragedy_, and this fact may have given rise to Wood's story of
his performance as a stroller (see, however, Fleay, _The English Drama_,
ii. 29, 30). Jonson's additions, which were not the first changes made
in the play, are usually supposed to be those printed with _The Spanish
Tragedy_ in the edition of 1602; Charles Lamb's doubts on the subject,
which were shared by Coleridge, seem an instance of that subjective kind
of criticism which it is unsafe to follow when the external evidence to
the contrary is so strong.

According to Aubrey, whose statement must be taken for what it is worth,
"Jonson was never a good actor, but an excellent instructor." His
physique was certainly not well adapted to the histrionic conditions of
his--perhaps of any--day; but, in any case, it was not long before he
found his place in the organism of his company. In 1597, as we know from
Henslowe, Jonson undertook to write a play for the lord admiral's men;
and in the following year he was mentioned by Merès in his _Palladis
Tamia_ as one of "the best for tragedy," without any reference to a
connexion on his part with the other branch of the drama. Whether this
was a criticism based on material evidence or an unconscious slip, Ben
Jonson in the same year 1598 produced one of the most famous of English
comedies, _Every Man in his Humour_, which was first acted--probably in
the earlier part of September--by the lord chamberlain's company at the
Curtain. Shakespeare was one of the actors in Jonson's comedy, and it is
in the character of Old Knowell in this very play that, according to a
bold but ingenious guess, he is represented in the half-length portrait
of him in the folio of 1623, beneath which were printed Jonson's lines
concerning the picture. _Every Man in his Humour_ was published in 1601;
the critical prologue first appears in the folio of 1616, and there are
other divergences (see Castelain, appendix A). After the Restoration the
play was revived in 1751 by Garrick (who acted Kitely) with alterations,
and long continued to be known on the stage. It was followed in the same
year by _The Case is Altered_, acted by the children of the queen's
revels, which contains a satirical attack upon the pageant poet, Anthony
Munday. This comedy, which was not included in the folio editions, is
one of intrigue rather than of character; it contains obvious
reminiscences of Shylock and his daughter. The earlier of these two
comedies was indisputably successful.

Before the year 1598 was out, however, Jonson found himself in prison
and in danger of the gallows. In a duel, fought on the 22nd of September
in Hogsden Fields, he had killed an actor of Henslowe's company named
Gabriel Spenser. The quarrel with Henslowe consequent on this event may
account for the production of _Every Man in his Humour_ by the rival
company. In prison Jonson was visited by a Roman Catholic priest, and
the result (certainly strange, if Jonson's parentage is considered) was
his conversion to the Church of Rome, to which he adhered for twelve
years. Jonson was afterwards a diligent student of divinity; but, though
his mind was religious, it is not probable that its natural bias much
inclined it to dwell upon creeds and their controversies. He pleaded
guilty to the charge brought against him, as the rolls of Middlesex
sessions show; but, after a short imprisonment, he was released by
benefit of clergy, forfeiting his "goods and chattels," and being
branded on his left thumb. The affair does not seem to have affected his
reputation; in 1599 he is found back again at work for Henslowe,
receiving together with Dekker, Chettle and "another gentleman,"
earnest-money for a tragedy (undiscovered) called _Robert II., King of
Scots_. In the same year he brought out through the lord chamberlain's
company (possibly already at the Globe, then newly built or building)
the elaborate comedy of _Every Man out of his Humour_ (quarto 1600; fol.
1616)--a play subsequently presented before Queen Elizabeth. The
sunshine of court favour, rarely diffused during her reign in rays
otherwise than figuratively golden, was not to bring any material
comfort to the most learned of her dramatists, before there was laid
upon her the inevitable hand of which his courtly epilogue had besought
death to forget the use. Indeed, of his _Cynthia's Revels_, performed by
the chapel children in 1600 and printed with the first title of _The
Fountain of Self-Love_ in 1601, though it was no doubt primarily
designed as a compliment to the queen, the most marked result had been
to offend two playwrights of note--Dekker, with whom he had formerly
worked in company, and who had a healthy if rough grip of his own; and
Marston, who was perhaps less dangerous by his strength than by his
versatility. According to Jonson, his quarrel with Marston had begun by
the latter attacking his morals, and in the course of it they came to
blows, and might have come to worse. In _Cynthia's Revels_, Dekker is
generally held to be satirized as Hedon, and Marston as Anaides (Fleay,
however, thinks Anaides is Dekker, and Hedon Daniel), while the
character of Crites most assuredly has some features of Jonson himself.
Learning the intention of the two writers whom he had satirized, or at
all events of Dekker, to wreak literary vengeance upon him, he
anticipated them in _The Poetaster_ (1601), again played by the children
of the queen's chapel at the Blackfriars and printed in 1602; Marston
and Dekker are here ridiculed respectively as the aristocratic Crispinus
and the vulgar Demetrius. The play was completed fifteen weeks after its
plot was first conceived. It is not certain to what the proceedings
against author and play before the lord chief justice, referred to in
the dedication of the edition of 1616, had reference, or when they were
instituted. Fleay's supposition that the "purge," said in the _Returne
from Parnassus_ (Pt. II. act iv. sc. iii.) to have been administered by
Shakespeare to Jonson in return for Horace's "pill to the poets" in this
piece, consisted of _Troilus and Cressida_ is supremely ingenious, but
cannot be examined here. As for Dekker, he retaliated on _The Poetaster_
by the _Satiromastix, or The Untrussing of the Humorous Poet_ (1602).
Some more last words were indeed attempted on Jonson's part, but in the
_Apologetic Dialogue_ added to _The Poetaster_ in the edition of 1616,
though excluded from that of 1602, he says he intends to turn his
attention to tragedy. This intention he apparently carried out
immediately, for in 1602 he received £10 from Henslowe for a play,
entitled _Richard Crookbacke_, now lost--unfortunately so, for purposes
of comparison in particular, even if it was only, as Fleay conjectures,
"an alteration of Marlowe's play." According to a statement by Overbury,
early in 1603, "Ben Johnson, the poet, now lives upon one Townesend,"
supposed to have been the poet and masque-writer Aurelian Townshend, at
one time steward to the 1st earl of Salisbury, "and scornes the world."
To his other early patron, Lord Aubigny, Jonson dedicated the first of
his two extant tragedies, _Sejanus_, produced by the king's servants at
the Globe late in 1603, Shakespeare once more taking a part in the
performance. Either on its performance or on its appearing in print in
1605, Jonson was called before the privy council by the Earl of
Northampton. But it is open to question whether this was the occasion on
which, according to Jonson's statement to Drummond, Northampton "accused
him both of popery and treason" (see Castelain, Appendix C). Though, for
one reason or another, unsuccessful at first, the endurance of its
reputation is attested by its performance, in a German version by an
Englishman, John Michael Girish, at the court of the grandson of James
I. at Heidelberg.

When the reign of James I. opened in England and an adulatory loyalty
seemed intent on showing that it had not exhausted itself at the feet of
Gloriana, Jonson's well-stored brain and ready pen had their share in
devising and executing ingenious variations on the theme "Welcome--since
we cannot do without thee!" With extraordinary promptitude his genius,
which, far from being "ponderous" in its operations, was singularly
swift and flexible in adapting itself to the demands made upon it, met
the new taste for masques and entertainments--new of course in degree
rather than in kind--introduced with the new reign and fostered by both
the king and his consort. The pageant which on the 7th of May 1603 bade
the king welcome to a capital dissolved in joy was partly of Jonson's,
partly of Dekker's, devising; and he was able to deepen and diversify
the impression by the composition of masques presented to James I. when
entertained at houses of the nobility. _The Satyr_ (1603) was produced
on one of these occasions, Queen Anne's sojourn at Althorpe, the seat of
Sir Robert Spencer, afterwards Lord Althorpe, who seems to have
previously bestowed some patronage upon him. _The Penates_ followed on
May-day 1604 at the house of Sir William Cornwallis at Highgate, and the
queen herself with her ladies played his _Masque of Blackness_ at
Whitehall in 1605. He was soon occasionally employed by the court
itself--already in 1606 in conjunction with Inigo Jones, as responsible
for the "painting and carpentry"--and thus speedily showed himself
master in a species of composition for which, more than any other
English poet before Milton, he secured an enduring place in the national
poetic literature. Personally, no doubt, he derived considerable
material benefit from the new fashion--more especially if his statement
to Drummond was anything like correct, that out of his plays (which may
be presumed to mean his original plays) he had never gained a couple of
hundred pounds.

Good humour seems to have come back with good fortune. Joint employment
in _The King's Entertainment_ (1604) had reconciled him with Dekker; and
with Marston also, who in 1604 dedicated to him his _Malcontent_, he was
again on pleasant terms. When, therefore, in 1604 Marston and Chapman
(who, Jonson told Drummond, was loved of him, and whom he had probably
honoured as "Virgil" in _The Poetaster_, and who has, though on doubtful
grounds, been supposed to have collaborated in the original _Sejanus_)
produced the excellent comedy of _Eastward Ho_, it appears to have
contained some contributions by Jonson. At all events, when the authors
were arrested on account of one or more passages in the play which were
deemed insulting to the Scots, he "voluntarily imprisoned himself" with
them. They were soon released, and a banquet at his expense, attended by
Camden and Selden, terminated the incident. If Jonson is to be believed,
there had been a report that the prisoners were to have their ears and
noses cut, and, with reference apparently to this peril, "at the midst
of the feast his old mother drank to him, and showed him a paper which
she had intended (if the sentence had taken execution) to have mixed in
the prison among his drink, which was full of lusty strong poison; and
that she was no churl, she told him, she minded first to have drunk of
it herself." Strange to say, in 1605 Jonson and Chapman, though the
former, as he averred, had so "attempered" his style as to have "given
no cause to any good man of grief," were again in prison on account of
"a play"; but they appear to have been once more speedily set free, in
consequence of a very manly and dignified letter addressed by Jonson to
the Earl of Salisbury. As to the relations between Chapman and Jonson,
illustrated by newly discovered letters, see Bertram Dobell in the
_Athenaeum_ No. 3831 (March 30, 1901), and the comments of Castelain.
He thinks that the play in question, in which both Chapman and Jonson
took part, was _Sir Gyles Goosecappe_, and that the last imprisonment of
the two poets was shortly after the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot. In
the mysterious history of the Gunpowder Plot Jonson certainly had some
obscure part. On the 7th of November, very soon after the discovery of
the conspiracy, the council appears to have sent for him and to have
asked him, as a loyal Roman Catholic, to use his good offices in
inducing the priests to do something required by the council--one hardly
likes to conjecture it to have been some tampering with the secrets of
confession. In any case, the negotiations fell through, because the
priests declined to come forth out of their hiding-places to be
negotiated with--greatly to the wrath of Ben Jonson, who declares in a
letter to Lord Salisbury that "they are all so enweaved in it that it
will make 500 gentlemen less of the religion within this week, if they
carry their understanding about them." Jonson himself, however, did not
declare his separation from the Church of Rome for five years longer,
however much it might have been to his advantage to do so.

His powers as a dramatist were at their height during the earlier half
of the reign of James I.; and by the year 1616 he had produced nearly
all the plays which are worthy of his genius. They include the tragedy
of _Catiline_ (acted and printed 1611), which achieved only a doubtful
success, and the comedies of _Volpone, or the Fox_ (acted 1605 and
printed in 1607 with a dedication "from my house in the Blackfriars"),
_Epicoene, or the Silent Woman_ (1609; entered in the Stationers'
Register 1610), the _Alchemist_ (1610; printed in 1610), _Bartholomew
Fair_ and _The Devil is an Ass_ (acted respectively in 1614 and 1616).
During the same period he produced several masques, usually in connexion
with Inigo Jones, with whom, however, he seems to have quarrelled
already in this reign, though it is very doubtful whether the architect
is really intended to be ridiculed in _Bartholomew Fair_ under the
character of Lanthorn Leatherhead. Littlewit, according to Fleay, is
Daniel. Among the most attractive of his masques may be mentioned the
_Masque of Blackness_ (1606), the Masque of Beauty (1608), and the
_Masque of Queens_ (1609), described by Swinburne as "the most splendid
of all masques" and as "one of the typically splendid monuments or
trophies of English literature." In 1616 a modest pension of 100 marks a
year was conferred upon him; and possibly this sign of royal favour may
have encouraged him to the publication of the first volume of the folio
collected edition of his works (1616), though there are indications that
he had contemplated its production, an exceptional task for a playwright
of his times to take in hand, as early as 1612.

He had other patrons more bountiful than the Crown, and for a brief
space of time (in 1613) had travelled to France as governor (without
apparently much moral authority) to the eldest son of Sir Walter
Raleigh, then a state prisoner in the Tower, for whose society Jonson
may have gained a liking at the Mermaid Tavern in Cheapside, but for
whose personal character he, like so many of his contemporaries, seems
to have had but small esteem. By the year 1616 Jonson seems to have made
up his mind to cease writing for the stage, where neither his success
nor his profits had equalled his merits and expectations. He continued
to produce masques and entertainments when called upon; but he was
attracted by many other literary pursuits, and had already accomplished
enough to furnish plentiful materials for retrospective discourse over
pipe or cup. He was already entitled to lord it at the Mermaid, where
his quick antagonist in earlier wit-combats (if Fuller's famous
description be authentic) no longer appeared even on a visit from his
comfortable retreat at Stratford. That on the other hand Ben carried his
wicked town habits into Warwickshire, and there, together with Drayton,
made Shakespeare drink so hard with them as to bring upon himself the
fatal fever which ended his days, is a scandal with which we may fairly
refuse to load Jonson's memory. That he had a share in the preparing for
the press of the first folio of Shakespeare, or in the composition of
its preface, is of course a mere conjecture.

It was in the year 1618 that, like Dr Samuel Johnson a century and a
half afterwards, Ben resolved to have a real holiday for once, and about
midsummer started for his ancestral country, Scotland. He had (very
heroically for a man of his habits) determined to make the journey on
foot; and he was speedily followed by John Taylor, the water-poet, who
still further handicapped himself by the condition that he would
accomplish the pilgrimage without a penny in his pocket. Jonson, who put
money in his good friend's purse when he came up with him at Leith,
spent more than a year and a half in the hospitable Lowlands, being
solemnly elected a burgess of Edinburgh, and on another occasion
entertained at a public banquet there. But the best-remembered
hospitality which he enjoyed was that of the learned Scottish poet,
William Drummond of Hawthornden, to which we owe the so-called
_Conversations_. In these famous jottings, the work of no extenuating
hand, Jonson lives for us to this day, delivering his censures, terse as
they are, in an expansive mood whether of praise or of blame; nor is he
at all generously described in the postscript added by his fatigued and
at times irritated host as "a great lover and praiser of himself, a
contemner and scorner of others." A poetical account of this journey,
"with all the adventures," was burnt with Jonson's library.

After his return to England Jonson appears to have resumed his former
course of life. Among his noble patrons and patronesses were the
countess of Rutland (Sidney's daughter) and her cousin Lady Wroth; and
in 1619 his visits to the country seats of the nobility were varied by a
sojourn at Oxford with Richard Corbet, the poet, at Christ Church, on
which occasion he took up the master's degree granted to him by the
university; whether he actually proceeded to the same degree granted to
him at Cambridge seems unknown. He confessed about this time that he was
or seemed growing "restive," i.e. lazy, though it was not long before he
returned to the occasional composition of masques. The extremely
spirited _Gipsies Metamorphosed_ (1621) was thrice presented before the
king, who was so pleased with it as to grant to the poet the reversion
of the office of master of the revels, besides proposing to confer upon
him the honour of knighthood. This honour Jonson (hardly in deference to
the memory of Sir Petronel Flash) declined; but there was no reason why
he should not gratefully accept the increase of his pension in the same
year (1621) to £200--a temporary increase only, inasmuch as it still
stood at 100 marks when afterwards augmented by Charles I.

The close of King James I.'s reign found the foremost of its poets in
anything but a prosperous condition. It would be unjust to hold the Sun,
the Dog, the Triple Tun, or the Old Devil with its Apollo club-room,
where Ben's supremacy must by this time have become established,
responsible for this result; taverns were the clubs of that day, and a
man of letters is not considered lost in our own because he haunts a
smoking-room in Pall Mall. Disease had weakened the poet's strength, and
the burning of his library, as his _Execration upon Vulcan_ sufficiently
shows, must have been no mere transitory trouble to a poor poet and
scholar. Moreover he cannot but have felt, from the time of the
accession of Charles I. early in 1625 onwards, that the royal patronage
would no longer be due in part to anything like intellectual sympathy.
He thus thought it best to recur to the surer way of writing for the
stage, and in 1625 produced, with no faint heart, but with a very clear
anticipation of the comments which would be made upon the reappearance
of the "huge, overgrown play-maker," _The Staple of News_, a comedy
excellent in some respects, but little calculated to become popular. It
was not printed till 1631. Jonson, whose habit of body was not more
conducive than were his ways of life to a healthy old age, had a
paralytic stroke in 1626, and a second in 1628. In the latter year, on
the death of Middleton, the appointment of city chronologer, with a
salary of 100 nobles a year, was bestowed upon him. He appears to have
considered the duties of this office as purely ornamental; but in 1631
his salary was suspended until he should have presented some fruits of
his labours in his place, or--as he more succinctly phrased
it--"yesterday the barbarous court of aldermen have withdrawn their
chandlerly pension for verjuice and mustard, £33, 6s. 8d." After being
in 1628 arrested by mistake on the utterly false charge of having
written certain verses in approval of the assassination of Buckingham,
he was soon allowed to return to Westminster, where it would appear from
a letter of his "son and contiguous neighbour," James Howell, he was
living in 1629, and about this time narrowly escaped another
conflagration. In the same year (1629) he once more essayed the stage
with the comedy of _The New Inn_, which was actually, and on its own
merits not unjustly, damned on the first performance. It was printed in
1631, "as it was never acted but most negligently played"; and Jonson
defended himself against his critics in his spirited _Ode to Himself_.
The epilogue to _The New Inn_ having dwelt not without dignity upon the
neglect which the poet had experienced at the hands of "king and queen,"
King Charles immediately sent the unlucky author a gift of £100, and in
response to a further appeal increased his standing salary to the same
sum, with the addition of an annual tierce of canary--the
poet-laureate's customary royal gift, though this designation of an
office, of which Jonson discharged some of what became the ordinary
functions, is not mentioned in the warrant dated the 26th of March 1630.
In 1634, by the king's desire, Jonson's salary as chronologer to the
city was again paid. To his later years belong the comedies, _The
Magnetic Lady_ (1632) and _The Tale of a Tub_ (1633), both printed in
1640, and some masques, none of which met with great success. The
patronage of liberal-minded men, such as the earl, afterwards duke, of
Newcastle--by whom he must have been commissioned to write his last two
masques _Love's Welcome at Welbeck_ (1633) and _Love's Welcome at
Bolsover_ (1634)--and Viscount Falkland, was not wanting, and his was
hardly an instance in which the fickleness of time and taste could have
allowed a literary veteran to end his career in neglect. He was the
acknowledged chief of the English world of letters, both at the festive
meetings where he ruled the roast among the younger authors whose pride
it was to be "sealed of the tribe of Ben," and by the avowal of grave
writers, old or young, not one of whom would have ventured to dispute
his titular pre-eminence. Nor was he to the last unconscious of the
claims upon him which his position brought with it. When, nearly two
years after he had lost his surviving son, death came upon the sick old
man on the 6th of August 1637, he left behind him an unfinished work of
great beauty, the pastoral drama of _The Sad Shepherd_ (printed in
1641). For forty years, he said in the prologue, he had feasted the
public; at first he could scarce hit its taste, but patience had at last
enabled it to identify itself with the working of his pen.

We are so accustomed to think of Ben Jonson presiding, attentive to his
own applause, over a circle of younger followers and admirers that we
are apt to forget the hard struggle which he had passed through before
gaining the crown now universally acknowledged to be his. Howell
records, in the year before Ben's death, that a solemn supper at the
poet's own house, where the host had almost spoiled the relish of the
feast by vilifying others and magnifying himself, "T. Ca." (Thomas
Carew) buzzed in the writer's ear "that, though Ben had barrelled up a
great deal of knowledge, yet it seemed he had not read the _Ethics_,
which, among other precepts of morality, forbid self-commendation."
Self-reliance is but too frequently coupled with self-consciousness, and
for good and for evil self-confidence was no doubt the most prominent
feature in the character of Ben Jonson. Hence the combativeness which
involved him in so many quarrels in his earlier days, and which jarred
so harshly upon the less militant and in some respects more pedantic
nature of Drummond. But his quarrels do not appear to have entered
deeply into his soul, or indeed usually to have lasted long.[2] He was
too exuberant in his vituperations to be bitter, and too outspoken to be
malicious. He loved of all things to be called "honest," and there is
every reason to suppose that he deserved the epithet. The old
superstition that Jonson was filled with malignant envy of the greatest
of his fellow-dramatists, and lost no opportunity of giving expression
to it, hardly needs notice. Those who consider that Shakespeare was
beyond criticism may find blasphemy in the saying of Jonson that
Shakespeare "wanted art." Occasional jesting allusions to particular
plays of Shakespeare may be found in Jonson, among which should hardly
be included the sneer at "mouldy" Pericles in his _Ode to Himself_. But
these amount to nothing collectively, and to very little individually;
and against them have to be set, not only the many pleasant traditions
concerning the long intimacy between the pair, but also the lines,
prefixed to the first Shakespeare folio, as noble as they are judicious,
dedicated by the survivor to "the star of poets," and the adaptation,
clearly sympathetic notwithstanding all its buts, _de Shakespeare
nostrat_. in the _Discoveries_. But if Gifford had rendered no other
service to Jonson's fame he must be allowed to have once for all
vindicated it from the cruellest aspersion which has ever been cast upon
it. That in general Ben Jonson was a man of strong likes and dislikes,
and was wont to manifest the latter as vehemently as the former, it
would be idle to deny. He was at least impartial in his censures,
dealing them out freely to Puritan poets like Wither and (supposing him
not to have exaggerated his free-spokenness) to princes of his church
like Cardinal du Perron. And, if sensitive to attack, he seems to have
been impervious to flattery--to judge from the candour with which he
condemned the foibles even of so enthusiastic an admirer as Beaumont.
The personage that he disliked the most, and openly abused in the
roundest terms, was unfortunately one with many heads and a tongue to
hiss in each--no other than that "general public" which it was the
fundamental mistake of his life to fancy he could "rail into
approbation" before he had effectively secured its goodwill. And upon
the whole it may be said that the admiration of the few, rather than the
favour of the many, has kept green the fame of the most independent
among all the masters of an art which, in more senses than one, must
please to live.

Jonson's learning and industry, which were alike exceptional, by no
means exhausted themselves in furnishing and elaborating the materials
of his dramatic works. His enemies sneered at him as a translator--a
title which the preceding generation was inclined to esteem the most
honourable in literature. But his classical scholarship shows itself in
other directions besides his translations from the Latin poets (the _Ars
poetica_ in particular), in addition to which he appears to have written
a version of Barclay's _Argenis_; it was likewise the basis of his
_English Grammar_, of which nothing but the rough draft remains (the MS.
itself having perished in the fire in his library), and in connexion
with the subject of which he appears to have pursued other linguistic
studies (Howell in 1629 was trying to procure him a Welsh grammar). And
its effects are very visible in some of the most pleasing of his
non-dramatic poems, which often display that combination of polish and
simplicity hardly to be reached--or even to be appreciated--without some
measure of classical training.

Exclusively of the few lyrics in Jonson's dramas (which, with the
exception of the stately choruses in _Catiline_, charm, and perhaps may
surprise, by their lightness of touch), his non-dramatic works are
comprised in the following collections. The book of _Epigrams_
(published in the first folio of 1616) contained, in the poet's own
words, the "ripest of his studies." His notion of an epigram was the
ancient, not the restricted modern one--still less that of the critic
(R. C., the author of _The Times' Whistle_) in whose language, according
to Jonson, "witty" was "obscene." On the whole, these epigrams excel
more in encomiastic than in satiric touches, while the pathos of one or
two epitaphs in the collection is of the truest kind. In the lyrics and
epistles contained in the _Forest_ (also in the first folio), Jonson
shows greater variety in the poetic styles adopted by him; but the
subject of love, which Dryden considered conspicuous by its absence in
the author's dramas, is similarly eschewed here. The _Underwoods_ (not
published collectively till the second and surreptitious folio) are a
miscellaneous series, comprising, together with a few religious and a
few amatory poems, a large number of epigrams, epitaphs, elegies and
"odes," including both the tributes to Shakespeare and several to royal
and other patrons and friends, besides the _Execration upon Vulcan_, and
the characteristic ode addressed by the poet to himself. To these pieces
in verse should be added the _Discoveries--Timber, or Discoveries made
upon Men and Matters_, avowedly a commonplace book of aphorisms noted by
the poet in his dally readings--thoughts adopted and adapted in more
tranquil and perhaps more sober moods than those which gave rise to the
outpourings of the _Conversations at Hawthornden_. As to the critical
value of these _Conversations_ it is far from being only negative; he
knew how to admire as well as how to disdain. For these thoughts, though
abounding with biographical as well as general interest, Jonson was
almost entirely indebted to ancient writers, or (as has been shown by
Professor Spingarn and by Percy Simpson) indebted to the humanists of
the Renaissance (see _Modern Language Review_, ii. 3, April 1907).

The extant dramatic works of Ben Jonson fall into three or, if his
fragmentary pastoral drama be considered to stand by itself, into four
distinct divisions. The tragedies are only two in number--_Sejanus his
Fall and Catiline his Conspiracy_.[3] Of these the earlier, as is worth
noting, was produced at Shakespeare's theatre, in all probability before
the first of Shakespeare's Roman dramas, and still contains a
considerable admixture of rhyme in the dialogue. Though perhaps less
carefully elaborated in diction than its successor, _Sejanus_ is at
least equally impressive as a highly wrought dramatic treatment of a
complex historic theme. The character of Tiberius adds an element of
curious psychological interest on which speculation has never quite
exhausted itself and which, in Jonson's day at least, was wanting to the
figures of _Catiline_ and his associates. But in both plays the action
is powerfully conducted, and the care bestowed by the dramatist upon the
great variety of characters introduced cannot, as in some of his
comedies, be said to distract the interest of the reader. Both these
tragedies are noble works, though the relative popularity of the subject
(for conspiracies are in the long run more interesting than camarillas)
has perhaps secured the preference to Catiline. Yet this play and its
predecessor were alike too manifestly intended by their author to court
the goodwill of what he calls the "extraordinary" reader. It is
difficult to imagine that (with the aid of judicious shortenings) either
could altogether miss its effect on the stage; but, while Shakespeare
causes us to forget, Jonson seems to wish us to remember, his
authorities. The half is often greater than the whole; and Jonson, like
all dramatists and, it might be added, all novelists in similar cases,
has had to pay the penalty incurred by too obvious a desire to underline
the learning of the author.

Perversity--or would-be originality--alone could declare Jonson's
tragedy preferable to his comedy. Even if the revolution which he
created in the comic branch of the drama had been mistaken in its
principles or unsatisfactory in its results, it would be clear that the
strength of his dramatic genius lay in the power of depicting a great
variety of characters, and that in comedy alone he succeeded in finding
a wide field for the exercise of this power. There may have been no very
original or very profound discovery in the idea which he illustrated in
_Every Man in his Humour_, and, as it were, technically elaborated in
_Every Man out of his Humour_--that in many men one quality is
observable which so possesses them as to draw the whole of their
individualities one way, and that this phenomenon "may be truly said to
be a humour." The idea of the master quality or tendency was, as has
been well observed, a very considerable one for dramatist or novelist.
Nor did Jonson (happily) attempt to work out this idea with any
excessive scientific consistency as a comic dramatist. But, by refusing
to apply the term "humour" (q.v.) to a mere peculiarity or affectation
of manners, and restricting its use to actual or implied differences or
distinctions of character, he broadened the whole basis of English
comedy after his fashion, as Molière at a later date, keeping in closer
touch with the common experience of human life, with a lighter hand
broadened the basis of French and of modern Western comedy at large. It
does not of course follow that Jonson's disciples, the Bromes and the
Cartwrights, always adequately reproduced the master's conception of
"humorous" comedy. Jonson's wide and various reading helped him to
diversify the application of his theory, while perhaps at times it led
him into too remote illustrations of it. Still, Captain Bobadil and
Captain Tucca, Macilente and Fungoso, Volpone and Mosca, and a goodly
number of other characters impress themselves permanently upon the
memory of those whose attention they have as a matter of course
commanded. It is a very futile criticism to condemn Jonson's characters
as a mere series of types of general ideas; on the other hand, it is a
very sound criticism to object, with Barry Cornwall, to the "multitude
of characters who throw no light upon the story, and lend no interest to
it, occupying space that had better have been bestowed upon the
principal agents of the plot."

In the construction of plots, as in most other respects, Jonson's at
once conscientious and vigorous mind led him in the direction of
originality; he depended to a far less degree than the greater part of
his contemporaries (Shakespeare with the rest) upon borrowed plots. But
either his inventive character was occasionally at fault in this
respect, or his devotion to his characters often diverted his attention
from a brisk conduct of his plot. Barry Cornwall has directed attention
to the essential likeness in the plot of two of Jonson's best comedies,
_Volpone_ and _The Alchemist_; and another critic, W. Bodham Donne, has
dwelt on the difficulty which, in _The Poetaster_ and elsewhere, Ben
Jonson seems to experience in sustaining the promise of his actions.
_The Poetaster_ is, however, a play _sui generis_, in which the real
business can hardly be said to begin till the last act.

Dryden, when criticizing Ben Jonson's comedies, thought fit, while
allowing the old master humour and incontestable "pleasantness," to deny
him wit and those ornaments thereof which Quintilian reckons up under
the terms _urbana_, _salsa_, _faceta_ and so forth. Such wit as Dryden
has in view is the mere outward fashion or style of the day, the
euphuism or "sheerwit" or _chic_ which is the creed of Fastidious Brisks
and of their astute purveyors at any given moment. In this Ben Jonson
was no doubt defective; but it would be an error to suppose him, as a
comic dramatist, to have maintained towards the world around him the
attitude of a philosopher, careless of mere transient externalisms. It
is said that the scene of his _Every Man in his Humour_ was originally
laid near Florence; and his _Volpone_, which is perhaps the darkest
social picture ever drawn by him, plays at Venice. Neither locality was
ill-chosen, but the real atmosphere of his comedies is that of the
native surroundings amidst which they were produced; and Ben Jonson's
times live for us in his men and women, his country gulls and town
gulls, his alchemists and exorcists, his "skeldring" captains and
whining Puritans, and the whole ragamuffin rout of his _Bartholomew
Fair_, the comedy _par excellence_ of Elizabethan low life. After he had
described the pastimes, fashionable and unfashionable, of his age, its
feeble superstitions and its flaunting naughtinesses, its vapouring
affectations and its lying effronteries, with an odour as of "divine
tabacco" pervading the whole, little might seem to be left to describe
for his "sons" and successors. Enough, however, remained; only that his
followers speedily again threw manners and "humours" into an
undistinguishable medley.

The gift which both in his art and in his life Jonson lacked was that of
exercising the influence or creating the effects which he wished to
exercise or create without the appearance of consciousness. Concealment
never crept over his efforts, and he scorned insinuation. Instead of
this, influenced no doubt by the example of the free relations between
author and public permitted by Attic comedy, he resorted again and
again, from _Every Man out of his Humour_ to _The Magnetic Lady_, to
inductions and commentatory intermezzos and appendices, which, though
occasionally effective by the excellence of their execution, are to be
regretted as introducing into his dramas an exotic and often vexatious
element. A man of letters to the very core, he never quite understood
that there is and ought to be a wide difference of methods between the
world of letters and the world of the theatre.

The richness and versatility of Jonson's genius will never be fully
appreciated by those who fail to acquaint themselves with what is
preserved to us of his "masques" and cognate entertainments. He was
conscious enough of his success in this direction--"next himself," he
said, "only Fletcher and Chapman could write a masque." He introduced,
or at least established, the ingenious innovation of the anti-masque,
which Schlegel has described, as a species of "parody added by the poet
to his device, and usually prefixed to the serious entry," and which
accordingly supplies a grotesque antidote to the often extravagantly
imaginative main conception. Jonson's learning, creative power and
humorous ingenuity--combined, it should not be forgotten, with a genuine
lyrical gift--all found abundant opportunities for displaying themselves
in these productions. Though a growth of foreign origin, the masque was
by him thoroughly domesticated in the high places of English literature.
He lived long enough to see the species produce its poetic masterpiece
in Comus.

_The Sad Shepherd_, of which Jonson left behind him three acts and a
prologue, is distinguished among English pastoral dramas by its
freshness of tone; it breathes something of the spirit of the greenwood,
and is not unnatural even in its supernatural element. While this piece,
with its charming love-scenes between Robin Hood and Maid Marion,
remains a fragment, another pastoral by Jonson, the _May Lord_ (which F.
G. Fleay and J. A. Symonds sought to identify with _The Sad Shepherd_;
see, however, W. W. Greg in introduction to the Louvain reprint), has
been lost, and a third, of which Loch Lomond was intended to be the
scene, probably remained unwritten.

Though Ben Jonson never altogether recognized the truth of the maxim
that the dramatic art has properly speaking no didactic purpose, his
long and laborious life was not wasted upon a barren endeavour. In
tragedy he added two works of uncommon merit to our dramatic literature.
In comedy his aim was higher, his effort more sustained, and his success
more solid than were those of any of his fellows. In the subsidiary and
hybrid species of the masque, he helped to open a new and attractive
though undoubtedly devious path in the field of dramatic literature. His
intellectual endowments surpassed those of most of the great English
dramatists in richness and breadth; and in energy of application he
probably left them all behind. Inferior to more than one of his
fellow-dramatists in the power of imaginative sympathy, he was first
among the Elizabethans in the power of observation; and there is point
in Barrett Wendell's paradox, that as a dramatist he was not really a
poet but a painter. Yet it is less by these gifts, or even by his
unexcelled capacity for hard work, than by the true ring of manliness
that he will always remain distinguished among his peers.

Jonson was buried on the north side of the nave in Westminster Abbey,
and the inscription, "O Rare Ben Jonson," was cut in the slab over his
grave. In the beginning of the 18th century a portrait bust was put up
to his memory in the Poets' Corner by Harley, earl of Oxford. Of
Honthorst's portrait of Jonson at Knole Park there is a copy in the
National Portrait Gallery; another was engraved by W. Marshall for the
1640 edition of his Poems.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The date of the first folio volume of Jonson's _Works_
(of which title his novel but characteristic use in applying it to
plays was at the time much ridiculed) has already been mentioned as
1616; the second, professedly published in 1640, is described by
Gifford as "a wretched continuation of the first, printed from MSS.
surreptitiously obtained during his life, or ignorantly hurried
through the press after his death, and bearing a variety of dates from
1631 to 1641 inclusive." The works were reprinted in a single folio
volume in 1692, in which _The New Inn_ and _The Case is Altered_ were
included for the first time, and again in 6 vols. 8vo in 1715. Peter
Whalley's edition in 7 vols., with a life, appeared in 1756, but was
superseded in 1816 by William Gifford's, in 9 vols. (of which the
first includes a biographical memoir, and the famous essay on the
"Proofs of Ben Jonson's Malignity, from the Commentators on
Shakespeare"). A new edition of Gifford's was published in 9 vols. in
1875 by Colonel F. Cunningham, as well as a cheap reprint in 3 vols.
in 1870. Both contain the _Conversations_ with Drummond, which were
first printed in full by David Laing in the _Shakespeare Society's
Publications_ (1842) and the _Jonsonus Virbius_, a collection
(unparalleled in number and variety of authors) of poetical tributes,
published about six months after Jonson's death by his friends and
admirers. There is also a single-volume edition, with a very readable
memoir, by Barry Cornwall (1838). An edition of Ben Jonson's works
from the original texts was recently undertaken by C. H. Herford and
Percy Simpson. A selection from his plays, edited for the "Mermaid"
series in 1893-1895 by B. Nicholson, with an introduction by C. H.
Herford, was reissued in 1904. W. W. Bang in his _Materialien zur
Kunde des alten englischen Dramas_ has reprinted from the folio of
1616 those of Ben Jonson's plays which are contained in it (Louvain,
1905-1906). _Every Man in his Humour_ and _Every Man out of his
Humour_ have been edited for the same series (16 and 17, 1905 and
1907) by W. W. Bang and W. W. Greg. _Every Man in his Humour_ has also
been edited, with a brief biographical as well as special
introduction, to which the present sketch owes some details, by H. B.
Wheatley (1877). Some valuable editions of plays by Ben Jonson have
been recently published by American scholars in the _Yale Studies in
English_, edited by A. S. Cook--_The Poetaster_, ed. H. S. Mallory
(1905); _The Alchemist_, ed. C. M. Hathaway (1903); _The Devil is an
Ass_, ed. W. S. Johnson (1905); _The Staple of News_, ed. De Winter
(1905); _The New Inn_, ed. by G. Bremner (1908); _The Sad Shepherd_
(with Waldron's continuation) has been edited by W. W. Greg for Bang's
_Materialien zur Kunde des alten englischen Dramas_ (Louvain, 1905).

The criticisms of Ben Jonson are too numerous for cataloguing here;
among those by eminent Englishmen should be specially mentioned John
Dryden's, particularly those in his _Essay on Dramatic Poësy_
(1667-1668; revised 1684), and in the preface to _An Evening's Love,
or the Mock Astrologer_ (1668), and A. C. Swinburne's _Study of Ben
Jonson_ (1889), in which, however, the significance of the
_Discoveries_ is misapprehended. See also F. G. Fleay, _Biographical
Chronicle of the English Drama_ (1891), i. 311-387, ii. 1-18; C. H.
Herford, "Ben Jonson" (art. in _Dict. Nat. Biog._, vol. xxx., 1802);
A. W. Ward, _History of English Dramatic Literature_, 2nd ed. (1899),
ii. 296-407; and for a list of early impressions, W. W. Greg, _List of
English Plays written before 1643 and printed before 1700_
(Bibliographical Society, 1900), pp. 55-58 and supplement 11-15. An
important French work on Ben Jonson, both biographical and critical,
and containing, besides many translations of scenes and passages, some
valuable appendices, to more than one of which reference has been made
above, is Maurice Castelain's _Ben Jonson, l'homme et l'oeuvre_
(1907). Among treatises or essays on particular aspects of his
literary work may be mentioned Emil Koeppel's _Quellenstudien zu den
Dramen Ben Jonson's_, &c. (1895); the same writer's "Ben Jonson's
Wirkung auf zeitgenössische Dramatiker," &c., in _Anglicistische
Forschungen_, 20 (1906); F. E. Schelling's _Ben Jonson and the
Classical School_ (1898); and as to his masques, A. Soergel, _Die
englischen Maskenspiele_ (1882) and J. Schmidt, "Über Ben Jonson's
Maskenspiele," in Herrig's _Archiv_, &c., xxvii. 51-91. See also H.
Reinsch, "Ben Jonson's Poetik und seine Beziehungen zu Horaz," in
_Münchener Beiträge_, 16 (1899). (A. W. W.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] His Christian name of Benjamin was usually abbreviated by himself
and his contemporaries; and thus, in accordance with his famous
epitaph, it will always continue to be abbreviated.

[2] With Inigo Jones, however, in quarrelling with whom, as Howell
reminds Jonson, the poet was virtually quarrelling with his bread and
butter, he seems to have found it impossible to live permanently at
peace; his satirical _Expostulation_ against the architect was
published as late as 1635. Chapman's satire against his old
associate, perhaps due to this quarrel, was left unfinished and
unpublished.

[3] Of _The Fall of Mortimer_ Jonson left only a few lines behind
him; but, as he also left the argument of the play, factious
ingenuity contrived to furbish up the relic into a libel against
Queen Caroline and Sir Robert Walpole in 1731, and to revive the
contrivance by way of an insult to the princess dowager of Wales and
Lord Bute in 1762.

JOPLIN, a city of Jasper county, Missouri, U.S.A., on Joplin creek,
about 140 m. S. of Kansas City. Pop. (1890), 9943; (1900), 26,023, of
whom 893 were foreign-born and 773 were negroes; (1910 census) 32,073.
It is served by the Missouri Pacific, the St Louis & San Francisco, the
Missouri, Kansas & Texas, and the Kansas City Southern railways, and by
interurban electric lines. The city has a fine court-house, a United
States government building, a Carnegie library and a large auditorium.
Joplin is the trade centre of a rich agricultural and fruit-growing
district, but its growth has been chiefly due to its situation in one of
the most productive zinc and lead regions in the country, for which it
is the commercial centre. In 1906 the value of zinc-ore shipments from
this Missouri-Kansas (or Joplin) district was $12,074,105, and of
shipments of lead ore, $3,048,558. The value of Joplin's factory product
in 1905 was $3,006,203, an increase of 29.3% since 1900. Natural gas,
piped from the Kansas fields, is used for light and power, and
electricity for commercial lighting and power is derived from plants on
Spring River, near Vark, Kansas, and on Shoal creek. The municipality
owns its electric-lighting plant; the water-works are under private
ownership. The first settlement in the neighbourhood was made in 1838.
In 1871 Joplin was laid out and incorporated as a town; in 1872 it and a
rival town on the other side of Joplin creek were united under the name
Union City; in 1873 Union City was chartered as a city under the name
Joplin; and in 1888 Joplin was chartered as a city of the third class.
The city derives its name from the creek, which was named in honour of
the Rev. Harris G. Joplin (c. 1810-1847), a native of Tennessee.

JOPPA, less correctly JAFFA (Arab. _Yafa_), a seaport on the coast of
Palestine. It is of great antiquity, being mentioned in the tribute
lists of Tethmosis (Thothmes) III.; but as it never was in the territory
of the pre-exilic Israelites it was to them a place of no importance.
Its ascription to the tribe of Dan (Josh. xix. 46) is purely
theoretical. According to the authors of Chronicles (2 Chron. ii. 16),
Ezra (iii. 7) and Jonah (i. 3) it was a seaport for importation of the
Lebanon timber floated down the coasts or for ships plying even to
distant Tarshish. About 148 B.C. it was captured from the Syrians by
Jonathan Maccabaeus (1 Macc. x. 75) and later it was retaken and
garrisoned by Simon his brother (xii. 33, xiii. 11). It was restored to
the Syrians by Pompey (Jos., _Ant._ xiv. 4, 4) but again given back to
the Jews (ib. xiv. 10, 6) with an exemption from tax. St Peter for a
while lodged at Joppa, where he restored the benevolent widow Tabitha to
life, and had the vision which taught him the universality of the plan
of Christianity.

According to Strabo (xvi. ii.), who makes the strange mistake of saying
that Jerusalem is visible from Joppa, the place was a resort of pirates.
It was destroyed by Vespasian in the Jewish War (68). Tradition connects
the story of Andromeda and the sea-monster with the sea-coast of Joppa,
and in early times her chains were shown as well as the skeleton of the
monster itself (Jos. _Wars_, iii. 9, 3). The site seems to have been
shown even to some medieval pilgrims, and curious traces of it have been
detected in modern Moslem legends.

In the 5th and 11th centuries we hear from time to time of bishops of
Joppa, under the metropolitan of Jerusalem. In 1126 the district was
captured by the knights of St John, but lost to Saladin in 1187. Richard
Coeur de Lion retook it in 1191, but it was finally retaken by Malek el
'Adil in 1196. It languished for a time; in the 16th century it was an
almost uninhabited ruin; but towards the end of the 17th century it
began anew to develop as a seaport. In 1799 it was stormed by Napoleon;
the fortifications were repaired and strengthened by the British.

The modern town of Joppa derives its importance, first, as a seaport for
Jerusalem and the whole of southern Palestine, and secondly as a centre
of the fruit-growing industry. During the latter part of the 19th
century it greatly increased in size. The old city walls have been
entirely removed. Its population is about 35,000 (Moslems 23,000,
Christians 5000, Jews 7000; with the Christians are included the
"Templars," a semi-religious, semi-agricultural German colony of about
320 souls). The town, which rises over a rounded hillock on the coast,
about 100 ft. high, has a very picturesque appearance from the sea. The
harbour (so-called) is one of the worst existing, being simply a natural
breakwater formed by a ledge of reefs, safe enough for small Oriental
craft, but very dangerous for large vessels, which can only make use of
the seaport in calm weather; these never come nearer than about a mile
from the shore. A railway and a bad carriage-road connect Joppa with
Jerusalem. The water of the town is derived from wells, many of which
have a brackish taste. The export trade of the town consists of soap of
olive oil, sesame, barley, water melons, wine and especially oranges
(commonly known as Jaffa oranges), grown in the famous and
ever-increasing gardens that lie north and east of the town. The chief
imports are timber, cotton and other textile goods, tiles, iron, rice,
coffee, sugar and petroleum. The value of the exports in 1900 was
estimated at £264,950, the imports £382,405. Over 10,000 pilgrims,
chiefly Russians, and some three or four thousand tourists land annually
at Joppa. The town is the seat of a kaimakam or lieutenant-governor,
subordinate to the governor of Jerusalem, and contains vice-consulates
of Great Britain, France, Germany, America and other powers. There are
Latin, Greek, Armenian and Coptic monasteries; and hospitals and schools
under British, French and German auspices. (R. A. S. M.)

JORDAENS, JACOB (1593-1678), Flemish painter, was born and died at
Antwerp. He studied, like Rubens, under Adam van Noort, and his marriage
with his master's daughter in 1616, the year after his admission to the
gild of painters, prevented him from visiting Rome. He was forced to
content himself with studying such examples of the Italian masters as he
found at home; but a far more potent influence was exerted upon his
style by Rubens, who employed him sometimes to reproduce small sketches
in large. Jordaens is second to Rubens alone in their special department
of the Flemish school. In both there is the same warmth of colour, truth
to nature, mastery of chiaroscuro and energy of expression; but Jordaens
is wanting in dignity of conception, and is inferior in choice of forms,
in the character of his heads, and in correctness of drawing. Not seldom
he sins against good taste, and in some of his humorous pieces the
coarseness is only atoned for by the animation. Of these last he seems
in some cases to have painted several replicas. He employed his pencil
also in biblical, mythological, historical and allegorical subjects, and
is well-known as a portrait painter. He also etched some plates.

See the elaborate work on the painter, by Max Rooses (1908).

JORDAN, CAMILLE (1771-1821), French politician, was born in Lyons on the
11th of January 1771 of a well-to-do mercantile family. He was educated
in Lyons, and from an early age was imbued with royalist principles. He
actively supported by voice, pen and musket his native town in its
resistance to the Convention; and when Lyons fell, in October 1793,
Jordan fled. From Switzerland he passed in six months to England, where
he formed acquaintances with other French exiles and with prominent
British statesmen, and imbibed a lasting admiration for the English
Constitution. In 1796 he returned to France, and next year he was sent
by Lyons as a deputy to the Council of Five Hundred. There his eloquence
won him consideration. He earnestly supported what he felt to be true
freedom, especially in matters of religious worship, though the
energetic appeal on behalf of church bells in his _Rapport sur la
liberté des cultes_ procured him the sobriquet of Jordan-Cloche.
Proscribed at the _coup d'état_ of the 18th Fructidor (4th of September
1797) he escaped to Basel. Thence he went to Germany, where he met
Goethe. Back again in France by 1800, he boldly published in 1802 his
_Vrai sens du vote national pour le consulat à vie_, in which he exposed
the ambitious schemes of Bonaparte. He was unmolested, however, and
during the First Empire lived in literary retirement at Lyons with his
wife and family, producing for the Lyons academy occasional papers on
the _Influence réciproque de l'éloquence sur la Révolution et de la
Révolution sur l'éloquence_; _Études sur Klopstock_, &c. At the
restoration in 1814 he again emerged into public life. By Louis XVIII.
he was ennobled and named a councillor of state; and from 1816 he sat in
the chamber of deputies as representative of Ain. At first he supported
the ministry, but when they began to show signs of reaction he separated
from them, and gradually came to be at the head of the constitutional
opposition. His speeches in the chamber were always eloquent and
powerful. Though warned by failing health to resign, Camille Jordan
remained at his post till his death at Paris, on the 19th of May 1821.

To his pen we owe _Lettre à M. Lamourette_ (1791); _Histoire de la
conversion d'une dame Parisienne_ (1792); _La Loi et la religion
vengées_ (1792); _Adresse à ses commettants sur la révolution du 4
Septembre 1797_ (1797); _Sur les troubles de Lyon_ (1818); _La Session
de 1817_ (1818). His _Discours_ were collected in 1818. The "Fragments
choisis," and translations from the German, were published in
_L'Abeille française_. Besides the various histories of the time, see
further details vol. x. of the _Revue encyclopédique_; a paper on
Jordan and Madame de Staël, by C. A. Sainte-Beuve, in the _Revue des
deux mondes_ for March 1868 and R. Boubée, "Camille Jordan à Weimar,"
in the _Correspondant_ (1901), ccv. 718-738 and 948-970.

JORDAN, DOROTHEA (1762-1816), Irish actress, was born near Waterford,
Ireland, in 1762. Her mother, Grace Phillips, at one time known as Mrs
Frances, was a Dublin actress. Her father, whose name was Bland, was
according to one account an army captain, but more probably a stage
hand. Dorothy Jordan made her first appearance on the stage in 1777 in
Dublin as Phoebe in _As You Like It_. After acting elsewhere in Ireland
she appeared in 1782 at Leeds, and subsequently at other Yorkshire
towns, in a variety of parts, including Lady Teazle. It was at this time
that she began calling herself Mrs Jordan. In 1785 she made her first
London appearance at Drury Lane as Peggy in _A Country Girl_. Before the
end of her first season she had become an established public favourite,
her acting in comedy being declared second only to that of Kitty Clive.
Her engagement at Drury Lane lasted till 1809, and she played a large
variety of parts. But gradually it came to be recognized that her
special talent lay in comedy, her Lady Teazle, Rosalind and Imogen being
specially liked, and such "breeches" parts as William in _Rosina_.
During the rebuilding of Drury Lane she played at the Haymarket; she
transferred her services in 1811 to Covent Garden. Here, in 1814, she
made her last appearance on the London stage, and the following year, at
Margate, retired altogether. Mrs Jordan's private life was one of the
scandals of the period. She had a daughter by her first manager, in
Ireland, and four children by Sir Richard Ford, whose name she bore for
some years. In 1790 she became the mistress of the duke of Clarence
(afterwards William IV.), and bore him ten children, who were ennobled
under the name of Fitz Clarence, the eldest being created earl of
Munster. In 1811 they separated by mutual consent, Mrs Jordan being
granted a liberal allowance. In 1815 she went abroad. According to one
story she was in danger of imprisonment for debt. If so, the debt must
have been incurred on behalf of others--probably her relations, who
appear to have been continually borrowing from her--for her own personal
debts were very much more than covered by her savings. She is generally
understood to have died at St Cloud, near Paris, on the 3rd of July
1816, but the story that under an assumed name she lived for seven years
after that date in England finds some credence.

See James Boaden, _Life of Mrs Jordan_ (1831); _The Great
Illegitimates_ (1830); John Genest, _Account of the Stage_; Tate
Wilkinson, _The Wandering Patentee; Memoirs and Amorous Adventures by
Sea and Land of King William IV._ (1830); _The Georgian Era_ (1838).

JORDAN, THOMAS (1612?-1685), English poet and pamphleteer, was born in
London and started life as an actor at the Red Bull theatre in
Clerkenwell. He published in 1637 his first volume of poems, entitled
_Poeticall Varieties_, and in the same year appeared _A Pill to Purge
Melancholy_. In 1639 he recited one of his poems before King Charles I.,
and from this time forward Jordan's output in verse and prose was
continuous and prolific. He freely borrowed from other authors, and
frequently re-issued his own writings under new names. During the
troubles between the king and the parliament he wrote a number of
Royalist pamphlets, the first of which, _A Medicine for the Times, or an
Antidote against Faction_, appeared in 1641. Dedications, occasional
verses, prologues and epilogues to plays poured from his pen. Many
volumes of his poems bear no date, and they were probably written during
the Commonwealth. At the Restoration he eulogized Monk, produced a
masque at the entertainment of the general in the city of London and
wrote pamphlets in his support. He then for some years devoted his chief
attention to writing plays, in at least one of which, _Money is an Ass_,
he himself played a part when it was produced in 1668. In 1671 he was
appointed laureate to the city of London; from this date till his death
in 1685 he annually composed a panegyric on the lord mayor, and arranged
the pageantry of the lord mayor's shows, which he celebrated in verse
under such titles as _London Triumphant, or the City in Jollity and
Splendour_ (1672), or _London in Luster, Projecting many Bright Beams of
Triumph_ (1679). Many volumes of these curious productions are preserved
in the British Museum.

In addition to his numerous printed works, of which perhaps _A Royal
Arbour of Loyall Poesie_ (1664) and _A Nursery of Novelties in Variety
of Poetry_ are most deserving of mention, several volumes of his poems
exist in manuscript. W. C. Hazlitt and other 19th-century critics
found more merit in Jordan's writings than was allowed by his
contemporaries, who for the most part scornfully referred to his
voluminous productions as commonplace and dull.

See Gerard Langbaine, _Account of the English Dramatic Poets_ (1691);
David Erskine Baker, _Biographia Dramatica_ (4 vols., 1812); W. C.
Hazlitt, _Handbook to the Popular, Poetical and Dramatic Literature of
Great Britain_ (1867); F. W. Fairholt, _Lord Mayors Pageants_ (Percy
Society, 1843), containing a memoir of Thomas Jordan; John Gough
Nichols, _London Pageants_ (1831).

JORDAN, WILHELM (1819-1904), German poet and novelist, was born at
Insterburg in East Prussia on the 8th of February 1819. He studied,
first theology and then philosophy and natural science, at the
universities of Konigsberg and Berlin. He settled in Leipzig as a
journalist; but the democratic views expressed in some essays and the
volumes of poems _Glocke und Kanone_ (1481) and _Irdische Phantasien_
(1842) led to his expulsion from Saxony in 1846. He next engaged in
literary and tutorial work in Bremen, and on the outbreak of the
revolution, in February 1848, was sent to Paris, as correspondent of the
_Bremer Zeitung_. He almost immediately, however, returned to Germany
and, throwing himself into the political fray in Berlin, was elected
member for Freienwalde, in the first German parliament at
Frankfort-on-Main. For a short while he sided with the Left, but soon
joined the party of von Gagern. On a vote having been passed for the
establishment of a German navy, he was appointed secretary of the
committee to deal with the whole question, and was subsequently made
ministerial councillor (_Ministerialrat_) in the naval department of the
government. The naval project was abandoned, Jordan was pensioned and
afterwards resided at Frankfort-on-Main until his death on the 25th of
June 1904, devoting himself to literary work, acting as his own
publisher, and producing numerous poems, novels, dramas and
translations.

Among his best known works are: _Demiurgos_ (3 vols., 1852-1854), a
"Mysterium," in which he attempted to deal with the problems of human
existence, but the work found little favour; _Nibelunge_, an epic poem
in alliterative verse, in two parts, (1) _Sigfnedsage_ (1867-1868;
13th ed. 1889) and (2) _Hildebrants Heimkehr_ (1874; 10th ed.
1892)--in the first part he is regarded as having been remarkably
successful; a tragedy, _Die Wittwe des Agis_ (1858); the comedies,
_Die Liebesleugner_ (1855) and _Durchs Ohr_ (1870; 6th ed. 1885); and
the novels _Die Sebalds_ (1885) and _Zwei Wiegen_ (1887). Jordan also
published numerous translations, notably _Homers Odyssee_ (1876; 2nd
ed. 1889) and _Homers Ilias_ (1881; 2nd ed. 1894); _Die Edda_ (1889).
He was also distinguished as a reciter, and on a visit to the United
States in 1871 read extracts from his works before large audiences.

JORDAN (the down-comer; Arab. _esh-Sheri'a_, the watering-place), the
only river of Palestine and one of the most remarkable in the world. It
flows from north to south in a deep trough-like valley, the Aulon of the
Greeks and Ghor of the Arabs, which is usually believed to follow the
line of a fault or fracture of the earth's crust. Most geologists hold
that the valley is part of an old sea-bed, traces of which remain in
numerous shingle-banks and beach-levels. This, they say, once extended
to the Red Sea and even over N.E. Africa. Shrinkage caused the pelagic
limestone bottom to be upheaved in two ridges, between which occurred a
long fracture, which can now be traced from Coelesyria down the Wadi
Araba to the Gulf of Akaba. The Jordan valley in its lower part keeps
about the old level of the sea-bottom and is therefore a remnant of the
Miocene world. This theory, however, is not universally accepted, some
authorities preferring to assume a succession of more strictly local
elevations and depressions, connected with the recent volcanic activity
of the Jaulan and Lija districts on the east bank, which brought the
contours finally to their actual form. In any case the number of
distinct sea-beaches seems to imply a succession of convulsive changes,
more recent than the great Miocene upheaval, which are responsible for
the shrinkage of the water into the three isolated pans now found. For
more than two-thirds of its course the Jordan lies below the level of
the sea. It has never been navigable, no important town has ever been
built on its banks, and it runs into an inland sea which has no port and
is destitute of aquatic life. Throughout history it has exerted a
separatist influence, roughly dividing the settled from the nomadic
populations; and the crossing of Jordan, one way or the other, was
always an event in the history of Israel. In Hebrew times its valley was
regarded as a "wilderness" and, except in the Roman era, seems always to
have been as sparsely inhabited as now. From its sources to the Dead Sea
it rushes down a continuous inclined plane, broken here and there by
rapids and small falls; between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea its
sinuosity is so great that in a direct distance of 65 m. it traverses at
least 200 m. The mean fall is about 9 ft. in the mile. The Jordan has
two great sources, one in Tell el-Kadi (Dan) whence springs the Nahr
Leddan, a stream 12 ft. broad at its birth; the other at Banias (anc.
Paneas, Caesarea-Philippi), some 4 m. N., where the Nahr Banias issues
from a cave, about 30 ft. broad. But two longer streams with less water
contest their claim, the Nahr Barrighit from Coelesyria, which rises
near the springs of the Litany, and the Nahr Hasbany from Hermon. The
four streams unite below the fortress of Banias, which once held the
gate of the valley, and flow into a marshy tract now called Huleh
(Semechonitis, and perhaps Merom of Joshua). There the Jordan begins to
fall below sea-level, rushing down 680 ft. in 9 m. to a delta, which
opens into the Sea of Galilee. Thereafter it follows a valley which is
usually not above 4 m. broad, but opens out twice into the small plains
of Bethshan and Jericho. The river actually flows in a depression, the
Zor, from a quarter to 2 m. wide, which it has hollowed out for itself
in the bed of the Ghor. During the rainy season (January and February),
when the Jordan overflows its banks, the Zor is flooded, but when the
water falls it produces rich crops. The floor of the Ghor falls gently
to the Zor, and is intersected by deep channels, which have been cut by
the small streams and winter torrents that traverse it on their way to
the Jordan. As far south as Kurn Surtabeh most of the valley is fertile,
and even between that point and the Dead Sea there are several
well-watered oases. In summer the heat in the Ghor is intense, 110° F.
in the shade, but in winter the temperature falls to 40°, and sometimes
to 32° at night. During the seasons of rain and melting snow the river
is very full, and liable to freshets. After twelve hours' rain it has
been known to rise from 4 to 5 ft., and to fall as rapidly. In 1257 the
Jordan was dammed up for several hours by a landslip, probably due to
heavy rain. On leaving the Sea of Galilee the water is quite clear, but
it soon assumes a tawny colour from the soft marl which it washes away
from its banks and deposits in the Dead Sea. On the whole it is an
unpleasant foul stream running between poisonous banks, and as such it
seems to have been regarded by the Jews and other Syrians. The Hebrew
poets did not sing its praises, and others compared it unfavourably with
the clear rivers of Damascus. The clay of the valley was used for
brickmaking, and Solomon established brass foundries there. From
crusading times to this day it has grown sugar-cane. In Roman times it
had extensive palm-groves and some small towns (e.g. Livias or Julias
opposite Jericho) and villages. The Jordan is crossed by two stone
bridges--one north of Lake Huleh, the other between that lake and the
Sea of Galilee--and by a wooden bridge on the road from Jerusalem to
Gilead and Moab. During the Roman period, and almost to the end of the
Arab supremacy, there were bridges on all the great lines of
communication between eastern and western Palestine, and ferries at
other places. The depth of water varies greatly with the season. When
not in flood the river is often fordable, and between the Sea of Galilee
and the Dead Sea there are then more than fifty fords--some of them of
historic interest. The only difficulty is occasioned by the erratic
zigzag current. The natural products of the Jordan valley--a tropical
oasis sunk in the temperate zone, and overhung by Alpine Hermon--are
unique. Papyrus grows in Lake Huleh, and rice and cereals thrive on its
shores, whilst below the Sea of Galilee the vegetation is almost
tropical. The flora and fauna present a large infusion of Ethiopian
types; and the fish, with which the river is abundantly stocked, have a
great affinity with those of the rivers and lakes of east Africa. Ere
the Jordan enters the Dead Sea, its valley has become very barren and
forbidding. It reaches the lake at a minus level of 1290 ft., the
depression continuing downwards to twice that depth in the bed of the
Dead Sea. It receives two affluents, with perennial waters, on the left,
the Yarmuk (Hieromax) which flows in from the volcanic Jaulan a little
south of the Sea of Galilee, and the Zerka (Jabbok) which comes from the
Belka district to a point more than half-way down the lower course. On
the right the Jalud descends from the plain of Esdraelon to near Beisan,
and the Far'a from near Nablus. Various salt springs rise in the lower
valley. The rest of the tributaries are wadis, dry except after rains.

Such human life as may be found in the valley now is mainly migratory.
The Samaritan villagers use it in winter as pasture-ground, and, with
the Circassians and Arabs of the east bank, cultivate plots here and
there. They retire on the approach of summer. Jericho is the only
considerable settlement in the lower valley, and it lies some distance
west of the stream on the lower slopes of the Judaean heights.

See W. F. Lynch, _Narrative of the U.S. Expedition_, &c. (1849); H. B.
Tristram, _Land of Israel_ (1865); J. Macgregor, _Rob Roy on the
Jordan_ (1870); A. Neubauer, _La Géographie du Talmud_ (1868); E.
Robinson, _Physical Geography of the Holy Land_ (1865); E. Hull,
_Mount Seir_, &c. (1885), and _Memoir on the Geology of Arabia
Petraea_, &c. (1886); G. A. Smith, _Hist. Geography of the Holy Land_
(1894); W. Libbey and F. E. Hoskins, _The Jordan Valley_, &c. (1905).
See also PALESTINE. (C. W. W.; D. G. H.)

JORDANES,[1] the historian of the Gothic nation, flourished about the
middle of the 6th century. All that we certainly know about his life is
contained in three sentences of his history of the Goths (cap. 50), from
which, among other particulars as to the history of his family, we learn
that his grandfather Paria was notary to Candac, the chief of a
confederation of Alans and other tribes settled during the latter half
of the 5th century on the south of the Danube in the provinces which are
now Bulgaria and the Dobrudscha. Jordanes himself was the notary of
Candac's nephew, the Gothic chief Gunthigis, until he took the vows of a
monk. This, according to the manner of speaking of that day, is the
meaning of his words _ante conversionem meam_, though it is quite
possible that he may at the same time have renounced the Arian creed of
his forefathers, which it is clear that he no longer held when he wrote
his Gothic history. The _Getica_ of Jordanes shows Gothic sympathies;
but these are probably due to an imitation of the tone of Cassiodorus,
from whom he draws practically all his material. He was not himself a
Goth, belonging to a confederation of Germanic tribes, embracing Alans
and Scyrians, which had come under the influence of the Ostrogoths
settled on the lower Danube; and his own sympathies are those of a
member of this confederation. He is accordingly friendly to the Goths,
even apart from the influence of Cassiodorus; but he is also
prepossessed in favour of the eastern emperors in whose territories this
confederation lived and whose subject he himself was. This makes him an
impartial authority on the last days of the Ostrogoths. At the same
time, living in Moesia, he is restricted in his outlook to Danubian
affairs. He has little to say of the inner history and policy of the
kingdom of Theodoric: his interests lie, as Mommsen says, within a
triangle of which the three points are Sirmium, Larissa and
Constantinople. Finally, connected as he was with the Alans, he shows
himself friendly to them, whenever they enter into his narrative.

We pass from the extremely shadowy personality of Jordanes to the more
interesting question of his works.

1. The _Romana_, or, as he himself calls it, _De summa temporum vel
origine actibusque gentis Romanorum_, was composed in 551. It was begun
before, but published after, the _Getica_. It is a sketch of the history
of the world from the creation, based on Jerome, the epitome of Florus,
Orosius and the ecclesiastical history of Socrates. There is a curious
reference to Iamblichus, apparently the neo-platonist philosopher, whose
name Jordanes, being, as he says himself, _agrammatus_, inserts by way
of a flourish. The work is only of any value for the century 450-550,
when Jordanes is dealing with recent history. It is merely a hasty
compilation intended to stand side by side with the _Getica_.[2]

2. The other work of Jordanes commonly called _De rebus Geticis_ or
_Getica_, was styled by himself _De origine actibusque Getarum_, and
was also written in 551. He informs us that while he was engaged upon
the _Romana_ a friend named Castalius invited him to compress into one
small treatise the twelve books--now lost--of the senator Cassiodorus,
on _The Origin and Actions of the Goths_. Jordanes professes to have had
the work of Cassiodorus in his hands for but three days, and to
reproduce the sense not the words; but his book, short as it is,
evidently contains long verbatim extracts from the earlier author, and
it may be suspected that the story of the _triduana lectio_ and the
apology _quamvis verba non recolo_, possibly even the friendly
invitation of Castalius, are mere blinds to cover his own entire want of
originality. This suspicion is strengthened by the fact (discovered by
von Sybel) that even the very preface to his book is taken almost word
for word from Rufinus's translation of Origen's commentary on the
epistle to the Romans. There is no doubt, even on Jordanes' own
statements, that his work is based upon that of Cassiodorus, and that
any historical worth which it possesses is due to that fact. Cassiodorus
was one of the very few men who, Roman by birth and sympathies, could
yet appreciate the greatness of the barbarians by whom the empire was
overthrown. The chief adviser of Theodoric, the East Gothic king in
Italy, he accepted with ardour that monarch's great scheme, if indeed,
he did not himself originally suggest it, of welding Roman and Goth
together into one harmonious state which should preserve the social
refinement and the intellectual culture of the Latin-speaking races
without losing the hardy virtues of their Teutonic conquerors. To this
aim everything in the political life of Cassiodorus was subservient, and
this aim he evidently kept before him in his Gothic history. But in
writing that history Cassiodorus was himself indebted to the work of a
certain Ablabius. It was Ablabius, apparently, who had first used the
Gothic sagas (_prisca carmina_); it was he who had constructed the stem
of the Amals. Whether he was a Greek, a Roman or a Goth we do not know;
nor can we say when he wrote, though his work may be dated conjecturally
in the early part of the reign of Theodoric the Great. We can only say
that he wrote on the origin and history of the Goths, using both Gothic
saga and Greek sources; and that if Jordanes used Cassiodorus,
Cassiodorus used, if to a less extent, the work of Ablabius.

Cassiodorus began his work, at the request of Theodoric, and therefore
before 526: it was finished by 533. At the root of the work lies a
theory, whencesoever derived, which identified the Goths with the
Scythians, whose country Darius Hystaspes invaded, and with the Getae of
Dacia, whom Trajan conquered. This double identification enabled
Cassiodorus to bring the favoured race into line with the peoples of
classical antiquity, to interweave with their history stories about
Hercules and the Amazons, to make them invade Egypt, to claim for them a
share in the wisdom of the semi-mythical Scythian philosopher Zamolxis.
He was thus able with some show of plausibility to represent the Goths
as "wiser than all the other barbarians and almost like the Greeks"
(Jord., _De reb. Get._, cap. v.), and to send a son of the Gothic king
Telephus to fight at the siege of Troy, with the ancestors of the
Romans. All this we can now perceive to have no relation to history, but
at the time it may have made the subjugation of the Roman less bitter to
feel that he was not after all bowing down before a race of barbarian
upstarts, but that his Amal sovereign was as firmly rooted in classical
antiquity as any Julius or Claudius who ever wore the purple. In the
eighteen years which elapsed between 533 and the composition of the
_Getica_ of Jordanes, great events, most disastrous for the
Romano-Gothic monarchy of Theodoric, had taken place. It was no longer
possible to write as if the whole civilization of the Western world
would sit down contentedly under the shadow of East Gothic dominion and
Amal sovereignty. And, moreover, the instincts of Jordanes, as a subject
of the Eastern Empire, predisposed him to flatter the sacred majesty of
Justinian, by whose victorious arms the overthrow of the barbarian
kingdom in Italy had been effected. Hence we perceive two currents of
tendency in the _Getica_. On the one hand, as a transcriber of the
philo-Goth Cassiodorus, he magnifies the race of Alaric and Theodoric,
and claims for them their full share, perhaps more than their full
share, of glory in the past. On the other hand he speaks of the great
anti-Teuton emperor Justinian, and of his reversal of the German
conquests of the 5th century, in language which would certainly have
grated on the ears of Totila and his heroes. When Ravenna is taken, and
Vitigis carried into captivity, Jordanes almost exults in the fact that
"the nobility of the Amals and the illustrious offspring of so many
mighty men have surrendered to a yet more illustrious prince and a yet
mightier general, whose fame shall not grow dim through all the
centuries." (_Getica_, lx. § 315).

This laudation, both of the Goths and of their Byzantine conquerors, may
perhaps help us to understand the motive with which the _Getica_ was
written. In the year 551 Germanus, nephew of Justinian, accompanied by
his bride, Matasuntha, grand-daughter of Theodoric, set forth to
reconquer Italy for the empire. His early death prevented any schemes
for a revived Romano-Gothic kingdom which may have been based on his
personality. His widow, however, bore a posthumous child, also named
Germanus, of whom Jordanes speaks (cap. 60) as "blending the blood of
the Anicii and the Amals, and furnishing a hope under the divine
blessing of one day uniting their glories." This younger Germanus did
nothing in after life to realize these anticipations; but the somewhat
pointed way in which his name and his mother's name are mentioned by
Jordanes lends some probability to the view that he hoped for the
child's succession to the Eastern Empire, and the final reconciliation
of the Goths and Romans in the person of a Gotho-Roman emperor.

The _De rebus Geticis_ falls naturally into four parts. The first
(chs. i.-xiii.) commences with a geographical description of the three
quarters of the world, and in more detail of Britain and Scanzia
(Sweden), from which the Goths under their king Berig migrated to the
southern coast of the Baltic. Their migration across what has since
been called Lithuania to the shores of the Euxine, and their
differentiation into Visigoths and Ostrogoths, are next described.
Chs. v.-xiii. contain an account of the intrusive Geto-Scythian
element before alluded to.

The second section (chs. xiv.-xxiv.) returns to the true history of
the Gothic nation, sets forth the genealogy of the Amal kings, and
describes the inroads of the Goths into the Roman Empire in the 3rd
century, with the foundation and the overthrow of the great but
somewhat shadowy kingdom of Hermanric.

The third section (chs. xxv.-xlvii.) traces the history of the West
Goths from the Hunnish invasion to the downfall of the Gothic kingdom
in Gaul under Alaric II. (376-507). The best part of this section, and
indeed of the whole book, is the seven chapters devoted to Attila's
invasion of Gaul and the battle of the Mauriac plains. Here we have in
all probability a verbatim extract from Cassiodorus, who (possibly
resting on Ablabius) interwove with his narrative large portions of
the Gothic sagas. The celebrated expression _certaminis gaudia_
assuredly came at first neither from the suave minister Cassiodorus
nor from the small-souled notary Jordanes, but is the translation of
some thought which first found utterance through the lips of a Gothic
minstrel.

The fourth section (chs. xlviii.-lx.) traces the history of the East
Goths from the same Hunnish invasion to the first overthrow of the
Gothic monarchy in Italy (376-539). In this fourth section are
inserted, somewhat out of their proper place, some valuable details as
to the _Gothi Minores_, "an immense people dwelling in the region of
Nicopolis, with their high priest and primate Vulfilas, who is said
also to have taught them letters." The book closes with the allusion
to Germanus and the panegyric on Justinian as the conqueror of the
Goths referred to above.

Jordanes refers in the _Getica_ to a number of authors besides
Cassiodorus; but he owes his knowledge of them to Cassiodorus. It is
perhaps only when he is using Orosius that we can hold Jordanes to
have borrowed directly. Otherwise, as Mommsen says, the _Getica is a
mera epitome, laxata ea et perversa, historiae Gothicae
Cassiodorianae_.

As to the style and literary character of Jordanes, every author who
has used him speaks in terms of severe censure. When he is left to
himself and not merely transcribing, he is sometimes scarcely
grammatical. There are awkward gaps in his narrative and statements
inconsistent with each other. He quotes, as if he were familiarly
acquainted with their writings, a number of Greek and Roman writers,
of whom it is almost certain that he had not read more than one or
two. At the same time he does not quote the chronicler Marcellinus,
from whom he has copied verbatim the history of the deposition of
Augustulus. All these faults make him a peculiarly unsatisfactory
authority where we cannot check his statements by those of other
authors. It may, however, be pleaded in extenuation that he is
professedly a transcriber, and, if his story be correct, a
transcriber in peculiarly unfavourable circumstances. He has also
himself suffered much from the inaccuracy of copyists. But nothing has
really been more unfortunate for the reputation of Jordanes as a
writer than the extreme preciousness of the information which he has
preserved to us. The Teutonic tribes whose dim origins he records have
in the course of centuries attained to world-wide dominion. The battle
in the Mauriac plains of which he is really the sole historian, is now
seen to have had important bearings on the destinies of the world. And
thus the hasty pamphlet of a half-educated Gothic monk has been forced
into prominence, almost into rivalry with the finished productions of
the great writers of classical antiquity. No wonder that it stands the
comparison badly; but with all its faults the _Getica_ of Jordanes
will probably ever retain its place side by side with the _De moribus
Germanorum_ of Tacitus as a chief source of information respecting the
history, institutions and modes of thought of our Teutonic
forefathers.

EDITIONS.--The classical edition is that of Mommsen (in _Mon. Germ.
hist. auct. antiq._, v., ii.), which supersedes the older editions,
such as that in the first volume of Muratori's _Scriptt. rer. Ital._
The best MS. is the Heidelberg MS., written in Germany, probably in
the 8th century; but this perished in the fire at Mommsen's house. The
next of the MSS. in value are the Vaticanus Palatinus of the 10th
century, and the Valenciennes MS. of the 9th.

AUTHORITIES.--Von Sybel's essay, _De fontibus Jordanis_ (1838);
Schirren's _De ratione quae inter Jordanem et Cassiodorum intercedat
Commentatio_ (Dorpat, 1858); Kopke's _Die Anfänge des Königthums
beiden Gothen_ (Berlin, 1859); Dahn's _Die Könige der Germanen_, vol.
ii. (Munich, 1861); Ebert's _Geschichte der Christlich-Lateinischen
Literatur_ (Leipsic, 1874); Wattenbach's _Deutschlands
Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter_ (Berlin, 1877); and the introduction
of Mommsen to his edition. (T. H.; E. Br.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The evidence of MSS. is overwhelming against the form Jornandes.
The MSS. exhibit Jordanis or Jordannis; but these are only
Vulgar-Latin spellings of Jordanes.

[2] The terms of the dedication of this book to a certain Vigilius
make it impossible that the pope (538-555) of that name is meant.

JORDANUS (JORDAN CATALANI) (fl. 1321-1330), French Dominican missionary
and explorer in Asia, was perhaps born at Séverac in Aveyron, north-east
of Toulouse. In 1302 he may have accompanied the famous Thomas of
Tolentino, via Negropont, to the East; but it is only in 1321 that we
definitely discover him in western India, in the company of the same
Thomas and certain other Franciscan missionaries on their way to China.
Ill-luck detained them at Tana in Salsette island, near Bombay; and here
Jordanus' companions ("the four martyrs of Tana") fell victims to Moslem
fanaticism (April 7, 1321). Jordanus, escaping, worked some time at
Baruch in Gujarat, near the Nerbudda estuary, and at Suali (?) near
Surat; to his fellow-Dominicans in north Persia he wrote two
letters--the first from Gogo in Gujarat (October 12, 1321), the second
from Tana (January 24, 1323/4)--describing the progress of this new
mission. From these letters we learn that Roman attention had already
been directed, not only to the Bombay region, but also to the extreme
south of the Indian peninsula, especially to "Columbum," Quilon, or
Kulam in Travancore; Jordanus' words may imply that he had already
started a mission there before October 1321. From Catholic traders he
had learnt that Ethiopia (i.e. Abyssinia and Nubia) was accessible to
Western Europeans; at this very time, as we know from other sources, the
earliest Latin missionaries penetrated thither. Finally, the _Epistles_
of Jordanus, like the contemporary _Secreta_ of Marino Sanuto
(1306-1321), urge the pope to establish a Christian fleet upon the
Indian seas. Jordanus, between 1324 and 1328 (if not earlier), probably
visited Kulam and selected it as the best centre for his future work; it
would also appear that he revisited Europe about 1328, passing through
Persia, and perhaps touching at the great Crimean port of Soldaia or
Sudak. He was appointed a bishop in 1328 and nominated by Pope John
XXII. to the see of Columbum in 1330. Together with the new bishop of
Samarkand, Thomas of Mancasola, Jordanus was commissioned to take the
pall to John de Cora, archbishop of Sultaniyah in Persia, within whose
province Kulam was reckoned; he was also commended to the Christians of
south India, both east and west of Cape Comorin, by Pope John. Either
before going out to Malabar as bishop, or during a later visit to the
west, Jordanus probably wrote his _Mirabilia_, which from internal
evidence can only be fixed within the period 1329-1338; in this work he
furnished the best account of Indian regions, products, climate,
manners, customs, fauna and flora given by any European in the Middle
Ages--superior even to Marco Polo's. In his triple division of the
Indies, India Major comprises the shorelands from Malabar to Cochin
China; while India Minor stretches from Sind (or perhaps from
Baluchistan) to Malabar; and India Tertia (evidently dominated by
African conceptions in his mind) includes a vast undefined coast-region
west of Baluchistan, reaching into the neighbourhood of, but not
including, Ethiopia and Prester John's domain. Jordanus' _Mirabilia_
contains the earliest clear African identification of Prester John, and
what is perhaps the first notice of the Black Sea under that name; it
refers to the author's residence in India Major and especially at Kulam,
as well as to his travels in Armenia, north-west Persia, the Lake Van
region, and Chaldaea; and it supplies excellent descriptions of Parsee
doctrines and burial customs, of Hindu ox-worship, idol-ritual, and
suttee, and of Indian fruits, birds, animals and insects. After the 8th
of April 1330 we have no more knowledge of Bishop Jordanus.

Of Jordanus' _Epistles_ there is only one MS., viz. Paris, National
Library, 5006 Lat., fol. 182, r. and v.; of the _Mirabilia_ also one
MS. only, viz. London, British Museum, _Additional MSS._, 19,513,
fols. 3, r.-12 r. The text of the _Epistles_ is in Quétif and Echard,
_Scriptores ordinis praedicatorum_, i. 549-550 (Epistle I.); and in
Wadding, _Annales minorum_, vi. 359-361 (Epistle II.); the text of the
_Mirabilia_ in the Paris Geog. Soc.'s _Recueil de voyages_, iv. 1-68
(1839). The Papal letters referring to Jordanus are in Raynaldus,
_Annales ecclesiastici_, 1330, §§ lv. and lvii. (April 8; Feb. 14).
See also Sir H. Yule's _Jordanus_, a version of the _Mirabilia_ with a
commentary (Hakluyt Soc., 1863) and the same editor's _Cathay_, giving
a version of the _Epistles_, with a commentary, &c. (Hak. Soc., 1866)
pp. 184-185, 192-196, 225-230; F. Kunstmann, "Die Mission in Meliapor
und Tana" and "Die Mission in Columbo" in the _Historisch-politische
Blätter_ of Phillips and Görres, xxxvii. 25-38, 135-152 (Munich,
1856), &c.; C. R. Beazley, _Dawn of Modern Geography_, iii. 215-235.
(C. R. B.)

JORIS, DAVID, the common name of JAN JORISZ or JORISZOON (c. 1501-1556),
Anabaptist heresiarch who called himself later JAN VAN BRUGGE; was born
in 1501 or 1502, probably in Flanders, at Ghent or Bruges. His father,
Georgius Joris de Koman, otherwise Joris van Amersfoordt, probably a
native of Bruges, was a shopkeeper and amateur actor at Delft; from the
circumstance that he played the part of King David, his son received the
name of David, but probably not in baptism. His mother was Marytje,
daughter of Jan de Gorter, of a good family in Delft. As a child he was
clever and delicate. He seems then or later to have acquired some
tincture of learning. His first known occupation was that of a
glass-painter; in 1522 he painted windows for the church at Enkhuizen,
North Holland (the birthplace of Paul Potter). In pursuit of his art he
travelled, and is said to have reached England; ill-health drove him
homewards in 1524, in which year he married Dirckgen Willems at Delft.
In the same year the Lutheran reformation took hold of him, and he began
to issue appeals in prose and verse against the Mass and against the
pope as antichrist. On Ascension Day 1528 he committed an outrage on the
sacrament carried in procession; he was placed in the pillory, had his
tongue bored, and was banished from Delft for three years. He turned to
the Anabaptists, was rebaptized in 1533, and for some years led a
wandering life. He came into relations with John à Lasco, and with Menno
Simons. Much influenced by Melchior Hofman, he had no sympathy with the
fanatic violence of the Münster faction. At the Buckholdt conference in
August 1536 he played a mediating part. His mother, in 1537, suffered
martyrdom as an Anabaptist. Soon after he took up a rôle of his own,
having visions and a gift of prophecy. He adapted in his own interest
the theory (constantly recurrent among mystics and innovators, from the
time of Abbot Joachim to the present day) of three dispensations, the
old, with its revelation of the Father, the newer with its revelation of
the Son, and the final or era of the Spirit. Of this newest revelation
Christus David was the mouthpiece, supervening on Christus Jesus. From
the 1st of April 1544, bringing with him some of his followers, he took
up his abode in Basel, which was to be the New Jerusalem. Here he styled
himself Jan van Brugge. His identity was unknown to the authorities of
Basel, who had no suspicion of his heresies. By his writings he
maintained his hold on his numerous followers in Holland and Friesland.
These monotonous writings, all in Dutch, flowed in a continual stream
from 1524 (though none is extant before 1529) and amounted to over 200
in number. His _magnum opus_ was _'T Wonder Boeck_ (_n.d._ 1542, divided
into two parts; 1551, handsomely reprinted, divided into four parts;
both editions anonymous). Its chief claim to recognition is its use, in
the latter part, of the phrase _Restitutio Christi_, which apparently
suggested to Servetus his title _Christianismi Restitutio_ (1553). In
the 1st edition is a figure of the "new man," signed with the author's
monogram, and probably drawn as a likeness of himself; it fairly
corresponds with the alleged portrait, engraved in 1607, reproduced in
the appendix to A. Ross's _Pansebeia_ (1655), and idealized by P.
Burckhardt in 1900. Another work, _Verklaringe der Scheppenissen_ (1553)
treats mystically the book of Genesis, a favourite theme with Boehme,
Swedenborg and others. His remaining writings exhibit all that easy
dribble of triumphant muddiness which disciples take as depth. His wife
died on the 22nd of August, and his own death followed on the 25th of
August 1556. He was buried, with all religious honours, in the church of
St Leonard, Basel. Three years later, Nicolas Blesdijk, who had married
his eldest daughter Jannecke (Susanna), but had lost confidence in
Jorisz some time before his death, denounced the dead man to the
authorities of Basel. An investigation was begun in March 1559, and as
the result of a conviction for heresy the exhumed body of Jorisz was
burned, together with his portrait, on the 13th of May 1559. Blesdijk's
_Historia_ (not printed till 1642) accuses Jorisz of having _plures
uxores_. Of this there is no confirmation. Theoretically Jorisz regarded
polygamy as lawful; there is no proof that his theory affected his own
practice.

The first attempt at a true account of Jorisz was by Gottfried Arnold,
in his anonymous _Historia_ (1713), pursued with much fuller material
in his _Kirchen und Ketzer Historie_ (best ed. 1740-1742). See also F.
Nippold, in _Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie_ (1863, 1864,
1868); A. van der Linde, in _Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie_ (1881);
P. Burckhardt, _Basler Biographien_ (1900); Hegler, in Hauck's
_Realencyklopädie_ (1901), and the bibliography by A. van der Linde,
1867, supplemented by E. Weller, 1869. (A. Go.*)

JORTIN, JOHN (1698-1770), English theologian, the son of a Protestant
refugee from Brittany, was born in London on the 23rd of October 1698.
He went to Charterhouse School, and in 1715 became a pensioner of Jesus
College, Cambridge, where his reputation as a Greek scholar led to his
being selected to translate certain passages from Eustathius for the
notes to Pope's _Homer_. In 1722 he published a small volume of Latin
verse entitled _Lusus poetici_. Having taken orders in 1724, he was in
1726 presented by his college to the vicarage of Swavesey in
Cambridgeshire, which he resigned in 1730 to become preacher at a
chapel-of-ease in New Street, London. In 1731, along with some friends,
he began a publication entitled _Miscellaneous Observations on Authors
Ancient and Modern_, which appeared at intervals during two years. He
was Boyle lecturer in 1749. Shortly after becoming chaplain to the
bishop of London in 1762 he was appointed to a prebendal stall of St
Paul's and to the vicarage of Kensington, and in 1764 he was made
archdeacon of London. He died at Kensington on the 5th of September
1770.

The principal works of Jortin are: _Discussions Concerning the Truth
of the Christian Religion_ (1746); _Remarks on Ecclesiastical History_
(3 vols. 1751-2-4); _Life of Erasmus_ (2 vols. 1750, 1760) founded on
the Life by Jean Le Clerc; and _Tracts Philological Critical and
Miscellaneous_ (1790). A collection of his _Various Works_ appeared in
1805-1810. All his writings display wide learning and acuteness. He
writes on theological subjects with the detachment of a thoughtful
layman, and is witty without being flippant. See John Disney's _Life
of Jortin_ (1792).

JOSEPH, in the Old Testament, the son of the patriarch Jacob by Rachel;
the name of a tribe of Israel. Two explanations of the name are given by
the Biblical narrator (Gen. xxx. 23 [E], 24 [J]); a third, "He (God)
increases," seems preferable. Unlike the other "sons" of Jacob, Joseph
is usually reckoned as two tribes (viz. his "sons" Ephraim and
Manasseh), and closely associated with it is the small tribe of Benjamin
(q.v.), which lay immediately to the south. These three constituted the
"sons" of Rachel (the ewe), and with the "sons" of Leah (the antelope?)
are thus on a higher level than the "sons" of Jacob's concubines. The
"house of Joseph" and its offshoots occupied the centre of Palestine
from the plain of Esdraelon to the mountain country of Benjamin, with
dependencies in Bashan and northern Gilead (see MANASSEH). Practically
it comprised the northern kingdom, and the name is used in this sense in
2 Sam. xix. 20; Amos v. 6; vi. 6 (note the prominence of Joseph in the
blessings of Jacob and Moses, Gen. xlix., Deut. xxxiii.). Originally,
however, "Joseph" was more restricted, possibly to the immediate
neighbourhood of Shechem, its later extension being parallel to the
development of the name Jacob. The dramatic story of the tribal ancestor
is recounted in Gen. xxxvii.-l. (see GENESIS). Joseph, the younger and
envied son, is seized by his brothers at Dothan north of Shechem, and is
sold to a party of Ishmaelites or Midianites, who carry him down to
Egypt. After various vicissitudes he gains the favour of the king of
Egypt by the interpretation of a dream, and obtains a high place in the
kingdom.[1] Forced by a famine his brothers come to buy food, and in the
incidents that follow Joseph shows his preference for his young brother
Benjamin (cf. the tribal data above). His father Jacob is invited to
come to Goshen, where a settlement is provided for the family and their
flocks. This is followed many years later by the exodus, the conquest of
Palestine, and the burial of Joseph's body in the grave at Shechem which
his father had bought.

The history of Joseph in Egypt displays some familiarity with the
circumstances and usages of that country; see Driver (Hastings's
_D.B._) and Cheyne (_Ency. Bib._, col. 2589 seq.); although Abrech
(xli. 43), possibly the Egyptian _ib rk_ (Crum, in Hastings's _D.B._,
i. 665), has been otherwise connected with the Assyrian _abarakku_ (a
high officer). An interesting parallel to the story of Joseph in Gen.
xxxix. is found in the Egyptian tale of _The Two Brothers_ (Petrie,
_Eg. Tales_, 2nd series, p. 36 seq., 1895), which dates from about
1500 B.C., but the differences are not inconsiderable compared with
the points of resemblance, and the tale has features which are almost
universal (Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2nd ed., vol. iii. 351 seq.). On
the theory that the historical elements of Joseph's history refer to
an official (Yanhamu) of the time of Amenophis III. and IV., see
Cheyne, op. cit., and _Hibbert Journal_, October 1903. That the
present form of the narrative has been influenced by current
mythological lore is not improbable; on this question see (with
caution) Winckler, _Gesch. Israels_, ii. 67-77 (1900); A. Jeremias,
_Alte Test._, pp. 383 sqq. (1906). It may be added that the Egyptian
names in the story of Joseph are characteristic of the XXII. and
subsequent dynasties. See, also Meyer and Luther, _Die Israeliten_
(1906), Index, _s.v._ (S. A. C.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] Joseph's marriage with the daughter of the priest of On might
show that the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh were believed to be
half-Egyptian by descent, but it is notoriously difficult to
determine how much is of ethnological value and how much belongs to
romance (viz. that of the individual Joseph).

JOSEPH, in the New Testament, the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
He is represented as a descendant of the house of David, and his
genealogy appears in two divergent forms in Matt. i. 1-17 and Luke iii.
23-38. The latter is probably much more complete and accurate in
details. The former, obviously artificial in structure (notice 3 × 14
generations), traces the Davidic descent through kings, and is governed
by an apologetic purpose. Of Joseph's personal history practically
nothing is recorded in the Bible. The facts concerning him common to the
two birth-narratives (Matt. i.-ii.; Luke i.-ii.) are: (a) that he was a
descendant of David, (b) that Mary was already betrothed to him when she
was found with child of the Holy Ghost, and (c) that he lived at
Nazareth after the birth of Christ; but these facts are handled
differently in each case. It is noticeable that, in Matthew, Joseph is
prominent (e.g. he receives an annunciation from an angel), while in
Luke's narrative he is completely subordinated. Bp Gore (_The
Incarnation_, Bampton lecture for 1891, p. 78) points out that Matthew
narrates everything from Joseph's side, Luke from Mary's, and infers
that the narrative of the former may ultimately be based on Joseph's
account, that of the latter on Mary's. The narratives seem to have been
current (in a poetical form) among the early Jewish-Christian community
of Palestine. At Nazareth Joseph followed the trade of a carpenter
(Matt. xiii. 55). It is probable that he had died before the public
ministry of Christ; for no mention is made of him in passages relating
to this period where the mother and brethren of Jesus are introduced;
and from John xix. 26 it is clear that he was not alive at the time of
the Crucifixion.

Joseph was the father of several children (Matt. xiii. 55), but
according to ecclesiastical tradition by a former marriage. The reading
of Matt. i. 16, in the Sinaitic Palimpsest (_Joseph ... begat Jesus, who
is called the Christ_) also makes him the natural father of Jesus, and
this was the view of certain early heretical sects, but it seems never
to have been held in orthodox Christian circles. According to various
apocryphal gospels (conveniently collected in B. H. Cowper's _The
Apocryphal Gospels_, 1881), when married to Mary he was a widower
already 80 years of age, and the father of four sons and two daughters;
his first wife's name was Salome and she was a connexion of the family
of John the Baptist.

In the Roman Catholic Church the 19th of March has since 1642 been a
feast in Joseph's honour. Two other festivals in his honour have also
been established (the Patronage of St Joseph, 3rd Sunday after Easter,
and the Betrothal of Mary and Joseph, 23rd of January). In December 1870
St Joseph was proclaimed Patron of the whole Church. (G. H. Bo.)

JOSEPH OF ARIMATHAEA,[1] in the New Testament, a wealthy Jew who had
been converted by Jesus Christ. He is mentioned by the Four Evangelists,
who are in substantial agreement concerning him: after the Crucifixion
he went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus, subsequently prepared
it for burial and laid it in a tomb. There are, however, minor
differences in the accounts, which have given rise to controversy.
Matthew (xxvii. 60) says that the tomb was Joseph's own; Mark (xv. 43
seq.), Luke (xxiii. 50 seq.) say nothing of this, while John (xix. 41)
simply says that the body was laid in a sepulchre "nigh at hand." Both
Mark and Luke say that Joseph was a "councillor" ([Greek: euschêmôn
bouleutês], Mark xv. 43), and the Gospel of Peter describes him as a
"friend of Pilate and of the Lord." This last statement is probably a
late invention, and there is considerable difficulty as to "councillor."
That Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin is improbable. Luke indeed,
regarding him as such, says that he "had not consented to their counsel
and deed," but Mark (xiv. 64) says that _all_ the Sanhedrin "condemned
him to be worthy of death." Perhaps the phrase "noble councillor" is
intended to imply merely a man of wealth and position. Again Matthew
says that Joseph was a disciple, while Mark implies that he was not yet
among the definite adherents of Christ, and John describes him as an
adherent "secretly for fear of the Jews." Most likely he was a disciple,
but belonged only to the wider circle of adherents. The account given in
the Fourth Gospel suggests that the writer, faced with these various
difficulties, assumed a double tradition: (1) that Joseph of Arimathaea,
a wealthy disciple, buried the body of Christ; (2) that the person in
question was Joseph of Arimathaea a "councillor," and solved the problem
by substituting Nicodemus as the councillor; hence he describes both
Joseph and Nicodemus (xix. 39) as co-operating in the burial. Some
critics (e.g. Strauss, _New Life of Jesus_, ch. 96) have thrown doubt
upon the story, regarding some of the details as invented to suit the
prophecy in Isa. liii. 9, "they made his grave with the wicked, and with
the rich in his death" (for various translations, see Hastings's _Dict.
Bible_, ii. 778). But in the absence of any reference to this prophecy
in the Gospels, this view is unconvincing, though the correspondence is
remarkable.

The striking character of this single appearance of Joseph of Arimathaea
led to the rise of numerous legends. Thus William of Malmesbury says
that he was sent to Britain by St Philip, and, having received a small
island in Somersetshire, there constructed "with twisted twigs" the
first Christian church in Britain--afterwards to become the Abbey of
Glastonbury. The legend says that his staff, planted in the ground,
became a thorn flowering twice a year (see GLASTONBURY). This
tradition--which is given only as such by Malmesbury himself--is not
confirmed, and there is no mention of it in either Gildas or Bede.
Joseph also plays a large part in the various versions of the Legend of
the Holy Grail (see GRAIL, THE HOLY).

FOOTNOTE:

[1] Generally identified with Ramathaim-Zophim, the city of Elkanah
in the hilly district of Ephraim (1 Sam. i. 1), near Diospolis
(Lydda). See Euseb., _Onomasticon_, 225. 12.

JOSEPH I. (1678-1711), Roman emperor, was the elder son of the emperor
Leopold I. and his third wife, Eleanora, countess palatine, daughter of
Philip William of Neuburg. Born in Vienna on the 26th of July 1678, he
was educated strictly by Prince Dietrich Otto von Salm, and became a
good linguist. In 1687 he received the crown of Hungary, and he was
elected king of the Romans in 1690. In 1699 he married Wilhelmina
Amalia, daughter of Duke Frederick of Brunswick-Lüneburg, by whom he had
two daughters. In 1702, on the outbreak of the War of the Spanish
Succession, he saw his only military service. He joined the imperial
general Louis of Baden in the siege of Landau. It is said that when he
was advised not to go into a place of danger he replied that those who
were afraid might retire. He succeeded his father as emperor in 1705,
and it was his good fortune to govern the Austrian dominions, and to be
head of the Empire during the years in which his trusted general Prince
Eugène, either acting alone in Italy or with the duke of Marlborough in
Germany and Flanders, was beating the armies of Louis XIV. During the
whole of his reign Hungary was disturbed by the conflict with Francis
Ráckóczy II., who eventually took refuge in France. The emperor did not
himself take the field against the rebels, but he is entitled to a large
share of the credit for the restoration of his authority. He reversed
many of the pedantically authoritative measures of his father, thus
placating all opponents who could be pacified, and he fought stoutly for
what he believed to be his rights. Joseph showed himself very
independent towards the pope, and hostile to the Jesuits, by whom his
father had been much influenced. He had the tastes for art and music
which were almost hereditary in his family, and was an active hunter. He
began the attempts to settle the question of the Austrian inheritance by
a pragmatic sanction, which were continued by his brother Charles VI.
Joseph died in Vienna on the 17th of April 1711, of small-pox.

See F. Krones von Marchland, _Grundriss der Oesterreichischen
Geschichte_ (1882); F. Wagner, _Historia Josephi Caesaris_ (1746); J.
C. Herchenhahn, _Geschichte der Regierung Kaiser Josephs I._
(1786-1789); C. van Noorden, _Europäische Geschichte im 18.
Jahrhundert_ (1870-1882).

JOSEPH II. (1741-1790), Roman emperor, eldest son of the empress Maria
Theresa and her husband Francis I., was born on the 13th of March 1741,
in the first stress of the War of the Austrian Succession. Maria Theresa
gave orders that he was only to be taught as if he were amusing himself;
the result was that he acquired a habit of crude and superficial study.
His real education was given him by the writings of Voltaire and the
encyclopaedists, and by the example of Frederick the Great. His useful
training was conferred by government officials, who were directed to
instruct him in the mechanical details of the administration of the
numerous states composing the Austrian dominions and the Empire. In 1761
he was made a member of the newly constituted council of state
(_Staatsrath_) and began to draw up minutes, to which he gave the name
of "reveries," for his mother to read. These papers contain the germs of
his later policy, and of all the disasters which finally overtook him.
He was a friend to religious toleration, anxious to reduce the power of
the church, to relieve the peasantry of feudal burdens, and to remove
restrictions on trade and on knowledge. So far he did not differ from
Frederick, Catherine of Russia or his own brother and successor Leopold
II., all enlightened rulers of the 18th-century stamp. Where Joseph
differed from great contemporary rulers, and where he was very close
akin to the Jacobins, was in the fanatical intensity of his belief in
the power of the state when directed by reason, of his right to speak
for the state uncontrolled by laws, and of the reasonableness of his own
reasons. Also he had inherited from his mother all the belief of the
house of Austria in its "august" quality, and its claim to acquire
whatever it found desirable for its power or its profit. He was unable
to understand that his philosophical plans for the moulding of mankind
could meet with pardonable opposition. The overweening character of the
man was obvious to Frederick, who, after their first interview in 1769,
described him as ambitious, and as capable of setting the world on fire.
The French minister Vergennes, who met Joseph when he was travelling
incognito in 1777, judged him to be "ambitious and despotic."

Until the death of his mother in 1780 Joseph was never quite free to
follow his own instincts. After the death of his father in 1765 he
became emperor and was made co-regent by his mother in the Austrian
dominions. As emperor he had no real power, and his mother was resolved
that neither husband nor son should ever deprive her of sovereign
control in her hereditary dominions. Joseph, by threatening to resign
his place as co-regent, could induce his mother to abate her dislike to
religious toleration. He could, and he did, place a great strain on her
patience and temper, as in the case of the first partition of Poland and
the Bavarian War of 1778, but in the last resort the empress spoke the
final word. During these wars Joseph travelled much. He met Frederick
the Great privately at Neisse in 1769, and again at Mährisch-Neustadt in
1770. On the second occasion he was accompanied by Prince Kaunitz, whose
conversation with Frederick may be said to mark the starting-point of
the first partition of Poland. To this and to every other measure which
promised to extend the dominions of his house Joseph gave hearty
approval. Thus he was eager to enforce its claim on Bavaria upon the
death of the elector Maximilian Joseph in 1777. In April of that year he
paid a visit to his sister the queen of France (see MARIE ANTOINETTE),
travelling under the name of Count Falkenstein. He was well received,
and much flattered by the encyclopaedists, but his observations led him
to predict the approaching downfall of the French monarchy, and he was
not impressed favourably by the army or navy. In 1778 he commanded the
troops collected to oppose Frederick, who supported the rival claimant
to Bavaria. Real fighting was averted by the unwillingness of Frederick
to embark on a new war and by Maria Theresa's determination to maintain
peace. In April 1780 he paid a visit to Catherine of Russia, against the
wish of his mother.

The death of Maria Theresa on the 27th of November 1780 left Joseph
free. He immediately directed his government on a new course, full speed
ahead. He proceeded to attempt to realize his ideal of a wise despotism
acting on a definite system for the good of all. The measures of
emancipation of the peasantry which his mother had begun were carried on
by him with feverish activity. The spread of education, the
secularization of church lands, the reduction of the religious orders
and the clergy in general to complete submission to the lay state, the
promotion of unity by the compulsory use of the German language,
everything which from the point of view of 18th-century philosophy
appeared "reasonable" was undertaken at once. He strove for
administrative unity with characteristic haste to reach results without
preparation. His anti-clerical innovations induced Pope Pius VI. to pay
him a visit in July 1782. Joseph received the pope politely, and showed
himself a good Catholic, but refused to be influenced. So many
interferences with old customs began to produce unrest in all parts of
his dominions. Meanwhile he threw himself into a succession of foreign
policies all aimed at aggrandisement, and all equally calculated to
offend his neighbours--all taken up with zeal, and dropped in
discouragement. He endeavoured to get rid of the Barrier Treaty, which
debarred his Flemish subjects from the navigation of the Scheldt; when
he was opposed by France he turned to other schemes of alliance with
Russia for the partition of Turkey and Venice. They also had to be given
up in the face of the opposition of neighbours, and in particular of
France. Then he resumed his attempts to obtain Bavaria--this time by
exchanging it for Belgium--and only provoked the formation of the
_Fürstenbund_ organized by the king of Prussia. Finally he joined Russia
in an attempt to pillage Turkey. It began on his part by an unsuccessful
and discreditable attempt to surprise Belgrade in time of peace, and was
followed by the ill-managed campaign of 1788. He accompanied his army,
but showed no capacity for war. In November he returned to Vienna with
ruined health, and during 1789 was a dying man. The concentration of his
troops in the east gave the malcontents of Belgium an opportunity to
revolt. In Hungary the nobles were all but in open rebellion, and in his
other states there were peasant risings, and a revival of particularist
sentiments. Joseph was left entirely alone. His minister Kaunitz refused
to visit his sick-room, and did not see him for two years. His brother
Leopold remained at Florence. At last Joseph, worn out and
broken-hearted, recognized that his servants could not, or would not,
carry out his plans. On the 30th of January 1790 he formally withdrew
all his reforms, and he died on the 20th of February.

Joseph II. was twice married, first to Isabella, daughter of Philip,
duke of Parma, to whom he was attached. After her death on the 27th of
November 1763, a political marriage was arranged with Josepha (d. 1767),
daughter of Charles Albert, elector of Bavaria (the emperor Charles
VII.). It proved extremely unhappy. Joseph left no children, and was
succeeded by his brother Leopold II.

Many volumes of the emperor's correspondence have been published.
Among them are _Maria Theresia und Joseph II. Ihre Korrespondenz samt
Briefen Josephs an seinen Bruder Leopold_ (1867-1868); _Joseph II. und
Leopold von Toskana. Ihr Briefwechsel 1781-1790_ (1872); _Joseph II.
und Katharina von Russland. Ihr Briefwechsel_ (1869); and _Maria
Antoinette, Joseph II. und Leopold II. Ihr Briefwechsel_ (1866); all
edited by A. Ritter von Arneth. Other collections are: _Joseph II.,
Leopold II. und Kaunitz. Ihr Briefwechsel_, edited by A. Beer (1873);
_Correspondances intimes de l'empereur Joseph II. avec son ami, le
comte de Cobenzl et son premier ministre, le prince de Kaunitz_,
edited by S. Brunner (1871); _Joseph II. und Graf Ludwig Cobenzl. Ihr
Briefwechsel_, edited by A. Beer and J. von Fiedler (1901); and the
_Geheime Korrespondenz Josephs II. mit seinem Minister in den
Oesterreichischen Niederlanden, Ferdinand Graf Trauttmannsdorff
1787-1789_, edited by H. Schlitter (1902). Among the lives of Joseph
may be mentioned: A. J. Gross-Hoffinger, _Geschichte Josephs II._
(1847); C. Paganel, _Histoire de Joseph II._ (1843; German translation
by F. Köhler, 1844); H. Meynert, _Kaiser Joseph II._ (1862); A. Beer,
_Joseph II._ (1882); A. Jäger, _Kaiser Joseph II. und Leopold II._
(1867); A. Fournier, _Joseph II._ (1885); and J. Wendrinski, _Kaiser
Joseph II._ (1880). There is a useful small volume on the emperor by
J. Franck Bright (1897). Other books which may be consulted are: G.
Wolf, _Das Unterrichtswesen in Oesterreich unter Joseph II._ (1880),
and _Oesterreich und Preussen 1780-1790_ (1880), A. Wolf and H. von
Zwiedeneck-Südenhorst, _Oesterreich unter Maria Theresia, Joseph II.
und Leopold II._ (1882-1884); H. Schlitter, _Die Regierung Josephs II.
in den Oesterreichischen Niederlanden_ (1900); and _Pius VI. und
Joseph II. 1782-1784_ (1894); O. Lorenz, _Joseph II. und die Belgische
Revolution_ (1862); and L. Delplace, _Joseph II. et la révolution
brabançonne_ (1890).

JOSEPH, FATHER (FRANÇOIS LECLERC DU TREMBLAY) (1577-1638), French
Capuchin monk, the confidant of Richelieu, was the eldest son of Jean
Leclerc du Tremblay, president of the chamber of requests of the
parlement of Paris, and of Marie Motier de Lafayette. As a boy he
received a careful classical training, and in 1595 made an extended
journey through Italy, returning to take up the career of arms. He
served at the siege of Amiens in 1597, and then accompanied a special
embassy to London. In 1599 Baron de Mafflier, by which name he was known
at court, renounced the world and entered the Capuchin monastery of
Orleans. He embraced the religious life with great ardour, and became a
notable preacher and reformer. In 1606 he aided Antoinette d'Orléans, a
nun of Fontevrault, to found the reformed order of the Filles du
Calvaire, and wrote a manual of devotion for the nuns. His proselytizing
zeal led him to send missionaries throughout the Huguenot centres--he
had become provincial of Touraine in 1613. He entered politics at the
conferences of Loudun, when, as the confidant of the queen and the papal
envoy, he opposed the Gallican claims advanced by the parlement, which
the princes were upholding, and succeeded in convincing them of the
schismatic tendency of Gallicanism. In 1612 he began those personal
relations with Richelieu which have indissolubly joined in history and
legend the cardinal and the "Eminence grise," relations which research
has not altogether made clear. In 1627 the monk assisted at the siege of
La Rochelle. A purely religious reason also made him Richelieu's ally
against the Habsburgs. He had a dream of arousing Europe to another
crusade against the Turks, and believed that the house of Austria was
the obstacle to that universal European peace which would make this
possible. As Richelieu's agent, therefore, this modern Peter the Hermit
manoeuvred at the diet of Regensburg (1630) to thwart the aggression of
the emperor, and then advised the intervention of Gustavus Adolphus,
reconciling himself to the use of Protestant armies by the theory that
one poison would counteract another. Thus the monk became a war
minister, and, though maintaining a personal austerity of life, gave
himself up to diplomacy and politics. He died in 1638, just as the
cardinalate was to be conferred upon him. The story that Richelieu
visited him when on his deathbed and roused the dying man by the words,
"Courage, Father Joseph, we have won Breisach," is apocryphal.

See Fagniez, _Le Père Joseph et Richelieu_ (1894), a work based
largely on original and unpublished sources. Father Joseph, according
to this biography, would seem not to have lectured Richelieu in the
fashion of the legends, whatever his moral influence may have been in
strengthening Richelieu's hands.

JOSEPHINE (MARIE ROSE JOSEPHINE TASCHER DE LA PAGERIE) (1763-1814),
empress of the French, was born in the island of Martinique on the 23rd
of June 1763, being the eldest of three daughters of Joseph Tascher de
la Pagerie, lieutenant of artillery. Her beauty and grace, though of a
languid Creole style, won the affections of the young officer the
vicomte de Beauharnais, and, after some family complications, she was
married to him. Their married life was not wholly happy, the frivolity
of Josephine occasioning her husband anxiety and jealousy. Two children,
Eugène and Hortense, were the fruit of the union. During Josephine's
second residence in Martinique, whither she proceeded to tend her
mother, occurred the first troubles with the slaves, which resulted from
the precipitate action of the constituent assembly in emancipating them.
She returned to her husband, who at that time entered into political
life at Paris. Her beauty and vivacity won her many admirers in the
salons of the capital. As the Revolution ran its course her husband, as
an ex-noble, incurred the suspicion and hostility of the Jacobins; and
his ill-success at the head of a French army on the Rhine led to his
arrest and execution. Thereafter Josephine was in a position of much
perplexity and some hardship, but the friendship of Barras and of Madame
Tallien, to both of whom she was then much attached, brought her into
notice, and she was one of the queens of Parisian society in the year
1795, when Napoleon Bonaparte's services to the French convention in
scattering the malcontents of the capital (13 Vendémiaire, or October 5,
1795) brought him to the front. There is a story that she became known
to Napoleon through a visit paid to him by her son Eugène in order to
beg his help in procuring the restoration of his father's sword, but it
rests on slender foundations. In any case, it is certain that Bonaparte,
however he came to know her, was speedily captivated by her charms. She,
on her side, felt very little affection for the thin, impecunious and
irrepressible suitor; but by degrees she came to acquiesce in the
thought of marriage, her hesitations, it is said, being removed by the
influence of Barras and by the nomination of Bonaparte to the command of
the army of Italy. The civil marriage took place on the 9th of March
1796, two days before the bridegroom set out for his command. He failed
to induce her to go with him to Nice and Italy.

Bonaparte's letters to Josephine during the campaign reveal the ardour
of his love, while she rarely answered them. As he came to realize her
shallowness and frivolity his passion cooled; but at the time when he
resided at Montebello (near Milan) in 1797 he still showed great regard
for her. During his absence in Egypt in 1798-1799, her relations to an
officer, M. Charles, were most compromising; and Bonaparte on his return
thought of divorcing her. Her tears and the entreaties of Eugène and
Hortense availed to bring about a reconciliation; and during the period
of the consulate (1799-1804) their relations were on the whole happy,
though Napoleon's conduct now gave his consort grave cause for concern.
His brothers and sisters more than once begged him to divorce Josephine,
and it is known that, from the time when he became first consul for
life (August 1802) with large powers over the choice of a successor, he
kept open the alternative of a divorce. Josephine's anxieties increased
on the proclamation of the Empire (May 18, 1804); and on the 1st of
December 1804, the eve of the coronation at Notre Dame, she gained her
wish that she should be married anew to Napoleon with religious rites.
Despite her care, the emperor procured the omission of one formality,
the presence of the parish priest; but at the coronation scene Josephine
appeared radiant with triumph over her envious relatives. The august
marriages contracted by her children Eugène and Hortense seemed to
establish her position; but her ceaseless extravagance and, above all,
the impossibility that she should bear a son strained the relations
between Napoleon and Josephine. She complained of his infidelities and
growing callousness. The end came in sight after the campaign of 1809,
when Napoleon caused the announcement to be made to her that reasons of
state compelled him to divorce her. Despite all her pleadings he held to
his resolve. The most was made of the slight technical irregularity at
the marriage ceremony of the 1st of December 1804; and the marriage was
declared null and void.

At her private retreat, La Malmaison, near Paris, which she had
beautified with curios and rare plants and flowers, Josephine closed her
life in dignified retirement. Napoleon more than once came to consult
her upon matters in which he valued her tact and good sense. Her health
declined early in 1814, and after his first abdication (April 11, 1814)
it was clear that her end was not far off. The emperor Alexander of
Russia and Frederick William III. of Prussia, then in Paris, requested
an interview with her. She died on the 24th of May 1814. Her friends,
Mme de Rémusat and others, pointed out that Napoleon's good fortune
deserted him after the divorce; and it is certain that the Austrian
marriage clogged him in several ways. Josephine's influence was used on
behalf of peace and moderation both in internal and in foreign affairs.
Thus she begged Napoleon not to execute the duc d'Enghien and not to
embroil himself in Spanish affairs in 1808.

See M. A. Le Normand, _Mémoires historiques et secrets de Joséphine_
(2 vols., 1820); _Lettres de Napoléon à Joséphine_ (1833); J. A.
Aubenas, _Hist. de l'impératrice Joséphine_ (2 vols., 1858-1859); J.
Turquan, _L'Impératrice Joséphine_ (2 vols., 1895-1896); F. Masson,
_Joséphine_ (3 vols., 1899-1902); _Napoleon's Letters to Josephine_
(1796-1812), translated and edited by H. F. Hall (1903). Also the
_Memoirs of_ Mme. de Rémusat and of Bausset, and P. W. Sergeant, _The
Empress Josephine_ (1908). (J. Hl. R.)

JOSEPHUS, FLAVIUS (c. 37-c. 95?), Jewish historian and military
commander, was born in the first year of Caligula (37-38). His father
belonged to one of the noblest priestly families, and through his mother
he claimed descent from the Asmonaean high priest Jonathan. A precocious
student of the Law, he made trial of the three sects of
Judaism--Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes--before he reached the age of
nineteen. Then, having spent three years in the desert with the hermit
Banus, who was presumably an Essene, he became a Pharisee. In 64 he went
to Rome to intercede on behalf of some priests, his friends, whom the
procurator Felix had sent to render account to Caesar for some
insignificant offence. Making friends with Alityrus, a Jewish actor, who
was a favourite of Nero, Josephus obtained an introduction to the
empress Poppaea and effected his purpose by her help. His visit to Rome
enabled him to speak from personal experience of the power of the
Empire, when he expostulated with the revolutionary Jews on his return
to Palestine. But they refused to listen; and he, with all the Jews who
did not fly the country, was dragged into the great rebellion of 66. In
company with two other priests, Josephus was sent to Galilee under
orders (he says) to persuade the ill-affected to lay down their arms and
return to the Roman allegiance, which the Jewish aristocracy had not yet
renounced. Having sent his two companions back to Jerusalem, he
organized the forces at his disposal, and made arrangements for the
government of his province. His obvious desire to preserve law and order
excited the hostility of John of Giscala, who endeavoured vainly to
remove him as a traitor to the national cause by inciting the Galileans
to kill him and by persuading the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem to recall him.

In the spring of 67 the Jewish troops, whom Josephus had drilled so
sedulously, fled before the Roman forces of Vespasian and Titus. He sent
to Jerusalem for reinforcements, but none came. With the stragglers who
remained, he held a stronghold against the Romans by dint of his native
cunning, and finally, when the place was taken, persuaded forty men, who
shared his hiding-place, to kill one another in turn rather than commit
suicide. They agreed to cast lots, on the understanding that the second
should kill the first and so on. Josephus providentially drew the last
lot and prevailed upon his destined victim to live. Their companions
were all dead in accordance with the compact; but Josephus at any rate
survived and surrendered. Being led before Vespasian, he was inspired to
prophesy that Vespasian would become emperor. In consequence of the
prophecy his life was spared, but he was kept close prisoner for two
years. When his prophecy was fulfilled he was liberated, assumed the
name of Flavius, the family name of Vespasian, and accompanied his
patron to Alexandria. There he took another wife, as the Jewess allotted
him by Vespasian after the fall of Caesarea had forsaken him, and
returned to attend Titus and to act as intermediary between him and the
Jews who still held Jerusalem. His efforts in this capacity failed; but
when the city was stormed (70) Titus granted him whatever boon he might
ask. So he secured the lives of some free men who had been taken and (by
the gift of Titus) certain sacred books. After this he repaired to Rome
and received one of the pensions, which Vespasian (according to
Suetonius) was the first to bestow upon Latin and Greek writers. He was
also made a Roman citizen and received an estate in Judaea.
Thenceforward he devoted himself to literary work under the patronage of
Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. As he mentions the death of Agrippa II.
it is probable that he lived into the 2nd century; but the date of
Agrippa's death has been challenged and, if his patron Epaphroditus may
be identified with Nero's freedman, it is possible that Josephus may
have been involved in his fall and perished under Domitian in 95.

WORKS.--1. _The Jewish War_ ([Greek: Peri tou Ioudaïkou polemou]), the
oldest of Josephus' extant writings, was written towards the end of
Vespasian's reign (69-79). The Aramaic original has not been
preserved; but the Greek version was prepared by Josephus himself in
conjunction with competent Greek scholars. Its purpose in all
probability was, in the first instance, to exhibit to the Babylonian
Jews the overwhelming power of Rome and so to deter them from
repeating the futile revolt of the Jews of Palestine. Of its seven
books, the first two survey the history of the Jews from the capture
of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes to the outbreak of war in 67, and
here Josephus relies upon some such general history as that of
Nicolaus of Damascus. The rest deals with the events of the war
(67-73) which fell more or less within his own knowledge. Vespasian,
Titus and Agrippa II. testified (he tells us) to his accuracy.
Representatives of the Zealots would probably have protested against
his pro-Roman prejudices.

2. _The Jewish Antiquities_ ([Greek: Ioudaïkê Archaiologia]) covers in
twenty books the history of the Jews from the creation of the world to
the outbreak of the war with Rome. It was finished in the thirteenth
year of Domitian (93). Its purpose was to glorify the Jewish nation in
the eyes of the Roman world. In the part covered by the books of the
Bible Josephus follows them, and that mainly, if not entirely as they
are translated into Greek by the Seventy (the Septuagint version).
Being a Pharisee, he sometimes introduces traditions of the Elders,
which are either inferences from, or embroideries of, the biblical
narrative. Sometimes, also, he gives proof of some knowledge of Hebrew
and supplements his scriptural authorities, which include 1 Esdras,
from general Greek histories. For the later period he uses the Greek
Esther, with its additions, 1 Maccabees, Polybius, Strabo and Nicolaus
of Damascus. But towards the end he confesses that he has grown weary
of his task, and his history becomes meagre. The work contains
accounts of John the Baptist and Jesus, which may account for the fact
that Josephus' writings were rescued from oblivion by the Christians.
But the description of Jesus as "a wise man, if indeed one should call
him a man," can hardly be genuine, and the assertion "this was the
Christ" is equally doubtful, unless it be assumed that the Greek word
_Christos_ had become technical in the sense of false-Christ or
false-prophet among non-Christian Jews.

3. Josephus wrote a narrative of his own _Life_ in order to defend
himself against the accusation brought by his enemy Justus of Tiberias
to the effect that he had really been the cause of the Jewish
rebellion. In his defence Josephus departs from the facts as narrated
in the _Jewish War_ and represents himself as a partisan of Rome and,
therefore, as a traitor to his own people from the beginning.

4. The two books _Against Apion_ are a defence or apology directed
against current misrepresentations of the Jews. Earlier titles are
_Concerning the Antiquity of the Jews_ or _Against the Greeks_. Apion
was the leader of the Alexandrine embassy which opposed Philo and his
companions when they appeared in behalf of the Alexandrine Jews before
Caligula. The defence which Josephus puts forward has a permanent
value and shows him at his best.

The Greek text of Josephus' works has been edited with full collection
of different readings by B. Niese (Berlin, 1887-1895). The Teubner
text by Naber is based on this. The translation into English of W.
Whiston has been (superficially) revised by A. R. Shilleto
(1889-1890). Schürer (_History of the Jewish People_) gives a full
bibliography. (J. H. A. H.)

JOSHEKAN, a small province of Persia covering about 1000 sq. m. Pop.
about 5000. It has a yearly revenue of about £1200, and is held in fief
by the family of Bahram Mirza, Muizz ed Dowleh (d. 1882). Its chief town
and the residence of the governor used to be Joshekan-Kali, a large
village with fine gardens, formerly famous for its carpets (_kali_), but
now the chief place is Maimeh, a little city with a population of 2500,
situated at an elevation of 6670 ft., about 63 m. from Isfahan in a
north-westerly direction and 13 m. south-west of Joshekan-Kali.

JOSHUA, BOOK OF, the sixth book of the Old Testament, and the first of
the group known as the "Former Prophets." It takes its name from
Joshua[1] the son of Nun, an Ephraimite who, on the death of Moses,
assumed the leadership to which he had previously been designated by his
chief (Deut. xxxi. 14 seq., 23), and proceeded to the conquest of the
land of Canaan. The book differs from the Pentateuch or Torah in the
absence of legal matter, and in its intimate connexion with the
narrative in the books which follow. It is, however, the proper sequel
to the origins of the people as related in Genesis, to the exodus of the
Israelite tribes from Egypt, and their journeyings in the wilderness. On
these and also on literary grounds it is often convenient to class the
first six books of the Bible as a unit under the term "Hexateuch." For
an exhaustive detailed study has revealed many signs of diversity of
authorship which combine to show that the book is due to the
incorporation of older material in two main redactions; one deeply
imbued with the language and thought of Deuteronomy itself (D), the
other of the post-exilic priestly circle (P) which gave the Pentateuch
its present form. That the older sources (which often prove to be
composite) are actually identical with the Yahwist or Judaean (J) and
the Elohist or Ephraimite (E) narratives (on which see GENESIS) is not
improbable, though, especially as regards the former, still very
uncertain. In general the literary problems are exceedingly intricate,
and no attempt can be made here to deal with them as fully as they
deserve.

_The Invasion._--The book falls naturally into two main parts, of which
the first, the crossing of the Jordan and the conquest of Palestine
(i.-xii.) is mainly due to Deuteronomic compilers. It opens with the
preparations for the crossing of the Jordan and the capture of the
powerful city Jericho. Ai, near Bethel, is taken after a temporary
repulse, and Joshua proceeds to erect an altar upon Mt Ebal (north of
Shechem). For the fullness with which the events are recorded the
writers were probably indebted to local stories.

The Israelites are at Abel-Shittim (already reached in Num. xxv. 1).
Moses is dead, and Joshua enters upon his task with the help of the
Transjordanic tribes who have already received their territory (i).
The narrative is of the later prophetic stamp (D; cf. Deut. iii.
18-22, xi. 24, where Moses is the speaker; xxxi. 1-8), but may be
based upon an earlier and shorter record (E; vv. 1 seq., 10, 11a). Of
the mission of the spies to Jericho, two versions were current
(duplicates ii. 3, 12, 18; v. 15 seq. breaks the connexion between vv.
13 and 18, but is resumed in vv. 22-24); D's addition is to be
recognized in ii. 9b-11. The incident occupies at least four days, but
the main narrative reckons three days between i. 11 and iii. 2. Next
follow the passage of the Jordan (commemorated by the erection of
twelve stones), the encampment at Gilgal, and the observance of the
rite of circumcision and of the passover (iii.-v.). The complicated
narrative in iii.-iv. is of composite origin (contrast iii. 17 with
iv. 10 seq., 19; iv. 3, 8 with vv. 9, 20; and cf. iii. 12 with the
superfluous iv. 2, &c.). As in ii., D has amplified (iii. 4b, 7, 10b,
iv. 9-10a, 12, 14; more prominently in iv. 21-v. 1, v. 4-8), and
subsequently P (or a hand akin to P) has worked over the whole (iii.
4, note the number and the prohibition, cf. Num. i. 51; iii. 8, 15
seq.; iv. 13, 19; v. 10-12). Circumcision, already familiar from Exod.
iv. 26, Deut. x. 16, is here regarded as a new rite (v. 2, 9,
supplemented by vv. 1, 4-8), but the conflicting views have been
harmonized by the words "the second time" (v. 2). Gilgal is thus named
from the "rolling away" of the "reproach of Egypt" (v. 9), but iv. 20
suggests a different origin, viz. the sacred stone-circle (cf. Judges
iii. 19, R.V. marg.). An older account of the divine commission to
Joshua appears in the archaic passage v. 13-15 (cf. Moses in Exod.
iii.). Fusion of sources is obvious in the story of the fall of
Jericho (contrast vi. 5 and v. 10, vv. 21 and 24, vv. 22 and 25);
according to one (E?) the people march seven times round the city on
one day, the ark and the priests occupying a prominent position (vi.
4-6, 7b-9, 12 seq., 16a, 20 [part], 22-24); but in the other they
march every day for seven days. Both here and in the preceding
chapters the Septuagint has several variations and omissions, due
either to an (unsuccessful) attempt to simplify the present
difficulties, or to the use of another recension. The curse pronounced
by Joshua upon the destroyed city of Jericho (vi. 26) should be
associated with an incident in the reign of Ahab which is acquainted
with the story (1 Kings xvi. 34); the city, however, reappears in
Joshua xviii. 21; 2 Sam. x. 5. Achan's sacrilege, the cause of the
repulse at Ai and of the naming of the valley of Achor (vii.), is
introduced by vi. 18 seq., 24b, and, as its spirit shows, is of
relatively later date. It contains some probable traces of D (in vii.
5, 7, 11 seq., 15, 25) and P (in vv. 1, 18, 24 seq.). The capture of
Ai has marks of the same dual origin as the preceding chapters (cf.
viii. 3a with 10, and contrast viii. 3-9 with v. 12; vv. 5-7 with 18,
26; v. 19 with 28). The general resemblance between chs. vii.-viii.
and the war with Benjamin (Judges xx.) should be noticed.

_Conquests in Palestine._--The erection of the altar, not at the scene
of battle (cf. 1 Sam. xiv. 35) but on Mt Ebal (viii. 30-35, D),
presupposes the conquest of central Palestine and the removal of the ark
from Gilgal. These, however, are not narrated, and, unless some account
of them has been replaced by the present passage, this portion of the
conquest was ignored. Possibly the passage is not in its original
position: in the Septuagint it appears after ix. 2, while Josephus
(_Ant._ v. 1, 19) and the Samaritan book of Joshua read it before ch.
xiii.; Dillmann, however, would place it after xi. 23. The capture of
Jericho and Ai is followed by the successful stratagem of the Gibeonites
to make peace with Israel (ix.). This involves them in a war with the
southern Canaanites; Joshua intervenes and obtains a crowning victory
(x.). The camp is still at Gilgal. A similar conquest of the northern
Canaanites follows (xi.), and the first part of the book concludes with
a summary of the results of the Israelite invasion (xii.).

No satisfactory explanation of viii. 30-35 has been found, yet ix. 1
seq. seems to show that it was the prelude to the Canaanite wars. In
contrast to the absence of any reference to the occupation of central
Palestine, the conquest of the south was current in several divergent
traditions. Two records are blended in ix.; one narrates the covenant
with the Gibeonites, the other that with the Hivites (properly
Hivvites); and in the latter Joshua has no place (vv. 4 seq., 6b, 7,
11-14, &c.). The former has additions by D (vv. 9b, 10, 24 seq.) and
by P (v. 15 last clause, 17-21); the latter, in accordance with the
legislation of its day (posterior to Ezek. xliv. 6 sqq.), does not
allow the Gibeonites to minister to the temple or altar, but merely to
the "congregation," a characteristic post-exilic term (contrast vv. 21
and 23; and on 27 see Sept. and commentaries). The story of the
covenant conflicts with the notice that Gibeon was still an
independent Canaanite city in David's time (2 Sam. xxi. 2). The defeat
of the southern coalition is based, as the doublets show, upon two
sources; the war arises from two causes (vengeance upon the
Gibeonites, and the attempt to overthrow Israel), and concludes with a
twofold victory: in x. 16-24 the kings are pursued to Makkedah and
slain, in v. 11 they are smitten by a great hailstorm in their flight
to Azekah (cf. 1 Sam. vii. 10, xiv. 15, in the same district).
Redactional links have been added, apparently by D, to whom is
possibly due the stanza quoted from the book of Jashar (v. 12 seq.), a
poetical address to the sun and moon, of the nature of a prayer or
spell for their aid (cf. Judges v. 20, and see Ecclus. xlvi. 4). The
literal interpretation of this picturesque quotation has been
influenced by the prosaic comments at the end of v. 13 and beginning
of v. 14. Verse 15, which closes the account, anticipates v. 43; the
Septuagint omits both. The generalizing narrative (x. 28-43), which is
due to D in its present form, is partly based upon old matter (e.g.
the capture of Makkedah), but is inconsistent with what precedes (v.
37, see v. 23 sqq.) and follows (capture of Debir, v. 38 seq., see xv.
15; Judges i. 11). The description of the conquest of the northern
Canaanites is very similar to that of the south. The main part is from
an older source (xi. 1, 4-9; see DEBORAH), the amplifications (v. 2
seq.) are due to D, as also are the summary (vv. 10-23, cf. style of
x. 28-43), and the enumeration of the total results of the invasion
(xii.), which includes names not previously mentioned.

_Division of the Land._--The result of the events narrated in the first
part of the book is to ascribe the entire subjugation of Canaan to
Joshua, whose centre was at Gilgal (x. 15, 43). He is now "old and
advanced in years," and although much outlying land remained to be
possessed, he is instructed to divide the conquered districts among the
western tribes (xiii. 1 sqq.). This is detailed at length in the second
part of the book. With the completion of the division his mission is
accomplished. The main body of this part (xiii. 15-xiv. 5; xv.-xvii.;
xviii. 11-xxi. 42; xxii. 7-34) is in its present form almost entirely
due to P.

In regard to details, xiii. 2-6 (now D) expresses the view that the
conquest was incomplete, and numbers districts chiefly in the
south-west and in the Lebanon. Two sources deal with the inheritance
of the east Jordan tribes in terms which are--(a) general (xiii. 8-12,
D), and (b) precise (vv. 15-32, P). The latter stands between the
duplicate passages xiii. 14 and 32 seq. (see the Sept.). With the
interest taken in these tribes, cf. for (a) i. 12-18; Deut. iii.
12-22, and the sequel in Joshua xxii. 1-6; and for (b) xxii. 9 seq.;
Num. xxxii. P's account of the division opens with an introductory
notice of the manner in which Eleazar the priest and Joshua (note the
order) prepare to complete the work which Moses had begun (xiv. 1-5).
It opens with Judah, its borders (xv. 1-12) and cities (vv. 20-62),
and continues with the two Joseph tribes, Ephraim (xvi. 4-9, contrast
details in vv. 1-3) and Manasseh (xvii. 1-10, cf. Num. xxvi. 30-32,
xxvii. 1-11; P). There is now a break in the narrative (xviii. 2-10,
source uncertain); seven tribes have not yet received an inheritance,
and Joshua (alone) encourages them to send three men from each tribe
to walk through the land--excluding the territory of Judah and
Joseph--and to bring a description of it to him, after which he
divides it among them by lot. P[2] now resumes with an account of the
borders and cities of Benjamin (xviii. 11-28), Simeon, Zebulun,
Issachar, Asher, Naphtali and Dan (xix.; on v. 47, see below); and,
after the subscription (xix. 51), concludes with the institution of
the cities of refuge (xx., cf. Num. xxxv.), and of the Levitical
cities (xxi., contrast the earlier brief notice, xiii. 14, 33).
Chapter xx., belonging to the Predaction, has certain points of
contact with Deut. xix. which, it is very important to observe, are
wanting in the Septuagint; and xxi. 43-45 closes D's account of the
division, and in the Septuagint contains matter most of which is now
given by P in xix. 49 seq. Two narratives describe the dismissal of
the trans-Jordanic tribes after their co-operation in the conquest,
viz. xxii. 1-6 (D), and xxii. 9 seq. (P); cf. above, on xiii. 8 seq.
P, with the description of the erection of the altar (v. 34, Gilead?;
cf. Gen. xxxi. 47 seq.), is apparently a late re-writing of some now
obscure incident to emphasize the unity of worship. P's account of the
distribution of land among the _nine and a half_ tribes by Eleazar and
Joshua (from xiv. 1-5 to xix. 51) appears to have been on the lines
laid down in Num. xxxiv. (P). The scene, according to xviii. 1, is
Shiloh, and this verse, which does not belong to the context, should
apparently precede P's narrative in xiv. 1. But of the occupation of
_Shiloh_, the famous Ephraimite sanctuary and the seat of the ark, we
have no information. The older source, however, presupposes that Judah
and the two Joseph tribes have acquired their territory; the remaining
seven are blamed for their indifference (xviii. 2-10, see above), and
receive their lot conjointly at the camp at Shiloh. But if the
location is an attempt to harmonize with xviii. 1, _Gilgal_ should
probably be restored. The section xviii. 2-10 is followed by xxi. 43
seq. (above), and may have been preceded originally by xiii. 1, 7
(where read: inheritance for the _seven_ tribes); in its present form
it appears to be due to D. Another account of the exploits of Judah
and Joseph can be traced here and there; e.g. in xiv. 6-15 (where
Caleb receives Hebron as his inheritance and the "land had rest from
war"), and xvii. 14-18 (where Joseph receives an additional lot); but
where these traditions have not been worked into later narratives,
they exist only in fragmentary form and are chiefly recognizable by
their standpoint. They are characterized by the view that the conquest
was only a partial one, and one which was neither the work of a single
man nor at his instigation, but due entirely to individual or tribal
achievements. This view can be traced in xiii. 13, xv. 63 (cf. the
parallel Judges i. 21 in contrast to v. 8), xvi. 10 (Judges i. 29),
xvii. 11-13 (Judges i. 27 seq.), and in the references to separate
tribal or family exploits: xv. 13-19, xix. 47 (cf. Judges i. 34 seq.,
xviii.).

Two closing addresses are ascribed to Joshua, one an exhortation similar
to the homilies in secondary portions of Deuteronomy (xxiii.; cf. Moses
in Deut. xxviii. seq., and Samuel's last address in 1 Sam. xii.), which
virtually excludes the other (xxiv.), where Joshua assembles the tribes
at Shechem (Shiloh, in the Septuagint) and passes under review the
history of Israel from the days of heathenism (before Abraham was
brought into Canaan) down through the oppression in Egypt, the exodus,
the conquest in East Jordan and the occupation of Canaan. A few
otherwise unknown details are to be found (xxiv. 2, 11 seq. 14). The
address (which is extremely important for its representation of the
religious conditions) is made the occasion for a solemn covenant whereby
the people agree to cleave to Yahweh alone. This is commemorated by the
erection of a stone under the oak by the sanctuary of Yahweh (for the
tree with its sacred pillar, see Gen. xxxv. 4; Judges ix. 6). The people
are then dismissed, and the book closes in ordinary narrative style with
the death of Joshua and his burial in his inheritance at Timnath-serah
in Mt Ephraim (cf. xix. 49 seq.); the burial of Joseph in Shechem; and
the death and burial of Eleazar the son of Aaron in the "hill of
Phinehas."

Chapter xxiv. presupposes the complete subjection of the Canaanites
and is of a late prophetic stamp. Some signs of amplification (e.g.
vv. 11b, 13, 31) suggest that it was inserted by a Deuteronomic hand,
evidently distinct from the author of xxiii. But elsewhere there are
traces of secondary Deuteronomic expansion and of internal
incongruities in Deuteronomic narratives; contrast xiv. 6-15 with
Joshua's extermination of the "Anakim" in xi. 21 seq.; the use of this
name with the "Philistines" of xiii. 2 (see PHILISTINES), or the
conquests in xi. 16-22 with the names in x. 36-43. All these passages
are now due to D; but not only is Deuteronomy itself composite, a
twofold redaction can be traced in Judges, Samuel and Kings, thus
involving the deeper literary problems of Joshua with the historical
books generally.[3] Both Joshua xxiii. and xxiv. are closely connected
with the very complicated introduction to the era of the "judges" in
Judges ii. 6 sqq., and ii. 6-9 actually resume Joshua xxiv. 28 sqq.,
while the Septuagint appends to the close of Joshua the beginning of
the story of Ehud (Judges iii. 12 seq.). Both Judges i.-ii. 5 and
chap. xvii.-xxi. are of post-Deuteronomic insertion, and they
represent conditions analogous to the older notices imbedded in the
later work of P (Judges i. 21, xix. 10-12, cf. Joshua xv. 63; see
JUDGES _ad fin._). Moreover, P in its turn shows elsewhere definite
indications of different periods and standpoints, and the fluid state
of the book at a late age is shown by the presence of Deuteronomic
elements in Joshua xx., not found in the Septuagint, and by the
numerous and often striking readings which the latter recension
presents.

_Value of the Book._--The value of the book of Joshua is primarily
religious; its fervency, its conviction of the destiny of Israel and its
inculcation of the unity and greatness of the God of Israel give
expression to the philosophy of Israelite historians. As an historical
record its value must depend upon a careful criticism of its contents in
the light of biblical history and external information. Its description
of the conquest of Canaan comes from an age when the event was a shadow
of the past. It is an ideal view of the manner in which a divinely
appointed leader guided a united people into the promised land of their
ancestors, and, after a few brief wars of extermination (x.-xii.), died
leaving the people in quiet possession of their new inheritance (xi. 23;
xxi. 44 seq.; xxiii. 1).[4] On the other hand, the earlier inhabitants
were not finally subjugated until Solomon's reign (1 Kings ix. 20);
Jerusalem was taken by David from the Jebusites (2 Sam. v.); and several
sites in its neighbourhood, together with important fortresses like
Gezer, Megiddo and Taanach, were not held by Israel at the first. There
are traces of other conflicting traditions representing independent
tribal efforts which were not successful, and the Israelites are even
said to live in the midst of Canaanites, intermarrying with them and
adopting their cult (Judges i.-iii. 6). From a careful consideration of
all the evidence, both internal and external, biblical scholars are now
almost unanimous that the more finished picture of the Israelite
invasion and settlement cannot be accepted as a historical record for
the age. It accords with this that the elaborate tribal-lists and
boundaries prove to be of greater value for the geography than for the
history of Palestine, and the attempts to use them as evidence for the
early history of Israel have involved numerous additional difficulties
and confusion.[5]

The book of Joshua has ascribed to one man conquests which are not
confirmed by subsequent history. The capture of Bethel, implied rather
than described in Joshua viii., is elsewhere the work of the Joseph
tribes (Judges i. 22 sqq., cf. features in the conquest of Jericho,
Joshua vi. 25). Joshua's victory in north Palestine has its parallel in
Judges iv. at another period (see DEBORAH), and Adoni-zedek of Jerusalem
(Joshua x.) can scarcely be severed from the Adoni-bezek taken by the
tribes of Judah and Simeon (Judges i. 5-7). The prominence of Joshua as
military and religious leader, and especially his connexion with Shechem
and Shiloh, have suggested that he was a hero of the Joseph tribes of
central Palestine (viz. Ephraim and Manasseh). Moreover, the traditions
in Joshua viii. 30-ix. 2, and Deut. xxvii. 1-8 seem to place the arrival
at Mt Ebal immediately after the crossing of the Jordan. This implies
that Israel (like Jacob in Gen. xxxii.) crossed by the Jabbok, and in
fact the Wadi Fari'a provides an easy road to Shechem, to the south-east
of which lies Juleijil; and while this is the Gilgal of Deut. xi. 30,
the battles at Jericho and Ai (Joshua ii. seq.) occur naturally after
the encampment at the southern Gilgal (near Jericho). The alternative
view (see especially Stade, _Gesch. Isr._ 1. 133 sqq.) connects itself
partly with the ancestor of all the tribes (Jacob, i.e. Israel), and
partly with the eponym of the Joseph tribes whose early days were spent
around Shechem, the removal of whose bones from Egypt must have found a
prominent place in the traditions of the tribes concerned (Gen. l. 25;
Exod. xiii. 19; Joshua xxiv. 32). According to one view (Stade,
Wellhausen, Guthe, &c.) only the Joseph tribes were in Egypt, and
separate tribal movements (see JUDAH) have been incorporated in the
growth of the tradition; the probability that the specific traditions of
the Joseph tribes have been excised or subordinated finds support in the
manner in which the Judaean P has abridged and confused the tribal lists
of Ephraim and Manasseh.

The serious character of the problems of early Israelite history can be
perceived from the renewed endeavours to present an adequate outline of
the course of events; for a criticism of the most prominent hypotheses
see Cheyne, _Ency. Bib._ art. "Tribes" (col. 5209 seq.); a new theory
has been more recently advanced by E. Meyer (_Die Israeliten u. ihre
Nachbarstämme_, 1906). But Joshua as a tribal hero does not belong to
the earliest phase in the surviving traditions. He has no place in the
oldest surviving narratives of the exodus (Wellhausen, Steuernagel); and
only later sources add him to Caleb (Num. xiv. 30; the reference in
Deut. i. 38 is part of an insertion), or regard him as the leader of all
the tribes (Deut. iii. 21, 28). As an attendant of Moses at the tent of
meeting he appears in quite secondary passages (Exod. xxxiii. 7-11; Num.
xi. 28). His defeat of the Amalekites is in a narrative (Exod. xvii.
8-16) which belongs more naturally to the wilderness of Shur, and it
associates him with traditions of a movement direct into south Palestine
which finds its counterpart when the clan Caleb (q.v.) is artificially
treated as possessing its seats with Joshua's permission. But points of
resemblance between Joshua the invader and Saul the founder of the
(north) Israelite monarchy gain in weight when the traditions of both
recognize the inclusion or possession of Judah, and thus stand upon
quite another plane as compared with those of David the founder of the
Judaean dynasty. Instead of rejecting the older stories of Joshua's
conquests it may be preferable to infer that there were radical
divergences in the historical views of the past. Consequently, the
parallels between Joshua and Jacob (see Steuernagel's _Commentary_, p.
150) are more significant when the occupation of central Palestine,
already implied in the book of Joshua, is viewed in the light of Gen.
xlviii. 22, where Jacob as conqueror (cf. the very late form of the
tradition in Jubilees xxxiv.) agrees with features in the patriarchal
narratives which, in implying a settlement in Palestine, are entirely
distinct from those which belong to the descent into Egypt (see
especially, Meyer, op. cit. pp. 227 seq., 414 seq., 433; Luther, ib. 108
seq.). The elaborate account of the exodus gives the prevailing views
which supersede other traditions of the origin both of the Israelites
and of the worship of Yahweh (Gen. iv. 26). Several motives have
influenced its growth,[6] and the kernel--the revelation of Yahweh to
Moses--has been developed until all the tribes of Israel are included
and their history as a people now begins. The old traditions of conquest
in central Palestine have similarly been extended, and have been adapted
to the now familiar view of Israelite origins. It is this subordination
of earlier tradition to other and more predominating representations
which probably explains the intricacy of a book whose present text may
not have been finally fixed until, as Dillmann held, as late as about
200 B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--See the commentaries of Dillmann, Steuernagel Holzinger
(German), or the concise edition by H. W. Robinson in the _Century
Bible_; also articles on "Joshua" by G. A. Smith, Hastings's _D. B._,
and G. F. Moore, _Ency. Bib._; Kittel in _Hist. of the Hebrews_, i.
262 sqq.; W. H. Bennett, in Haupt's _Sacred Books of the Old
Testament_; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, _Comp. of Hexateuch_, ch.
xvii; S. R. Driver, _Lit. of the O. T._ (8th ed., 1909). These give
further bibliographical information, for which see also the articles
on the books of the Pentateuch. (S. A. C.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Heb. _Jehoshua_; later _Jeshua_; Gr. [Greek: Iêsous], whence
"Jesus" in the A.V. of Heb. iv. 8; another form of the name is Hoshea
(Num. xiii. 8, 16). The name may mean "Yah(weh) is wealth, _or_ is
(our) war-cry, _or_ saves." The only extra-biblical notice of Joshua
is the inscription of more than doubtful genuineness given by
Procopius (_Vand._ ii. 20), and mentioned also by Moses of Chorene
(_Hist. Arm._ i. 18). It is said to have stood at Tingis in
Mauretania, and to have borne that those who erected it had fled
before [Greek: Iêsous ho lêstês]. For the medieval Samaritan Book of
Joshua, see T. Juynboll, _Chronicum Samaritanum_ (1846); J. A.
Montgomery, _The Samaritans_ (1907), pp. 301 sqq.

[2] Traces of composite material may be recognized--(a) where, in
place of boundaries, P has given lists of cities which appear to be
taken from other sources (cf. the instructions in xviii. 9), and (b)
in the double headings (see Addis, _The Hexateuch_, i. 230, note 1,
and the commentaries).

[3] The close relation between what may be called the Deuteronomic
history (Joshua-Kings) and its introduction (the legal book of
Deuteronomy) independently show the difficulty of supporting the
traditional date ascribed to the latter.

[4] G. F. Moore (_Ency. Bib._, col. 2608, note 2) draws attention to
the instructive parallel furnished by the Greek legends of the Dorian
invasion of the Peloponnesus (the "return" of the Heracleidae, the
partition of the land by lot, &c.).

[5] The historical problems are noticed in all biblical histories,
and in the commentaries on Joshua and Judges. Against the ordinary
critical view, see J. Orr, _Problem of the O.T._ (1905) pp. 240 seq.
This writer (on whom see A. S. Peake, _The Interpreter_, 1908, pp.
252 seq.) takes the book as a whole, allowance being made for "the
generalizing tendency peculiar to all summaries." His argument that
"the circumstantiality, local knowledge and evidently full
recollection of the narratives (in Joshua) give confidence in the
truth of their statements" is one which historical criticism in no
field would regard as conclusive, and his contention that a redactor
would hardly incorporate conflicting traditions in his narrative "if
he believed they contradicted it" begs the question and ignores
Oriental literature.

[6] E.g. the vicissitudes of Levitical families, other migrations
into Palestine, &c. The story of Joseph has probably been used as a
link (see Luther, _op. cit._ pp. 142 seq.).

JOSHUA THE STYLITE, the reputed author of a chronicle which narrates the
history of the war between the Greeks and Persians in 502-506, and which
is one of the earliest and best historical documents preserved to us in
Syriac. The work owes its preservation to having been incorporated in
the third part of the history of pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre, and may
probably have had a place in the second part of the _Ecclesiastical
History_ of John of Asia, from whom (as Nau has shown) pseudo-Dionysius
copied all or most of the matter contained in his third part. The
chronicle in question is anonymous, and Nau has shown that the note of a
copyist, which was thought to assign it to the monk Joshua of Zuknin
near Amid, more probably refers to the compiler of the whole work in
which it was incorporated. Anyhow the author was an eye-witness of many
of the events which he describes, and must have been living at Edessa
during the years when it suffered so severely from the Persian War. His
view of events is everywhere characterized by his belief in overruling
Providence; and as he eulogizes Flavian II., the Chalcedonian patriarch
of Antioch, in warmer terms than those in which he praises his great
Monophysite contemporaries, Jacob of Serugh and Philoxenus of Mabbog, he
was probably an orthodox Catholic.

The chronicle was first made known by Assemani's abridged Latin
version (_B. O._ i. 260-283) and was edited in 1876 by the abbé Martin
and (with an English translation) by W. Wright in 1882. After an
elaborate dedication to a friend--the "priest and abbot" Sergius--a
brief recapitulation of events from the death of Julian in 363 and a
fuller account of the reigns of the Persian kings Peroz (457-484) and
Balash (484-488), the writer enters upon his main theme--the history
of the disturbed relations between the Persian and Greek Empires from
the beginning of the reign of Kawad I. (489-531), which culminated in
the great war of 502-506. From October 494 to the conclusion of peace
near the end of 506, the author gives an annalistic account, with
careful specification of dates, of the main events in Mesopotamia, the
theatre of conflict--such as the siege and capture of Amid by the
Persians (502-503), their unsuccessful siege of Edessa (503), and the
abortive attempt of the Greeks to recover Amid (504-505). The work was
probably written a few years after the conclusion of the war. The
style is graphic and straightforward, and the author was evidently a
man of good education and of a simple, honest mind. (N. M.)

JOSIAH (Heb. _yo' shiyyahu_, perhaps "Yah[weh] supports"), in the Bible,
the grandson of Manasseh, and king of Judah. He came to the throne at
the age of eight, after the murder of his predecessor Amon. The
circumstances of his minority are not recorded, nor is anything related
of the Scythian inroads which occurred in the latter half of the 7th
century B.C., although some passages in the books of Jeremiah and
Zephaniah are supposed to refer to the events. The storm which shook the
external states was favourable to the peace of Judah; the Assyrian power
was practically broken, and that of the Chaldeans had scarcely developed
into an aggressive form. Samaria thus lay within the grasp of Josiah,
who may have entertained hopes of forming an independent power of his
own. Otherwise, it is not clear why we find him opposing himself to the
Egyptian king Necho, since the assumption that he fought as an Assyrian
vassal scarcely agrees with the profound reforming policy ascribed to
him. At all events, at the battle of Megiddo[1] he lost both his kingdom
and his life (608 B.C.), and for a few years Judah was in the hands of
Egypt (2 Kings xxiii. 29 seq.). The chronicler gives a rather different
account of the battle, and his allusion to the dirge uttered by Jeremiah
over his death (2 Chron. xxxv. 20-25; 1 Esd. i. 32) represents the
tradition which makes this prophet the author of the book of
Lamentations.

The reign of Josiah is important for the biblical account of the great
religious reforms which began in his eighteenth year, when he manifested
interest in the repair of the Temple at Jerusalem. In the course of this
work the high priest Hilkiah discovered a "law-book" which gave rise to
the liveliest concern. The reasons for believing that this roll was
substantially identical with the book of Deuteronomy were already
appreciated by Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret and others,[2] and a
careful examination shows that the character of the reformation which
followed agrees in all its essential features with the prescriptions and
exhortations of that book. (See DEUTERONOMY.) But the detailed records
in 2 Kings xxii. seq. are evidently written under the influence of the
reforms themselves, and are not contemporary (see KINGS, BOOK OF). They
are further expanded, to agree with still later ideals, in 2 Chron.
xxxiv. seq. The original roll was short enough to be read at least twice
in a day (xxii. 8, 10), and hence only some portions of Deuteronomy (or
of an allied production) may be intended. Although the character of the
reforms throws remarkable light upon the condition of religion in Judah
in the time of Josiah, it is to be observed that the writings of the
contemporary prophets (Jeremiah, Ezekiel) make it very questionable
whether the narratives are thoroughly trustworthy for the history of the
king's measures. (See further JEWS, § 16.) (S. A. C.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Or "Magdolos" (Herod, ii. 159), i.e. some "Migdal" (tower) of
Judaea, not the Migdol of Exod. xiv. 2; Jer. xliv. 1.

[2] See _Zeit. f. Alttest. Wissenschaft_ (1902), pp. 170 seq., 312
seq.; _Journ Bib. Lit._ (1903), p. 50.

JÓSIKA, MIKLOS [NICHOLAS], BARON (1794-1865), Hungarian novelist, was
born on the 28th of April 1794 at Torda in Transylvania, of aristocratic
and wealthy parents. After finishing the usual course of legal studies
at Kolozsvár (Klausenburg), he in 1811 entered the army, joining a
cavalry regiment, with which he subsequently took part in the Italian
campaign. On the battlefield of Mincio (February 8, 1814) he was
promoted to the grade of lieutenant. He served in the campaign against
Napoleon, and was present at the entry of the Allied Troops into Paris
(March 31, 1814). In 1818 Jósika resigned his commission, returned to
Hungary, and married his first wife Elizabeth Kallai. The union proving
an unhappy one, Jósika parted from his wife, settled on his estate at
Szurdok in Transylvania, and devoted himself to agricultural and
literary pursuits. Drawn into the sphere of politics, he took part in
the memorable Transylvanian diet of 1834. About this time Jósika first
began to attract attention as a writer of fiction. In 1836 his _Abafi_
laid the foundation of his literary reputation. This novel gives a vivid
picture of Transylvania in the time of Sigismund Bátori. Jósika was soon
afterwards elected member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and of
the Kisfaludy Society; of the latter he became, in 1841, director, and
in 1842 vice-president. In 1847 he appeared at the Transylvanian diet as
second deputy for the county of Szolnok, and zealously supported the
movement for the union of Transylvania with Hungary proper. In the same
year he was converted to Protestantism, was formally divorced from his
wife, and married Baroness Julia Podmaniczky, herself a writer of
considerable merit, with whom he lived happily until his death. So great
was Jósika's literary activity that by the time of the revolution (1848)
he had already produced about sixty volumes of romances and novels,
besides numerous contributions to periodicals. Both as magnate of the
upper house of the Hungarian diet and by his writings Jósika aided the
revolutionary movement, with which he was soon personally identified,
being chosen one of the members of the committee of national defence.
Consequently, after the capitulation at Világos (Aug. 13, 1849) he found
it necessary to flee the country, and settled first at Dresden and then,
in 1850, at Brussels, where he resumed his literary pursuits
anonymously. In 1864 he removed to Dresden, in which city he died on the
27th of February 1865. The romances of Jósika, written somewhat after
the style of Sir Walter Scott, are chiefly of an historical and
social-political character, his materials being drawn almost entirely
from the annals of his own country. Among his more important works may
be specially mentioned, besides _Abafi_--_The Poet Zrinyi_ (1843); _The
Last of the Bátoris_ (1837); _The Bohemians in Hungary_ (1839); _Esther_
(1853); _Francis Rákóczy II._ (1861); and _A Végváriak_, a tale of the
time of the Transylvanian prince Bethlen Gábor, 1864. Many of Jósika's
novels have been translated into German.

See K. Moenich and S. Vutkovich, _Magyar Irók Névtára_ (1876); M.
Jókai, "Jósika Miklós Emlékezete," _A Kisfaludy-Társaság Evlapjai, Új
folyam_, vol. iii. (1869); G. W. Steinacker, _Ungarische Lyriker_
(1874). Cf. also Jósika's autobiography--_Emlékirat_, vol. iv. (1865).

JOSIPPON, the name usually given to a popular chronicle of Jewish
history from Adam to the age of Titus, attributed to an author Josippon
or Joseph ben Gorion.[1] The name, though at one time identified with
that of the historian Josephus, is perhaps a corruption of Hegesippus,
from whom (according to Trieber) the author derived much of his
material. The chronicle was probably compiled in Hebrew early in the
10th century, by a Jewish native of south Italy. The first edition was
printed in Mantua in 1476. _Josippon_ subsequently appeared in many
forms, one of the most popular being in Yiddish (Judaeo-German), with
quaint illustrations. Though the chronicle is more legendary than
historical, it is not unlikely that some good and even ancient sources
were used by the first compiler, the _Josippon_ known to us having
passed through the hands of many interpolators. The book enjoyed much
vogue in England. Peter Morvyn in 1558 translated an abbreviated version
into English, and edition after edition was called for. Lucien Wolf has
shown that the English translations of the Bible aroused so much
interest in the Jews that there was a widespread desire to know more
about them. This led to the circulation of many editions of _Josippon_,
which thus formed a link in the chain of events which culminated in the
readmission of the Jews to England by Cromwell. (I. A.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] A prefect of Jerusalem of this name is mentioned by Josephus,
_Bell. Jud._ ii. 20.

JOSS, in the pidgin-English of the Chinese seaports, the name given to
idols and deities. It is used adjectivally in regard to many things
connected with religious rites, such as "joss-house," a temple;
"joss-stick," a stick which when burned gives forth a fragrant odour and
is used as incense; "joss-paper," paper cut to resemble money (and
sometimes with prayers written upon it) burned in funeral and other
ceremonies. "Joss" is not a Chinese word, and is probably a corruption
of Port. _deos_, god, applied by Portuguese navigators in the 16th
century to the idols worshipped in the East Indies. The Dutch form is
_joosge_ (diminutive of _joos_), whence the Javanese _dejos_, and the
English _yos_, later _joss_. The word seems to have been carried to
China by English seamen from Batavia.

JOST, ISAAK MARKUS (1793-1860), Jewish historical writer, was born on
the 22nd of February 1793 at Bernburg, and studied at the universities
of Göttingen and Berlin. In Berlin he began to teach, and in 1835
received the appointment of upper master in the Jewish commercial school
(called the Philanthropin) at Frankfort-on-the-Main. Here he remained
until his death, on the 22nd of November 1860. The work by which he is
chiefly known is _Geschichte der Israeliten seit der Zeit der
Maccabäer_, in 9 vols. (1820-1829), which was afterwards supplemented by
_Neuere Geschichte der Israeliten von 1815-1845_ (1846-1847), and
_Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Sekten_ (1857-1859). He also
published an abridgment under the title _Allgemeine Geschichte des
israelitischen Volkes_ (1831-1832), and an edition of the Mishna with a
German translation and notes (6 vols., 1832-1834). The _Israelitische
Annalen_ were edited by him from 1839 to 1841, and he contributed
extensively to periodicals.

See Zirndorf, _Isaak Markus Jost und seine Freunde_ (Cincinnati,
1886).

JOTUNHEIM, or JOTUN FJELDE, a mountainous region of southern Norway,
lying between Gudbrandsdal on the east and Jostedalsbrae and the head of
the Sogne fjord on the west. Within an area of about 950 sq. m. it
contains the highest mountain in the Scandinavian Peninsula--Galdhöpiggen
(8399 ft.)--and several others but little inferior. Such are Glittertind
or Glitretind (8380), and Memurutind (7966), which face Galdhöpiggen
across the northward-sloping Visdal; Knutshulstind (7812) and several
other peaks exceeding 7000 ft., to the south, between lakes Gjende and
Bygdin, and Skagastölstind (7723) in the west of the region, above the
Utladal, the chief summit of the magnificent Horunger. The upper parts of
the main valleys are of characteristic form, not ending in lofty
mountain-walls but comparatively low and level, and bearing lakes. The
name Jotunheim (giants' home) is a modern memorial of the
mountain-dwelling giants of Norse fable; the alternative name Jotun
Fjelde was the first bestowed on the region, when it was explored in 1820
by the geologist Balthasar Matthias Keilhau (1797-1858). In modern times
the region has attracted mountaineers and many visitors accustomed to
rough lodging and difficult travelling.

JOUBERT, BARTHÉLEMY CATHERINE (1769-1799), French general, the son of an
advocate, was born at Pont de Vaux (Ain) on the 14th of April 1769. In
1784 he ran away from school to enlist in the artillery, but was brought
back and sent to study law at Lyons and Dijon. In 1791 he joined the
volunteers of the Ain, and was elected by his comrades successively
corporal and sergeant. In January 1792 he became sub-lieutenant, and in
November lieutenant, having in the meantime made his first campaign with
the army of Italy. In 1793 he distinguished himself by the brilliant
defence of a redoubt at the Col di Tenda, with only thirty men against a
battalion of the enemy. Wounded and made prisoner in this affair,
Joubert was released on parole by the Austrian commander-in-chief,
Devins, soon afterwards. In 1794 he was again actively engaged, and in
1795 he rendered such conspicuous service as to be made general of
brigade. In the campaign of 1796 the young general commanded a brigade
under Augereau, and soon attracted the special attention of Bonaparte,
who caused him to be made a general of division in December, and
repeatedly selected him for the command of important detachments. Thus
he was in charge of the retaining force at the battle of Rivoli, and in
the campaign of 1799 (invasion of Austria) he commanded the detached
left wing of Bonaparte's army in Tirol, and fought his way through the
mountains to rejoin his chief in Styria. He subsequently held various
commands in Holland, on the Rhine and in Italy, where up to January 1799
he commanded in chief. Resigning the post in consequence of a dispute
with the civil authorities, Joubert returned to France and married
(June) Mlle de Montholon. But he was almost immediately summoned to the
field again. He took over the command in Italy from Moreau about the
middle of July, but he persuaded his predecessor to remain at the front
and was largely guided by his advice. The odds against the French troops
in the disastrous campaign of 1799 (see FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY WARS) were
too heavy. Joubert and Moreau were quickly compelled to give battle by
their great antagonist Suvorov. The battle of Novi was disastrous to the
French arms, not merely because it was a defeat, but above all because
Joubert himself was amongst the first to fall (Aug. 15, 1799). Joubert
died before it could be shown whether his genius was of the first rank,
but he was at any rate marked out as a future great captain by the
greatest captain of all ages, and his countrymen intuitively associated
him with Hoche and Marceau as a great leader whose early death
disappointed their highest hopes. After the battle his remains were
brought to Toulon and buried in Fort La Malgue, and the revolutionary
government paid tribute to his memory by a ceremony of public mourning
(Sept. 16). A monument to Joubert at Bourg was razed by order of Louis
XVIII., but another memorial was afterwards erected at Pont de Vaux.

See Guilbert, _Notice sur la vie de B. C. Joubert_; Chevrier, _Le
Général Joubert d'après sa correspondance_ (2nd ed. 1884).

JOUBERT, JOSEPH (1754-1824), French moralist, was born at Montignac
(Corrèze) on the 6th of May 1754. After completing his studies at
Toulouse he spent some years there as a teacher. His delicate health
proved unequal to the task, and after two years spent at home in study
Joubert went to Paris at the beginning of 1778. He allied himself with
the chiefs of the philosophic party, especially with Diderot, of whom he
was in some sort a disciple, but his closest friendship was with the
abbé de Fontanes. In 1790 he was recalled to his native place to act as
_juge de paix_, and carried out the duties of his office with great
fidelity. He had made the acquaintance of Mme de Beaumont in a
Burgundian cottage where she had taken refuge from the Terror, and it
was under her inspiration that Joubert's genius was at its best. The
atmosphere of serenity and affection with which she surrounded him
seemed necessary to the development of what Sainte-Beuve calls his
"esprit ailé, ami du ciel et des hauteurs." Her death in 1803 was a
great blow to him, and his literary activity, never great, declined from
that time. In 1809, at the solicitation of Joseph de Bonald, he was made
an inspector-general of education, and his professional duties
practically absorbed his interests during the rest of his life. He died
on the 3rd of May 1824. His manuscripts were entrusted by his widow to
Chateaubriand, who published a selection of _Pensées_ from them in 1838
for private circulation. A more complete edition was published by
Joubert's nephew, Paul de Raynal, under the title _Pensées, essais,
maximes et correspondance_ (2 vols. 1842). A selection of letters
addressed to Joubert was published in 1883. Joubert constantly strove
after perfection, and the small quantity of his work was partly due to
his desire to find adequate and luminous expression for his
discriminating criticism of literature and morals.

If Joubert's readers in England are not numerous, he is well known at
second hand through the sympathetic essay devoted to him in Matthew
Arnold's _Essays in Criticism_ (1st series). See Sainte-Beuve,
_Causeries du lundi_, vol. i.; _Portraits littéraires_, vol. ii.; and
a notice by Paul de Raynal, prefixed to the edition of 1842.

JOUBERT, PETRUS JACOBUS (1834-1900), commandant-general of the South
African Republic from 1880 to 1900, was born at Cango, in the district
of Oudtshoorn, Cape Colony, on the 20th of January 1834, a descendant of
a French Huguenot who fled to South Africa soon after the revocation of
the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV. Left an orphan at an early age,
Joubert migrated to the Transvaal, where he settled in the Wakkerstroom
district near Laing's Nek and the north-east angle of Natal. There he
not only farmed with great success, but turned his attention to the
study of the law. The esteem in which his shrewdness in both farming and
legal affairs was held led to his election to the Volksraad as member
for Wakkerstroom early in the sixties, Marthinus Pretorius being then in
his second term of office as president. In 1870 Joubert was again
elected, and the use to which he put his slender stock of legal
knowledge secured him the appointment of attorney-general of the
republic, while in 1875 he acted as president during the absence of T.
F. Burgers in Europe. During the first British annexation of the
Transvaal, Joubert earned for himself the reputation of a consistent
irreconcilable by refusing to hold office under the government, as Paul
Kruger and other prominent Boers were doing. Instead of accepting the
lucrative post offered him, he took a leading part in creating and
directing the agitation which led to the war of 1880-1881, eventually
becoming, as commandant-general of the Boer forces, a member of the
triumvirate that administered the provisional Boer government set up in
December 1880 at Heidelberg. He was in command of the Boer forces at
Laing's Nek, Ingogo, and Majuba Hill, subsequently conducting the
earlier peace negotiations that led to the conclusion of the Pretoria
Convention. In 1883 he was a candidate for the presidency of the
Transvaal, but received only 1171 votes as against 3431 cast for Kruger.
In 1893 he again opposed Kruger in the contest for the presidency,
standing as the representative of the comparatively progressive section
of the Boers, who wished in some measure to redress the grievances of
the Uitlander population which had grown up on the Rand. The poll
(though there is good reason for believing that the voting lists had
been manipulated by Kruger's agents) was declared to have resulted in
7911 votes being cast for Kruger and 7246 for Joubert. After a protest
Joubert acquiesced in Kruger's continued presidency. He stood again in
1898, but the Jameson raid had occurred meantime and the voting was
12,858 for Kruger and 2001 for Joubert. Joubert's position had then
become much weakened by accusations of treachery and of sympathy with
the Uitlander agitation. He took little part in the negotiations that
culminated in the ultimatum sent to Great Britain by Kruger in 1899, and
though he immediately assumed nominal command of the operations on the
outbreak of hostilities, he gave up to others the chief share in the
direction of the war, through his inability or neglect to impose upon
them his own will. His cautious nature, which had in early life gained
him the sobriquet of "Slim Piet," joined to a lack of determination and
assertiveness that characterized his whole career, led him to act mainly
on the defensive; and the strategically offensive movements of the Boer
forces, such as Elandslaagte and Willow Grange, appear to have been
neither planned nor executed by him. As the war went on, physical
weakness led to Joubert's virtual retirement, and, though two days
earlier he was still reported as being in supreme command, he died at
Pretoria from peritonitis on the 28th of March 1900. Sir George White,
the defender of Ladysmith, summed up Joubert's character when he called
him "a soldier and a gentleman, and a brave and honourable opponent."

JOUFFROY, JEAN (c. 1412-1473), French prelate and diplomatist, was born
at Luxeuil (Haute-Saône). After entering the Benedictine order and
teaching at the university of Paris from 1435 to 1438, he became almoner
to Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, who entrusted him with diplomatic
missions in France, Italy, Portugal and Castile. Jouffroy was appointed
abbot of Luxeuil (1451?) bishop of Arras (1453), and papal legate
(1459). At the French court his diplomatic duties brought him to the
notice of the dauphin (afterwards Louis XI.). Jouffroy entered Louis's
service, and obtained a cardinal's hat (1461), the bishopric of Albi
(1462), and the abbacy of St Denis (1464). On several occasions he was
sent to Rome to negotiate the abolition of the Pragmatic Sanction and to
defend the interests of the Angevins at Naples. Attached by King Louis
to the sieur de Beaujeu in the expedition against John V., count of
Armagnac, Jouffroy was accused of taking the town of Lectoure by
treachery, and of being a party to the murder of the count of Armagnac
(1473). He died at Reuilly the same year.

See C. Fierrille, _Le Cardinal Jean Jouffroy et son temps_ (1412-1473)
(Coutances, Paris, 1874).

JOUFFROY, THÉODORE SIMON (1706-1842), French philosopher, was born at
Pontets, near Mouthe, department of Doubs. In his tenth year, his
father, a tax-gatherer, sent him to an uncle at Pontarlier, under whom
he commenced his classical studies. At Dijon his compositions attracted
the attention of an inspector, who had him placed (1814) in the normal
school, Paris. He there came under the influence of Victor Cousin, and
in 1817 he was appointed assistant professor of philosophy at the normal
and Bourbon schools. Three years later, being thrown upon his own
resources, he began a course of lectures in his own house, and formed
literary connexions with _Le Courrier français_, _Le Globe_,
_L'Encyclopédie moderne_, and _La Revue européenne_. The variety of his
pursuits at this time carried him over the whole field of ancient and
modern literature. But he was chiefly attracted to the philosophical
system represented by Reid and Stewart. The application of "common
sense" to the problem of substance supplied a more satisfactory analytic
for him than the scepticism of Hume which reached him through a study of
Kant. He thus threw in his lot with the Scottish philosophy, and his
first dissertations are, in their leading position, adaptations from
Reid's _Inquiry_. In 1826 he wrote a preface to a translation of the
_Moral Philosophy_ of Stewart, demonstrating the possibility of a
scientific statement of the laws of consciousness; in 1828 he began a
translation of the works of Reid, and in his preface estimated the
influence of Scottish criticism upon philosophy, giving a biographical
account of the movement from Hutcheson onwards. Next year he was
returned to parlement by the _arrondissement_ of Pontarlier; but the
work of legislation was ill-suited to him. Yet he attended to his duties
conscientiously, and ultimately broke his health in their discharge. In
1833 he was appointed professor of Greek and Roman philosophy at the
college of France and a member of the Academy of Sciences; he then
published the _Mélanges philosophiques_ (4th ed. 1866; Eng. trans. G.
Ripley, Boston, 1835 and 1838), a collection of fugitive papers in
criticism and philosophy and history. In them is foreshadowed all that
he afterwards worked out in metaphysics, psychology, ethics and
aesthetics. He had already demonstrated in his prefaces the possibility
of a psychology apart from physiology, of the science of the phenomena
of consciousness distinct from the perceptions of sense. He now
classified the mental faculties, premising that they must not be
confounded with capacities or properties of mind. They were, according
to his analysis, personal will, primitive instincts, voluntary movement,
natural and artificial signs, sensibility and the faculties of
intellect; on this analytic he founded his scheme of the universe. In
1835 he published a _Cours de droit naturel_ (4th ed. 1866), which, for
precision of statement and logical coherence, is the most important of
his works. From the conception of a universal order in the universe he
reasons to a Supreme Being, who has created it and who has conferred
upon every man in harmony with it the aim of his existence, leading to
his highest good. Good, he says, is the fulfilment of man's destiny,
evil the thwarting of it. Every man being organized in a particular way
has, of necessity, an aim, the fulfilment of which is good; and he has
faculties for accomplishing it, directed by reason. The aim is good,
however, only when reason guides it for the benefit of the majority, but
that is not absolute good. When reason rises to the conception of
universal order, when actions are submitted, by the exercise of a
sympathy working necessarily and intuitively to the idea of the
universal order, the good has been reached, the true good, good in
itself, absolute good. But he does not follow his idea into the details
of human duty, though he passes in review fatalism, mysticism,
pantheism, scepticism, egotism, sentimentalism and rationalism. In 1835
Jouffroy's health failed and he went to Italy, where he continued to
translate the Scottish philosophers. On his return he became librarian
to the university, and took the chair of recent philosophy at the
faculty of letters. He died in Paris on the 4th of February 1842. After
his death were published _Nouveaux mélanges philosophiques_ (3rd ed.
1872) and _Cours d'esthétique_ (3rd ed. 1875). The former contributed
nothing new to the system except a more emphatic statement of the
distinction between psychology and physiology. The latter formulated his
theory of beauty.

Jouffroy's claim to distinction rests upon his ability as an expositor
of other men's ideas. He founded no system; he contributed nothing of
importance to philosophical science; he initiated nothing which has
survived him. But his enthusiasm for mental science, and his command
over the language of popular exposition, made him a great international
medium for the transfusion of ideas. He stood between Scotland and
France and Germany and France; and, though his expositions are vitiated
by loose reading of the philosophers he interpreted, he did serviceable,
even memorable work.

See L. Lévy Bruhl, _History of Modern Philos. in France_ (1899), pp.
349-357; C. J. Tissot, _Th. Jouffroy: sa vie et ses écrits_ (1876); J.
P. Damiron, _Essai sur l'histoire de la philos. en France au xix^e
siècle_ (1846).

JOUGS, JUGGS, or JOGGS (O. Fr. _joug_, from Lat. _jugum_, a yoke), an
instrument of punishment formerly in use in Scotland, Holland and
possibly other countries. It was an iron collar fastened by a short
chain to a wall, often of the parish church, or to a tree. The collar
was placed round the offender's neck and fastened by a padlock. The
jougs was practically a pillory. It was used for ecclesiastical as well
as civil offences. Examples may still be seen in Scotland.

JOULE, JAMES PRESCOTT (1818-1889), English physicist, was born on the
24th of December 1818, at Salford, near Manchester. Although he received
some instruction from John Dalton in chemistry, most of his scientific
knowledge was self-taught, and this was especially the case with regard
to electricity and electro-magnetism, the subjects in which his earliest
researches were carried out. From the first he appreciated the
importance of accurate measurement, and all through his life the
attainment of exact quantitative data was one of his chief
considerations. At the age of nineteen he invented an electro-magnetic
engine, and in the course of examining its performance dissatisfaction
with vague and arbitrary methods of specifying electrical quantities
caused him to adopt a convenient and scientific unit, which he took to
be the amount of electricity required to decompose nine grains of water
in one hour. In 1840 he was thus enabled to give a quantitative
statement of the law according to which heat is produced in a conductor
by the passage of an electric current, and in succeeding years he
published a series of valuable researches on the agency of electricity
in transformations of energy. One of these contained the first
intimation of the achievement with which his name is most widely
associated, for it was in a paper read before the British Association at
Cork in 1843, and entitled "The Calorific Effects of Magneto-electricity
and the Mechanical Value of Heat," that he expressed the conviction that
whenever mechanical force is expended an exact equivalent of heat is
always obtained. By rotating a small electro-magnet in water, between
the poles of another magnet, and then measuring the heat developed in
the water and other parts of the machine, the current induced in the
coils, and the energy required to maintain rotation, he calculated that
the quantity of heat capable of warming one pound of water one degree F.
was equivalent to the mechanical force which could raise 838 lb. through
the distance of one foot. At the same time he brought forward another
determination based on the heating effects observable when water is
forced through capillary tubes; the number obtained in this way was 770.
A third method, depending on the observation of the heat evolved by the
mechanical compression of air, was employed a year or two later, and
yielded the number 798; and a fourth--the well-known frictional one of
stirring water with a sort of paddle-wheel--yielded the result 890 (see
_Brit. Assoc. Report_, 1845), though 781.5 was obtained by subsequent
repetitions of the experiment. In 1849 he presented to the Royal
Society a memoir which, together with a history of the subject,
contained details of a long series of determinations, the result of
which was 772. A good many years later he was entrusted by the committee
of the British Association on standards of electric resistance with the
task of deducing the mechanical equivalent of heat from the thermal
effects of electric currents. This inquiry yielded (in 1867) the result
783, and this Joule himself was inclined to regard as more accurate than
his old determination by the frictional method; the latter, however, was
repeated with every precaution, and again indicated 772.55 foot-pounds
as the quantity of work that must be expended at sea-level in the
latitude of Greenwich in order to raise the temperature of one pound of
water, weighed _in vacuo_, from 60° to 61° F. Ultimately the discrepancy
was traced to an error which, not by Joule's fault, vitiated the
determination by the electrical method, for it was found that the
standard ohm, as actually defined by the British Association committee
and as used by him, was slightly smaller than was intended; when the
necessary corrections were made the results of the two methods were
almost precisely congruent, and thus the figure 772.55 was vindicated.
In addition, numerous other researches stand to Joule's credit--the work
done in compressing gases and the thermal changes they undergo when
forced under pressure through small apertures (with Lord Kelvin), the
change of volume on solution, the change of temperature produced by the
longitudinal extension and compression of solids, &c. It was during the
experiments involved by the first of these inquiries that Joule was
incidentally led to appreciate the value of surface condensation in
increasing the efficiency of the steam engine. A new form of condenser
was tested on the small engine employed, and the results it yielded
formed the starting-point of a series of investigations which were aided
by a special grant from the Royal Society, and were described in an
elaborate memoir presented to it on the 13th of December 1860. His
results, according to Kelvin, led directly and speedily to the present
practical method of surface-condensation, one of the most important
improvements of the steam engine, especially for marine use, since the
days of James Watt. Joule died at Sale on the 11th of October 1889.

His scientific papers were collected and published by the Physical
Society of London: the first volume, which appeared in 1884, contained
the researches for which he was alone responsible, and the second,
dated 1887, those which he carried out in association with other
workers.

JOURDAN, JEAN BAPTISTE, COUNT (1762-1833), marshal of France, was born
at Limoges on the 29th of April 1762, and in his boyhood was apprenticed
to a silk merchant of Lyons. In 1776 he enlisted in a French regiment to
serve in the American War of Independence, and after being invalided in
1784 he married and set up in business at Limoges. At the outbreak of
the revolutionary wars he volunteered, and as a subaltern took part in
the first campaigns in the north of France. His rise was even more rapid
than that of Hoche and Marceau. By 1793 he had become a general of
division, and was selected by Carnot to succeed Houchard as
commander-in-chief of the Army of the North; and on the 15th-16th of
October 1793 he won the brilliant and important victory of Wattignies
(see FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY WARS). Soon afterwards he became a "suspect,"
the moderation of his political opinions and his misgivings as to the
future conduct of the war being equally distasteful to the truculent and
enthusiastic Committee of Public Safety. Warned in time by his friend
Carnot and by Barère, he avoided arrest and resumed his business as a
silk-mercer in Limoges. He was soon reinstated, and early in 1794 was
appointed commander-in-chief of the Army of Sambre-et-Meuse. After
repeated attempts to force the passage of the Sambre had failed and
several severe general actions had been fought without result, Jourdan
and his army were discouraged, but Carnot and the civil commissioners
urged the general, even with threats, to a last effort, and this time he
was successful not only in crossing the Sambre but in winning a
brilliant victory at Fleurus (June 26, 1794), the consequence of which
was the extension of the French sphere of influence to the Rhine, on
which river he waged an indecisive campaign in 1795.

In 1796 his army formed the left wing of the advance into Bavaria. The
whole of the French forces were ordered to advance on Vienna, Jourdan on
the extreme left and Moreau in the centre by the Danube valley,
Bonaparte on the right by Italy and Styria. The campaign began
brilliantly, the Austrians under the Archduke Charles being driven back
by Moreau and Jourdan almost to the Austrian frontier. But the archduke,
slipping away from Moreau, threw his whole weight on Jourdan, who was
defeated at Amberg and Würzburg, and forced over the Rhine after a
severe rearguard action, which cost the life of Marceau. Moreau had to
fall back in turn, and, apart from Bonaparte's marvellous campaign in
Italy, the operations of the year were disastrous. The chief cause of
failure was the vicious plan of campaign imposed upon the generals by
their government. Jourdan was nevertheless made the scapegoat of the
government's mistakes and was not employed for two years. In those years
he became prominent as a politician and above all as the framer of the
famous conscription law of 1798. When the war was renewed in 1799
Jourdan was placed at the head of the army on the Rhine, but again
underwent defeat at the hands of the archduke Charles at Stockach (March
25), and, disappointed and broken in health, handed over the command to
Masséna. He at once resumed his political duties, and was a prominent
opponent of the _coup d'état_ of 18 Brumaire, after which he was
expelled from the Council of the Five Hundred. Soon, however, he became
formally reconciled to the new régime, and accepted from Napoleon fresh
military and civil employment. In 1800 he became inspector-general of
cavalry and infantry and representative of French interests in the
Cisalpine Republic, and in 1804 he was made a marshal of France. He
remained in the new kingdom of Italy until 1806, when Joseph Bonaparte,
whom his brother made king of Naples in that year, selected Jourdan as
his military adviser. He followed Joseph into Spain in the same capacity
in 1808. But Joseph's throne had to be maintained by the French army,
and throughout the Peninsular War the other marshals, who depended
directly upon Napoleon, paid little heed either to Joseph or to Jourdan.
After the battle of Vitoria he held no important command up to the fall
of the Empire. Jourdan gave in his adhesion to the restoration
government of 1814, and though he rejoined Napoleon in the Hundred Days
and commanded a minor army, he submitted to the Bourbons again after
Waterloo. He refused, however, to be a member of the court which tried
Marshal Ney. He was made a count, a peer of France (1819), and governor
of Grenoble (1816). In politics he was a prominent opponent of the
royalist reactionaries and supported the revolution of 1830. After this
event he held the portfolio of foreign affairs for a few days, and then
became governor of the Invalides, where his last years were spent.
Marshal Jourdan died on the 23rd of November 1833, and was buried in the
Invalides.

He wrote _Opérations de l'armée du Danube_ (1799); _Mémoires pour
servir à l'histoire sur la campagne de 1796_ (1819); and unpublished
personal memoirs.

JOURNAL (through Fr. from late Lat. _diurnalis_, daily), a daily record
of events or business. A private journal is usually an elaborated diary.
When applied to a newspaper or other periodical the word is strictly
used of one published each day; but any publication issued at stated
intervals, such as a magazine or the record of the transactions of a
learned society, is commonly called a journal. The word "journalist" for
one whose business is writing for the public press (see NEWSPAPERS)
seems to be as old as the end of the 17th century.

"Journal" is particularly applied to the record, day by day, of the
business and proceedings of a public body. The journals of the British
houses of parliament contain an official record of the business
transacted day by day in either house. The record does not take note of
speeches, though some of the earlier volumes contain references to them.
The journals are a lengthened account written from the "votes and
proceedings" (in the House of Lords called "minutes of the
proceedings"), made day by day by the assistant clerks, and printed on
the responsibility of the clerk to the house, after submission to the
"subcommittee on the journals." In the Commons the journal is passed by
the Speaker before publication. The journals of the House of Commons
begin in the first year of the reign of Edward VI. (1547), and are
complete, except for a short interval under Elizabeth. Those of the
House of Lords date from the first year of Henry VIII. (1509). Before
that date the proceedings in parliament were entered in the rolls of
parliament, which extend from 1278 to 1503. The journals of the Lords
are "records" in the judicial sense, those of the Commons are not (see
Erskine May, _Parliamentary Practice_, 1906, pp. 201-202).

The term "journal" is used, in business, for a book in which an account
of transactions is kept previous to a transfer to the ledger (see
BOOK-KEEPING), and also as an equivalent to a ship's log, as a record of
the daily run, observations, weather changes, &c. In mining, a journal
is a record describing the various strata passed through in sinking a
shaft. A particular use of the word is that, in machinery, for the parts
of a shaft which are in contact with the bearings; the origin of this
meaning, which is firmly established, has not been explained.

JOURNEY (through O. Fr. _jornee_ or _journee_, mod. Fr. _journée_, from
med. Lat. _diurnata_, Lat. _diurnus_, of or belonging to _dies_, day),
properly that which occupies a day in its performance, and so a day's
work, particularly a day's travel, and the distance covered by such,
usually reckoned in the middle ages as twenty miles. The word is now
used of travel covering a certain amount of distance or lasting a
certain amount of time, frequently defined by qualifying words.
"Journey" is usually applied to travel by land, as opposed to "voyage,"
travel by sea. The early use of "journey" for a day's work, or the
amount produced by a day's work, is still found in glassmaking, and also
at the British Mint, where a "journey" is taken as equivalent to the
coinage of 15 lb. of standard gold, 701 sovereigns, and of 60 lb. of
silver. The term "journeyman" also preserves the original significance
of the word. It distinguishes a qualified workman or mechanic from an
"apprentice" on the one hand and a "master" on the other, and is applied
to one who is employed by another person to work at his trade or
occupation at a day's wage.

JOUVENET, JEAN (1647-1717), French painter, born at Rouen, came of a
family of artists, one of whom had taught Poussin. He early showed
remarkable aptitude for his profession, and, on arriving in Paris,
attracted the attention of Le Brun, by whom he was employed at
Versailles, and under whose auspices, in 1675, he became a member of the
Académie Royale, of which he was elected professor in 1681, and one of
the four perpetual rectors in 1707. The great mass of works that he
executed, chiefly in Paris, many of which, including his celebrated
Miraculous Draught of Fishes (engraved by Audran; also Landon,
_Annales_, i. 42), are now in the Louvre, show his fertility in
invention and execution, and also that he possessed in a high degree
that general dignity of arrangement and style which distinguished the
school of Le Brun. Jouvenet died on the 5th of April 1717, having been
forced by paralysis during the last four years of his life to work with
his left hand.

See _Mém. inéd. acad. roy. de p. et de sc._, 1854, and D'Argenville,
_Vies des peintres_.

JOUY, VICTOR JOSEPH ÉTIENNE DE (1764-1846), French dramatist, was born
at Jouy, near Versailles, on the 12th of September 1764. At the age of
eighteen he received a commission in the army, and sailed for South
America in the company of the governor of Guiana. He returned almost
immediately to France to complete his studies, and re-entered the
service two years later. He was sent to India, where he met with many
romantic adventures which were afterwards turned to literary account. On
the outbreak of the Revolution he returned to France and served with
distinction in the early campaigns, attaining the rank of
adjutant-general. He drew suspicion on himself, however, by refusing to
honour the toast of Marat, and had to fly for his life. At the fall of
the Terror he resumed his commission but again fell under suspicion,
being accused of treasonable correspondence with the English envoy,
James Harris, 1st earl of Malmesbury who had been sent to France to
negotiate terms of peace. He was acquitted of this charge, but, weary of
repeated attacks, resigned his position on the pretext of his numerous
wounds. Jouy now turned his attention to literature, and produced in
1807 with immense success his opera _La vestale_ (music by Spontini).
The piece ran for a hundred nights, and was characterized by the
Institute of France as the best lyric drama of the day. Other operas
followed, but none obtained so great a success. He published in the
_Gazette de France_ a series of satirical sketches of Parisian life,
collected under the title of _L'Ermite de la Chaussée d'Antin, ou
observations sur les moeurs et les usages français au commencement du
xix^e siècle_ (1812-1814, 5 vols.), which was warmly received. In 1821
his tragedy of _Sylla_ gained a triumph due in part to the genius of
Talma, who had studied the title-rôle from Napoleon. Under the
Restoration Jouy consistently fought for the cause of freedom, and if
his work was overrated by his contemporaries, they were probably
influenced by their respect for the author himself. He died in rooms set
apart for his use in the palace of St Germain-en-Laye on the 4th of
September 1846.

Out of the long list of his operas, tragedies and miscellaneous
writings may be mentioned, _Fernand Cortez_ (1809), opera, in
collaboration with J. E. Esménard, music by Spontini; _Tippo Saïb_,
tragedy (1813); _Bélisaire_, tragedy (1818); _Les Hermites en prison_
(1823), written in collaboration with Antoine Jay, like himself a
political prisoner; _Guillaume Tell_ (1829), with Hippolyte Bis, for
the music of Rossini. Jouy was also one of the founders of the
_Biographie nouvelle des contemporains_.

JOVELLANOS (or JOVE LLANOS), GASPAR MELCHOR DE (1744-1811), Spanish
statesman and author, was born at Gijon in Asturias, Spain, on the 5th
of January 1744. Selecting law as his profession, he studied at Oviedo,
Avila, and Alcalá, and in 1767 became criminal judge at Seville. His
integrity and ability were rewarded in 1778 by a judgeship in Madrid,
and in 1780 by appointment to the council of military orders. In the
capital Jovellanos took a good place in the literary and scientific
societies; for the society of friends of the country he wrote in 1787
his most valuable work, _Informe sobre un proyecto de ley agraria_.
Involved in the disgrace of his friend, François Cabarrus, Jovellanos
spent the years 1790 to 1797 in a sort of banishment at Gijon, engaged
in literary work and in founding the Asturian institution for
agricultural, industrial, social and educational reform throughout his
native province. This institution continued his darling project up to
the latest hours of his life. Summoned again to public life in 1797,
Jovellanos refused the post of ambassador to Russia, but accepted that
of minister of grace and justice, under "the prince of the peace," whose
attention had been directed to him by Cabarrus, then a favourite of
Godoy. Displeased with Godoy's policy and conduct Jovellanos combined
with his colleague Saavedra to procure his dismissal. Godoy returned to
power in 1798; Jovellanos was again sent to Gijon, but in 1801 was
thrown into prison in Majorca. The revolution of 1808, and the advance
of the French into Spain, set him once more at liberty. Joseph
Bonaparte, on mounting the Spanish throne, made Jovellanos the most
brilliant offers; but the latter, sternly refusing them all, joined the
patriotic party, became a member of the central junta, and contributed
to reorganize the cortes. This accomplished, the junta at once fell
under suspicion, and Jovellanos was involved in its fall. To expose the
conduct of the cortes, and to defend the junta and himself were the last
labours of his pen. In 1811 he was enthusiastically welcomed to Gijon;
but the approach of the French drove him forth again. The vessel in
which he sailed was compelled by stress of weather to put in at Vega in
Asturias, and there he died on the 27th of November 1811.

The poetical works of Jovellanos comprise a tragedy _El pelayo_, the
comedy _El delincuente honrado_, satires, and miscellaneous pieces,
including a translation of the first book of _Paradise Lost_. His
prose works, especially those on political and legislative economy,
constitute his real title to literary fame. In them depth of thought
and clear-sighted sagacity are couched in a certain Ciceronian
elegance and classical purity of style. Besides the _Ley agraria_ he
wrote _Elogios_; various political and other essays; and _Memorias
politicas_ (1801), suppressed in Spain, and translated into French,
1825. An edition of his complete works was published at Madrid
(1831-1832) in 7 vols., and another at Barcelona (1839).

See _Noticias historicas de Don G. M. de Jovellanos_ (1812), and
_Memorias para la vida del Señor ... Jovellanos_, by J. A. C. Bermudez
(1814).

JOVELLAR Y SOLER, JOAQUIN (1819-1892), captain-general of Spain, was
born at Palma de Mallorca, on the 28th of December 1819. At the close of
his studies at the military academy he was appointed sub-lieutenant,
went to Cuba as captain in 1842, returned to the War Office in 1851, was
promoted major in 1853, and went to Morocco as private secretary to
Marshal O'Donnell, who made him colonel in 1860 after Jovellar had been
wounded at the battle of Wad el Ras. In 1863 Jovellar became a
brigadier-general, in 1864 under-secretary for war; he was severely
wounded in fighting the insurgents in the streets of Madrid, and rose to
the rank of general of division in 1866. Jovellar adhered to the
revolution, and King Amadeus made him a lieutenant-general in 1872. He
absented himself from Spain when the federal republic was proclaimed,
and returned in the autumn of 1873, when Castelár sent him to Cuba as
governor-general. In 1874 Jovellar came back to the Peninsula, and was
in command of the Army of the Centre against the Carlists when Marshal
Campos went to Sagunto to proclaim Alfonso XII. General Jovellar became
war minister in the first cabinet of the restoration under Canovas, who
sent him to Cuba again as governor-general, where he remained until the
18th of June 1878, when the ten years' insurrection closed with the
peace of Zaujon. Alfonso XII. made him a captain-general, president of
the council, life-senator, and governor-general of the Philippines.
Jovellar died in Madrid on the 17th of April 1892.

JOVIAN (FLAVIUS JOVIANUS) (c. 332-364), Roman emperor from June 363 to
February 364, was born at Singidunum in Moesia about 332. As captain of
the imperial bodyguard he accompanied Julian in his Persian expedition;
and on the day after that emperor's death, when the aged Sallust,
prefect of the East, declined the purple, the choice of the army fell
upon Jovian. His election caused considerable surprise, and it is
suggested by Ammianus Marcellinus that he was wrongly identified with
another Jovian, chief notary, whose name also had been put forward, or
that, during the acclamations, the soldiers mistook the name Jovianus
for Julianus, and imagined that the latter had recovered from his
illness. Jovian at once continued the retreat begun by Julian, and,
continually harassed by the Persians, succeeded in reaching the banks of
the Tigris, where a humiliating treaty was concluded with the Persian
king, Shapur II. (q.v.). Five provinces which had been conquered by
Galerius in 298 were surrendered, together with Nisibis and other
cities. The Romans also gave up all their interests in the kingdom of
Armenia, and abandoned its Christian prince Arsaces to the Persians.
During his return to Constantinople Jovian was found dead in his bed at
Dadastana, halfway between Ancyra and Nicaea. A surfeit of mushrooms or
the fumes of a charcoal fire have been assigned as the cause of death.
Under Jovian, Christianity was established as the state religion, and
the Labarum of Constantine again became the standard of the army. The
statement that he issued an edict of toleration, to the effect that,
while the exercise of magical rites would be severely punished, his
subjects should enjoy full liberty of conscience, rests on insufficient
evidence. Jovian entertained a great regard for Athanasius, whom he
reinstated on the archiepiscopal throne, desiring him to draw up a
statement of the Catholic faith. In Syriac literature Jovian became the
hero of a Christian romance (G. Hoffmann, _Julianus der Abtrünnige_,
1880).

See Ammianus Marcellinus, xxv. 5-10; J. P. de la Bléterie, _Histoire
de Jovien_ (1740); Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, chs. xxiv., xxv.; J.
Wordsworth in Smith and Wace's _Dictionary of Christian Biography_; H.
Schiller, _Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit_, vol. ii. (1887); A.
de Broglie, _L'Église et l'empire romain au iv^e siècle_ (4th ed.
1882). For the relations of Rome and Persia see PERSIA: _Ancient
History_.

JOVINIANUS, or JOVIANUS, a Roman monk of heterodox views, who flourished
during the latter half of the 4th century. All our knowledge of him is
derived from a passionately hostile polemic of Jerome (_Adv. Jovinianum,
Libri II._), written at Bethlehem in 393, and without any personal
acquaintance with the man assailed. According to this authority Jovinian
in 388 was living at Rome the celibate life of an ascetic monk,
possessed a good acquaintance with the Bible, and was the author of
several minor works, but, undergoing an heretical change of view,
afterwards became a self-indulgent Epicurean and unrefined sensualist.
The views which excited this denunciation were mainly these: (1)
Jovinian held that in point of merit, so far as their domestic state was
concerned, virgins, widows and married persons who had been baptized
into Christ were on a precisely equal footing; (2) those who with full
faith have been regenerated in baptism cannot be overthrown (or,
according to another reading, tempted) of the devil; (3) to abstain from
meats is not more praiseworthy than thankfully to enjoy them; (4) all
who have preserved their baptismal grace shall receive the same reward
in the kingdom of heaven.[1] Jovinian thus indicates a natural and
vigorous reaction against the exaggerated asceticism of the 4th century,
a protest shared by Helvidius and Vigilantius. He was condemned by a
Roman synod under Bishop Siricius in 390, and afterwards excommunicated
by another at Milan under the presidency of Ambrose. The year of his
death is unknown, but he is referred to as no longer alive in Jerome's
_Contra Vigilantium_ (406).

FOOTNOTE:

[1] See, more fully, Harnack, _Hist. of Dogma_, v. 57.

JOVIUS, PAULUS, or PAOLO GIOVIO (1483-1552), Italian historian and
biographer, was born of an ancient and noble family at Como on the 19th
of April 1483. His father died when he was a child, and Giovio owed his
education to his brother Benedetto. After studying the humanities, he
applied himself to medicine and philosophy at his brother's request. He
was Pomponazzi's pupil at Padua; and afterwards he took a medical degree
in the university of Pavia. He exercised the medical profession in Rome,
but the attraction of literature proved irresistible for Giovio, and he
was bent upon becoming the historian of his age. He presented a portion
of his history to Leo X., who read the MS., and pronounced it superior
in elegance to anything since Livy. Thus encouraged, Giovio took up his
residence in Rome, and attached himself to Cardinal Giulio de' Medici,
the pope's nephew. The next pope, Adrian VI., gave him a canonry in
Como, on the condition, it is said, that Giovio should mention him with
honour in his history. This patronage from a pontiff who was averse from
the current tone of Italian humanism proves that Giovio at this period
passed for a man of sound learning and sober manners. After Adrian's
death, Giulio de' Medici became pope as Clement VII. and assigned him
chambers in the Vatican, with maintenance for servants befitting a
courtier of rank. In addition to other benefices, he finally, in 1528,
bestowed on him the bishopric of Nocera. Giovio had now become in a
special sense dependent on the Medici. He was employed by that family on
several missions--as when he accompanied Ippolito to Bologna on the
occasion of Charles V.'s coronation, and Caterina to Marseilles before
her marriage to the duke of Orleans. During the siege of Rome in 1527 he
attended Clement in his flight from the Vatican. While crossing the
bridge which connected the palace with the castle of S. Angelo, Giovio
threw his mantle over the pope's shoulders in order to disguise his
master.

In the sack he suffered a serious pecuniary and literary loss, if we
may credit his own statement. The story runs that he deposited the MS.
of his history, together with some silver, in a box at S. Maria Sopra
Minerva for safety. This box was discovered by two Spaniards, one of
whom secured the silver, while the other, named Herrera, knowing who
Giovio was, preferred to hold the MSS. for ransom. Herrera was so
careless, however, as to throw away the sheets he found in paper,
reserving only that portion of the work which was transcribed on
parchment. This he subsequently sold to Giovo in exchange for a
benifice at Cordova, which Clement VII. conceded to the Spaniard. Six
books of the history were lost in this transaction. Giovo contented
himself with indicating their substance in a summary. Perhaps he was
not unwilling that his work should resemble that of Livy, even in its
imperfection. But doubt rests upon the whole of this story. Apostolo
Zeno affirms that in the middle of the last century three of the
missing books turned up among family papers in the possession of Count
Giov. Batt. Giovio, who wrote a panegyric on his ancestor. It is
therefore not improbable that Giovio possessed his history intact, but
preferred to withhold from publication those portions which might have
involved him in difficulties with living persons of importance. The
omissions were afterwards made good by Curtio Marinello in the Italian
edition, published at Venice in 1581. But whether Marinello was the
author of these additions is not known.

After Clement's death Giovio found himself out of favour with the next
pope, Paul III. The failure of his career is usually ascribed to the
irregularity of the life he led in the literary society of Rome. We may
also remember that Paul had special causes for animosity against the
Medici, whose servant Giovio had been. Despairing of a cardinal's hat,
Giovio retired to his villa on the lake of Como, where he spent the
wealth he had acquired from donations and benefices in adorning his
villa with curiosities, antiquities and pictures, including a very
important collection of portraits of famous soldiers and men of letters,
now almost entirely dispersed. He died upon a visit to Florence in 1552.

Giovio's principal work was the _History of His Own Times_, from the
invasion of Charles VIII. to the year 1547. It was divided into two
parts, containing altogether forty-five books. Of these, books v.-xi.
of part i. were said by him to have been lost in the sack of Rome,
while books xix.-xxiv. of part ii., which should have embraced the
period from the death of Leo to the sack, were never written. Giovio
supplied the want of the latter six books by his lives of Leo, Adrian,
Alphonso I. of Ferrara, and several other personages of importance.
But he alleged that the history of that period was too painful to be
written in full. His first published work, printed in 1524 at Rome,
was a treatise _De piscibus romanis_. After his retirement to Como he
produced a valuable series of biographies, entitled _Elogia virorum
illustrium_. They commemorate men distinguished for letters and arms,
selected from all periods, and are said to have been written in
illustration of portraits collected by him for the museum of his villa
at Como. Besides these books, we may mention a biographical history of
the Visconti, lords of Milan; an essay on mottoes and badges; a
dissertation on the state of Turkey; a large collection of familiar
epistles; together with descriptions of Britain, Muscovy, the Lake of
Como and Giovio's own villa. The titles of these miscellanies will be
found in the bibliographical note appended to this article.

Giovio preferred Latin in the composition of his more important works.
Though contemporary with Machiavelli, Guicciardini and Varchi, he
adhered to humanistic usages, and cared more for the Latinity than for
the matter of his histories. His style is fluent and sonorous rather
than pointed or grave. Partly owing to the rhetorical defects inherent
in this choice of Latin, when Italian had gained the day, but more to
his own untrustworthy and shallow character, Giovio takes a lower rank
as historian than the bulk and prestige of his writings would seem to
warrant. He professed himself a flatterer and a lampooner, writing
fulsome eulogies on the princes who paid him well, while he ignored or
criticized those who proved less generous. The old story that he said he
kept a golden and an iron pen, to use according as people paid him,
condenses the truth in epigram. His private morals were of a dubious
character, and as a writer he had the faults of the elder humanists, in
combination with that literary cynicism which reached its height in
Aretino; and therefore his histories and biographical essays are not to
be used as authorities, without corroboration. Yet Giovio's works, taken
in their entirety and with proper reservation, have real value. To the
student of Italy they yield a lively picture of the manners and the
feeling of the times in which he lived, and in which he played no
obscure part. They abound in vivid sketches, telling anecdotes, fugitive
comments, which unite a certain charm of autobiographical romance with
the worldly wisdom of an experienced courtier. A flavour of personality
makes them not unpleasant reading. While we learn to despise and
mistrust the man in Giovio, we appreciate the author. It would not be
too far-fetched to describe him as a sort of 16th-century Horace
Walpole.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The sources of Giovio's biography are: his own works;
Tiraboschi's _History of Italian Literature_; Litta's _Genealogy of
Illustrious Italian Families_; and Giov. Batt. Giovio's _Uomini
illustri della diocesi Comasca_, Modena (1784). Cicogna, in his _Delle
inscrizioni Veneziane raccolta_ (Venice, 1830), gives a list of
Giovio's works, from which the following notices are extracted: 1.
Works in Latin: (1) _Pauli Jovii historiarum sui temporis, ab anno
1494 ad an. 1547_ (Florence 1550-1552), the same translated into
Italian by L. Domenichi, and first published at Florence (1551),
afterwards at Venice; (2) _Leonis X., Hadriani VI., Pompeii Columnae
Card., vitae_ (Florence, 1548), translated by Domenichi (Florence,
1549); (3) _Vitae XII. vicecomitum Mediolani principum_ (Paris, 1549),
translated by Domenichi (Venice, 1549); (4) _Vita Sfortiae clariss.
ducis_ (Rome, 1549), translated by Domenichi (Florence, 1549); (5)
_Vita Fr. Ferd. Davali_ (Florence, 1549), translated by Domenichi
(ibid. 1551); (6) _Vita magni Consalvi_ (ibid. 1549), translated by
Domenichi (ibid. 1550); (7) _Alfonsi Atestensi_, &c. (ibid. 1550),
Italian translation by Giov. Batt. Gelli (Florence, 1553); (8) _Elogia
virorum bellica virtute illustrium_ (ibid. 1551), translated by
Domenichi (ibid. 1554); (9) _Elogia clarorum virorum_, &c. (Venice,
1546) (these are biographies of men of letters), translated by
Hippolito Orio of Ferrara (Florence, 1552); (10) _Libellus de
legatione Basilii Magni principis Moscoviae_ (Rome, 1525); (11)
_Descriptio Larii Lacus_ (Venice, 1559); (12) _Descriptio Britanniae_,
&c. (Venice, 1548); (13) _De piscibus romanis_ (Rome, 1524); (14)
_Descriptiones quotquot extant regionum atque locorum_ (Basel, 1571).
2. Works in Italian: (1) _Dialogo delle imprese militari et amorose_
(Rome, 1555); (2) _Commentarî delle cose dei Turchi_ (Venice, 1541);
(3) _Lettere volgari_ (Venice, 1560). Some minor works and numerous
reprints of those cited have been omitted from this list; and it
should also be mentioned that some of the lives with additional
matter, are included in the _Vitae illustrium virorum_ (Basel, 1576).
(J. A. S.)

The best and most complete edition of Giovio's works is that of Basel
(1678). For his life see Giuseppe Sanesi, "Alcuni osservazioni e
notizie intorno a tre storici minori del cinquecento--Giovio; Nerli,
Segni" (in _Archivio Storico Italiano_, 5th series, vol. xxiii.); Eug.
Müntz, _Sul museo di ritratti composto da Paolo Giovio_ (ibid., vol.
xix.).

JOWETT, BENJAMIN (1817-1893), English scholar and theologian, master of
Balliol College, Oxford, was born in Camberwell on the 15th of April
1817. His father was one of a Yorkshire family who, for three
generations, had been supporters of the Evangelical movement in the
Church of England. His mother was a Langhorne, in some way related to
the poet and translator of Plutarch. At twelve the boy was placed on the
foundation of St Paul's School (then in St Paul's Churchyard), and in
his nineteenth year he obtained an open scholarship at Balliol. In 1838
he gained a fellowship, and graduated with first-class honours in 1839.
Brought up amongst pious Evangelicals, he came to Oxford at the height
of the Tractarian movement, and through the friendship of W. G. Ward was
drawn for a time in the direction of High Anglicanism; but a stronger
and more lasting influence was that of the Arnold school, represented by
A. P. Stanley. Jowett was thus led to concentrate his attention on
theology, and in the summers of 1845 and 1846, spent in Germany with
Stanley, he became an eager student of German criticism and speculation.
Amongst the writings of that period he was most impressed by those of F.
C. Baur. But he never ceased to exercise an independent judgment, and
his work on St Paul, which appeared in 1855, was the result of much
original reflection and inquiry. He was appointed to the Greek
professorship in the autumn of that year. He had been a tutor of Balliol
and a clergyman since 1842, and had devoted himself to the work of
tuition with unexampled zeal. His pupils became his friends for life. He
discerned their capabilities, studied their characters, and sought to
remedy their defects by frank and searching criticism. Like another
Socrates, he taught them to know themselves, repressing vanity,
encouraging the despondent, and attaching all alike by his unobtrusive
sympathy. This work gradually made a strong impression, and those who
cared for Oxford began to speak of him as "the great tutor." As early as
1839 Stanley had joined with Tait, the future archbishop, in advocating
certain university reforms. From 1846 onwards Jowett threw himself into
this movement, which in 1848 became general amongst the younger and more
thoughtful fellows, until it took effect in the commission of 1850 and
the act of 1854. Another educational reform, the opening of the Indian
civil service to competition, took place at the same time, and Jowett
was one of the commission. He had two brothers who served and died in
India, and he never ceased to take a deep and practical interest in
Indian affairs. A great disappointment, his repulse for the mastership
of Balliol, also in 1854, appears to have roused him into the completion
of his book on _The Epistles of St Paul_. This work, described by one of
his friends as "a miracle of boldness," is full of originality and
suggestiveness, but its publication awakened against him a storm of
theological prejudice, which followed him more or less through life.
Instead of yielding to this, he joined with Henry Bristowe Wilson and
Rowland Williams, who had been similarly attacked, in the production of
the volume known as _Essays and Reviews_. This appeared in 1860 and gave
rise to a strange outbreak of fanaticism. Jowett's loyalty to those who
were prosecuted on this account was no less characteristic than his
persistent silence while the augmentation of his salary as Greek
professor was withheld. This petty persecution was continued until 1865,
when E. A. Freeman and Charles Elton discovered by historical research
that a breach of the conditions of the professorship had occurred, and
Christ Church raised the endowment from £40 a year to £500. Meanwhile
Jowett's influence at Oxford had steadily increased. It culminated in
1864, when the country clergy, provoked by the final acquittal of the
essayists, had voted in convocation against the endowment of the Greek
chair. Jowett's pupils, who were now drawn from the university at large,
supported him with the enthusiasm which young men feel for the victim of
injustice. In the midst of other labours Jowett had been quietly
exerting his influence so as to conciliate all shades of liberal
opinion, and bring them to bear upon the abolition of the theological
test, which was still required for the M.A. and other degrees, and for
university and college offices. He spoke at an important meeting upon
this question in London on the 10th of June 1864, which laid the ground
for the University Tests Act of 1871. In connexion with the Greek
professorship Jowett had undertaken a work on Plato which grew into a
complete translation of the _Dialogues_, with introductory essays. At
this he laboured in vacation time for at least ten years. But his
interest in theology had not abated, and his thoughts found an outlet in
occasional preaching. The university pulpit, indeed, was closed to him,
but several congregations in London delighted in his sermons, and from
1866 until the year of his death he preached annually in Westminster
Abbey, where Stanley had become dean in 1863. Three volumes of selected
sermons have been published since his death. The years 1865-1870 were
occupied with assiduous labour. Amongst his pupils at Balliol were men
destined to high positions in the state, whose parents had thus shown
their confidence in the supposed heretic, and gratitude on this account
was added to other motives for his unsparing efforts in tuition. In
1870, by an arrangement which he attributed to his friend Robert Lowe,
afterwards Lord Sherbrooke (at that time a member of Gladstone's
ministry), Scott was promoted to the deanery of Rochester and Jowett was
elected to the vacant mastership by the fellows of Balliol. From the
vantage-ground of this long-coveted position the _Plato_ was published
in 1871. It had a great and well-deserved success. While scholars
criticized particular renderings (and there were many small errors to be
removed in subsequent editions), it was generally agreed that he had
succeeded in making Plato an English classic.

If ever there was a beneficent despotism, it was Jowett's rule as
master. Since 1866 his authority in Balliol had been really paramount,
and various reforms in college had been due to his initiative. The
opposing minority were now powerless, and the younger fellows who had
been his pupils were more inclined to follow him than others would have
been. There was no obstacle to the continued exercise of his firm and
reasonable will. He still knew the undergraduates individually, and
watched their progress with a vigilant eye. His influence in the
university was less assured. The pulpit of St Mary's was no longer
closed to him, but the success of Balliol in the schools gave rise to
jealousy in other colleges, and old prejudices did not suddenly give
way; while a new movement in favour of "the endowment of research" ran
counter to his immediate purposes. Meanwhile, the tutorships in other
colleges, and some of the headships also, were being filled with Balliol
men, and Jowett's former pupils were prominent in both houses of
parliament and at the bar. He continued the practice, which he had
commenced in 1848, of taking with him a small party of undergraduates in
vacation time, and working with them in one of his favourite haunts, at
Askrigg in Wensleydale, or Tummel Bridge, or later at West Malvern. The
new hall (1876), the organ there, entirely his gift (1885), and the
cricket ground (1889), remain as external monuments of the master's
activity. Neither business nor the many claims of friendship interrupted
literary work. The six or seven weeks of the long vacation, during which
he had pupils with him, were mainly employed in writing. The translation
of Aristotle's _Politics_, the revision of Plato, and, above all, the
translation of Thucydides many times revised, occupied several years.
The edition of the _Republic_, undertaken in 1856, remained unfinished,
but was continued with the help of Professor Lewis Campbell. Other
literary schemes of larger scope and deeper interest were long in
contemplation, but were not destined to take effect--an _Essay on the
Religions of the World, a Commentary on the Gospels_, a _Life of
Christ_, a volume on _Moral Ideas_. Such plans were frustrated, not only
by his practical avocations, but by his determination to finish what he
had begun, and the fastidious self-criticism which it took so long to
satisfy. The book on Morals might, however, have been written but for
the heavy burden of the vice-chancellorship, which he was induced to
accept in 1882, by the hope, only partially fulfilled, of securing many
improvements for the university. The vice-chancellor was _ex officio_ a
delegate of the press, where he hoped to effect much; and a plan for
draining the Thames Valley, which he had now the power of initiating,
was one on which his mind had dwelt for many years. The exhausting
labours of the vice-chancellorship were followed by an illness (1887);
and after this he relinquished the hope of producing any great original
writing. His literary industry was thenceforth confined to his
commentary on the _Republic_ of Plato, and some essays on Aristotle
which were to have formed a companion volume to the translation of the
_Politics_. The essays which should have accompanied the translation of
Thucydides were never written. Jowett, who never married, died on the
1st of October 1893. The funeral was one of the most impressive ever
seen in Oxford. The pall-bearers were seven heads of colleges and the
provost of Eton, all old pupils.

Theologian, tutor, university reformer, a great master of a college,
Jowett's best claim to the remembrance of succeeding generations was his
greatness as a moral teacher. Many of the most prominent Englishmen of
the day were his pupils and owed much of what they were to his precept
and example, his penetrative sympathy, his insistent criticism, and his
unwearying friendship. Seldom have ideal aims been so steadily pursued
with so clear a recognition of practical limitations. Jowett's
theological work was transitional, and yet has an element of permanence.
As has been said of another thinker, he was "one of those deeply
religious men who, when crude theological notions are being revised and
called in question seek to put new life into theology by wider and more
humane ideas." In earlier life he had been a zealous student of Kant and
Hegel, and to the end he never ceased to cultivate the philosophic
spirit; but he had little confidence in metaphysical systems, and sought
rather to translate philosophy into the wisdom of life. As a classical
scholar, his scorn of littlenesses sometimes led him into the neglect of
_minutiae_, but he had the higher merit of interpreting ideas. His place
in literature rests really on the essays in his Plato. When their merits
are fully recognized, it will be found that his worth, as a teacher of
his countrymen, extends far beyond his own generation.

See _The Life and Letters of Benjamin Jowett_, by E. A. Abbott and
Lewis Campbell (1897); _Benjamin Jowett_, by Lionel Tollemache (1895).
(L. C.)

JOYEUSE, a small town in the department of Ardèche, France, situated on
the Baume, a tributary of the Ardèche, is historically important as
having been the seat of a noble French family which derived its name
from it. The lordship of Joyeuse came, in the 13th century, into the
possession of the house of Châteauneuf-Randon, and was made into a
viscountship in 1432. Guillaume, viscount of Joyeuse, was bishop of
Alet, but afterwards left the church, and became a marshal of France; he
died in 1592. His eldest son Anne de Joyeuse (1561-1587), was one of the
favourites of Henry III. of France, who created him duke and peer
(1581), admiral of France (1582), and governor of Normandy (1586), and
married him to Marguerite de Lorraine-Vaudémont, younger sister of the
queen. He gained several successes against the Huguenots, but was
recalled by court intrigues at an inopportune moment, and when he
marched a second time against Henry of Navarre he was defeated and
killed at Coutras. Guillaume had three other sons: François de Joyeuse
(d. 1615), cardinal and archbishop of Narbonne, Toulouse and Rouen, who
brought about the reconciliation of Henry IV. with the pope; Henri,
count of Bouchage, and later duke of Joyeuse, who first entered the
army, then became a Capuchin under the name of Père Ange, left the
church and became a marshal of France, and finally re-entered the
church, dying in 1608; Antoine Scipion, grand prior of Toulouse in the
order of the knights of Malta, who was one of the leaders in the League,
and died in the retreat of Villemur (1592). Henriette Catherine de
Joyeuse, daughter of Henri, married in 1611 Charles of Lorraine, duke of
Guise, to whom she brought the duchy of Joyeuse. On the death of her
great-grandson, François Joseph de Lorraine, duke of Guise, in 1675,
without issue, the duchy of Joyeuse was declared extinct, but it was
revived in 1714, in favour of Louis de Melun, prince of Épinoy.
(M. P.*)

JOYEUSE ENTRÉE, a famous charter of liberty granted to Brabant by Duke
John III. in 1354. John summoned the representatives of the cities of
the duchy to Louvain to announce to them the marriage of his daughter
and heiress Jeanne of Brabant to Wenceslaus duke of Luxemburg, and he
offered them liberal concessions in order to secure their assent to the
change of dynasty. John III. died in 1355, and Wenceslaus and Jeanne on
the occasion of their state entry into Brussels solemnly swore to
observe all the provisions of the charter, which had been drawn up. From
the occasion on which it was first proclaimed this charter has since
been known in history as _La Joyeuse Entrée_. By this document the dukes
of Brabant undertook to maintain the integrity of the duchy, and not to
wage war, make treaties, or impose taxes without the consent of their
subjects, as represented by the municipalities. All members of the
duke's council were to be native-born Brabanters. This charter became
the model for other provinces and the bulwark of the liberties of the
Netherlands. Its provisions were modified from time to time, but
remained practically unchanged from the reign of Charles V. onwards. The
ill-advised attempt of the emperor Joseph II. in his reforming zeal to
abrogate the _Joyeuse Entrée_ caused a revolt in Brabant, before which
he had to yield.

See E. Poullet, _La Joyeuse entrée, ou constitution Brabançonne_
(1862).

JUAN FERNANDEZ ISLANDS, a small group in the South Pacific Ocean,
between 33° and 34° S., 80° W., belonging to Chile and included in the
province of Valparaiso. The main island is called _Mas-a-Tierra_ (Span.
"more to land") to distinguish it from a smaller island, _Mas-a-Fuera_
("more to sea"), 100 m. farther west. Off the S.W. of Mas-a-Tierra lies
the islet of Santa Clara. The aspect of Mas-a-Tierra is beautiful; only
13 m. in length by 4 in width, it consists of a series of precipitous
rocks rudely piled into irregular blocks and pinnacles, and strongly
contrasting with a rich vegetation. The highest of these, 3225 ft., is
called, from its massive form, El Yunque (the anvil). The rocks are
volcanic. Cumberland Bay on the north side is the only fair anchorage,
and even there, from the great depth of water, there is some risk. A
wide valley collecting streams from several of the ravines on the north
side of the island opens into Cumberland Bay, and is partially enclosed
and cultivated. The inhabitants number only some twenty.

The flora and fauna of Juan Fernandez are in most respects Chilean.
There are few trees on the island, for most of the valuable indigenous
trees have been practically exterminated, such as the sandalwood,
which the earlier navigators found one of the most valuable products
of the island. Ferns are prominent among the flora, about one-third of
which consists of endemic species. There are no indigenous land
mammals. Pigs and goats, however, with cattle, horses, asses and dogs,
have been introduced, have multiplied, and in considerable numbers run
wild. Sea-elephants and fur-seals were formerly plentiful. Of birds,
a tyrant and a humming-bird (_Eustephanus fernandensis_) are peculiar
to the group, while another humming bird (_E. galerites_), a thrush,
and some birds of prey also occur in Chile. _E. fernandensis_ has the
peculiarity that the male is of a bright cinnamon colour, while the
female is green. Both sexes are green in _E. galerites_.

Juan Fernandez was discovered by a Spanish pilot of that name in 1563.
Fernandez obtained from the Spanish government a grant of the islands,
where he resided for some time, stocking them with goats and pigs. He
soon, however, appears to have abandoned his possessions, which were
afterwards for many years only visited occasionally by fishermen from
the coasts of Chile and Peru. In 1616 Jacob le Maire and Willem Cornelis
Schouten called at Juan Fernandez for water and fresh provisions. Pigs
and goats were then abundant on the islands. In February 1700 Dampier
called at Juan Fernandez and while there Captain Straddling of the
"Cinque Porte" galley quarrelled with his men, forty-two of whom
deserted but were afterwards taken on board by Dampier; five seamen,
however, remained on shore. Other parties had previously colonized the
islands but none had remained permanently. In October 1704 the "Cinque
Porte" returned and found two of these men, the others having been
apparently captured by the French. On this occasion Straddling
quarrelled with Alexander Selkirk (q.v.), who, at his own request,
became the island's most famous colonist, for his adventures are
commonly believed to have inspired Daniel Defoe's _Robinson Crusoe_.
Among later visits, that of Commodore Anson, in the "Centurion" (June
1741) led, on his return home, to a proposal to form an English
settlement on Juan Fernandez; but the Spaniards, hearing that the matter
had been mooted in England, gave orders to occupy the island, and it was
garrisoned accordingly in 1750. Philip Carteret first observed this
settlement in May 1767, and on account of the hostility of the Spaniards
preferred to put in at Masa-Fuera. After the establishment of the
independence of Chile at the beginning of the 19th century, Juan
Fernandez passed into the possession of that country. On more than one
occasion before 1840 Mas-a-Tierra was used as a state prison by the
Chilean government.

JUANGS (Patuas, literally "leaf-wearers"), a jungle tribe of Orissa,
India. They are found in only two of the tributary states, Dhenkanal and
Keonjhar, most of them in the latter. They are estimated to amount in
all to about 10,000. Their language belongs to the Munda family. They
have no traditions which connect them with any other race, and they
repudiate all connexion with the Hos or the Santals, declaring
themselves the aborigines. They say the headquarters of the tribe is the
Gonasika. In manners they are among the most primitive people of the
world, representing the Stone age in our own day. They do not till the
land, but live on the game they kill or on snakes and vermin. Their huts
measure about 6 ft. by 8 ft., with very low doorways. The interior is
divided into two compartments. In the first of these the father and all
the females of a family huddle together; the second is used as a
store-room. The boys have a separate hut at the entrance to the village,
which serves as a guest-house and general assembly place where the
musical instruments of the village are kept. Physically they are small
and weak-looking, of a reddish-brown colour, with flat faces, broad
noses with wide nostrils, large mouths and thick lips, the hair coarse
and frizzly. The women until recently wore nothing but girdles of
leaves, the men, a diminutive bandage of cloth. The Juangs declare that
the river goddess, emerging for the first time from the Gonasika rock,
surprised a party of naked Juangs dancing, and ordered them to wear
leaves, with the threat that they should die if they ever gave up the
custom. The Juangs' weapons are the bow and arrow and a primitive sling
made entirely of cord. Their religion is a vague belief in forest
spirits. They offer fowls to the sun when in trouble and to the earth
for a bountiful harvest. Polygamy is rare. They burn their dead and
throw the ashes into any running stream. The most sacred oaths a Juang
can take are those on an ant-hill or a tiger-skin.

See E. W. Dalton, _Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal_ (1872).

JUAN MANUEL, DON (1282-1349), infante of Castile, son of the infante Don
Manuel and Beatrix of Savoy, and grandson of St Ferdinand, was born at
Escalona on the 5th of May 1282. His father died in 1284, and the young
prince was educated at the court of his cousin, Sancho IV., with whom
his precocious ability made him a favourite. In 1294 he was appointed
_adelantado_ of Murcia and in his fourteenth year served against the
Moors at Granada. In 1304 he was entrusted by the queen-mother, Doña
Maria de Molina, to conduct political negotiations with James II. of
Aragon on behalf of her son, Ferdinand IV., then under age. His
diplomacy was successful and his marriage to James II.'s daughter,
Constantina, added to his prestige. On the death of Ferdinand IV. and of
the regents who governed in the name of Alphonso XI., Don Juan Manuel
acted as guardian of the king who was proclaimed of age in 1325. His
ambitious design of continuing to exercise the royal power was defeated
by Alphonso XI., who married the ex-regent's daughter Constanza, and
removed his father-in-law from the scene by nominating him _adelantado
mayor de la frontera_. Alphonso XI.'s repudiation of Constanza, whom he
imprisoned at Toro, drove Don Juan Manuel into opposition, and a long
period of civil war followed. On the death of his wife Constantina in
1327, Don Juan Manuel strengthened his position by marrying Doña Blanca
de la Cerda; he secured the support of Juan Nuñez, _alférez_ of Castile,
by arranging a marriage between him and Maria, daughter of Don Juan el
Tuerto; he won over Portugal by promising the hand of his daughter, the
ex-queen Constanza, to the infante of that kingdom, and he entered into
alliance with Mahomet III. of Granada. This formidable coalition
compelled Alphonso XI. to sue for terms, which he accepted in 1328
without any serious intention of complying with them; but he was
compelled to release Doña Constanza. War speedily broke out anew, and
lasted till 1331 when Alphonso XI. invited Juan Manuel and Juan Nuñez to
a banquet at Villahumbrales with the intention, it was believed, of
assassinating them; the plot failed, and Don Juan Manuel joined forces
with Peter IV. of Aragon. He was besieged by Alphonso XI. at
Garci-Nuñez, whence he escaped on the 30th of July 1336, fled into
exile, and kept the rebellion alive till 1338, when he made his peace
with the king. He proved his loyalty by serving in further expeditions
against the Moors of Granada and Africa, and died a tranquil death in
the first half of 1349.

Distinguished as an astute politician, Don Juan Manuel is an author of
the highest eminence, and, considering the circumstances of his stormy
life, his voluminousness is remarkable. The _Libro de los sabios_, a
treatise called _Engeños de Guerra_ and the _Libro de cantares_, a
collection of verses, were composed between 1320 and 1327; but they have
disappeared together with the _Libro de la caballería_ (written during
the winter of 1326), and the _Reglas como se debe trovar_, a metrical
treatise assigned to 1328-1334. Of his surviving writings, Juan Manuel's
_Crónica abreviada_ was compiled between 1319 and 1325, while the _Libro
de la caza_ must have been written between 1320 and 1329; and during
this period of nine years the _Crónica de España_, the _Crónica
complida_, and the _Tratado sobre las armas_ were produced. The _Libro
del caballero et del escudero_ was finished before the end of 1326; the
first book of the _Libro de los estados_ was finished on the 22nd of May
1330, while the second was begun five days later; the first book of _El
Conde Lucanor_ was written in 1328, the second in 1330, and the fourth
is dated 12th of June 1335. We are unable to assign to any precise date
the devout _Tractado_ on the Virgin, dedicated to the prior of the
monastery at Peñafiel, to which Don Juan Manuel bequeathed his
manuscripts; but it seems probable that the _Libro de los frailes
predicadores_ is slightly later than the _Libro de los estados_; that
the _Libro de los castigos_ (left unfinished, and therefore known by the
alternative title of _Libro infinido_) was written not later than 1333,
and that the treatise _De las maneras de amor_ was composed between 1334
and 1337.

The historical summaries, pious dissertations and miscellaneous writings
are of secondary interest. The _Libro del caballero et del escudero_ is
on another plane; it is no doubt suggested by Lull's _Libre del orde de
cavalleria_, but the points of resemblance have been exaggerated; the
morbid mysticism of Lull is rejected, and the carefully finished style
justifies the special pride which the author took in this performance.
The influence of Lull's Blanquerna is likewise visible in the _Libro de
los estados_; but there are marked divergences of substance which go to
prove Don Juan Manuel's acquaintance with some version (not yet
identified) of the Barlaam and Josaphat legend. Nothing is more striking
than the curious and varied erudition of the turbulent prince who weaves
his personal experiences with historical or legendary incidents, with
reminiscences of Aesop and Phaedrus, with the _Disciplina clericalis_,
with _Kalilah and Dimnah_, with countless Oriental traditions, and with
all the material of anecdotic literature which he embodies in the _Libro
de patronio_, best known by the title of _El Conde Lucanor_ (the name
Lucanor being taken from the prose _Tristan_). This work (also entitled
the _Libro de enxemplos_) was first printed by Gonzalo Argote de Molina
at Seville in 1575, and it revealed Don Juan Manuel as a master in the
art of prose composition, and as the predecessor of Boccaccio in the
province of romantic narrative. The _Cento novelle antiche_ are earlier
in date, but these anonymous tales, derived from popular stories
diffused throughout the world, lack the personal character which Don
Juan lends to all he touches. They are simple, unadorned variants of
folk-lore items; _El Conde Lucanor_ is essentially the production of a
conscious artist, deliberative and selective in his methods. Don Juan
Manuel has not Boccaccio's festive fancy nor his constructive skill; he
is too persistently didactic and concerned to point a moral; but he
excels in knowledge of human nature, in the faculty of ironical
presentation, in tolerant wisdom and in luminous conciseness. He
naturalizes the Eastern apologue in Spain, and by the laconic
picturesqueness of his expression imports a new quality into Spanish
prose which attains its full development in the hands of Juan de Valdés
and Cervantes. Some of his themes are utilized for dramatic purposes by
Lope de Vega in _La Pobreza estimada_, by Ruiz de Alarcón in _La Prueba
de las promesas_, by Calderón in _La Vida es sueño_, and by Cañizares in
_Don Juan de Espina en Milán_: there is an evident, though remote,
relation between the tale of the _mancebo que casó con una mujer muy
fuerte y muy brava_ and _The Taming of the Shrew_; and a more direct
connexion exists between some of Don Juan Manuel's _enxemplos_ and some
of Anderson's fairy tales.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--_Obras_, edited by P. de Gayangos in the _Biblioteca de
autores Españoles_, vol. li.; _El Conde Lucanor_ (Leipzig, 1900),
edited by H. Knust and A. Hirschfeld; _Libro de la caza_ (Halle,
1880), edited by G. Baist; _El Libro del caballero et del escudero_,
edited by S. Gräfenberg in _Romanische Forschungen_, vol. vi.; _La
crónica complida_, edited by G. Baist in _Romanische Forschungen_,
vol. vi.; G. Baist, _Alter und Textueberlieferung der Schriften Don
Juan Manuels_ (Halle, 1880); F. Hanssen, _Notas á la versificación de
D. Juan Manuel_ (Santiago de Chile, 1902). The _Conde Lucanor_ has
been translated by J. Eichendorff into German (1840), by A. Puibusque
into French (1854) and by J. York into English (1868). (J. F. K.)

JUAREZ, BENITO PABLO (1806-1872), president of Mexico, was born near
Ixtlan, in the state of Oajaca, Mexico, on the 21st of March 1806, of
full Indian blood. Early left in poverty by the death of his father, he
received from a charitable friar a good general education, and
afterwards the means of studying law. Beginning to practise in 1834,
Juarez speedily rose to professional distinction, and in the stormy
political life of his time took a prominent part as an exponent of
liberal views. In 1832 he sat in the state legislature; in 1846 he was
one of a legislative triumvirate for his native state and a deputy to
the republican congress, and from 1847 to 1852 he was governor of
Oajaca. Banished in 1853 by Santa Anna, he returned to Mexico in 1855,
and joined Alvarez, who, after Santa Anna's defeat, made him minister of
justice. Under Comonfort, who then succeeded Alvarez, Juarez was
governor of Oajaca (1855-57), and in 1857 chief justice and secretary of
the interior; and, when Comonfort was unconstitutionally replaced by
Zuloaga in 1858, the chief justice, in virtue of his office, claimed to
be legal president of the republic. It was not, however, till the
beginning of 1861 that he succeeded in finally defeating the
unconstitutional party and in being duly elected president by congress.
His decree of July 1861, suspending for two years all payments on public
debts of every kind, led to the landing in Mexico of English, Spanish
and French troops. The first two powers were soon induced to withdraw
their forces; but the French remained, declared war in 1862, placed
Maximilian upon the throne as emperor, and drove Juarez and his
adherents to the northern limits of the republic. Juarez maintained an
obstinate resistance, which resulted in final success. In 1867
Maximilian was taken at Querétaro, and shot; and in August Juarez was
once more elected president. His term of office was far from tranquil;
discontented generals stirred up ceaseless revolts and insurrections;
and, though he was re-elected in 1871, his popularity seemed to be on
the wane. He died of apoplexy in the city of Mexico on the 18th of July
1872. He was a statesman of integrity, ability and determination, whose
good qualities are too apt to be overlooked in consequence of his
connexion with the unhappy fate of Maximilian.

JUBA, the name of two kings of Numidia.

JUBA I. (1st century B.C.), son and successor of Hiempsal, king of
Numidia. During the civil wars at Rome he sided with Pompey, partly from
gratitude because he had reinstated his father on his throne (Appian,
_B.C._, i. 80), and partly from enmity to Caesar, who had insulted him
at Rome by pulling his beard (Suet., _Caesar_, 71). Further, C.
Scribonius Curio, Caesar's general in Africa, had openly proposed, 50
B.C., when tribune of the plebs, that Numidia should be sold to
colonists, and the king reduced to a private station. In 49 Juba
inflicted on the Caesarean army a crushing defeat, in which Curio was
slain (Vell. Pat. ii. 54; Caesar, _B.C._ ii. 40). Juba's attention was
distracted by a counter invasion of his territories by Bocchus the
younger and Sittius; but, finding that his lieutenant Sabura was able to
defend his interests, he rejoined the Pompeians with a large force, and
shared the defeat at Thapsus. Fleeing from the field with the Roman
general M. Petreius, he wandered about as a fugitive. At length, in
despair, Juba killed Petreius, and sought the aid of a slave in
despatching himself (46). Juba was a thorough savage; brave,
treacherous, insolent and cruel. (See NUMIDIA.)

JUBA II., son of the above. On the death of his father in 46 B.C. he was
carried to Rome to grace Caesar's triumph. He seems to have received a
good education under the care of Augustus who, in 29, after Mark
Antony's death, gave him the hand of Cleopatra Selene, daughter of
Antony and Cleopatra, and placed him on his father's throne. In 25,
however, he transferred him from Numidia to Mauretania, to which was
added a part of Gaetulia (see NUMIDIA). Juba seems to have reigned in
considerable prosperity, though in A.D. 6 the Gaetulians rose in a
revolt of sufficient importance to afford the surname Gaetulicus to
Cornelius Lentulus Cossus, the Roman general who helped to suppress it.
The date of Juba's death is by no means certain; it has been put between
A.D. 19 and 24 (Strabo, xvii. 828; Dio Cassius, li. 15; liii. 26;
Plutarch, _Ant._ 87; _Caesar_, 55). Juba, according to Pliny, who
constantly refers to him, is mainly memorable for his writings. He has
been called the African Varro.

He wrote many historical and geographical works, of which some seem to
have been voluminous and of considerable value on account of the
sources to which their author had access: (1) [Greek: Rhômaikê
historia]; (2) [Greek: Assyriaka]; (3) [Greek: Libyka]; (4) _De Arabia
sive De expeditione arabica_; (5) _Physiologa_; (6) _De Euphorbia
herba_; (7) [Greek: Peri opou]; (8) [Greek: Peri graphikês] ([Greek:
Peri zôgraphôn]); (9) [Greek: Theatrikê historia]; (10) [Greek:
Homoiotêtes]; (11) [Greek: Peri phthoras lexeôs]; (12) [Greek:
Epigramma].

Fragments and life in Müller, _Frag. Hist. Graec._, vol. iii.; see
also Sevin, _Mém. de l'Acad. des Inscriptions_, vol. iv.; Hullemann,
_De vita et scriptis Jubae_ (1846). For the denarii of Juba II. found
in 1908 at El Ksar on the coast of Morocco see Dieudonné in _Revue
Numism_. (1908), pp. 350 seq. They are interesting mainly as throwing
light on the chronology of the reign.

JUBA, or JUB, a river of East Africa, exceeding 1000 m. in length,
rising on the S.E. border of the Abyssinian highlands and flowing S.
across the Galla and Somali countries to the sea. It is formed by the
junction of three streams, all having their source in the mountain range
N.E. of Lake Rudolf which is the water-parting between the Nile basin
and the rivers flowing to the Indian Ocean.

Of the three headstreams, the Web, the Ganale and the Daua, the Ganale
(or Ganana) is the central river and the true upper course of the
Juba. It has two chief branches, the Black and the Great Ganale. The
last-named, the most remote source of the river, rises in 7° 30´ N.,
38° E. at an altitude of about 7500 ft., the crest of the mountains
reaching another 2500 ft. In its upper course it flows over a rocky
bed with a swift current and many rapids. The banks are clothed with
dense jungle and the hills beyond with thorn-bush. Lower down the
river has formed a narrow valley, 1500 to 2000 ft. below the general
level of the country. Leaving the higher mountains in about 5° 15´ N.,
40° E., the Ganale enters a large slightly undulating grass plain
which extends south of the valley of the Daua and occupies all the
country eastward to the junction of the two rivers. In this plain the
Ganale makes a semicircular sweep northward before resuming its
general S.-E. course. East of 42° E. in 4° 12´ N. it is joined by the
Web on the left or eastern bank, and about 10 m. lower down the Daua
enters on the right bank.

The Web rises in the mountain chain a little S. and E. of the sources
of the Ganale, and some 40 m. from its source passes, first, through a
cañon 500 ft. deep, and then through a series of remarkable
underground caves hollowed out of a quartz mountain and, with their
arches and white columns, presenting the appearance of a pillared
temple. The Daua (or Dawa) is formed by the mountain torrents which
have their rise S. and W. of the Ganale and is of similar character to
that river. It has few feeders and none of any size. The descent to
the open country is somewhat abrupt. In its middle course the Daua has
cut a deep narrow valley through the plain; lower down it bends N.E.
to its junction with the Ganale. The river is not deep and can be
forded in many places; the banks are fringed with thick bush and
dom-palms. At the junction of the Ganale and the Web the river is
swift-flowing and 85 yards across; just below the Daua confluence it
is 200 yds. wide, the altitude here--300 m. in a direct line from the
source of the Ganale--being only 590 ft.

Below the Daua the river, now known as the Juba, receives no tributary
of importance. It first flows in a valley bounded, especially towards
the west, by the escarpments of a high plateau, and containing the
towns of Lugh (in 3° 50´ N., the centre of active trade), Bardera, 387
m. above the mouth, and Saranli--the last two on opposite sides of the
stream, in 2° 20´ N., a crossing-place for caravans. Beyond 1° 45´ N.
the country becomes more level and the course of the river very
tortuous. On the west a series of small lakes and backwaters receives
water from the Juba during the rains. Just south of the equator
channels from the long, branching Lake Deshekwama or Hardinge, fed by
the Lakdera river, enter from the west, and in 0° 15´ S. the Juba
enters the sea across a dangerous bar, which has only one fathom of
water at high tide.

From its mouth to 20 m. above Bardera, where at 2° 35´ N. rapids occur,
the Juba is navigable by shallow-draught steamers, having a general
depth of from 4 to 12 ft., though shallower in places. Just above its
mouth it is a fine stream 250 yds. wide, with a current of 2½ knots.
Below the mountainous region of the headstreams the Juba and its
tributaries flow through a country generally arid away from the banks of
the streams. The soil is sandy, covered either with thorn-scrub or rank
grass, which in the rainy season affords herbage for the herds of
cattle, sheep and camels owned by the Boran Gallas and the Somali who
inhabit the district. But by the banks of the lower river the character
of the country changes. In this district, known as Gosha, are
considerable tracts of forest, and the level of flood water is higher
than much of the surrounding land. This low-lying fertile belt stretches
along the river for about 300 m., but is not more than a mile or two
wide. In the river valley maize, rice, cotton and other crops are
cultivated. From Gobwen, a trading settlement about 3 m. above the mouth
of the Juba, a road runs S.W. to the seaport of Kismayu, 10 m. distant.

The lower Juba was ascended in 1865 in a steamer by Baron Karl von der
Decken, who was murdered by Somali at Bardera, but the river system
remained otherwise almost unknown until after 1890. In 1891 a survey of
its lower course was executed by Captain F. G. Dundas of the British
navy, while in 1892-1893 its headstreams were explored by the Italian
officers, Captains Vittorio, Bottego and Grixoni, the former of whom
disproved the supposed connexion of the Omo (see RUDOLF, LAKE) with the
Juba system. It has since been further explored by Prince Eugenio
Ruspoli, by Bottego's second expedition (1895), by Donaldson Smith, A.
E. Butter, Captain P. Maud of the British army, and others. The river,
from its mouth to the confluence of the Daua and Ganale, forms the
frontier between the British East Africa protectorate and Italian
Somaliland; and from that point to about 4° 20´ N. the Daua is the
boundary between British and Abyssinian territory.

JUBBULPORE, or JABALPUR, a city, district, and division of British India
in the Central Provinces. The city is 616 m. N.E. of Bombay by rail, and
220 m. S.W. of Allahabad. Pop. (1901), 90,316. The numerous gorges in
the neighbouring rocks have been taken advantage of to surround the city
with a series of lakes, which, shaded by fine trees and bordered by
fantastic crags, add much beauty to the suburbs. The city itself is
modern, and is laid out in wide and regular streets. A streamlet
separates the civil station and cantonment from the native quarter; but,
though the climate is mild, a swampy hollow beneath renders the site
unhealthy for Europeans. Formerly the capital of the Saugor and Nerbudda
territories, Jubbulpore is now the headquarters of a brigade in the 5th
division of the southern army. It is also one of the most important
railway centres in India, being the junction of the Great Indian
Peninsula and the East Indian systems. It has a steam cotton-mill. The
government college educates for the science course of the Allahabad
University, and also contains law and engineering classes; there are
three aided high schools, a law class, an engineering class and normal
schools for male and female teachers. A native association, established
in 1869, supports an orphanage, with help from government. A zenana
mission manages 13 schools for girls. Waterworks were constructed in
1882.

The DISTRICT OF JUBBULPORE lies on the watershed between the Nerbudda
and the Son, but mostly within the valley of the former river, which
here runs through the famous gorge known as the Marble rocks, and falls
30 ft. over a rocky ledge (the _Dhuan dhar_, or "misty shoot"). Area,
3912 sq. m. It consists of a long narrow plain running north-east and
south-west, and shut in on all sides by highlands. This plain, which
forms an offshoot from the great valley of the Nerbudda, is covered in
its western and southern portions by a rich alluvial deposit of black
cotton-soil. At Jubbulpore city the soil is sandy, and water plentiful
near the surface. The north and east belong to the Ganges and Jumna
basins, the south and west to the Nerbudda basin. In 1901 the population
was 680,585, showing a decrease of 9% since 1891, due to the results of
famine. The principal crops are wheat, rice, pulse and oil-seeds. A good
deal of iron-smelting with charcoal is carried on in the forests,
manganese ore is found, and limestone is extensively quarried. The
district is traversed by the main railway from Bombay to Calcutta, and
by new branches of two other lines which meet at Katni junction.
Jubbulpore suffered severely in the famine of 1896-1897, the distress
being aggravated by immigration from the adjoining native states.
Fortunately the famine of 1900 was less severely felt.

The early history of Jubbulpore is unknown; but inscriptions record
the existence during the 11th and 12th centuries of a local line of
princes of that Haihai race which is closely connected with the
history of Gondwana. In the 16th century the Gond raja of Garha Mandla
extended his power over fifty-two districts, including the present
Jubbulpore. During the minority of his grandson, Asaf Khan, the
viceroy of Kara Manikpur, conquered the Garha principality and held it
at first as an independent chief. Eventually he submitted to the
emperor Akbar. The Delhi power, however, enjoyed little more than a
nominal supremacy; and the princes of Garha Mandla maintained a
practical independence until their subjugation by the Mahratta
governors of Saugor in 1781. In 1798 the peshwa granted the Nerbudda
valley to the Bhonsla princes of Nagpur, who continued to hold the
district until the British occupied it in 1818.

The DIVISION OF JUBBULPORE lies mainly among the Vindhyan and Satpura
hill systems. It comprises the five following districts: Jubbulpore,
Saugor, Damoh, Seoni and Mandla. Area, 18,950 sq. m.; pop. (1901),
2,081,499.

JUBÉ, the French architectural term (taken from the imperative of Lat.
_jubere_, to order) for the chancel or choir screen, which in England is
known as the rood-screen (see ROOD). Above the screen was a gallery or
loft, from which the words "Jube Domine benedicere" were spoken by the
deacon before the reading of the Gospel, and hence probably the name.
One of the finest _jubés_ in France is that of the church of the
Madeleine at Troyes, in rich flamboyant Gothic. A later example, of the
Renaissance period, c. 1600, is in the church of St Étienne du Mont,
Paris. In the Low Countries there are many fine examples in marble, of
which one of the most perfect from Bois-le-Duc is now in the Victoria
and Albert Museum.

JUBILEE (or JUBILE), YEAR OF, in the Bible, the name applied in the
Holiness section of the Priestly Code of the Hexateuch (Lev. xxv.) to
the observance of every 50th year, determined by the lapse of seven
seven-year periods as a year of perfect rest, when there was to be no
sowing, nor even gathering of the natural products of the field and the
vine. At the beginning of the jubilee-year the liberation of all
Israelitish slaves and the restoration of ancestral possessions was to
be proclaimed. As regards the meaning of the name "jubilee" (Heb.
_yobel_) modern scholars are agreed that it signifies "ram" or "ram's
horn." "Year of jubilee" would then mean the year that is inaugurated by
the blowing of the ram's horn (Lev. xxv. 9).

According to Lev. xxv. 8-12, at the completion of seven sabbaths of
years (i.e. 7 × 7 = 49 years) the trumpet of the jubilee is to be
sounded "throughout the land" on the 10th day of the seventh month
(Tisri 10), the great Day of Atonement. The 50th year thus announced is
to be "hallowed," i.e. liberty[1] is to be proclaimed everywhere to
everyone, and the people are to return "every man unto his possession
and unto his family." As in the sabbatical year, there is to be no
sowing, nor reaping that which grows of itself, nor gathering of grapes.

As regards _real property_ (Lev. xxv. 13-34) the law is that if any
Hebrew under pressure of necessity shall alienate his property he is to
get for it a sum of money reckoned according to the number of harvests
to be reaped between the date of alienation and the first jubilee-year:
should he or any relation desire to redeem the property before the
jubilee this can always be done be repaying the value of the harvests
between the redemption and the jubilee.

This legal enactment, though it is not found (nor anything like it) in
the earlier collections of laws, is evidently based on (or modified
from) an ancient custom which conferred on a near kinsman the right of
pre-emption as well as of buying back (cf. Jer. xxxii. 6 sqq.). The
tendency to impose checks upon the alienation of landed property was
exceptionally strong in Israel. The fundamental principle is that the
land is a sacred possession belonging to Yahweh. As such it is not to be
alienated from Yahweh's people, to whom it was originally assigned. In
Ezekiel's restoration programme "crown lands presented by the 'prince'
to any of his officials revert to the crown in the year of liberty (?
jubilee year)"; only to his sons may any portion of his inheritance be
alienated in perpetuity (Ezek. xlvi. 16-18; cf. Code of Hammurabi, § 38
seq.).

The same rule applies to dwelling-houses of unwalled villages; the case
is different, however, as regards dwelling-houses in walled cities.
These may be redeemed within a year after transfer, but if not redeemed
within that period they continue permanently in possession of the
purchaser, and this may well be an echo of ancient practice. An
exception to this last rule is made for the houses of the Levites in the
Levitical cities.

As regards _property in slaves_ (Lev. xxv. 35-55) the Hebrew whom
necessity has compelled to sell himself into the service of his brother
Hebrew is to be treated as a hired servant and sojourner, and to be
released absolutely at the jubilee; non-Hebrew bondmen, on the other
hand, are to be bondmen for ever. But the Hebrew who has sold himself to
a stranger or sojourner is entitled to freedom at the year of jubilee,
and further is at any time redeemable by any of his kindred--the
redemption price being regulated by the number of years to run between
the redemption and the jubilee, according to the ordinary wage of hired
servants. Such were the enactments of the Priestly Code--which, of
course, represents the latest legislation of the Pentateuch
(post-exilic). These enactments, in order to be understood rightly, must
be viewed in relation to the earlier similar provisions in connexion
with the sabbatical (seventh) year. "The foundations of Lev. xxv. are
laid in the ancient provisions of the Book of the Covenant (Exod. xxi. 2
seq.; xxiii. 10 seq.) and in Deuteronomy (xv.). The Book of the Covenant
enjoined that the land should lie fallow and Hebrew slaves be liberated
in the seventh year; Deuteronomy required in addition the remission of
debts" (Benzinger). Deuteronomy, it will be noticed, in accordance with
its humanitarian tendency, not only liberates the slave but remits the
debt. It is evident that these enactments proved impracticable in real
life (cf. Jer. xxxiv. 8 seq.), and so it became necessary in the later
legislation of P, represented in the present form of Lev. xxv., to
relegate them to the 50th year, the year of jubilee. The latter,
however, was a purely theoretic development of the Sabbath idea, which
could never have been reduced to practice (its actual observance would
have necessitated that for two consecutive years--the 49th and
50th--absolutely nothing could be reaped, while in the 51st only summer
fruits could be obtained, sowing being prohibited in the 50th year).
That in practice the enactments for the jubilee-year were disregarded is
evidenced by the fact that, according to the unanimous testimony of the
Talmudists and Rabbins, although the jubilee-years were "reckoned" they
were not observed.

The conjecture of Kuenen, supported by Wellhausen, that originally Lev.
xxv. 8 seq. had reference to the seventh year is a highly probable one.
This may be the case also with Ezek. xlvi. 16-18 (cf. Jer. xxxiv. 14). A
later Rabbinical device for evading the provisions of the law was the
_prosbul_ (ascribed to Hillel)--i.e. a condition made in the presence of
the judge securing to the creditor the right of demanding repayment at
any time, irrespective of the year of remission. Further enactments
regarding the jubilee are found in Lev. xxvii. 17-25 and Num. xxxvi. 4.
(W. R. S.; G. H. Bo.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] Heb. _deror_. The same word (_duraru_) is used in the Code of
Hammurabi in the similar enactment that wife, son or daughter sold
into slavery for debt are to be restored to _liberty_ in the fourth
year (§ 117).

JUBILEES, BOOK OF, an apocryphal work of the Old Testament. The Book of
Jubilees is the most advanced pre-Christian representative of the
Midrashic tendency, which had already been at work in the Old Testament
Chronicles. As the chronicler had rewritten the history of Israel and
Judah from the standpoint of the Priests' Code, so our author re-edited
from the Pharisaic standpoint of his time the history of the world from
the creation to the publication of the Law on Sinai. His work
constitutes the oldest commentary in the world on Genesis and part of
Exodus, an enlarged Targum on these books, in which difficulties in the
biblical narration are solved, gaps supplied, dogmatically offensive
elements removed and the genuine spirit of later Judaism infused into
the primitive history of the world.

_Titles of the Book._--The book is variously entitled. First, it is
known as [Greek: ta Iôbêlaia, hoi Iôbêlaioi], Heb. [Hebrew: haiuvalim].
This name is admirably adapted to our book, as it divides into jubilee
periods of forty-nine years each the history of the world from the
creation to the legislation on Sinai. Secondly, it is frequently
designated "The Little Genesis," [Greek: hê leptê Genesis] or [Greek: hê
Mikrogenesis], Heb. [Hebrew: bereshit zutta]. This title may have arisen
from its dealing more fully with details and minutiae than the biblical
work. For the other names by which it is referred to, such as _The
Apocalypse of Moses_, _The Testament of Moses_, _The Book of Adam's
Daughters_ and the _Life of Adam_, the reader may consult Charles's _The
Book of Jubilees_, pp. xvii.-xx.

_Object._--The object of our author was the defence and exposition of
Judaism from the Pharisaic standpoint of the 2nd century B.C. against
the disintegrating effects of Hellenism. In his elaborate defence of
Judaism our author glorifies circumcision and the sabbath, the bulwarks
of Judaism, as heavenly ordinances, the sphere of which was so far
extended as to embrace Israel on earth. The Law, as a whole, was to our
author the realization in time of what was in a sense timeless and
eternal. Though revealed in time it was superior to time. Before it had
been made known in sundry portions to the fathers, it had been kept in
heaven by the angels, and to its observance there was no limit in time
or in eternity. Our author next defends Judaism by his glorification of
Israel. Whereas the various nations of the Gentiles were subject to
angels, Israel was subject to God alone. Israel was God's son, and not
only did the nation stand in this relation to God, but also its
individual members. Israel received circumcision as a sign that they
were the Lord's, and this privilege of circumcision they enjoyed in
common with the two highest orders of angels. Hence Israel was to unite
with God and these two orders in the observance of the sabbath. Finally
the destinies of the world were bound up with Israel. The world was
renewed in the creation of the true man Jacob, and its final renewal was
to synchronize with the setting-up of God's sanctuary in Zion and the
establishment of the Messianic kingdom. In this kingdom the Gentiles had
neither part nor lot.

_Versions: Greek, Syriac, Ethiopic and Latin._--Numerous fragments of
the Greek Version have come down to us in Justin Martyr, Origen,
Diodorus of Antioch, Isidore of Alexandria, Epiphanius, John of
Malala, Syncellus and others. This version was the parent of the
Ethiopic and Latin. The Ethiopic Version is most accurate and
trustworthy, and indeed, as a rule, slavishly literal. It has
naturally suffered from the corruptions incident to transmission
through MSS. Thus dittographies are frequent and lacunae of occasional
occurrence, but the version is singularly free from the glosses and
corrections of unscrupulous scribes. The Latin Version, of which about
one-fourth has been preserved, is where it exists of almost equal
value with the Ethiopic. It has, however, suffered more at the hands
of correctors. Notwithstanding, it attests a long array of passages in
which it preserves the true text over against corruptions or omissions
in the Ethiopic Version. Finally, as regards the Syriac Version, the
evidence for its existence is not conclusive. It is based on the fact
that a British Museum MS. contains a Syriac fragment entitled "Names
of the wives of the Patriarchs according to the Hebrew Book of
Jubilees."

_The Ethiopic and Latin Versions: Translations from the Greek._--The
Ethiopic Version is translated from the Greek, for Greek words such as
[Greek: drys, balanos, lips], &c., are transliterated in the Greek.
Secondly, many passages must be retranslated into Greek before we can
discover the source of the various corruptions. And finally, proper
names are transliterated as they appear in Greek and not in Hebrew.
That the Latin is also a translation from the Greek is no less
obvious. Thus in xxxix. 12 _timoris_ = [Greek: deilias], corrupt for
[Greek: douleias]; in xxxviii. 13 _honorem_ = [Greek: timên], but
[Greek: timên] should here have been rendered by _tributum_, as the
Ethiopic and the context require; in xxxii. 26, _celavit_ = [Greek:
ekrypse], corrupt for [Greek: egrapse] (so Ethiopic).

_The Greek a Translation from the Hebrew._--The early date of our
book--the 2nd century B.C.--and its place of composition speak for a
Semitic original, and the evidence bearing on this subject is
conclusive. But the question at once arises, was the original Aramaic
or Hebrew? Certain proper names in the Latin Version ending in -_in_
seem to bespeak an Aramaic original, as Cettin, Filistin, &c. But
since in all these cases the Ethiopic transliterations end in -_m_ and
not in -_n_, it is not improbable that the Aramaism in the Latin
Version is due to the translator, who, it has been concluded on other
grounds, was a Palestinian Jew.[1] The grounds, on the other hand, for
a Hebrew original are weighty and numerous. (1) A work which claims to
be from the hand of Moses would naturally be in Hebrew, for Hebrew
according to our author was the sacred and national language. (2) The
revival of the national spirit of a nation is universally, so far as
we know, accompanied by a revival of the national language. (3) The
text must be retranslated into Hebrew in order to explain
unintelligible expressions and restore the true text. One instance
will sufficiently illustrate this statement. In xliii. 11 a certain
Ethiopic expression = [Greek: en emoi], which is a mistranslation of
[Hebrew: bi]; for [Hebrew: bi] in this context, as we know from the
parallel passage in Gen. xliv. 18, which our text reproduces almost
verbally, = [Greek: deomai]. We might observe here that our text
attests the presence of dittographies already existing in the Hebrew
text. (4) Hebraisms survive in the Ethiopic and Latin Versions. In the
former nûha in iv. 4, is a corrupt transliteration of [Hebrew: na]. In
the Latin eligere in te in xxii. 10 is a reproduction of [Hebrew:
behar be] and _in qua ... in ipsa_ in xix. 8 = [Hebrew: ba ... asher].
This idiom could, of course, be explained on the hypothesis of an
Aramaic original. (5) Many paronomasiae discover themselves on
retranslation into Hebrew.

_Textual Affinities._--A minute study of the text shows that it
attests an independent form of the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch. Thus
it agrees at times with the Samaritan, or Septuagint, or Syriac, or
Vulgate, or even with Onkelos against all the rest. To be more exact,
our book represents some form of the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch
midway between the forms presupposed by the Septuagint and the Syriac;
for it agrees more frequently with the Septuagint, or with
combinations into which the Septuagint enters, than with any other
single authority, or with any combination excluding the Septuagint.
Next to the Septuagint it agrees most often with the Syriac or with
combinations into which the Syriac enters. On the other hand, its
independence of the Septuagint is shown in a large number of passages,
where it has the support of the Samaritan and Massoretic, or of these
with various combinations of the Syriac Vulgate and Onkelos. From
these and other considerations we may conclude that the textual
evidence points to the composition of our book at some period between
250 B.C. and A.D. 100, and at a time nearer the earlier date than the
later.

_Date._--The book was written between 135 B.C. and the year of
Hyrcanus's breach with the Pharisees. This conclusion is drawn from the
following facts:--(1) The book was written during the pontificate of the
Maccabean family, and not earlier than 135 B.C. For in xxxii. 1 Levi is
called a "priest of the Most High God." Now the only high priests who
bore this title were the Maccabean, who appear to have assumed it as
reviving the order of Melchizedek when they displaced the Zadokite order
of Aaron. Jewish tradition ascribes the assumption of this title to John
Hyrcanus. It was retained by his successors down to Hyrcanus II. (2) It
was written before 96 B.C. or some years earlier in the reign of John
Hyrcanus; for since our author is of the strictest sect a Pharisee and
at the same time an upholder of the Maccabean pontificate, Jubilees
cannot have been written after 96 when the Pharisees and Alexander
Jannaeus came to open strife. Nay more, it cannot have been written
after the open breach between Hyrcanus and the Pharisees, when the
former joined the Sadducean party.

The above conclusions are confirmed by a large mass of other evidence
postulating the same date. We may, however, observe that our book points
to the period already past--of stress and persecution that preceded the
recovery of national independence under the Maccabees, and presupposes
as its historical background the most flourishing period of the
Maccabean hegemony.

_Author._--Our author was a Pharisee of the straitest sect. He
maintained the everlasting validity of the law, he held the strictest
views on circumcision, the sabbath, and the duty of shunning all
intercourse with the Gentiles; he believed in angels and in a blessed
immortality. In the next place he was an upholder of the Maccabean
pontificate. He glorifies Levi's successors as high-priests and civil
rulers, and applies to them the title assumed by the Maccabean princes,
though he does not, like the author of the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs, expect the Messiah to come forth from among them. He may
have been a priest.

_The Views of the Author on the Messianic Kingdom and the Future
Life._--According to our author the Messianic kingdom was to be brought
about gradually by the progressive spiritual development of man and a
corresponding transformation of nature. Its members were to reach the
limit of 1000 years in happiness and peace. During its continuance the
powers of evil were to be restrained, and the last judgment was
apparently to take place at its close. As regards the doctrine of a
future life, our author adopts a position novel for a Palestinian
writer. He abandons the hope of a resurrection of the body. The souls of
the righteous are to enjoy a blessed immortality after death. This is
the earliest attested instance of this expectation in the last two
centuries B.C.

LITERATURE.--_Ethiopic Text and Translations_: This text was first
edited by Dillmann from two MSS. in 1859, and in 1895 by R. H. Charles
from four (_The Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees ...
with the Hebrew, Syriac, Greek and Latin fragments_). In the latter
edition, the Greek and Latin fragments are printed together with the
Ethiopic. The book was translated into German by Dillmann from one MS.
in Ewald's _Jahrbücher_, vols. ii. and iii. (1850, 1851), and by
Littmann (in Kautzsch's _Apok. und Pseud._ ii. 39-119) from Charles's
Ethiopic text; into English by Schodde (_Bibl. Sacr._ 1885) from
Dillmann's text, and by Charles (_Jewish Quarterly Review_, vols. v.,
vi., vii. (1893-1895) from the text afterwards published in 1895, and
finally in his commentary, _The Book of Jubilees_ (1902). _Critical
Inquiries_: Dillmann, "Das Buch der Jubiläen" (Ewald's _Jahrbücher d.
bibl. Wissensch._ (1851), iii. 72-96); "Pseudepig. des Alten
Testaments," Herzog's _Realencyk._[2] xii. 364-365; "Beiträge aus dem
Buche der Jubiläen zur Kritik des Pentateuch Textes"
(_Sitzungsberichte der Kgl. Preussischen Akad._, 1883); Beer, _Das
Buch der Jubiläen_ (1856); Rönsch, _Das Buch der Jubiläen_ (1874);
Singer, _Das Buch der Jubiläen_ (1898); Bohn, "Die Bedeutung des
Buches der Jubiläen" (_Theol. Stud. und Kritiken_ (1900), pp.
167-184). A full bibliography will be found in Schürer or in R. H.
Charles's commentary, _The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis_
(1902), which deals exhaustively with all the questions treated in
this article. (R. H. C.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] In the Ethiopic Version in xxi. 12 it should be observed that in
the list of the twelve trees suitable for burning on the altar
several are transliterated Aramaic names of trees. But in a late
Hebrew work (2nd century B.C.) the popular names of such objects
would naturally be used. In certain cases the Hebrew may have been
forgotten, or, where the tree was of late introduction, been
non-existent.

JUBILEE YEAR, an institution in the Roman Catholic Church, observed
every twenty-fifth year, from Christmas to Christmas. During its
continuance plenary indulgence is obtainable by all the faithful, on
condition of their penitently confessing their sins and visiting certain
churches a stated number of times, or doing an equivalent amount of
meritorious work. The institution dates from the time of Boniface VIII.,
whose bull _Antiquorum habet fidem_ is dated the 22nd of February 1300.
The circumstances in which it was promulgated are related by a
contemporary authority, Jacobus Cajetanus, according to whose account
("Relatio de centesimo s. jubilaeo anno" in the _Bibliotheca Patrum_) a
rumour spread through Rome at the close of 1299 that every one visiting
St Peter's on the 1st of January 1300 would receive full absolution. The
result was an enormous influx of pilgrims to Rome, which stirred the
pope's attention. Nothing was found in the archives, but an old peasant
107 years of age avowed that his father had been similarly benefited a
century previously. The bull was then issued, and the pilgrims became
even more numerous, to the profit of both clergy and citizens.
Originally the churches of St Peter and St Paul in Rome were the only
jubilee churches, but the privilege was afterwards extended to the
Lateran Church and that of Sta Maria Maggiore, and it is now shared also
for the year immediately following that of the Roman jubilee by a number
of specified provincial churches. At the request of the Roman people,
which was supported by St Bridget of Sweden and by Petrarch, Clement VI.
in 1343 appointed, by the bull _Unigenitus Dei filius_, that the jubilee
should recur every fifty years instead of every hundred years as had
been originally contemplated in the constitution of Boniface; Urban VI.,
who was badly in need of money, by the bull _Salvator noster_ in 1389
reduced the interval still further to thirty-three years (the supposed
duration of the earthly life of Christ); and Paul II. by the bull
_Ineffabilis_ (April 19, 1470) finally fixed it at twenty-five years.
Paul II. also permitted foreigners to substitute for the pilgrimage to
Rome a visit to some specified church in their own country and a
contribution towards the expenses of the Holy Wars. According to the
special ritual prepared by Alexander VI. in 1500, the pope on the
Christmas Eve with which the jubilee begins goes in solemn procession to
a particular walled-up door ("Porta aurea") of St Peter's and knocks
three times, using at the same time the words of Ps. cxviii. 19
(_Aperite mihi portas justitiae_). The doors are then opened and
sprinkled with holy water, and the pope passes through. A similar
ceremony is conducted by cardinals at the other jubilee churches of the
city. At the close of the jubilee, the special doorway is again built up
with appropriate solemnities.

The last ordinary jubilee was observed in 1900. "Extraordinary"
jubilees are sometimes appointed on special occasions, e.g. the
accession of a new pope, or that proclaimed by Pope Leo XIII. for the
12th of March 1881, "in order to obtain from the mercy of Almighty God
help and succour in the weighty necessities of the Church, and comfort
and strength in the battle against her numerous and mighty foes."
These are not so much jubilees in the ordinary sense as special grants
of plenary indulgences for particular purposes (_Indulgentiae
plenariae in forma jubilaei_).

JÚCAR, a river of eastern Spain. It rises in the north of the province
of Cuenca, at the foot of the Cerro de San Felipe (5906 ft.), and flows
south past Cuenca to the borders of Albacete; here it bends towards the
east, and maintains this direction for the greater part of its remaining
course. On the right it is connected with the city of Albacete by the
Maria Cristina canal. After entering Valencia, it receives on the left
its chief tributary the Cabriel, which also rises near the Cerro de San
Felipe, in the Montes Universales. Near Alcira the Júcar turns
south-eastward, and then sharply north, curving again to the south-east
before it enters the Mediterranean Sea at Cullera, after a total course
of 314 m. Its estuary forms the harbour of Cullera, and its lower waters
are freely utilized for purposes of irrigation.

JUD, LEO (1482-1542), known to his contemporaries as Meister Leu, Swiss
reformer, was born in Alsace and educated at Basel, where after a
course in medicine he turned to the study of theology. This change was
due to the influence of Zwingli whose colleague at Zürich Jud became
after serving for four years (1518-1522) as pastor of Einsiedeln. His
chief activity was as a translator; he was the leading spirit in the
translation of the Zürich Bible and also made a Latin version of the Old
Testament. He died at Zürich on the 19th of June 1542.

See _Life_ by C. Pestalozzi (1860); art. in Herzog-Hauck's
_Realencyklopädie_, vol. ix. (1901).

JUDAEA, the name given to the southern part of Palestine as occupied by
the Jewish community in post-exilic days under Persian, Greek and Roman
overlordship. In Luke and Acts the term is sometimes used loosely to
denote the whole of western Palestine. The limits of Judaea were never
very precisely defined and--especially on the northern frontier--varied
from time to time. After the death of Herod, Archelaus became ethnarch
of Samaria, Idumea and Judaea, and when he was deposed Judaea was merged
in Syria, being governed by a procurator whose headquarters were in
Caesarea.

For a description of the natural features of the country see
PALESTINE; for its history see JEWS and JUDAH. Cf. T. Mommsen, _The
Provinces of the Roman Empire_, ch. xi.

JUDAH, a district of ancient Palestine, to the south of the kingdom of
Israel, between the Dead Sea and the Philistine plain. It falls
physically into three parts: the hill-country from Hebron northwards
through Jerusalem; the lowland (Heb. _Shephelah_) on the west; and the
steppes or "dry land" (Heb. _Negeb_) on the south. The district is one
of striking contrasts, with a lofty and stony table-land in the centre
(which reaches a height of 3300 ft. just north of Hebron), with a
strategically important valley dividing the central mountains from the
lowland, and with the most desolate of tracts to the east (by the Dead
Sea) and south. Some parts, especially around Hebron, are extremely
fertile, but the land as a whole has the characteristics of the southern
wilderness--the so-called "desert" is not a sterile Sahara--and was more
fitted for pastoral occupations; see further G. A. Smith, _Hist. Geog.
Holy Land_, chs. x.-xv. Life in ancient Judah is frequently depicted in
the Bible, but much of the Judaean history is obscure. In the days of
the old Hebrew monarchy there were periods of conflict and rivalry
between Judah and Israel--even times when the latter incorporated, or at
least claimed supremacy over, the former. Later, from the 5th century
B.C. there was a breach between the Jews (the name is derived from
Judah) and the Samaritans (q.v.). The intervening years after the fall
of Samaria (722 B.C.), and after the destruction of Jerusalem (586
B.C.), were probably marked by closer intercourse, similar to the period
of union in the popular traditions relating to the pre-monarchical age.
The course of Judaean history was conditioned, also, by the proximity of
the Philistines in the west, Moab in the east, and by Edom and other
southern peoples extending from North Arabia to the delta of the Nile.
Judah's stormy history, continued under Greek and Roman domination,
reached its climax in the birth of Christianity, and ended with the fall
of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (see JEWS, PALESTINE).

In conformity with ancient methods of genealogy (q.v.), Judah is
traced back to a son of Jacob or Israel by Leah and along with other
"tribes" (Dan, Levi, Simeon, &c.) is included under the collective
term Israel. Thus it shares the general traditions of the Israelites,
although Judah appears as an individual in the story of his "brother"
Joseph (on ch. xxxvii. seq., see GENESIS). Its boundaries in Joshua
xv. are manifestly artificial or imaginary; they include the
Philistines and number places which are elsewhere ascribed to Simeon
or Dan. The origin of the name (_Yehudah_) is quite uncertain; the
interpretation "praised" is suggested in Gen. xxix. 35 (cf; xlix. 8
seq.), but some connexion with allied names, as Yehud (Yahudiya, E. of
Jaffa), or Ehud (a Benjamite clan) seems more probable. That Judah,
whatever its original connotation, underwent development through the
incorporation of other clans appears from 1 Chron. ii., iv., where it
is found to contain a large element of non-Israelite population whose
names find analogies or parallels in Simeonite, Edomite and other
southern lists.[1] Indeed, underlying the account of the Israelite
exodus (q.v.) there are traces of a separate movement of certain
clans--apart from the Israelite invasion of Palestine--who are
ultimately found in the south of Judah; and the traditions in
Chronicles themselves allow the view that the incorporation of these
elements began under David, when Judah first occupies a prominent
position in biblical history (cf. Cheyne, _Ency. Bib._, col. 2618
seq., and see CALEB, JERAHMEEL, KENITES). But such movements were not
necessarily limited to one single period, and the evidence connecting
(a) the non-Israelite clans of Judah with Levites, and (b) both with
the south, is found in narratives referring to several different ages
and might point to an unceasing relationship with the south. On the
other hand, clans, which in the traditions of David's time were in the
south of Judah, about five hundred years later (in the exile) are
found near Jerusalem (e.g. Caleb), so that either these survived the
strenuous vicissitudes of half a millennium or all perspective of
their early history has been lost. In Gen. xxxviii. a curious
narrative points to the separation of Judah "from his brethren" and
his marriage with Shua the Canaanite; two sons Er and Onan perish and
the third Shelah survives. From Judah and Er's widow Tamar are derived
Perez and Zerah, and these with Shelah appear in post-exilic times as
the three representative families of Judah (Neh. xi. 4-6; 1 Chron. ix.
4-6). This story, amid a number of other motives, appears to reflect
the growth of the tribe of Judah and its fluctuations, but that the
reference is to any very early period is unlikely, partly because the
interest of the story is in post-exilic families, and partly because
the scenes (Adullam, Chezib and Timnah) overlap with David's own
fights between Hebron and Jerusalem (2 Sam. xxi. xxiii.; see DAVID,
_ad fin._).[2] Even David's conquest of Jerusalem (2 Sam. v.)
conflicts both with the statement of its capture by Judah many years
previously (Judges i. 8), and with the traditions of the Israelite
heroes Joshua and Saul. Consequently, the few surviving data are too
uncertain for any decisive conclusions regarding the origin of the
tribe of Judah. Judah as a kingdom may have taken its name from a
limited district, in which case its growth finds a parallel in the
extension of the name Samaria from the city to the province. The
location of Yehud and Ehud in the light of 1 Kings iv. 8-19 (perhaps
the subdivisions of the Israelite kingdom, see SOLOMON), would
necessitate the assumption of a violent separation from the north;
this, however, is quite conceivable (see JEWS, §§ 11-13). On the
bearing of South Judah upon the historical criticism of the Old
Testament, see especially N. Schmidt, _Hibbert Journal_ (1908), pp.
322-342, "The Jerahmeel Theory and the Historic Importance of the
Negeb, with some account of personal exploration of the country"; also
JEWS, § 20. (S. A. C.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See especially Wellhausen, _De gentibus et familiis Judaeorum_
(Göttingen, 1869), the articles on the relative proper names in the
_Ency. Bib._, and E. Meyer, _Die Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme_,
pp. 299-471 (much valuable matter).

[2] For the principle of the Levirate illustrated in Gen. xxxviii.,
see RUTH. Lagarde (_Orientalia_, ii.) ingeniously conjectured that
the chapter typified the suppression of Phoenician (viz. Tamar, the
date-palm) and the old Canaanite elements (Zerah = _indigena_) by the
younger Israelite invaders (Perez = "branch"). For other discussions,
apart from commentaries on Genesis, see B. Luther in Meyer, _op.
cit._, pp. 200 sqq.

JUDAS ISCARIOT ([Greek: Ioudas Iskariôtês] or [Greek: Iskariôth]), in
the Bible, the son of Simon Iscariot (John vi. 71, xiii. 26), and one of
the twelve apostles. He is always enumerated last with the special
mention of the fact that he was the betrayer of Jesus. If the generally
accepted explanation of his surname ("man of Kerioth"; see Josh. xv. 25)
be correct, he was the only original member of the apostolic band who
was not a Galilean. The circumstances which led to his admission into
the apostolic circle are not stated; while the motives by which he was
actuated in enabling the Jewish authorities to arrest Jesus without
tumult have been variously analysed by scholars. According to some (as
De Quincey in his famous _Essay_) the sole object of Judas was to place
Jesus in a position in which He should be compelled to make what had
seemed to His followers the too tardy display of His Messianic power:
according to others (and this view seems more in harmony with the Gospel
narratives) Judas was an avaricious and dishonest man, who had already
abused the confidence placed in him (John xii. 6), and who was now
concerned only with furthering his own ends.

As regards the effects of his subsequent remorse and the use to which
his ill-gotten gains were put, the strikingly apparent discrepancies
between the narratives of Matt. xxvii. 3, 10 and Acts i. 18, 19 have
attracted the attention of biblical scholars, ever since Papias, in his
fourth book, of which a fragment has been preserved, discussed the
subject. The simplest explanation is that they represent different
traditions, the Gospel narrative being composed with more special
reference to prophetic fulfilments, and being probably nearer the truth
than the short explanatory note inserted by the author of the Acts (see
Bernard, _Expositor_, June 1904, p. 422 seq.). In ecclesiastical legend
and in sacred art Judas Iscariot is generally treated as the very
incarnation of treachery, ingratitude and impiety. The Middle Ages,
after their fashion, supplied the lacunae in what they deemed his too
meagre biography. According to the common form of their story, he
belonged to the tribe of Reuben.[1] Before he was born his mother
Cyborea had a dream that he was destined to murder his father, commit
incest with his mother, and sell his God. The attempts made by her and
her husband to avert this curse simply led to its accomplishment. At his
birth Judas was enclosed in a chest and flung into the sea; picked up on
a foreign shore, he was educated at the court until a murder committed
in a moment of passion compelled his flight. Coming to Judaea, he
entered the service of Pontius Pilate as page, and during this period
committed the first two of the crimes which had been expressly foretold.
Learning the secret of his birth, he, full of remorse, sought the
prophet who, he had heard, had power on earth to forgive sins. He was
accepted as a disciple and promoted to a position of trust, where
avarice, the only vice in which he had hitherto been unpractised,
gradually took possession of his soul, and led to the complete
fulfilment of his evil destiny. This Judas legend, as given by Jacobus
de Voragine, obtained no small popularity; and it is to be found in
various shapes in every important literature of Europe.

For the history of its genesis and its diffusion the reader may
consult D'Ancona, _La leggenda di Vergogna e la leggenda di Giuda_
(1869), and papers by W. Creizenach in Paul and Braune's _Beitr. zur
Gesch. der deutschen Sprache und Litteratur_, vol. ii. (1875), and
Victor Diederich in _Russiche Revue_ (1880). Cholevius, in his
_Geschichte der deutschen Poesie nach ihren antiken Elementen_ (1854),
pointed out the connexion of the legend with the Oedipus story.
According to Daub (_Judas Ischariot, oder Betrachtungen über das Böse
im Verhältniss zum Guten_, 1816, 1818) Judas was "an incarnation of
the devil," to whom "mercy and blessedness are alike impossible."

The popular hatred of Judas has found strange symbolical expression in
various parts of Christendom. In Corfu, for instance, the people at a
given signal on Easter Eve throw vast quantities of crockery from
their windows and roofs into the streets, and thus execute an
imaginary stoning of Judas (see Kirkwall, _Ionian Islands_, ii. 47).
At one time (according to Mustoxidi, _Delle cose corciresi_) the
tradition prevailed that the traitor's house and country villa existed
in the island, and that his descendants were to be found among the
local Jews.

Details in regard to some Judas legends and superstitions are given in
_Notes and Queries_, 2nd series, v., vi. and vii.; 3rd series, vii.;
4th series, i.; 5th series, vi. See also a paper by Professor Rendel
Harris entitled "Did Judas really commit suicide?" in the _American
Journal of Philology_ (July 1900). Matthew Arnold's poem "St Brandan"
gives fine expression to the old story that, on account of an act of
charity done to a leper at Joppa, Judas was allowed an hour's respite
from hell once a year. (G. Mi.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] Other forms make him a Danite, and consider the passage in
Genesis (xlix. 17) a prophecy of the traitor.

JUDAS-TREE, the _Cercis siliquastrum_ of botanists, belonging to the
section _Caesalpineae_ of the natural order Leguminosae. It is a native
of the south of France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Asia Minor,
and forms a handsome low tree with a flat spreading head. In Spring it
is covered with a profusion of purplish-pink flowers, which appear
before the leaves. The flowers have an agreeable acid taste, and are
eaten mixed with salad or made into fritters. The tree was frequently
figured by the older herbalists. One woodcut by Castor Durante has the
figure of Judas Iscariot suspended from one of the branches,
illustrating the popular tradition regarding this tree. A second
species, _C. canadensis_, is common in North America from Canada to
Alabama and eastern Texas, and differs from the European species in its
smaller size and pointed leaves. The flowers are also used in salads and
for making pickles, while the branches are used to dye wool a nankeen
colour.

JUDD, SYLVESTER (1813-1853) American Unitarian clergyman and author, was
born in Westhampton, Massachusetts, on the 23rd of July 1813. He bore
the same name as his father and grandfather; the former (1789-1860) made
an especial study of local history of the towns of the Connecticut
valley, and wrote a _History of Hadley_ (1863). The son lived in
Northampton after his tenth year, was converted in a revival there in
1826, graduated from Yale in 1836, and taught in 1836 at Templeton,
Mass., where he first met Unitarians and soon found the solution of his
theological difficulties in their views. He entered the Harvard divinity
school, from which he graduated in 1840. In the same year he was
ordained pastor of the Unitarian church of Augusta, Maine, where he died
on the 26th of January 1853. His widest reputation was as the author of
_Margaret, a Tale of the Real and the Ideal, including Sketches of a
place not before described, called Mons Christi_ (1845; revised 1851),
written to exhibit the errors of Calvinistic and all trinitarian
theology, and the evils of war, intemperance, capital punishment, the
prison system of the time, and the national treatment of the Indians.
This story, published anonymously, attracted much attention by its true
descriptions of New England life and scenery as well as by its author's
earnest purpose. _Richard Edney and the Governor's Family_ (1850) is in
much the same vein as _Margaret_. A poem entitled _Philo, an Evangeliad_
(1850) is a versified defence of Unitarianism. He published, besides,
_The Church, in a Series of Discourses_ (1854). As a preacher and pastor
he urged the desirability of infant baptism. He lectured frequently on
international peace and opposed slavery.

See Arethusa Hall, _Life and Character of the Rev. Sylvester Judd_
(Boston, 1857) published anonymously.

JUDE, THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF, a book of the New Testament. As with the
epistle of James, the problems of the writing centre upon the
superscription, which addresses in Pauline phraseology (1 Thess. i. 4; 2
Thess. ii. 13; Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. 1. 2) the Christian world in general in
the name of "Jude, the brother of James" (Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3).
The historical situation depicted must then fall within the lifetime of
this Judas, whose two grandchildren Zoker and James (Hegesippus _ap._
Phil. Sidetes) by their testimony before the authorities brought to an
end the (Palestinian) persecution of Domitian (Hegesippus _ap._ Eus. _H.
E._ iii. 20, 7). These two grandsons of Judas thereafter "lived until
the time of Trajan," ruling the churches "because they had (thus) been
witnesses (martyrs) and were also relatives of the Lord." But in that
case we must either reject the testimony of the same Hegesippus that up
to their death, and that of Symeon son of Clopas, successor in the
Jerusalem see of James the Lord's brother, "who suffered martyrdom at
the age of one hundred and twenty years while Trajan was emperor and
Atticus governor," "the church (universal) had remained a pure and
uncorrupted virgin" free from "the folly of heretical teachers"; or else
we must reject the superscription, which presents the grandfather in
vehement conflict with the very heresies in question. For the testimony
of Hegesippus is explicit that at the time of the arrest of Zoker and
James they were all who survived of the kindred of the Lord. True, there
is confusion in the narrative of Hegesippus, and even a probability that
the martyrdom of Symeon dated under Trajan really took place in the
persecution of Domitian, before the arrest of the grandsons of Jude, for
apart from the alleged age of Symeon (the traditional Jewish limit of
human life, Gen. vi. 3, Deut. xxxiv. 7), the cause of his apprehension
"on the ground that he was _a descendant of David_ and a Christian"
(Hegesippus _ap._ Eus. _H. E._ iii. 32, 3) is inconsistent with both the
previous statements regarding the "martyrdom" of Zoker and James, that
they were cited as the only surviving Christian Davididae, and that the
persecution on this ground collapsed through the manifest absurdity of
the accusation. But even if we date the rise of heresies in the reign of
Domitian instead of Trajan,[1] the attributing of this epistle against
corrupting heresy to "Jude the brother of James" will still be
incompatible with the statements of Hegesippus, our only informant
regarding his later history.

The Greek of Jude is also such as to exclude the idea of authorship in
Palestine by an unschooled Galilean, at an early date in church history.
As F. H. Chase has pointed out: (1) the terms [Greek: klêtoi, sôtêria,
pistis], have attained their later technical sense; (2) "the writer is
steeped in the language of the LXX.," employing its phraseology
independently of other N.T. writers, and not that of the canonical books
alone, but of the broader non-Palestinian canon; (3) "he has at his
command a large stock of stately, sonorous, sometimes poetical words,"
proving him a "man of some culture, and, as it would seem, not without
acquaintance with Greek writers."

If the superscription be not from the hand of the actual brother of
Jesus, the question may well be asked why some apostolic name was not
chosen which might convey greater authority? The answer is to be found
in the direction toward which the principal defenders of orthodoxy in
100-150 turned for "the deposit of the faith" (Jude 3) in its purity.
The Pastoral Epistles point to "the pattern of sound words, even the
sayings of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Tim. vi. 3, &c.), as the arsenal
of orthodoxy against the same foe (with 1 Tim. vi. 3-10; cf. Jude 4, 11,
16, 18 seq.). Ignatius's motto is to "be inseparable from Jesus Christ
and from your bishop" (_ad Trall._ vii.), Polycarp's, to "turn unto the
word delivered unto us from the beginning" (cf. Jude 3; 1 John ii. 7,
iii. 23, iv. 21), "the oracles of the Lord," which the false teachers
"pervert to their own lusts." Papias, his [Greek: hetairos] (Irenaeus),
turns in fact from "the vain talk of the many," and from the "alien
commandments" to such as were "delivered by the Lord to the faith,"
offering to the Christian world his _Interpretation of the Lord's
Oracles_ based upon personal inquiry from those who "came his way," who
could testify as to apostolic tradition. Hegesippus, after a journey to
all the principal seats of Christian tradition, testifies that all are
holding to the true doctrine as transmitted at the original seat, where
it was witnessed first by the apostles and afterwards by the kindred of
the Lord and "witnesses" of the first generation. All these writers in
one form or other revert to the historic tradition against the licence
of innovators. Hegesippus indicates plainly the seat of its authority.
For the period before the adoption of a written standard the resort was
not so much to "apostles" as to "disciples" and "witnesses." The appeal
was to "those who from the beginning had been eyewitnesses and ministers
of the word" (Luke i. 2); and these were to be found primarily (until
the complete destruction of that church during the revolt of Barcochebas
and its suppression by Hadrian) in the mother community in Jerusalem
(cf. Acts xv. 2). Its life is the measure of the period of oral
tradition, whose requiem is sung by Papias. Hegesippus (_ap._ Eus. _H.
E._ iii. 32, 7 seq.) looks back to it as the safe guardian of the
deposit "of the faith" against all the depredations of heresy which
"when the sacred college of apostles had suffered death in various
forms, and the generation of those that had been deemed worthy to hear
the inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away ... attempted
thenceforth with a bold face, to proclaim, in opposition to the
preaching of the truth, 'the knowledge which is falsely so-called
([Greek: pseudônymos gnôsis]).'" For an appeal like that of our epistle
to the authority of the past against the moral laxity and antinomian
teaching of degenerate Pauline churches in the Greek world, the natural
resort after Paul himself (Pastoral Epp.) would be the "kindred of the
Lord" who were the "leaders and witnesses in every church" in Palestine.
Doubtless the framer of Jude 1 would have preferred the aegis of "James
the Lord's brother," if this, like that of Paul, had not been already
appropriated. Failing this, the next most imposing was "Judas, the
brother of James."

The superscription in the case of Jude, unlike that of James, takes hold
of the substance of the book. Verse 3 and the farewell (v. 24 seq.) show
that Jude was composed from the start as an "epistle." If this
appearance be not fallacious, the obvious relation between the two
superscriptions will be best explained by the supposition that the
author of Jude gave currency to the existing homily (James) before
composing under the pseudonym of Jude. On the interconnexion of the two
see Sieffert, _s.v._ "Judasbrief" in Hauck, _Realencykl._ vol. ix.

Judas is conceived as cherishing the intention of discussing for the
benefit of the Christian world (for no mere local church is addressed)
the subject of "our common salvation" (the much desiderated
authoritative definition of the orthodox faith), but diverted from this
purpose by the growth of heresy.

Few writings of this compass afford more copious evidence of date in
their literary affinities. The references to Enoch (principally ver. 14
seq. = _Eth. En._ i. 9, but cf. F. H. Chase, _s.v._ "Jude" in Hastings's
_Dict. Bible_) and the _Assumption of Moses_ (v. 9) have more a
geographical than a chronological bearing, the stricter canon of
Palestine excluding these apocryphal books of 90 B.C. to A.D. 40; but
the Pauline writings are freely employed, especially 1 Cor. x. 1-13,
Rom. xvi. 25 seq., and probably Eph. and Col. Moreover, the author
explicitly refers to the apostolic age as already past, and to the
fulfilment of the Pauline prediction (1 Tim. iv. 1 sqq.) of the advent
of heresy (v. 17 seq.). The Pauline doctrine of "grace" has been
perverted to lasciviousness, as by the heretics whom Polycarp opposes
(_Ep. Polyc._ vii.), and this doctrine is taught for "hire" (vv. 11, 12,
16; cf. 1 Tim. vi. 5). The unworthy "shepherds" (v. 12; cf. Ezek. xxxiv.
8; John x. 12 seq.) live at the expense of their flocks, polluting the
"love-feasts," corrupting the true disciples. According to Clement of
Alexandria this was written prophetically to apply to the Carpocratians,
an antinomian Gnostic sect of _c._ 150; but hyper-Paulinists had given
occasion to similar complaints already in Rev. ii. 14, 20 (95). Thus
Paulinism and its perversion alike are in the past. As regards the
undeniable contact of _Didache_ ii. 7 with Jude 22 seq. (cf. _Didache_,
iv. 1, Jude 8) priority cannot be determined; and the use of 1 John iii.
12 in Jude 11 is doubtful.

On the other hand, practically the whole of Jude is taken up into 2
Pet., the author merely avoiding, so far as he discovers them, the
quotations from apocryphal writings, and prefixing and affixing sections
of his own to refute the heretical eschatology. On the priority of Jude
see especially against Spitta _Zur Gesch. u. Litt. d. Urchristenthums_,
ii. 409-411, F. H. Chase, _loc. cit._ p. 803. (On 2 Pet. see PETER
EPISTLES OF.) Unfortunately, the date of 2 Pet. cannot be determined as
earlier than late in the second century, so that we are thrown back upon
internal evidence for the inferior limit.

The treatment of the heresy as the anti-Christ who precedes "the last
hour" (v. 18), reminds us of 1 John ii. 18, but it is indicative of
conditions somewhat less advanced that the heretics have not yet "gone
out from" the church. The treatment of the apostolic age as past, and
the deposit of the faith as a _regula fidei_ (cf. Ign. _ad Trall._ ix.),
the presence of antinomian Gnosticism, denying the doctrine of lordship
and "glories" (v. 8), with "discriminations" between "psychic" and
"pneumatic" (v. 19), strongly oppose a date earlier than 100.

Sieffert, on account of the superscription, would date as early as
70-80, but acknowledges the hyper-Pauline affinity of the heresy, its
propagation as a doctrine, and close relation to the Nicolaitan of Rev.
ii. 14. To these phenomena he gives accordingly a correspondingly early
date. The nature of the heresy, opposed, however, and the resort to the
authority of Jude "the brother of James" against it, favour rather the
period of Polycarp and Papias (117-150).

The history of the reception of the epistle into church canons is
similar to that of James, beginning with a quotation of it as the work
of Jude by Clement of Alexandria (_Paed._ iii. 8), a reference by
Tertullian (_De cult. fem._ i. 3), and a more or less hesitant
endorsement by Origen ("if one might adduce the epistle of Jude," _In
Matt._ tom. xvii. 30) and by the _Muratorianum_ (_c._ 200), which
excepts Jude and 2 and 3 John from its condemnation of apocryphal
literature, placing it on a par with the Wisdom of Solomon "which was
written by friends of his in his honour." The use of apocryphal
literature in Jude itself may account for much of the critical
disposition toward it of many subsequent writers. Eusebius classed it
among the "disputed" books, declaring that as with James "not many of
the ancients have mentioned it" (_H. E._ ii. 23, 25).

The _Introd. to the New Test._ by Holtzmann, Jülicher, Weiss, Zahn,
Davidson, Salmon, Bacon and the standard _Commentaries_ of Meyer and
Holtzmann, the _International_ (Bigg) and other series, contain
discussions of authorship and date. The articles s.v. in Hastings's
_Dict. Bible_ (Chase) and the _Ency. Bib._ (Cone) are full and
scholarly. In addition the _Histories of the Apostolic Age_, by
Hausrath, Weizsäcker, McGiffert, Bartlet, Ropes and others, and the
kindred works of Baur, Schwegler and Pfleiderer should be consulted.
Moffat's _Historical New Testament_, 2nd ed., p. 589, contains a
convenient summary of the evidence with copious bibliography. One of
the most thorough of conservative treatments is the _Commentary on
Jude and Second Peter_ by J. B. Mayor (1907). (B. W. B.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] On this point (date of the outbreak of heresy) there is some
inconsistency in the reported fragments of Hegesippus. In that quoted
below from Eus. _H. E._ iii. 32. 7 seq., it is expressly dated after
the martyrdom of Symeon and death of the grandsons of Jude under
Trajan. In iii. 19 the "ancient tradition" attributing the
denunciation of these to "some of the heretics" is perhaps not from
Hegesippus; but in iv. 22 the beginning of heresy is traced to a
certain Thebuthis, a candidate for the bishopric after the death of
James, as rival to Symeon. The same figure of the church as a pure
virgin is also used as in iii. 32. But as it is only the envious
feeling of Thebuthis which is traced to this early date, Hegesippus
doubtless means to place the outbreak later.

JUDGE (Lat. _judex_, Fr. _juge_), in the widest legal sense an officer
appointed by the sovereign power in a state to administer the law; in
English practice, however, justices of the peace and magistrates are not
usually regarded as "judges" in the titular sense. The duties of the
judge, whether in a civil or a criminal matter, are to hear the
statements on both sides in open court, to arrive at a conclusion as to
the truth of the facts submitted to him or, when a jury is engaged, to
direct the jury to find such a conclusion, to apply to the facts so
found the appropriate rules of law, and to certify by his judgment the
relief to which the parties are entitled or the obligations or penalties
which they have incurred. With the judgment the office of the judge is
at an end, but the judgment sets in motion the executive forces of the
state, whose duty it is to carry it into execution.

Such is the type of a judicial officer recognized by mature systems of
law, but it is not to be accepted as the universal type, and the
following qualifying circumstances should be noticed: (1) in primitive
systems of law the judicial is not separated from the legislative and
other governing functions; (2) although the judge is assumed to take the
law from the legislative authority, yet, as the existing law never at
any time contains provision for all cases, the judge may be obliged to
invent or create principles applicable to the case--this is called by
Bentham and the English jurists judge-made and judiciary law; (3) the
separation of the function of judge and jury, and the exclusive charge
of questions of law given to the judge, are more particularly
characteristic of the English judicial system. During a considerable
period in the history of Roman law an entirely different distribution of
parts was observed. The adjudication of a case was divided between the
_magistratus_ and the _judex_, neither of whom corresponds to the
English judge. The former was a public officer charged with the
execution of the law; the latter was an arbitrator whom the magistrates
commissioned to hear and report upon a particular case.

The following are points more specially characteristic of the English
system and its kindred judicial systems: (1) Judges are absolutely
protected from action for anything that they may do in the discharge of
their judicial duties. This is true in the fullest sense of judges of
the supreme courts. "It is a principle of English law that no action
will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial
act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly."
Other judicial officers are also protected, though not to the same
extent, against actions. (2) The highest class of judges are irremovable
except by what is in effect a special act of parliament, viz. a
resolution passed by both houses and assented to by the sovereign. The
inferior judges and magistrates are removable for misconduct by the lord
chancellor. (3) The judiciary in England is not a separate profession.
The judges are chosen from the class of advocates, and almost entirely
according to their eminence at the bar. (4) Judges are in England
appointed for the most part by the crown. In a few cases municipal
corporations may appoint their own judicial officer.

See also LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR; LORD CHIEF JUSTICE; MASTER OF THE
ROLLS, &c., &c., and the accounts of judicial systems under country
headings.

JUDGE-ADVOCATE-GENERAL, an officer appointed in England to assist the
Crown with advice in matters relating to military law, and more
particularly as to courts-martial. In the army the administration of
justice as pertaining to discipline is carried out in accordance with
the provisions of military law, and it is the function of the
judge-advocate-general to ensure that these disciplinary powers are
exercised in strict conformity with that law. Down to 1793 the
judge-advocate-general acted as secretary and legal adviser to the board
of general officers, but on the reconstitution of the office of
commander-in-chief in that year he ceased to perform secretarial duties,
but remained chief legal adviser. He retained his seat in parliament and
in 1806 he was made a member of the government and a privy councillor.
The office ceased to be political in 1892, on the recommendation of the
select committee of 1888 on army estimates, and was conferred on Sir F.
Jeune (afterwards Lord St Helier). There was no salary attached to the
office when held by Lord St Helier, and the duties were for the most
part performed by deputy. On his death in 1905, Thomas Milvain, K.C.,
was appointed, and the terms and conditions of the post were rearranged
as follows: (1) A salary of £2000 a year; (2) the holder to devote his
whole time to the duties of the post; (3) the retention of the post
until the age of seventy, subject to continued efficiency--but with
claim to gratuity or pension on retirement. The holder was to be
subordinate to the secretary of state for war, without direct access to
the sovereign. The appointment is conferred by letters-patent, which
define the exact functions attaching to the office, which practically
are the reviewing of the proceedings of all field-general, general and
district courts-martial held in the United Kingdom, and advising the
sovereign as to the confirmation of the finding and sentence. The deputy
judge-advocate is a salaried official in the department of the
judge-advocate-general and acts under his letters-patent. A separate
judge-advocate-general's department is maintained in India, where at one
time deputy judge-advocates were attached to every important command.
All general courts-martial held in the United Kingdom are sent to the
judge-advocate-general, to be by him submitted to the sovereign for
confirmation; and all district courts-martial, after having been
confirmed and promulgated, are sent to his office for examination and
custody. The judge-advocate-general and his deputy, being judges in the
last resort of the validity of the proceedings of courts-martial, take
no part in their conduct; but the deputy judge-advocates frame and
revise charges and attend at courts-martial, swear the court, advise
both sides on law, look after the interests of the prisoner and record
the proceedings. In the English navy there is an official whose
functions are somewhat similar to those of the judge-advocate-general.
He is called counsel and judge-advocate of the fleet.

In the United States there is also a judge-advocate-general's
department. In addition to being a bureau of military justice, and
keeping the records of courts-martial, courts of inquiry and military
commissions, it has the custody of all papers relating to the title of
lands under the control of the war department. The officers of the
department, in addition to acting as prosecutors in all military trials,
sometimes represent the government when cases affecting the army come up
in civil courts.

See further MILITARY LAW, and consult C. M. Clode, _Administration of
Justice under Military and Martial Law_ (1872); _Military Forces of
the Crown_ (2 vols., 1869).

JUDGES, THE BOOK OF, in the Bible. This book of the Old Testament,
which, as we now read it, constitutes a sequel to the book of Joshua,
covering the period of history between the death of this conqueror and
the birth of Samuel, is so called because it contains the history of the
Israelites before the establishment of the monarchy, when the government
was in the hands of certain leaders who appear to have formed a
continuous succession, although the office was not hereditary. The only
other biblical source ascribed to this period is Ruth, whose present
position as an appendix to Judges is not original (see BIBLE and RUTH).

_Structure._--It is now generally agreed that the present adjustment of
the older historical books of the Old Testament to form a continuous
record of events from the creation to the Babylonian exile is due to an
editor, or rather to successive redactors, who pieced together and
reduced to a certain unity older memoirs of very different dates; and
closer examination shows that the continuity of many parts of the
narrative is more apparent than real. This is very clearly the case in
the book of Judges. It consists of three main portions: (1) an
introduction, presenting one view of the occupation of Palestine by the
Israelites (i. 1-ii. 5); (2) the history of the several judges (ii.
6-xvi.); and (3) an appendix containing two narratives of the period.

1. The first section relates events which are said to have taken place
after the death of Joshua, but in reality it covers the same ground with
the book of Joshua, giving a brief account of the occupation of Canaan,
which in some particulars repeats the statements of the previous book,
while in others it is quite independent (see JOSHUA). It is impossible
to regard the warlike expeditions described in this section as
supplementary campaigns undertaken after Joshua's death; they are
plainly represented as the first efforts of the Israelites to gain a
firm footing in the land (at Hebron, Debir, Bethel), in the very cities
which Joshua is related to have subdued (Josh. x. 39).[1] Here then we
have an account of the settlement of Israel west of the Jordan which is
parallel to the book of Joshua, but makes no mention of Joshua himself,
and places the tribe of Judah in the front. The author of the chapter
cannot have had Joshua or his history in his eye at all, and the words
"and it came to pass after the death of Joshua" in Judg. i. 1 are from
the hand of the last editor, who desired to make the whole book of
Judges, including ch. i., read continuously with that which now precedes
it in the canon of the earlier prophets.[2]

2. The second and main section (ii. 6-xvi.) stands on quite another
footing. According to Josh. xxiv. 31 the people "served Yahweh" during
the lifetime of the great conqueror and his contemporaries. In Judg. ii.
7 this statement is repeated, and the writer proceeds to explain that
subsequent generations fell away from the faith, and served the gods of
the nations among which they dwelt (ii. 6-iii. 6). The worship of other
gods is represented, not as something which went on side by side with
Yahweh-worship (cf. x. 6), but as a revolt against Yahweh, periodically
repeated and regularly chastised by foreign invasion. The history,
therefore, falls into recurring cycles, each of which begins with
religious corruption, followed by chastisement, which continues until
Yahweh, in answer to the groans of his oppressed people, raises up a
"judge" to deliver Israel, and recall them to the true faith. On the
death of the "judge," if not sooner, the corruption spreads anew and the
same vicissitudes follow. This religious explanation of the course of
the history, formally expounded at the outset and repeated in more or
less detail from chapter to chapter (especially vi. 1-10, x. 6-18),
determines the form of the whole narrative. It is in general agreement
with the spirit as also with the language of Deuteronomy, and on this
account this section may be conveniently called "the Deuteronomic Book
of Judges." But the main religious ideas are not so late and are rather
akin to those of Josh. xxiv; in particular the worship of the high
places is not condemned, nor is it excused as in 1 Kings iii. 2. The
sources of the narrative are obviously older than the theological
exposition of its lessons, and herein lies the value and interest of
Judges. The importance of such documents for the scientific historian
lies not so much in the events they record as in the unconscious witness
they bear to the state of society in which the narrator or poet lived.
From this point of view the parts of the book are by no means all of
equal value; critical analysis shows that often parallel or distinct
narratives have been fused together, and that, whilst the older stories
gave more prominence to ordinary human motives and combinations, the
later are coloured by religious reflection and show the characteristic
tendency of the Old Testament to re-tell the fortunes of Israel in a
form that lays ever-increasing weight on the work of Yahweh for his
people. That the pre-Deuteronomic sources are to be identified with the
Judaean (J, or Yahwist) and Ephraimite (E, or Elohist) strands of the
Hexateuch is, however, not certain.

To the unity of religious pragmatism in the main stock of the book of
Judges corresponds a unity of chronological scheme. The "judges," in
spite of the fact that most of them had clearly no more than a local
influence, are all represented as successive rulers in Israel, and the
history is dated by the years of each judgeship and those of the
intervening periods of oppression. But it is impossible to reconcile the
numbers with the statement elsewhere that the fourth year of Solomon was
the 480th from the exodus (1 Kings vi. 1). See BIBLE: _Chronology_.

The general introduction (ii. 6-iii. 6) is a blend of Deuteronomic and
other sources. The intimate relation between it and the separate
narratives (Josh. xxiv. 1-27, a late [Ephraimite] record inserted by a
second Deuteronomic hand, and xxiii., D) appears both from their
contents and from the fact that Judg. ii. 6-10 is almost identical
with the narrative appended to Joshua's address (Joshua xxiv. 28-31).
Judg. i.-ii. 5, however, is not touched by D, and hence was probably
inserted in its present position at a later date. According to the
highly intricate introduction the Hebrews were oppressed: (a) to
familiarize them with warfare--it is assumed that they had
intermarried with the Canaanites and worshipped their gods (iii. 2,
6); (b) to test their loyalty to Yahweh (ii. 22; iii. 1); or (c) to
punish them for their marriage with the heathen and their apostasy (D
in ii. 12; cf. Josh. xxiii., and ibid. v. 12).

To this succeeds a noteworthy example of the Deuteronomic treatment of
tradition in the achievement of Othniel (q.v.) the only Judaean
"judge." The bareness of detail, not to speak of the improbability of
the situation, renders its genuineness doubtful, and the passage is
one of the indications of a secondary Deuteronomic redaction. The
case, however, is exceptional; the stories of the other great "judges"
were not rewritten or to any great extent revised by the Deuteronomic
redactor, and his hand appears chiefly in the framework.[3] Thus, in
the story of Ehud and the defeat of Moab only iii. 12-15, 29-30 are
Deuteronomic. But the rest is not homogeneous, vv. 19 and 20 appear to
be variants, and the mention of Israel (v. 27b) is characteristic of
the tendency to treat local troubles as national oppressions, whereas
other records represent little national unity at this period (i., v.).
See further EHUD.

According to the Septuagint addition to Josh. xxiv. 33, Moab was the
first of Israel's oppressors. The brief notice of Shamgar, who
delivered Israel from the Philistines (iii. 31), is one of the later
insertions, and in some MSS. of the LXX. it stands after xvi. 31. The
story of the defeat of Sisera appears in two distinct forms, an
earlier, in poetical form (v.), and a later, in prose (iv.). D's
framework is to be recognized in iv. 1-4, 23 seq., v. 1 (probably), 31
(last clause); see further DEBORAH. The Midianite oppression
(vi.-viii.) is contained in the usual frame (vi. 1-6; viii. 27 seq.),
but is not homogeneous, since viii. 4, the pursuit of the kings,
cannot be the sequel of viii. 3 (where they have been slain), and
viii. 33-35 ignores ix. The structure of vi. 1-viii. 3 is particularly
intricate: vi. 25-32 does not continue vi. 11-24 (there are two
accounts of Gideon's introduction and divergent representations of
Yahweh-worship); vi. 34 forms the sequel of the latter, and vi. 36-40
(with "God") is strange after the description of the miracle in vv. 21
seq. (with "Yahweh"). Further, there are difficulties in vi. 34, vii.
23 seq., viii. 1, when compared with vii. 2-8, and in vii. 16-22 two
stratagems are combined. There are two sequels: vii. 23 seq. and viii.
4; with the former contrast vi. 35; with viii. 1-3 cf. xii. 1-6, and
see below. Chapter viii. 22 seq. comes unexpectedly, and the refusal
of the offer of the kingship reflects later ideas (cf. 1 Sam. viii. 7;
x. 19; xii. 12, 17). The conclusion, however, shows that Jerubbaal had
only a local reputation. Finally, the condemnation of the ephod as
part of the worship of Yahweh (viii. 27) agrees with the thought in
vi. 25-32 as against that in vi. 11-24. (See EPHOD; GIDEON.) Chapter
ix. (see ABIMELECH) appears to have been wanting in the Deuteronomic
book of Judges, but inserted later perhaps by means of the
introduction, viii. 30-32 (post-exilic). It has two accounts of the
attack upon Shechem (lx. 26-41 and 42-49).

After a brief notice of two "minor judges" (see below), follows the
story of Jephthah. It concludes with the usual Deuteronomic formula
(xii. 7), but is prefaced by a detailed introduction to the oppression
of Israel (x. 6 sqq.). By the inclusion of the Philistines among the
oppressors, and of Judah, Benjamin and Ephraim among the oppressed (x.
7, 9), it appears to have in view not merely the story of Samson, a
hero of local interest, but the early chapters in 1 Samuel. This
introduction is of composite origin (as also ii. 6-21; Josh.
xxiii.-xxiv. 25), but a satisfactory analysis seems impossible. As it
stands, it has literary connexions with the late narrative in 1 Sam.
(vii. seq., xii.), and appears to form the preface to that period of
history which ended with Samuel's great victory and the institution of
the monarchy. But this belongs to a later scheme (see SAMUEL), and the
introduction in its earlier form must have been the prelude to earlier
narratives.[4] The story of Jephthah's fight with Ammon is linked to
the preceding introduction by x. 17 seq.; for the framework see x. 6
(above), xii. 7. Chapter xi. 12-28 (cf. Num. xx. seq.) is applicable
only to Moab, vv. 29 and 32 are variants, and Jephthah's home is
placed variously in Tob. (xi. 3) and Mizpeh (v. 34). In xi. 1-10 the
outlaw stipulates that he shall be chief of Gilead if successful, but
in vv. 12-28 a ruler speaks on behalf of Israel. Both Moab and Ammon
had good reason to be hostile to Gilead (Num. xxi.), but the scene of
the victory points rather to the former (v. 33, possibly conflate).
There is a general resemblance between the victories of Gideon and
Jephthah, which is emphasized by the close relation between viii. 1-3
and xii. 1-6, the explanation of which in its present context is
difficult. See further JEPHTHAH.

The old stories of Samson the Danite have been scarcely touched by the
redaction (xiii. 1; xv. 20; xvi. 31b, where he is a "judge"); only
xiii. appears to be rather later (v. 5 represents him as a forerunner
of Samuel and Saul), and gives a rather different impression of the
hero of the folk-tales. The cycle illustrates some interesting customs
and is in every way valuable as a specimen of popular narrative. See
SAMSON.

Grouped among these narratives are the five so-called "minor judges"
(x. 1-5; xii. 8-15). By the addition of Shamgar (iii. 31) the number
is made to agree with the six more important names. They are not
represented as having any immediate religious importance; they really
lie outside of the chronological scheme, and their history is plainly
not related from such lively and detailed reminiscence as gives charm
to the longer episodes of the book. The notices are drawn up in set
phraseology, and some of the names, in harmony with a characteristic
feature of early Hebrew history, are those of personified families of
communities rather than of families.[5]

3. The third and last section of the book embraces chapters xvii.-xxi.,
and consists of two narratives independent of one another and of the
main stock of the book, with which they are not brought into any
chronological connexion. They appear to owe their position to the latest
redactor (akin to the latest stratum in the Hexateuch) who has heavily
worked over xix-xxi., and put the book into its present form by the
addition of i.-ii. 5, ix. and possibly of v.[6]

The first narrative, that of Micah and the Danites, is of the highest
interest both as a record of the state of religion and for the picture
it gives of the way in which one clan passed from the condition of an
invading band into settled possession of land and city. Its interest
(xvii. seq.) lies in the foundation of the Ephraimite sanctuary by
Micah as also in that of Dan. There are some repetitions in the
account, but there is not enough evidence to restore two complete
stories. The history of the Levite and the Benjamites is of quite
another character, and presupposes a degree of unity of feeling and
action among the tribes of Israel which it is not easy to reconcile
with the rest of the book. In its present form this episode appears to
be not very ancient; it resembles Ruth in giving a good deal of
curious archaeological detail (the feast at Shiloh) in a form which
suggests that the usages referred to were already obsolete when the
narrative was composed. It appears to consist of an old story which
has been heavily revised to form an edifying piece of exposition. The
older parts are preserved in xix.: the account of the Levite of Mt
Ephraim whose concubine from Bethlehem in Judah was outraged, not by
the non-Israelite Jebusites of Jerusalem, but by the Benjamites of
Gibeah; there are traces of another source in vv. 6-8, 10, 13, 15. The
older portions of xx. seq. include: the vengeance taken by Israel
(e.g. xx. 3-8, 14, 19, 29, 36-41, 47), and the reconstruction of the
tribe by intermarriage with the women of Shiloh (xxi. 1, 15, 17-19,
21-23). The post-exilic expansions (found chiefly in xx., xxi. 2-14,
16, 24 seq.) describe the punishment of Benjamin by the religious
assembly and the massacre of Jabesh-Gilead for its refusal to join
Israel, four hundred virgins of the Gileadites being saved for
Benjamin. How much old tradition underlies these stories is
questionable. It is very doubtful whether Hosea's allusion to the
depravity of Gibeah (ix. 9; x. 9) is to be referred hither, but it is
noteworthy that whilst Gibeah and Jabesh-Gilead, which appear here in
a bad light, are known to be associated with Saul, the sufferer is a
Levite of Bethlehem, the traditional home of David. The account of the
great fight in xx. is reminiscent of Joshua's battle at Ai (Josh.
vii.-viii.).

_Historical Value_.--The book of Judges consists of a number of
narratives collected by Deuteronomic editors; to the same circles are
due accounts of the invasions of Palestine and settlement in Joshua, and
of the foundation of the monarchy in 1 Samuel. The connexion has been
broken by the later insertion of matter (not necessarily of late date
itself), and the whole was finally formed into a distinct book by a
post-exilic hand. The dates of the older stories preserved in ii. 6-xvi.
6 are quite unknown. If they are trustworthy for the period to which
they are relegated (approximately 14th-12th cent. B.C.) they are
presumably of very great antiquity, but if they belong to the sources J
and E of the Hexateuch (at least some four or five centuries later)
their value is seriously weakened. On the other hand, the belief that
the monarchy had been preceded by national "judges" may have led to the
formation of the collection. It is evident that there was more than one
period in Israelite history in which one or other of these stories of
local heroes would be equally suitable. They reflect tribal rivalry and
jealousy (cf. Isa. ix. 21, and the successors of Jeroboam 2), attacks by
nomads and wars with Ammon and Moab; conflicts between newly settled
Israelites and indigenous Canaanites have been suspected in the story of
Abimelech, and it is not impossible that the post-Deuteronomic writer
who inserted ch. ix. so understood the record. A striking exception to
the lack of unity among the tribes is afforded by the account of the
defeat of Sisera, and here the old poem represents a combined effort to
throw off the yoke of a foreign oppressor, while the later prose version
approximates the standpoint of Josh. xi. 1-15, with its defeat of the
Canaanites. The general standpoint of the stories (esp. Judg. v.) is
that of central Palestine; the exceptions are Othniel and Samson--the
latter interrupting the introduction in x., and its sequel, the former
now entirely due to the Deuteronomic editor. Of the narratives which
precede and follow, ch. i. represents central Palestine separated by
Canaanite cities from tribes to the south and north; it is the situation
recognized in Judg. xix. 10-12, as well as in passages imbedded in the
latest portions of the book of Joshua, though it is in contradiction to
the older traditions of Joshua himself. Chapters xvii. seq. (like the
preceding story of Samson) deal with Danites, but the migration can
hardly be earlier than David's time; and xix.-xxi., by describing the
extermination of Benjamin, form a link between the presence of the tribe
in the late narratives of the exodus and its new prominence in the
traditions of Saul (q.v.). As an historical source, therefore, the value
of Judges will depend largely upon the question whether the Deuteronomic
editor (about 600 B.C. at the earliest) would have access to trustworthy
documents relating to a period some six or seven centuries previously.
See further JEWS, §§ 6, 8; and SAMUEL, BOOKS OF.

LITERATURE.--Biblical scholars are in agreement regarding the
preliminary literary questions of the book, but there is divergence of
opinion on points of detail, and on the precise growth of the book
(e.g. the twofold Deuteronomic redaction). See further W. R. Smith,
_Ency. Brit._ 9th ed. (upon which the present article is based); G. F.
Moore, _International Critical Comm._ (1895); _Ency. Bib._, art.
"Judges"; K. Budde, _Kurzer Handcommentar_ (1897); Lagrange, _Livres
des juges_ (1903); G. W. Thatcher (_Century Bible_); also S. R.
Driver, _Lit. of Old Testament_ (1909); Moore, in the _Sacred Books of
Old Testament_ (1898); C. F. Kent, _The Student's Old Testament_, vol.
i. (1904). (S. A. C.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] This is confirmed by the circumstance that in Judg. ii. 1 the
"angel of Yahweh," who, according to Exod. xiv. 24, xxiii. 20, xxxii.
34, xxxiii. 2, 7 seq., must be viewed as having his local
manifestation at the headquarters of the host of Israel, is still
found at Gilgal and not at Shiloh.

[2] The chapter was written after Israel had become strong enough to
make the Canaanite cities tributary (v. 28), that is, after the
establishment of the monarchy (see 1 Kings ix. 20-21).

[3] Hence, it is to be inferred that the reviser had older _written_
records before him. Had these been in the oral stage he would
scarcely incorporate traditions which did not agree with his views;
at all events they would hardly have been written down by him in the
form in which they have survived. The narratives of the monarchy
which are preserved only in Chronicles, on the other hand, illustrate
the manner in which tradition was reshaped and rewritten under the
influence of a later religious standpoint.

[4] It may be conjectured that the introduction originally formed the
prelude to the rise of Saul: the intervening narratives, though not
necessarily of late origin themselves, having been subsequently
inserted. See S. A. Cook, _Crit. Notes O. T. Hist._, p. 127 seq.

[5] Tola and Puah (x. 1) are clans of Issachar (Gen. xlvi. 13), for
Jair (v. 3), see Num. xxxii. 41, and for Elon (xii. 11), see Gen.
xlvi. 14. See GENEALOGY: _Biblical_.

[6] To the same post-exilic hand may also be ascribed the
introduction of the "minor judges" (so several critics), and smaller
additions here and there (ch. i. 1 opening words, vv. 4, 8 seq.
[contrast 21] 18; viii. 30-32: xi. 2, &c.).

JUDGMENT, in law, a term used to describe (1) the adjudication by a
court of justice upon a controversy submitted to it _inter partes_
(_post litem contestatam_) and determining the rights of the parties and
the relief to be awarded by the court as between them; (2) the formal
document issuing from the court in which that adjudication is
expressed; (3) the opinions of the judges expressed in a review of the
facts and law applicable to the controversy leading up to the
adjudication expressed in the formal document. When the judgment has
been passed and entered and recorded it binds the parties: the
controversy comes to an end (_transit in rem judicatam_), and the person
in whose favour the judgment is entered is entitled to enforce it by the
appropriate method of "execution." There has been much controversy among
lawyers as to the meaning of the expressions "final" and "interlocutory"
as applied to judgments, and as to the distinction between a "judgment,"
a "decree," and an "order." These disputes arise upon the wording of
statutes or rules of court and with reference to the appropriate times
or modes of appeal or of execution.

The judgments of one country are not as a rule directly enforceable in
another country. In Europe, by treaty or arrangement, foreign judgments
are in certain cases and on compliance with certain formalities made
executory in various states. A similar provision is made as between
England, Scotland and Ireland, for the registry and execution in each
country of certain classes of judgments given in the others. But as
regards the rest of the king's dominions and foreign states, a "foreign"
judgment is in England recognized only as constituting a cause of action
which may be sued upon in England. If given by a court of competent
jurisdiction it is treated as creating a legal obligation to pay the sum
adjudged to be due. Summary judgment may be entered in an English action
based on a foreign judgment unless the defendant can show that the
foreign court had not jurisdiction over the parties or the subject
matter of the action, or that there was fraud on the part of the foreign
court or the successful party, or that the foreign proceedings were
contrary to natural justice, e.g. concluded without due notice to the
parties affected. English courts will not enforce foreign judgments as
to foreign criminal or penal or revenue laws.

JUDGMENT DEBTOR, in English law, a person against whom a judgment
ordering him to pay a sum of money has been obtained and remains
unsatisfied. Such a person may be examined as to whether any and what
debts are owing to him, and if the judgment debt is of the necessary
amount he may be made bankrupt if he fails to comply with a bankruptcy
notice served on him by the judgment creditors, or he may be committed
to prison or have a receiving order made against him in a judgment
summons under the Debtors Act 1869.

JUDGMENT SUMMONS, in English law, a summons issued under the Debtors Act
1869, on the application of a creditor who has obtained a judgment for
the payment of a sum of money by instalments or otherwise, where the
order for payment has not been complied with. The judgment summons cites
the defendant to appear personally in court, and be examined on oath as
to the means he has, or has had, since the date of the order or judgment
made against him, to pay the same, and to show cause why he should not
be committed to prison for his default. An order of commitment obtained
in a judgment summons remains in force for a year only, and the extreme
term of imprisonment is six weeks, dating from the time of lodging in
prison. When a debtor has once been imprisoned, although for a period of
less than six weeks, no second order of commitment can be made against
him in respect of the same debt. But if the judgment be for payment by
instalments a power of committal arises on default of payment for each
instalment. If an order of commitment has never been executed, or
becomes inoperative through lapse of time, a fresh commitment may be
made. Imprisonment does not operate as a satisfaction or extinguishment
of a debt, or deprive a person of a right of execution against the land
or goods of the person imprisoned in the same manner as if there had
been no imprisonment.

JUDICATURE ACTS, an important series of English statutes having for
their object the simplification of the system of judicature in its
higher branches. They are the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 (36 &
37 Vict. c. 66) and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875 (38 & 39
Vict. c. 77), with various amending acts, the twelfth of these being in
1899. By the act of 1873 the court of chancery, the court of queen's
(king's) bench, the court of common pleas, the court of exchequer, the
high court of admiralty, the court of probate and the court of divorce
and matrimonial causes were consolidated into one Supreme[1] Court of
Judicature (sec. 3), divided into two permanent divisions, called "the
high court," with (speaking broadly) original jurisdiction, and "the
court of appeal" (sec. 4). The objects of the act were threefold--first,
to reduce the historically independent courts of common law and equity
into one supreme court; secondly, to establish for all divisions of the
court a uniform system of pleading and procedure; and thirdly, to
provide for the enforcement of the same rule of law in those cases where
chancery and common law recognized different rules. It can be seen at
once how bold and revolutionary was this new enactment. By one section
the august king's bench, the common pleas, in which serjeants only had
formerly the right of audience, and the exchequer, which had its origin
in the reign of Henry I., and all their jurisdiction, criminal, legal
and equitable, were vested in the new court. It must be understood,
however, that law and equity were not fused in the sense in which that
phrase has generally been employed. The chancery division still remains
distinct from the common law division, having a certain range of legal
questions under its exclusive control, and possessing to a certain
extent a peculiar machinery of its own for carrying its decrees into
execution. But all actions may now be brought in the high court of
justice, and, subject to such special assignments of business as that
alluded to, may be tried in any division thereof.

There were originally three common law divisions of the High Court
corresponding with the three former courts of common law. But after the
death of Lord Chief Baron Kelly on the 17th of September 1880, and of
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn on the 20th of November 1880, the common
pleas and exchequer divisions were (by order in council, 10th December
1880) consolidated with the king's bench division into one division
under the presidency of the lord chief justice of England, to whom, by
the 25th section of the Judicature Act 1881, all the statutory
jurisdiction of the chief baron and the chief justice of the common
pleas was transferred. The high court, therefore, now consists of the
chancery division, the common law division, under the name of the king's
bench division; and the probate, divorce and admiralty division. To the
king's bench division is also attached, by order of the lord chancellor
(Jan. 1, 1884), the business of the London court of bankruptcy.

For a more detailed account of the composition of the various courts,
see CHANCERY; KING'S BENCH; and PROBATE, DIVORCE AND ADMIRALTY COURT.

The keystone of the structure created by the Judicature Acts was a
strong court of appeal. The House of Lords remained the last court of
appeal, as before the acts, but its judicial functions were virtually
transferred to an appeal committee, consisting of the lord chancellor
and other peers who have held high judicial office, and certain lords of
appeal in ordinary created by the act of 1873 (see APPEAL).

The practice and procedure of the Supreme Court are regulated by rules
made by a committee of judges, to which have been added the president
of the incorporated law society and a practising barrister and one
other person nominated by the lord chancellor. The rules now in force
are those of 1883, with some subsequent amendments. With the
appendices they fill a moderate-sized volume. Complaints are made that
they go into too much detail, and place a burden on the time and
temper of the busy practitioner which he can ill afford to bear. It is
possible that the authors of the rules attempted too much, and it
might have been better to provide a simpler and more elastic code of
procedure. Rules have sometimes been made to meet individual cases of
hardship, and rules of procedure have been piled up from time to time,
sometimes embodying a new experiment, and not always consistent with
former rules.

The most important matter dealt with by the rules is the mode of
pleading. The authors of the Judicature Act had before them two
systems of pleading, both of which were open to criticism. The common
law pleadings (it was said) did not state the facts on which the
pleader relied, but only the legal aspect of the facts or the
inferences from them, while the chancery pleadings were lengthy,
tedious and to a large extent irrelevant and useless. There was some
exaggeration in both statements. In pursuing the fusion of law and
equity which was the dominant legal idea of law reformers of that
period, the framers of the first set of rules devised a system which
they thought would meet the defects of both systems, and be
appropriate for both the common-law and the chancery divisions. In a
normal case, the plaintiff delivered his statement of claim, in which
he was to set forth concisely the facts on which he relied, and the
relief which he asked. The defendant then delivered his statement of
defence, in which he was to say whether he admitted or denied the
plaintiff's facts (every averment not traversed being taken to be
admitted), and any additional facts and legal defences on which he
relied. The plaintiff might then reply, and the defendant rejoin, and
so on until the pleaders had exhausted themselves. This system of
pleading was not a bad one if accompanied by the right of either party
to demur to his opponent's pleading, i.e. to say, "admitting all your
averments of fact to be true, you still have no cause of action," or
"defence" (as the case may be). It may be, however, that the authors
of the new system were too intent on uniformity when they abolished
the common-law pleading, which, shorn of its abuses (as it had been by
the Common Law Procedure Acts), was an admirable instrument for
defining the issue between the parties though unsuited for the more
complicated cases which are tried in chancery, and it might possibly
have been better to try the new system in the first instance in the
chancery division only. It should be added that the rules contain
provisions for actions being tried without pleadings if the defendant
does not require a statement of claim, and for the plaintiff in an
action of debt obtaining immediate judgment unless the defendant gets
leave to defend. In the chancery division there are of course no
pleadings in those matters which by the rules can be disposed of by
summons in chambers instead of by ordinary suit as formerly.

The judges seem to have been dissatisfied with the effect of their
former rules, for in 1883 they issued a fresh set of consolidated
rules, which, with subsequent amendments, are those now in force. By
these rules a further attempt was made to prune the exuberance of
pleading. Concise forms of statement of claim and defence were given
in the appendix for adoption by the pleader. It is true that these
forms do not display a high standard of excellence in draftsmanship,
and it was said that many of them were undoubtedly demurrable, but
that was not of much importance. Demurrers were abolished, and instead
thereof it was provided that any point of law raised by the pleadings
should be disposed of at or after the trial, provided that by consent
or order of the court the same might be set down and disposed of
before the trial (Order xxv. rules 1, 2). This, in the opinion of Lord
Davey in 1902 (_Ency. Brit._, 10th ed., xxx. 146), was a disastrous
change. The right of either party to challenge his opponent _in
limine_, either where the question between them was purely one of law,
or where even the view of the facts taken and alleged by his opponent
did not constitute a cause of action or defence, was a most valuable
one, and tended to the curtailment of both the delay and the expense
of litigation. Any possibility of abuse by frivolous or technical
demurrers (as undoubtedly was formerly the case) had been met by
powers of amendment and the infliction of costs. Many of the most
important questions of law had been decided on demurrer both in common
law and chancery. Lord Davey considered that demurrer was a useful and
satisfactory mode of trying questions in chancery (on bill and
demurrer), and it was frequently adopted in preference to a special
case, which requires the statement of facts to be agreed to by both
parties and was consequently more difficult and expensive. It is
obvious that a rule which makes the normal time for decision of
questions at law the trial or subsequently, and a preliminary decision
the exception, and such exception dependent on the consent of both
parties or an order of the court, is a poor substitute for a demurrer
as of right, and it has proved so in practice. The editors of the
_Yearly Practice_ for 1901 (Muir Mackenzie, Lushington and Fox) said
(p. 272): "Points of law raised by the pleadings are usually disposed
of at the trial or on further consideration after the trial of the
issues of fact," that is to say, after the delay, worry and expense of
a trial of disputed questions of fact which after all may turn out to
be unnecessary. The abolition of demurrers has also (it is believed)
had a prejudicial effect on the standard of legal accuracy and
knowledge required in practitioners. Formerly the pleader had the fear
of a demurrer before him. Nowadays he need not stop to think whether
his cause of action or defence will hold water or not, and anything
which is not obviously frivolous or vexatious will do by way of
pleading for the purpose of the trial and for getting the opposite
party into the box.

Another change was made by the rules of 1883, which was regarded by
some common law lawyers as revolutionary. Formerly every issue of fact
in a common law action, including the amount of damage, had to be
decided by the verdict of a jury. "The effect of the rules of 1883,"
said Lord Lindley, who was a member of the rule committee, "was to
make trial without a jury the normal mode of trial, except where trial
with a jury is ordered under rules 6 or 7a, or may be had without an
order under rule 2" (_Timson_ v. _Wilson_, 38 Ch. D. 72, at p. 76).
The effect of the rules may be thus summarized: (1) In the chancery
division no trial by jury unless ordered by the judge. (2) Generally
the judge may order trial without a jury of any cause or issue, which
before the Judicature Act might have been so tried without consent of
parties, or which involves prolonged investigation of documents or
accounts, or scientific or local investigation. (3) Either party has a
right to a jury in actions of slander, libel, false imprisonment,
malicious prosecution, seduction or breach of promise of marriage,
upon notice without order; (4) or in any other action, by order. (5)
Subject as above, actions are to be tried without a jury unless the
judge, of his own motion, otherwise orders.

Further steps have been taken with a view to simplification of
procedure. By Order xxx. rule 1 (as amended in 1897), a summons,
called a summons for directions, has to be taken out by a plaintiff
immediately after the appearance of the defendant, and upon such
summons an order is to be made respecting pleadings, and a number of
interlocutory proceedings. To make such an order at that early stage
would seem to demand a prescience and intelligent anticipation of
future events which can hardly be expected of a master, or even a
judge in chambers, except in simple cases, involving a single issue of
law or fact which the parties are agreed in presenting to the court.
The effect of the rule is that the plaintiff cannot deliver his
statement of claim, or take any step in the action without the leave
of the judge. In chancery cases the order usually made is that the
plaintiff deliver his statement of claim, and the rest of the summons
stand over, and the practical effect is merely to add a few pounds to
the costs. It may be doubted whether, as applied to the majority of
actions, the rule does not proceed on wrong lines, and whether it
would not be better to leave the parties, who know the exigencies of
their case better even than a judge in chambers, to proceed in their
own way, subject to stringent provisions for immediate payment of the
costs occasioned by unnecessary, vexatious, or dilatory proceedings.
The order does not apply to admiralty cases or to proceedings under
the order next mentioned.

The Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland) 1877 follows the same
lines as the English acts. The pre-existing courts were consolidated
into a supreme court of judicature, consisting of a high court of
justice and a court of appeal. The judicature acts did not affect
Scottish judicature, but the Appellate Jurisdiction Act included the
court of session among the courts from which an appeal lies to the
House of Lords.

FOOTNOTE:

[1] The comte de Franqueville in his interesting work, _Le Système
judiciaire de la Grande Bretagne_, criticizes the use of the word
"supreme" as a designation of this court, inasmuch as its judgments
are subject to appeal to the House of Lords, but in the act of 1873
the appeal to the House of Lords was abolished. He is also severe on
the illogical use of the words "division" and "court" in many
different senses (i. 180-181).

JUDITH, THE BOOK OF, one of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament.
It takes its name from the heroine Judith ([Greek: Ioudith, Ioudêth],
i.e. [Hebrew: yehudit], Jewess), to whom the last nine of its sixteen
chapters relate. In the Septuagint and Vulgate it immediately precedes
Esther, and along with Tobit comes after Nehemiah; in the English
Apocrypha it is placed between Tobit and the apocryphal additions to
Esther.

_Argument._--In the twelfth year of his reign Nebuchadrezzar, who is
described as king of Assyria, having his capital in Nineveh, makes war
against Arphaxad, king of Media, and overcomes him in his seventeenth
year. He then despatches his chief general Holofernes to take vengeance
on the nations of the west who had withheld their assistance. This
expedition has already succeeded in its main objects when Holofernes
proceeds to attack Judaea. The children of Israel, who are described as
having newly returned from captivity, are apprehensive of a desecration
of their sanctuary, and resolve on resistance to the uttermost. The
inhabitants of Bethulia (Betylua) and Betomestham in particular (neither
place can be identified), directed by Joachim the high priest, guard the
mountain passes near Dothaim, and place themselves under God's
protection. Holofernes now inquires of the chiefs who are with him about
the Israelites, and is answered by Achior the leader of the Ammonites,
who enters upon a long historical narrative showing the Israelites to be
invincible except when they have offended God. For this Achior is
punished by being handed over to the Israelites, who lead him to the
governor of Bethulia. Next day the siege begins, and after forty days
the famished inhabitants urge the governor Ozias to surrender, which he
consents to do unless relieved in five days. Judith, a beautiful and
pious widow of the tribe of Simeon, now appears on the scene with a plan
of deliverance. Wearing her rich attire, and accompanied by her maid,
who carries a bag of provisions, she goes over to the hostile camp,
where she is at once conducted to the general, whose suspicions are
disarmed by the tales she invents. After four days Holofernes, smitten
with her charms, at the close of a sumptuous entertainment invites her
to remain within his tent over night. No sooner is he overcome with
sleep than Judith, seizing his sword, strikes off his head and gives it
to her maid; both now leave the camp (as they had previously been
accustomed to do, ostensibly for prayer) and return to Bethulia, where
the trophy is displayed amid great rejoicings and thanksgivings. Achior
now publicly professes Judaism, and at the instance of Judith the
Israelites make a sudden victorious onslaught on the enemy. Judith now
sings a song of praise, and all go up to Jerusalem to worship with
sacrifice and rejoicing. The book concludes with a brief notice of the
closing years of the heroine.

_Versions._--Judith was written originally in Hebrew. This is shown
not only by the numerous Hebraisms, but also by mistranslations of the
Greek translation, as in ii. 2, iii. 9, and other passages (see
Fritzsche and Ball _in loc._), despite the statement of Origen (_Ep.
ad Afric._ 13) that the book was not received by the Jews among their
apocryphal writings. In his preface to Judith, Jerome says that he
based his Latin version on the Chaldee, which the Jews reckoned among
their Hagiographa. Ball (_Speaker's Apocrypha_, i. 243) holds that the
Chaldee text used by Jerome was a free translation or adaptation of
the Hebrew. The book exists in two forms: the shorter, which is
preserved only in Hebrew (see under _Hebrew Midrashim_ below), is,
according to Scholz, Lipsius, Ball and Gaster, the older; the longer
form is that contained in the versions.

_Greek Version._--This is found in three recensions: (1) in A B,
[Hebrew: a]; (2) in codices 19, 108 (Lucian's text); (3) in codex 58,
the source of the old Latin and Syriac.

_Syriac and Latin Versions._--Two Syriac versions were made from the
Greek--the first, that of the Peshito; and the second, that of Paul of
Tella, the so-called Hexaplaric. The Old Latin was derived from the
Greek, as we have remarked above, and Jerome's from the Old Latin,
under the control of a Chaldee version.

_Later Hebrew Midrashim._--These are printed in Jellinek's _Bet
ha-Midrasch_, i. 130-131; ii. 12-22; and by Gaster in _Proceedings of
the Society of Biblical Archæology_ (1894), pp. 156-163.

_Date._--The book in its fuller form was most probably written in the
2nd century B.C. The writer places his romance two centuries earlier, in
the time of Ochus, as we may reasonably infer from the attack made by
Holofernes and Bagoas on Judaea; for Artaxerxes Ochus made an expedition
against Phoenicia and Egypt in 350 B.C., in which his chief generals
were Holofernes and Bagoas.

RECENT LITERATURE.--Ball, _Speaker's Apocrypha_ (1888), an excellent
piece of work; Scholz, _Das Buch Judith_ (1896); Löhr, _Apok. und
Pseud._ (1900), ii. 147-164; Porter in Hastings's _Dict. Bible_, ii.
822-824; Gaster, _Ency. Bib._, ii. 2642-2646. See Ball, pp. 260-261,
and Schürer _in loc._, for a full bibliography. (R. H. C.)

JUDSON, ADONIRAM (1788-1850), American missionary, was born at Malden,
Massachusetts, on the 9th of August 1788, the son of a Congregational
minister. He graduated at Brown University in 1807, was successively a
school teacher and an actor, completed a course at the Andover
Theological Seminary in September 1810, and was at once licensed to
preach as a Congregational clergyman. In the summer of 1810 he with
several of his fellows students at Andover had petitioned the general
association of ministers to be sent to Asiatic missionary fields. This
application resulted in the establishment of the American board of
commissioners for foreign missions, which sent Judson to England to
secure, if possible, the co-operation of the London Missionary Society.
His ship fell into the hands of a French privateer and he was for some
time a prisoner in France, but finally proceeded to London, where his
proposal was considered without anything being decided. He then returned
to America, where he found the board ready to act independently. His
appointment to Burma followed, and in 1812, accompanied by his wife, Ann
Hasseltine Judson (1789-1826), he went to Calcutta. On the voyage both
became advocates of baptism by immersion, and being thus cut off from
Congregationalism, they began independent work. In 1814 they began to
receive support from the American Baptist missionary union, which had
been founded with the primary object of keeping them in the field. After
a few months at Madras, they settled at Rangoon. There Judson mastered
Burmese, into which he translated part of the Gospels with his wife's
help. In 1824 he removed to Ava, where during the war between the East
India Company and Burma he was imprisoned for almost two years. After
peace had been brought about (largely, it is said, through his
exertions) Mrs Judson died. In 1827 Judson removed his headquarters to
Maulmain, where school buildings and a church were erected, and where in
1834 he married Sarah Hall Boardman (1803-1845). In 1833 he completed
his translation of the Bible; in succeeding years he compiled a Burmese
grammar, a Burmese dictionary, and a Pali dictionary. In 1845 his wife's
failing health decided Judson to return to America, but she died during
the voyage, and was buried at St Helena. In the United States Judson
married Emily Chubbuck (1817-1854), well-known as a poet and novelist
under the name of "Fanny Forrester," who was one of the earliest
advocates in America of the higher education of women. She returned with
him in 1846 to Burma, where the rest of his life was devoted largely to
the rewriting of his Burmese dictionary. He died at sea on the 12th of
April 1850, while on his way to Martinique, in search of health. Judson
was perhaps the greatest, as he was practically the first, of the many
missionaries sent from the United States into foreign fields; his
fervour, his devotion to duty, and his fortitude in the face of danger
mark him as the prototype of the American missionary.

The Judson Memorial, an institutional church, was erected on
Washington Square South, New York City, largely through the exertions
of his son, Rev. Edward Judson (b. 1844), who became its pastor and
director, and who prepared a life of Dr Judson (1883; new ed. 1898).
Another biography is by Francis Wayland (2 vols., 1854). See also
Robert T. Middleditch's _Life of Adoniram Judson, Burmah's Great
Missionary_ (New York, 1859). For the three Mrs. Judsons, see Knowles,
_Life of Ann Hasseltine Judson_ (1829); Emily C. Judson, _Life of
Sarah Hall Boardman Judson_ (1849); Asahel C. Kendrick, _Life and
Letters of Emily Chubbuck Judson_ (1861).

JUEL, JENS (1631-1700), Danish statesman, born on the 15th of July 1631,
began his diplomatic career in the suite of Count Christian Rantzau,
whom he accompanied to Vienna and Regensburg in 1652. In August 1657
Juel was accredited to the court of Poland, and though he failed to
prevent King John Casimir from negotiating separately with Sweden he was
made a privy councillor on his return home. But it was the
reconciliation of Juel's uncle Hannibal Sehested with King Frederick
III. which secured Juel's future. As Sehested's representative, he
concluded the peace of Copenhagen with Charles X., and after the Danish
revolution of 1660 was appointed Danish minister at Stockholm, where he
remained for eight years. Subsequently the chancellor Griffenfeldt, who
had become warmly attached to him, sent him in 1672, and again in 1674,
as ambassador extraordinary to Sweden, ostensibly to bring about a
closer union between the two northern kingdoms, but really to give time
to consolidate Griffenfeldt's far-reaching system of alliances. Juel
completely sympathized with Griffenfeldt's Scandinavian policy, which
aimed at weakening Sweden sufficiently to re-establish something like an
equilibrium between the two states. Like Griffenfeldt, Juel also feared,
above all things, a Swedo-Danish war. After the unlucky Seaman War of
1675-79, Juel was one of the Danish plenipotentiaries who negotiated the
peace of Lund. Even then he was for an alliance with Sweden "till we can
do better." This policy he consistently followed, and was largely
instrumental in bringing about the marriage of Charles XI. with
Christian V.'s daughter Ulrica Leonora. But for the death of the
like-minded Swedish statesman Johan Gyllenstjerna in June 1680, Juel's
"Scandinavian" policy might have succeeded, to the infinite advantage of
both kingdoms. He represented Denmark at the coronation of Charles XII.
(December 1697), when he concluded a new treaty of alliance with Sweden.
He died in 1700.

Juel, a man of very few words and a sworn enemy of phrase-making, was
perhaps the shrewdest and most cynical diplomatist of his day. His motto
was: "We should wish for what we can get." Throughout life he regarded
the political situation of Denmark with absolute pessimism. She was, he
often said, the cat's-paw of the Great Powers. While Griffenfeldt would
have obviated this danger by an elastic political system, adaptable to
all circumstances, Juel preferred seizing whatever he could get in
favourable conjunctures. In domestic affairs Juel was an adherent of
the mercantile system, and laboured vigorously for the industrial
development of Denmark and Norway. For an aristocrat of the old school
he was liberally inclined, but only favoured petty reforms, especially
in agriculture, while he regarded emancipation of the serfs as quite
impracticable. Juel made no secret of his preference for absolutism, and
was one of the few patricians who accepted the title of baron. He saw
some military service during the Scanian War, distinguishing himself at
the siege of Venersborg, and by his swift decision at the critical
moment materially contributing to his brother Niels's naval victory in
the Bay of Kjöge. To his great honour he remained faithful to
Griffenfeldt after his fall, enabled his daughter to marry handsomely,
and did his utmost, though in vain, to obtain the ex-chancellor's
release from his dungeon.

See Carl Frederik Bricka, _Dansk biografisk lex._, art. "Juel" (1887,
&c.); Adolf Ditlev Jörgensen, _P. Schumacher Griffenfeldt_
(1893-1894). (R. N. B.)

JUEL, NIELS (1629-1697), Danish admiral, brother of the preceding, was
born on the 8th of May 1629, at Christiania. He served his naval
apprenticeship under Van Tromp and De Ruyter, taking part in all the
chief engagements of the war of 1652-54 between England and Holland.
During a long indisposition at Amsterdam in 1655-1656 he acquired a
thorough knowledge of ship-building, and returned to Denmark in 1656 a
thoroughly equipped seaman. He served with distinction during the
Swedo-Danish wars of 1658-60 and took a prominent part in the defence of
Copenhagen against Charles X. During fifteen years of peace, Juel, as
admiral of the fleet, laboured assiduously to develop and improve the
Danish navy, though he bitterly resented the setting over his head in
1663 of Cort Adelaar on his return from the Turkish wars. In 1661 Juel
married Margrethe Ulfeldt. On the outbreak of the Scanian War he served
at first under Adelaar, but on the death of the latter in November 1675
he was appointed to the supreme command. He then won a European
reputation, and raised Danish sea-power to unprecedented eminence, by
the system of naval tactics, afterwards perfected by Nelson, which
consists in cutting off a part of the enemy's force and concentrating
the whole attack on it. He first employed this manoeuvre at the battle
of Jasmund off Rügen (May 25, 1676) when he broke through the enemy's
line in close column and cut off five of their ships, which, however,
nightfall prevented him from pursuing. Juel's operations were
considerably hampered at this period by the overbearing conduct of his
Dutch auxiliary, Philip Almonde, who falsely accused the Danish admiral
of cowardice. A few days after the battle of Jasmund, Cornelius Van
Tromp the younger, with 17 fresh Danish and Dutch ships of the line,
superseded Juel in the supreme command. Juel took a leading part in Van
Tromp's great victory off Öland (June 1, 1676), which enabled the Danes
to invade Scania unopposed. On the 1st of June 1677 Juel defeated the
Swedish admiral Sjöblad off Möen; on the 30th of June 1677 he won his
greatest victory, in the Bay of Kjöge, where, with 25 ships of the line
and 1267 guns, he routed the Swedish admiral Evert Horn with 36 ships of
the line and 1800 guns. For this great triumph, the just reward of
superior seamanship and strategy--at an early stage of the engagement
Juel's experienced eye told him that the wind in the course of the day
would shift from S.W. to W. and he took extraordinary risks
accordingly--he was made lieutenant admiral general and a privy
councillor. This victory, besides permanently crippling the Swedish
navy, gave the Danes a self-confidence which enabled them to keep their
Dutch allies in their proper place. In the following year Van Tromp,
whose high-handedness had become unbearable, was discharged by Christian
V., who gave the supreme command to Juel. In the spring of 1678 Juel put
to sea with 84 ships carrying 2400 cannon, but as the Swedes were no
longer strong enough to encounter such a formidable armament on the open
sea, his operations were limited to blockading the Swedish ports and
transporting troops to Rügen. After the peace of Lund Juel showed
himself an administrator and reformer of the first order, and under his
energetic supervision the Danish navy ultimately reached imposing
dimensions, especially after Juel became chief of the admiralty in
1683. Personally Juel was the noblest and most amiable of men, equally
beloved and respected by his sailors, simple, straightforward and
unpretentious in all his ways. During his latter years he was popularly
known in Copenhagen as "the good old knight." He died on the 8th of
April 1697.

See Garde, _Niels Juel_ (1842), and _Den dansk. norske Sömagts
Historie, 1535-1700_ (1861). (R. N. B.)

JUG, a vessel for holding liquid, usually with one handle and a lip,
made of earthenware, glass or metal. The origin of the word in this
sense is uncertain, but it is probably identical with a shortened form
of the feminine name Joan or Joanna; cf. the similar use of Jack and
Jill or Gill for a drinking-vessel or a liquor measure. It has also been
used as a common expression for a homely woman, a servant-girl, a
sweetheart, sometimes in a sense of disparagement. In slang, "jug" or
"stone-jug" is used to denote a prison; this may possibly be an
adaptation of Fr. _joug_, yoke, Lat. _jugum_. The word "jug" is probably
onomatopoeic when used to represent a particular note of the
nightingale's song, or applied locally to various small birds, as the
hedge-jug, &c.

The British Museum contains a remarkable bronze jug which was found at
Kumasi during the Ashanti Expedition of 1896. It dates from the reign of
Richard II., and is decorated in relief with the arms of England and the
badge of the king. It has a lid, spout and handle, which ends in a
quatrefoil. An inscription, on three raised bands round the body of the
vessel, modernized runs:--"He that will not spare when he may shall not
spend when he would. Deem the best in every doubt till the truth be
tried out." The _British Museum Guide to the Medieval Room_ contains an
illustration of this vessel.

A particular form of jug is the "ewer," the precursor of the ordinary
bedroom jug (an adaptation of O. Fr. _ewaire_, med. Lat. _aquaria_,
water-pitcher, from _aqua_, water). The ewer was a jug with a wide
spout, and was principally used at table for pouring water over the
hands after eating, a matter of some necessity before the introduction
of forks. Early ewers are sometimes mounted on three feet, and bear
inscriptions such as _Venez laver_. A basin of similar material and
design accompanied the ewer. In the 13th and 14th centuries a special
type of metal ewer takes the form of animals, men on horseback, &c.;
these are generally known as _aquamaniles_, from med. Lat. _aqua manile_
or _aqua manale_ (_aqua_, water, and _manare_, to trickle, pour, drip).
The British Museum contains several examples.

In the 18th and early 19th centuries were made the drinking-vessels of
pottery known as "Toby jugs," properly Toby Fillpots or Philpots. These
take the form of a stout old man, sometimes seated, with a
three-cornered hat, the corners of which act as spouts. Similar
drinking-vessels were also made representing characters popular at the
time, such as "Nelson jugs," &c.

JUGE, BOFFILLE DE (d. 1502), French-Italian adventurer and statesman,
belonged to the family of del Giudice, which came from Amalfi, and
followed the fortunes of the Angevin dynasty. When John of Anjou, duke
of Calabria, was conquered in Italy (1461) and fled to Provence,
Boffille followed him. He was given by Duke John and his father, King
René, the charge of upholding by force of arms their claims on
Catalonia. Louis XI., who had joined his troops to those of the princes
of Anjou, attached Boffille to his own person, made him his chamberlain
and conferred on him the vice-royalty of Roussillon and Cerdagne (1471),
together with certain important lordships, among others the countship of
Castres, confiscated from James of Armagnac, duke of Nemours (1476), and
the temporalities of the bishopric of Castres, confiscated from John of
Armagnac. He also entrusted him with diplomatic negotiations with
Flanders and England. In 1480 Boffille married Marie d'Albret, sister of
Alain the Great, thus confirming the feudal position which the king had
given him in the south. He was appointed as one of the judges in the
trial of René of Alençon, and showed such zeal in the discharge of his
functions that Louis XI. rewarded him by fresh gifts. However, the
bishop of Castres recovered his diocese (1483), and the heirs of the
duke of Nemours took legal proceedings for the recovery of the
countship of Castres. Boffille, with the object of escaping from his
enemies, applied for the command of the armies of the republic of
Venice. His application was refused, and he further lost the
vice-royalty of Roussillon (1491). His daughter Louise married against
his will a gentleman of no rank, and this led to terrible family
dissensions. In order to disinherit his own family, Boffille de Juge
gave up the countship of Castres to his brother-in-law, Alain d'Albret
(1494). He died in 1502.

See P. M. Perret, _Boffille de Juge, comte de Castres, et la
république de Venise_ (1891); F. Pasquier, _Inventaire des documents
concernant Boffille de Juge_ (1905). (M. P.*)

JUGGERNAUT, a corruption of Sans. JAGANNATHA, "Lord of the World," the
name under which the Hindu god Vishnu is worshipped at Puri in Orissa.
The legend runs that the sacred blue-stone image of Jagannatha was
worshipped in the solitude of the jungle by an outcast, a Savara
mountaineer, called Basu. The king of Malwa, Indradyumna, had despatched
Brahmans to all quarters of the peninsula, and at last discovered Basu.
Thereafter the image was taken to Puri, and a temple, begun in 1174, was
completed fourteen years later at a cost of upwards of half a million
sterling. The site had been associated for centuries before and after
the Christian era with Buddhism, and the famous Car festival is probably
based on the Tooth festival of the Buddhists, of which the Chinese
pilgrim Fa-Hien gives an account. The present temple is a pyramidal
building, 192 ft. high, crowned with the mystic wheel and flag of
Vishnu. Its inner enclosure, nearly 400 ft. by 300 ft., contains a
number of small temples and shrines. The main temple has four main
rooms--the hall of offerings, the dancing hall, the audience chamber,
and the shrine itself--the two latter being each 80 ft. square. The
three principal images are those of Vishnu, his brother and his sister,
grotesque wooden figures roughly hewn. Elaborate services are daily
celebrated all the year round, the images are dressed and redressed, and
four meals a day are served to them. The attendants on the god are
divided into 36 orders and 97 classes. Special servants are assigned the
tasks of putting the god to bed, of dressing and bathing him. The annual
rent-roll of the temple was put at £68,000 by Sir W. W. Hunter; but the
pilgrims' offerings, which form the bulk of the income, are quite
unknown and have been said to reach as much as £100,000 in one year.
Ranjit Singh bequeathed the Koh-i-nor to Jagannath. There are four chief
festivals, of which the famous Car festival is the most important.

The terrible stories of pilgrims crushed to death in the god's honour
have made the phrase "Car of Juggernaut" synonymous with the merciless
sacrifice of human lives, but these have been shown to be baseless
calumnies. The worship of Vishnu is innocent of all bloody rites, and
a drop of blood even accidentally spilt in the god's presence is held
to pollute the officiating priests, the people, and the consecrated
food. The Car festival takes place in June or July, and the feature of
its celebration is the drawing of the god from the temple to his
"country-house," a distance of less than a mile. The car is 45 ft. in
height and 35 ft. square, and is supported on 16 wheels of 7 ft. in
diameter. Vishnu's brother and sister have separate cars, slightly
smaller. To these cars ropes are attached, and thousands of eager
pilgrims vie with each other to have the honour of dragging the god.
Though the distance is so short the journey lasts several days, owing
to the deep sand in which the wheels sink. During the festival serious
accidents have often happened. Sir W. W. Hunter in the _Gazetteer of
India_ writes: "In a closely packed, eager throng of a hundred
thousand men and women under the blazing tropical sun, deaths must
occasionally occur. There have doubtless been instances of pilgrims
throwing themselves under the wheels in a frenzy of religious
excitement, but such instances have always been rare, and are now
unknown. The few suicides that did occur were, for the most part,
cases of diseased and miserable objects who took this means to put
themselves out of pain. The official returns now place this beyond
doubt. Nothing could be more opposed to the spirit of Vishnu-worship
than self-immolation. Accidental death within the temple renders the
whole place unclean. According to Chaitanya, the apostle of Jagannath,
the destruction of the least of God's creatures is a sin against the
Creator."

See also Sir W. W. Hunter's _Orissa_ (1872); and _District Gazetteer
of Puri_ (1908).

JUGGLER (Lat. _joculator_, jester), in the modern sense a performer of
sleight-of-hand tricks and dexterous feats of skill in tossing balls,
plates, knives, &c. The term is practically synonymous with conjurer
(see CONJURING). The _joculatores_ were the mimes of the middle ages
(see DRAMA); the French use of the word _jongleurs_ (an erroneous form
of _jougleur_) included the singers known as _trouvères_; and the
humbler English minstrels of the same type gradually passed into the
strolling jugglers, from whose exhibitions the term came to cover
loosely any acrobatic, pantomimic and sleight-of-hand performances. In
ancient Rome various names were given to what we call jugglers, e.g.
_ventilatores_ (knife-throwers), and _pilarii_ (ball-players).

JUGURTHA (Gr. [Greek: Iogorthas]), king of Numidia, an illegitimate son
of Mastanabal, and grandson of Massinissa. After his father's death he
was brought up by his uncle Micipsa together with his cousins Adherbal
and Hiempsal. Jugurtha grew up strong, handsome and intelligent, a
skilful rider, and an adept in warlike exercises. He inherited much of
Massinissa's political ability. Micipsa, naturally afraid of him, sent
him to Spain (134 B.C.) in command of a Numidian force, to serve under
P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus Minor. He became a favourite with Scipio
and the Roman nobles, some of whom put into his head the idea of making
himself sole king of Numidia, with the help of Roman money.

In 118 B.C. Micipsa died. By his will, Jugurtha was associated with
Adherbal and Hiempsal in the government of Numidia. Scipio had written
to Micipsa a strong letter of recommendation in favour of Jugurtha; and
to Scipio, accordingly, Micipsa entrusted the execution of his will.
None the less, his testamentary arrangements utterly failed. The princes
soon quarrelled, and Jugurtha claimed the entire kingdom. Hiempsal he
contrived to have assassinated; Adherbal he quickly drove out of
Numidia. He then sent envoys to Rome to defend his usurpation on the
ground that he was the injured party. The senate decided that Numidia
was to be divided, and gave the western, the richer and more populous
half, to Jugurtha, while the sands and deserts of the eastern half were
left to Adherbal. Jugurtha's envoys appear to have found several of the
Roman nobles and senators accessible to bribery. Having secured the best
of the bargain, Jugurtha at once began to provoke Adherbal to a war of
self-defence. He completely defeated him near the modern Philippeville,
and Adherbal sought safety in the fortress of Cirta (Constantine). Here
he was besieged by Jugurtha, who, notwithstanding the interposition of a
Roman embassy, forced the place to capitulate, and treacherously
massacred all the inhabitants, among them his cousin Adherbal and a
number of Italian merchants resident in the town. There was great wrath
at Rome and throughout Italy; and the senate, a majority of which still
clung to Jugurtha, were persuaded in the same year (111) to declare war.
An army was despatched to Africa under the consul L. Calpurnius Bestia,
several of the Numidian towns voluntarily surrendered, and Bocchus, the
king of Mauretania, and Jugurtha's father-in-law, offered the Romans his
alliance. Jugurtha was alarmed, but having at his command the
accumulated treasures of Massinissa, he was successful in arranging with
the Roman general a peace which left him in possession of the whole of
Numidia. When the facts were known at Rome, the tribune Memmius insisted
that Jugurtha should appear in person and be questioned as to the
negotiations. Jugurtha appeared under a safe conduct, but he had
partisans, such as the tribune C. Baebius, who took care that his mouth
should be closed. Soon afterwards he caused his cousin Massiva, then
resident at Rome and a claimant to the throne of Numidia, to be
assassinated. The treaty was thereupon set aside, and Jugurtha was
ordered to quit Rome. On this occasion he uttered the well-known words,
"A city for sale, and doomed to perish as soon as it finds a purchaser!"
(Livy, _Epit._ 64). The war was renewed, and the consul Spurius Albinus
entrusted with the command. The Roman army in Africa was thoroughly
demoralized. An unsuccessful attempt was made on a fortified town,
Suthul, in which the royal treasures were deposited. The army was
surprised by the enemy in a night attack, and the camp was taken and
plundered. Every Roman was driven out of Numidia, and a disgraceful
peace was concluded (109).

By this time the feeling at Rome and in Italy against the corruption and
incapacity of the nobles had become so strong that a number of senators
were prosecuted and Bestia and Albinus sentenced to exile. The war was
now entrusted to Quintus Metellus, an able soldier and stern
disciplinarian, and from the year 109 to its close in 106 the contest
was carried on with credit to the Roman arms. Jugurtha was defeated on
the river Muthul, after an obstinate and skilful resistance. Once again,
however, he succeeded in surprising the Roman camp and forcing Metellus
into winter quarters. There were fresh negotiations, but Metellus
insisted on the surrender of the king's person, and this Jugurtha
refused. Numidia on the whole seemed disposed to assert its
independence, and Rome had before her the prospect of a troublesome
guerrilla war. Negotiations, reflecting little credit on the Romans,
were set on foot with Bocchus (q.v.) who for a time played fast and
loose with both parties. In 106, Marius was called on by the vote of the
Roman people to supersede Metellus, but it was through the perfidy of
Bocchus and the diplomacy of L. Cornelius Sulla, Marius's quaestor, that
the war was ended. Jugurtha fell into an ambush, and was conveyed a
prisoner to Rome. Two years afterwards, in 104, he figured with his two
sons in Marius's triumph, and in the subterranean prison beneath the
Capitol--"the bath of ice," as he called it--he was either strangled or
starved to death.

Though doubtless for a time regarded by his countrymen as their
deliverer from the yoke of Rome, Jugurtha mainly owes his historical
importance to the full and minute account of him which we have from the
hand of Sallust, himself afterwards governor of Numidia.

See A. H. J. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_ (1904); T. Mommsen, _Hist. of
Rome_, book iv. ch. v.; the chief ancient authorities (besides
Sallust) are Livy, _Epit._, lxii.-lxvii.; Plutarch, _Marius and
Sulla_; Velleius Paterculus, ii.; Diod. Sic., _Excerpta_, xxxiv.;
Florus, iii. 1. See also MARIUS, SULLA, NUMIDIA.

JUJU, a West African word held by some authorities to be a corruption of
Mandingo _gru-gru_, a charm. It is more generally believed to have been
adapted by the Mandingos directly from Fr. _joujou_, a toy or plaything.
The word, as used by Europeans on the Guinea coast, was originally
applied to the objects which it was supposed the negroes worshipped, and
was transferred from the objects themselves to the spirits or gods who
dwelt in them, and finally to the whole religious beliefs of the West
Africans. It is currently used in each of these senses, and more loosely
to indicate all the manners and customs of the negroes of the Guinea
coast, particularly the power of interdiction exercised in the name of
spirits (see FETISHISM and TABOO).

JUJUBE. Under this name the fruits of at least two species of _Zizyphus_
are usually described, namely, _Z. vulgaris_ and _Z. Jujuba_.[1] The
genus is a member of the natural order Anacardiaceae. The species are
small trees or shrubs, armed with sharp, straight, or hooked spines,
having alternate leaves, and fruits which are in most of the species
edible, and have an agreeable acid taste; this is especially the case
with those of the two species mentioned above.

_Z. vulgaris_ is a tree about 20 feet high, extensively cultivated in
many parts of Southern Europe, also in Western Asia, China and Japan. In
India it extends from the Punjab to the north-western frontier,
ascending in the Punjab Himalaya to a height of 6500 feet, and is found
both in the wild and cultivated state. The plant is grown almost
exclusively for the sake of its fruit, which both in size and shape
resembles a moderate-sized plum; at first the fruits are green, but as
they ripen they become of a reddish-brown colour on the outside and
yellow within. They ripen in September, when they are gathered and
preserved by storing in a dry place; after a time the pulp becomes much
softer and sweeter than when fresh. Jujube fruits when carefully dried
will keep for a long time, and retain their refreshing acid flavour, on
account of which they are much valued in the countries of the
Mediterranean region as a winter dessert fruit; and, besides, they are
nutritive and demulcent. At one time a decoction was prepared from them
and recommended in pectoral complaints. A kind of thick paste, known as
jujube paste, was also made of a composition of gum arabic and sugar
dissolved in a decoction of jujube fruit evaporated to the proper
consistency.

_Z. Jujuba_ is a tree averaging from 30 to 50 ft. high, found both wild
and cultivated in China, the Malay Archipelago, Ceylon, India, tropical
Africa and Australia. Many varieties are cultivated by the Chinese, who
distinguish them by the shape and size of their fruits, which are not
only much valued as dessert fruit in China, but are also occasionally
exported to England.

As seen in commerce jujube fruits are about the size of a small filbert,
having a reddish-brown, shining, somewhat wrinkled exterior, and a
yellow or gingerbread coloured pulp enclosing a hard elongated stone.

The fruits of _Zizyphus_ do not enter into the composition of the
lozenges now known as jujubes which are usually made of gum-arabic,
gelatin, &c., and variously flavoured.

FOOTNOTE:

[1] The med. Lat. _jujuba_ is a much altered form of the Gr. [Greek:
zizuphon]

JU-JUTSU or JIU-JITSU (a Chino-Japanese term, meaning muscle-science),
the Japanese method of offence and defence without weapons in personal
encounter, upon which is founded the system of physical culture
universal in Japan. Some historians assert that it was founded by a
Japanese physician who learned its rudiments while studying in China,
but most writers maintain that ju-jutsu was in common use in Japan
centuries earlier, and that it was known in the 7th century B.C.
Originally it was an art practised solely by the nobility, and
particularly by the samurai who, possessing the right, denied to
commoners, of carrying swords, were thus enabled to show their
superiority over common people even when without weapons. It was a
secret art, jealously guarded from those not privileged to use it, until
the feudal system was abandoned in Japan, and now ju-jutsu is taught in
the schools, as well as in public and private gymnasia. In the army,
navy and police it receives particular attention. About the beginning of
the 20th century, masters of the art began to attract attention in
Europe and America, and schools were established in Great Britain and
the United States, as well as on the continent of Europe.

Ju-jutsu may be briefly defined as "an application of anatomical
knowledge to the purpose of offence and defence. It differs from
wrestling in that it does not depend upon muscular strength. It differs
from the other forms of attack in that it uses no weapon. Its feat
consists in clutching or striking such part of an enemy's body as will
make him numb and incapable of resistance. Its object is not to kill,
but to incapacitate one for action for the time being" (Inazo Nitobe,
_Bushido: the Soul of Japan_).

Many writers translate the term ju-jutsu "to conquer by yielding" (Jap.
_ju_, pliant), and this phrase well expresses a salient characteristic
of the art, since the weight and strength of the opponent are employed
to his own undoing. When, for example, a big man rushes at a smaller
opponent, the smaller man, instead of seeking to oppose strength to
strength, falls backwards or sidewise, pulling his heavy adversary after
him and taking advantage of his loss of balance to gain some lock or
hold known to the science. This element of yielding in order to conquer
is thus referred to in Lafcadio Hearn's _Out of the East_: "In jiu-jitsu
there is a sort of counter for every twist, wrench, pull, push or bend:
only the jiu-jitsu expert does not oppose such movements. No; he yields
to them. But he does much more than that. He aids them with a wicked
sleight that causes the assailant to put out his own shoulder, to
fracture his own arm, or, in a desperate case, even to break his own
neck or back."

The knowledge of anatomy mentioned by Nitobe is acquired in order that
the combatant may know the weak parts of his adversary's body and attack
them. Several of these sensitive places, for instance the partially
exposed nerve in the elbow popularly known as the "funny-bone" and the
complex of nerves over the stomach called the solar plexus, are familiar
to the European, but the ju-jutsu expert is acquainted with many others
which, when compressed, struck, or pinched, cause temporary paralysis of
a more or less complete nature. Such places are the arm-pit, the ankle
and wrist bones, the tendon running downward from the ear, the "Adam's
apple," and the nerves of the upper arm. In serious fighting almost any
hold or attack is resorted to, and a broken or badly sprained limb is
the least that can befall the victim; but in the practice of the art as
a means of physical culture the knowledge of the different grips is
assumed on both sides, as well as the danger of resisting too long. For
this reason the combatant, when he feels himself on the point of being
disabled, is instructed to signal his acknowledgment of defeat by
striking the floor with hand or foot. The bout then ends and both
combatants rise and begin afresh. It will be seen that a victory in
ju-jutsu does not mean that the opponent shall be placed in some
particular position, as in wrestling, but in any position in which his
judgment or knowledge tells him that, unless he yields, he will suffer a
disabling injury. This difference existed between the wrestling and the
_pancratium_ of the Olympic games. In the _pancratium_ the fight went on
until one combatant acknowledged defeat, but, although many a man
allowed himself to be beaten into insensibility rather than suffer this
humiliation, it was nevertheless held to be a disgrace to kill an
opponent.

A modern bout at ju-jutsu usually begins by the combatants taking hold
with both hands upon the collars of each other's jackets or kimonos,
after which, upon the word to start being given, the manoeuvring for an
advantageous grip begins by pushes, pulls, jerks, falls, grips or other
movements. Once the wrist, ankle, neck, arm or leg of an assailant is
firmly grasped so that added force will dislocate it, there is nothing
for the seized man to do, in case he is still on his feet, but go to the
floor, often being thrown clean over his opponent's head. A fall of this
kind does not necessarily mean defeat, for the struggle proceeds upon
the floor, where indeed most of the combat takes place, and the ju-jutsu
expert receives a long training in the art of falling without injury.
Blows are delivered, not with the fist, but with the open hand, the
exterior edge of which is hardened by exercises.

The physical training necessary to produce expertness is the most
valuable feature of ju-jutsu. The system includes a light and nourishing
diet, plenty of sleep, deep-breathing exercises, an abundance of fresh
air and general moderation in habits, in addition to the actual
gymnastic exercises for the purpose of muscle-building and the
cultivation of agility of eye and mind as well as of body. It is
practised by both sexes in Japan.

Many attempts have been made in England and America to match ju-jutsu
experts against wrestlers, mostly of the "catch-as-catch can" school,
but these trials have, almost without exception, proved unsatisfactory,
since many of the most efficacious tricks of ju-jutsu, such as the
strangle holds and twists of wrists and ankles, are accounted foul in
wrestling. Nevertheless the Japanese athletes, even when obliged to
forgo these, have usually proved more than a match for European
wrestlers of their own weight.

See H. Irving Hancock's _Japanese Physical Training_ (1904); _Physical
Training for Women by Japanese Methods_ (1904); _The Complete Kano
Jiu-jitsu_ (_Jiudo_) (1905); M. Ohashi, _Japanese Physical Culture_
(1904); K. Saito, _Jiu-jitsu Tricks_ (1905).

JUJUY, a northern province of the Argentine Republic, bounded N. and
N.W. by Bolivia, N.E., E., S. and S.W. by Salta, and W. by the Los Andes
territory. Pop. (1895), 49,713; (1905, estimate), 55,450, including many
mestizos. Area, 18,977 sq. m., the greater part being mountainous. The
province is traversed from N. to S. by three distinct ranges belonging
to the great central Andean plateau: the Sierra de Santa Catalina, the
Sierra de Humahuaca, and the Sierras de Zenta and Santa Victoria. In the
S.E. angle of the province are the low, isolated ranges of Alumbre and
Santa Barbara. Between the more eastern of these ranges are valleys of
surpassing fertility, watered by the Rio Grande de Jujuy, a large
tributary of the Bermejo. The western part, however, is a high plateau
(parts of which are 11,500 ft. above sea-level), whose general
characteristics are those of the _puna_ regions farther west. The
surface of this high plateau is broken, semi-arid and desolate, having a
very scanty population and no important industry beyond the breeding of
a few goats and the fur-bearing chinchilla. There are two large saline
lagoons: Toro, or Pozuelos, in the N., and Casabindo, or Guayatayoc, in
the S. The climate is cool, dry and healthy, with violent tempests in
the summer season. (For a vivid description of this interesting region,
see F. O'Driscoll, "A Journey to the North of the Argentine Republic,"
_Geogr. Jour._ xxiv. 1904.) The agricultural productions of Jujuy
include sugar cane, wheat, Indian corn, alfalfa and grapes. The breeding
of cattle and mules for the Bolivian and Chilean markets is an old
industry. Coffee has been grown in the department of Ledesma, but only
to a limited extent. There are also valuable forest areas and
undeveloped mineral deposits. Large borax deposits are worked in the
northern part of the province, the output in 1901 having been 8000 tons.
The province is traversed from S. to N. by the Central Northern railway,
a national government line, which has been extended to the Bolivian
frontier. It passes through the capital and up the picturesque Humahuaca
valley, and promises, under capable management, to be an important
international line, affording an outlet for southern Bolivia. The
climate of the lower agricultural districts is tropical, and irrigation
is employed in some places in the long dry season.

The capital, Jujuy (estimated pop. 1905, 5000), is situated on the Rio
Grande at the lower end of the Humahuaca valley, 942 m. from Buenos
Aires by rail. It was founded in 1593 and is 4035 ft. above sea-level.
It has a mild, temperate climate and picturesque natural surroundings,
and is situated on the old route between Bolivia and Tucuman, but its
growth has been slow.

JUKES, JOSEPH BEETE (1811-1869), English geologist, was born at Summer
Hill, near Birmingham, on the 10th of October 1811. He took his degree
at Cambridge in 1836. He began the study of geology under Sedgwick, and
in 1839 was appointed geological surveyor of Newfoundland. He returned
to England at the end of 1840, and in 1842 sailed as naturalist on board
H.M.S. "Fly," despatched to survey Torres Strait, New Guinea, and the
east coast of Australia. Jukes landed in England again in June 1846, and
in August received an appointment on the geological survey of Great
Britain. The district to which he was first sent was North Wales. In
1847 he commenced the survey of the South Staffordshire coal-field and
continued this work during successive years after the close of
field-work in Wales. The results were published in his _Geology of the
South Staffordshire Coal-field_ (1853; 2nd ed. 1859), a work remarkable
for its accuracy and philosophic treatment. In 1850 he accepted the post
of local director of the geological survey of Ireland. The exhausting
nature of this work slowly but surely wore out even his robust
constitution and on the 29th of July 1869 he died. For many years he
lectured as professor of geology, first at the Royal Dublin Society's
Museum of Irish Industry, and afterwards at the Royal College of Science
in Dublin. He was an admirable teacher, and his _Student's Manual_ was
the favoured textbook of British students for many years. During his
residence in Ireland he wrote an article "On the Mode of Formation of
some of the River-valleys in the South of Ireland" (_Quarterly Journ.
Geol. Soc._ 1862), and in this now classic essay he first clearly
sketched the origin and development of rivers. In later years he devoted
much attention to the relations between the Devonian system and the
Carboniferous rocks and Old Red Sandstone.

Jukes wrote many papers that were printed in the London and Dublin
geological journals and other periodicals. He edited, and in great
measure wrote, forty-two memoirs explanatory of the maps of the south,
east and west of Ireland, and prepared a geological map of Ireland on
a scale of 8 m. to an inch. He was also the author of _Excursions in
and about Newfoundland_ (2 vols., 1842); _Narrative of the Surveying
Voyage of H. M. S. "Fly"_ (2 vols., 1847); _A Sketch of the Physical
Structure of Australia_ (1850); _Popular Physical Geology_ (1853);
_Student's Manual of Geology_ (1857; 2nd ed. 1862; a later edition was
revised by A. Geikie, 1872); the article "Geology" in the _Ency.
Brit._ 8th ed. (1858) and _School Manual of Geology_ (1863). See
_Letters, &c., of J. Beete Jukes, edited, with Connecting Memorial
Notes, by his Sister_ (C. A. Browne) (1871), to which is added a
chronological list of Jukes's writings.

JULIAN (FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS JULIANUS) (331-363), commonly called JULIAN THE
APOSTATE, Roman emperor, was born in Constantinople in 331,[1] the son
of Julius Constantius and his wife Basilina, and nephew of Constantine
the Great. He was thus a member of the dynasty under whose auspices
Christianity became the established religion of Rome. The name Flavius
he inherited from his paternal grandfather Constantius Chlorus; Julianus
came from his maternal grandfather; Claudius had been assumed by
Constantine's family in order to assert a connexion with Claudius
Gothicus.

Julian lost his mother not many months after he was born. He was only
six when his imperial uncle died; and one of his earliest memories must
have been the fearful massacre of his father and kinsfolk, in the
interest and more or less at the instigation of the sons of Constantine.
Only Julian and his elder half-brother Gallus were spared, Gallus being
too ill and Julian too young to excite the fear or justify the cruelty
of the murderers. Gallus was banished, but Julian was allowed to remain
in Constantinople, where he was carefully educated under the supervision
of the family eunuch Mardonius, and of Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia.
About 344 Gallus was recalled, and the two brothers were removed to
Macellum, a remote and lonely castle in Cappadocia. Julian was trained
to the profession of the Christian religion; but he became early
attracted to the old faith, or rather to the idealized amalgam of
paganism and philosophy which was current among his teachers, the
rhetoricians. Cut off from all sympathy with the reigning belief by the
terrible fate of his family, and with no prospect of a public career, he
turned with all the eagerness of an enthusiastic temperament to the
literary and philosophic studies of the time. The old Hellenic world had
an irresistible attraction for him. Love for its culture was in Julian's
mind intimately associated with loyalty to its religion.

In the meantime the course of events had left as sole autocrat of the
Roman Empire his cousin Constantius, who, feeling himself unequal to the
enormous task, called Julian's brother Gallus to a share of power, and
in March 351 appointed him Caesar. At the same time Julian was permitted
to return to Constantinople, where he studied grammar under Nicocles and
rhetoric under the Christian sophist Hecebolius. After a short stay in
the capital Julian was ordered to remove to Nicomedia, where he made the
acquaintance of some of the most eminent rhetoricians of the time, and
became confirmed in his secret devotion to the pagan faith. He promised
not to attend the lectures of Libanius, but bought and read them. But
his definite conversion to paganism was attributed to the neo-platonist
Maximus of Ephesus, who may have visited him at Nicomedia. The downfall
of Gallus (354), who had been appointed governor of the East, again
exposed Julian to the greatest danger. By his rash and headstrong
conduct Gallus had incurred the enmity of Constantius and the eunuchs,
his confidential ministers, and was put to death. Julian fell under a
like suspicion, and narrowly escaped the same fate. For some months he
was confined at Milan (_Mediolanum_) till at the intercession of the
empress Eusebia, who always felt kindly towards him, permission was
given him to retire to a small property in Bithynia. While he was on his
way, Constantius recalled him, but allowed--or rather ordered--him to
take up his residence at Athens. The few months he spent there
(July-October 355) were probably the happiest of his life.

The emperor Constantius and Julian were now the sole surviving male
members of the family of Constantine; and, as the emperor again felt
himself oppressed by the cares of government, there was no alternative
but to call Julian to his assistance. At the instance of the empress he
was summoned to Milan, where Constantius bestowed upon him the hand of
his sister Helena, together with the title of Caesar and the government
of Gaul.

A task of extreme difficulty awaited him beyond the Alps. During recent
troubles the Alamanni and other German tribes had crossed the Rhine;
they had burned many flourishing cities, and extended their ravages far
into the interior of Gaul. The internal government of the province had
also fallen into great confusion. In spite of his inexperience, Julian
quickly brought affairs into order. He completely overthrew the Alamanni
in the great battle of Strassburg (August 357). The Frankish tribes
which had settled on the western bank of the lower Rhine were reduced to
submission. In Gaul he rebuilt the cities which had been laid waste,
re-established the administration on a just and secure footing, and as
far as possible lightened the taxes, which weighed so heavily on the
poor provincials. Paris was the usual residence of Julian during his
government of Gaul, and his name has become inseparably associated with
the early history of the city.

Julian's reputation was now established. He was general of a victorious
army enthusiastically attached to him and governor of a province which
he had saved from ruin; but he had also become an object of fear and
jealousy at the imperial court. Constantius accordingly resolved to
weaken his power. A threatened invasion of the Persians was made an
excuse for withdrawing some of the best legions from the Gallic army.
Julian recognized the covert purpose of this, yet proceeded to fulfil
the commands of the emperor. A sudden movement of the legions themselves
decided otherwise. At Paris, on the night of the parting banquet, they
forced their way into Julian's tent, and, proclaiming him emperor,
offered him the alternative either of accepting the lofty title or of an
instant death. Julian accepted the empire, and sent an embassy with a
deferential message to Constantius. The message being contemptuously
disregarded, both sides prepared for a decisive struggle. After a march
of unexampled rapidity through the Black Forest and down the Danube,
Julian reached Sirmium, and was on the way to Constantinople, when he
received news of the death of Constantius, who had set out from Syria to
meet him, at Mopsucrene in Cilicia (Nov. 3, 361). Without further
trouble Julian found himself everywhere acknowledged the sole ruler of
the Roman Empire; it is even asserted that Constantius himself on his
death-bed had designated him his successor. Julian entered
Constantinople on the 11th of December 361.

Julian had already made a public avowal of paganism, of which he had
been a secret adherent from the age of twenty. It was no ordinary
profession, but the expression of a strong and even enthusiastic
conviction; the restoration of the pagan worship was to be the great aim
and controlling principle of his government. His reign was too short to
show what precise form the pagan revival might ultimately have taken,
how far his feelings might have become embittered by his conflict with
the Christian faith, whether persecution, violence and civil war might
not have taken the place of the moral suasion which was the method he
originally affected. He issued an edict of universal toleration; but in
many respects he used his imperial influence unfairly to advance the
work of restoration. In order to deprive the Christians of the
advantages of culture, and discredit them as an ignorant sect, he
forbade them to teach rhetoric. The symbols of paganism and of the
imperial dignity were so artfully interwoven on the standards of the
legions that they could not pay the usual homage to the emperor without
seeming to offer worship to the gods; and, when the soldiers came
forward to receive the customary donative, they were required to throw a
handful of incense on the altar. Without directly excluding Christians
from the high offices of state, he held that the worshippers of the gods
ought to have the preference. In short, though there was no direct
persecution, he exerted much more than a moral pressure to restore the
power and prestige of the old faith.

Having spent the winter of 361-362 at Constantinople, Julian proceeded
to Antioch to prepare for his great expedition against Persia. His stay
there was a curious episode in his life. It is doubtful whether his
pagan convictions or his ascetic life, after the fashion of an antique
philosopher, gave most offence to the so-called Christians of the
dissolute city. They soon grew heartily tired of each other, and Julian
took up his winter quarters at Tarsus, from which in early spring he
marched against Persia. At the head of a powerful and well-appointed
army he advanced through Mesopotamia and Assyria as far as Ctesiphon,
near which he crossed the Tigris, in face of a Persian army which he
defeated. Misled by the treacherous advice of a Persian nobleman, he
desisted from the siege, and set out to seek the main army of the enemy
under Shapur II. (q.v.). After a long, useless march he was forced to
retreat, and found himself enveloped by the whole Persian army, in a
waterless and desolate country, at the hottest season of the year. The
Romans repulsed the enemy in many an obstinate battle, but on the 26th
of June 363 Julian, who was ever in the front, was mortally wounded. The
same night he died in his tent. In the most authentic historian of his
reign, Ammianus Marcellinus, we find a noble speech, which he is said to
have addressed to his afflicted officers. Soon after his death the
rumour spread that the fatal wound had been inflicted by a Christian in
the Roman army. The well-known statement, first found in Theodoret (fl.
5th century), that Julian threw his blood towards heaven, exclaiming,
"Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!" is probably a development of the
account of his death in the poems of Ephraem Syrus.

From Julian's unique position as the last champion of a dying
polytheism, his character has always excited interest. Authors such as
Gregory of Nazianzus have heaped the fiercest anathemas upon him; but a
just and sympathetic criticism finds many noble qualities in his
character. In childhood and youth he had learned to regard Christianity
as a persecuting force. The only sympathetic friends he met were among
the pagan rhetoricians and philosophers; and he found a suitable outlet
for his restless and inquiring mind only in the studies of ancient
Greece. In this way he was attracted to the old paganism; but it was a
paganism idealized by the philosophy of the time.

In other respects Julian was no unworthy successor of the Antonines.
Though brought up in a studious and pedantic solitude, he was no sooner
called to the government of Gaul than he displayed all the energy, the
hardihood and the practical sagacity of an old Roman. In temperance,
self-control and zeal for the public good, as he understood it, he was
unsurpassed. To these Roman qualities he added the culture, literary
instincts and speculative curiosity of a Greek. One of the most
remarkable features of his public life was the perfect ease and mastery
with which he associated the cares of war and statesmanship with the
assiduous cultivation of literature and philosophy. Yet even his
devotion to culture was not free from pedantry and dilettantism. His
contemporaries observed in him a want of naturalness. He had not the
moral health or the composed and reticent manhood of a Roman, or the
spontaneity of a Greek. He was never at rest; in the rapid torrent of
his conversation he was apt to run himself out of breath; his manner was
jerky and spasmodic. He showed quite a deferential regard for the
sophists and rhetoricians of the time, and advanced them to high offices
of state; there was real cause for fear that he would introduce the
government of pedants in the Roman empire. Last of all, his love for the
old philosophy was sadly disfigured by his devotion to the old
superstitions. He was greatly given to divination; he was noted for the
number of his sacrificial victims. Wits applied to him the joke that had
been passed on Marcus Aurelius: "The white cattle to Marcus Caesar,
greeting. If you conquer, there is an end of us."

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The works of Julian, of which there are complete
editions by E. Spanheim (Leipzig, 1696) and F. C. Hertlein (Teubner
series, 1875-1876), consist of the following: (1) _Letters_, of which
more than eighty have been preserved under his name, although the
genuineness of several has been disputed. For his views on religious
toleration and his attitude towards Christians and Jews the most
important are 25-27, 51, 52, and the fragment in Hertlein, i. 371. The
letter of Gallus to Julian, warning him against reverting to
heathenism, is probably a Christian forgery. Six new letters were
discovered in 1884 by A. Papadopulos Kerameus in a monastery on the
island of Chalcis near Constantinople (see _Rheinisches Museum_,
xlii., 1887). Separate edition of the letters by L. H. Heyler (1828);
see also J. Bidez and F. Cumont, "Recherches sur la tradition MS. des
lettres de l'empereur Julian" in _Mémoires couronnés ... publiés par
l'Acad. royale de Belgique_, lvii. (1898) and F. Cumont, _Sur
l'authenticité de quelques lettres de Julien_ (1889). (2) _Orations_,
eight in number--two panegyrics on Constantius, one on the empress
Eusebia, two theosophical declamations on King Helios and the Mother
of the Gods, two essays on true and false cynicism, and a consolatory
address to himself on the departure of his friend Salustius to the
East. (3) _Caesares or Symposium_, a satirical composition after the
manner of Seneca's _Apocolocyntosis_, in which the deified Caesars
appear in succession at a banquet given in Olympus, to be censured for
their vices and crimes by old Silenus. (4) _Misopogon_ (the
beard-hater), written at Antioch, a satire on the licentiousness of
its inhabitants; while at the same time his own person and manner of
life are treated in a whimsical spirit. It also contains a charming
description of Lutetia (Paris). It owes its name to the ridicule
heaped upon his beard by the Antiocheans, who were in the habit of
shaving. (5) Five epigrams, two of which (_Anth. Pal._, ix. 365, 368)
are of some interest. (6) [Greek: Karà Christianôn] (_Adversus
Christianos_) in three books, an attack on Christianity written during
the Persian campaign, is lost. Theodosius II. ordered all copies of it
to be destroyed, and our knowledge of its contents is derived almost
entirely from the _Contra Julianum_ of Cyril, bishop of Alexandria,
written sixty years later (see _Juliani librorum contra Christianos
quae supersunt_, ed. C. J. Neumann 1880). _English Translations_:
Select works by J. Duncombe (1784) containing all except the first
seven orations (viii. and the fable from vii. are included): the
theosophical addresses to King Helios and the Mother of the Gods by
Thomas Taylor (1793) and C. W. King in Bohn's _Classical Library_
(1888); the public letters, by E. J. Chinnock (1901).

AUTHORITIES.--1. _Ancient_: (a) Pagan writers. Of these the most
trustworthy and impartial is the historian Ammianus Marcellinus (xv.
8-xxv.), a contemporary and in part an eye-witness of the events he
describes (other historians are Zosimus and Eutropius); the sophist
Libanius, who in speaking of his imperial friend shows himself
creditably free from exaggeration and servility; Eunapius (in his
lives of Maximus, Oribasius, the physician and friend of Julian, and
Prohaeresius) and Claudius Mamertinus, the panegyrist, are less
trustworthy. (b) Christian writers. Gregory of Nazianzus, the author
of two violent invectives against Julian; Rufinus; Socrates; Sozomen;
Theodoret; Philostorgius; the poems of Ephraem Syrus written in 363;
Zonaras; Cedrenus; and later Byzantine chronographers. The impression
which Julian produced on the Christians of the East is reflected in
two Syriac romances published by J. G. E. Hoffmann, _Julianos der
Abtrünnige_ (1880; see also Th. Nöldeke in _Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_ [1874], xxviii. 263).

2. _Modern._ For works before 1878 see R. Engelmann, _Scriptores
Graeci_ (8th ed., by E. Preuss, 1880). Of later works the most
important are G. H. Rendall, _The Emperor Julian, Paganism and
Christianity_ (1879); Alice Gardner, _Julian, Philosopher and Emperor_
(1895); G. Negri, _Julian the Apostate_ (Eng. trans., 1905); E.
Müller, _Kaiser Flavius Claudius Julianus_ (1901); P. Allard, _Julien
l'apostat_ (1900-1903); G. Mau, _Die Religionsphilosophie Kaiser
Julians in seinen Reden auf König Helios und die Göttermutter_ (1907);
J. E. Sandys, _Hist. of Classical Scholarship_ (1906), p. 356; W.
Christ, _Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur_ (1898), § 603; J.
Geffcken, "Kaiser Julianus und die Streitschriften seiner Gegner," in
_Neue Jahrb. f. das klassische Altertum_ (1908), pp. 161-195. The
sketch by Gibbon (_Decline and Fall_, chs. xix., xxii.-xxiv.) and the
articles by J. Wordsworth in Smith's _Dictionary of Christian
Biography_ and A. Harnack in Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyklopädie für
protestantische Theologie_ ix. (1901) are valuable, the last
especially for the bibliography. (T. K.; J. H. F.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] For the date of Julian's birth see Gibbon's _Decline and Fall_
(ed. Bury), ii. 247, note 11. The choice seems to lie between May 331
and May 332. If the former be adopted, Julian must have died in the
thirty-third, not the thirty-second, year of his age (as stated in
Ammianus Marcellinus, xxv. 3, 23).

JÜLICH (Fr. _Juliers_), a town of Germany, in the Prussian Rhine
province, on the right bank of the Roer, 16 m. N.E. of Aix-la-Chapelle.
Pop. (1900), 5459. It contains an Evangelical and two Roman Catholic
churches, a gymnasium, a school for non-commissioned officers, which
occupies the former ducal palace, and a museum of local antiquities. Its
manufactures include sugar, leather and paper. Jülich (formerly also
Gülch, Guliche) the capital of the former duchy of that name, is the
Juliacum of the _Antonini Itinerarium_; some have attributed its origin
to Julius Caesar. It became a fortress in the 17th century, and was
captured by the archduke Leopold in 1609, by the Dutch under Maurice of
Orange in 1610, and by the Spaniards in 1622. In 1794 it was taken by
the French, who held it until the peace of Paris in 1814. Till 1860,
when its works were demolished, Jülich ranked as a fortress of the
second class.

JÜLICH, or JULIERS, DUCHY OF. In the 9th century a certain Matfried was
count of Jülich (pagus Juliacensis), and towards the end of the 11th
century one Gerhard held this dignity. This Gerhard founded a family of
hereditary counts, who held Jülich as immediate vassals of the emperor,
and in 1356 the county was raised to the rank of a duchy. The older and
reigning branch of the family died in 1423, when Jülich passed to
Adolph, duke of Berg (d. 1437), who belonged to a younger branch, and
who had obtained Berg by virtue of the marriage of one of his
ancestors. Nearly a century later Mary (d. 1543) the heiress of these
two duchies, married John, the heir of the duchy of Cleves, and in 1521
the three duchies, Jülich, Berg and Cleves, together with the counties
of Ravensberg and La Marck, were united under John's sway. John died in
1539 and was succeeded by his son William who reigned until 1592.

At the beginning of the 17th century the duchies became very prominent
in European politics. The reigning duke, John William, was childless and
insane, and several princes were only waiting for his demise in order to
seize his lands. The most prominent of these princes were two Protestant
princes, Philip Louis, count palatine of Neuburg, who was married to the
duke's sister Anna, and John Sigismund, elector of Brandenburg, whose
wife was the daughter of another sister. Two other sisters were married
to princes of minor importance. Moreover, by virtue of an imperial
promise made in 1485 and renewed in 1495, the elector of Saxony claimed
the duchies of Jülich and Berg, while the proximity of the coveted lands
to the Netherlands made their fate a matter of great moment to the
Dutch. When it is remembered that at this time there was a great deal of
tension between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants, who were fairly
evenly matched in the duchies, and that the rivalry between France and
the Empire was very keen, it will be seen that the situation lacked no
element of discord. In March 1609 Duke John William died. Having assured
themselves of the support of Henry IV. of France and of the Evangelical
Union, Brandenburg and Neuburg at once occupied the duchies. To counter
this stroke and to support the Saxon claim, the emperor Rudolph II.
ordered some imperialist and Spanish troops to seize the disputed lands,
and it was probably only the murder of Henry IV. in May 1610 and the
death of the head of the Evangelical Union, the elector palatine,
Frederick IV., in the following September, which prevented, or rather
delayed, a great European war. About this time the emperor adjudged the
duchies to Saxony, while the Dutch captured the fortress of Jülich; but
for all practical purposes victory remained with the "possessing
princes," as Brandenburg and Neuburg were called, who continued to
occupy and to administer the lands. These two princes had made a compact
at Dortmund in 1609 to act together in defence of their rights, but
proposals for a marriage alliance between the two houses broke down and
differences soon arose between them. The next important step was the
timely conversion of the count palatine's heir, Wolfgang William of
Neuburg, to Roman Catholicism, and his marriage with a daughter of the
powerful Roman Catholic prince, Duke Maximilian of Bavaria. The rupture
between the possessing princes was now complete. Each invited foreign
aid. Dutch troops marched to assist the elector of Brandenburg and
Spanish ones came to aid the count palatine, but through the
intervention of England and France peace was made and the treaty of
Xanten was signed in November 1614. By this arrangement Brandenburg
obtained Jülich and Berg, the rest of the lands falling to the count
palatine. In 1666 the great elector, Frederick William of Brandenburg,
made with William, count palatine of Neuburg, a treaty of mutual
succession to the duchies, providing that in case the male line of
either house became extinct the other should inherit its lands.

The succession to the duchy of Jülich was again a matter of interest in
the earlier part of the 18th century. The family of the counts palatine
of Neuburg was threatened with extinction and the emperor Charles VI.
promised the succession to Jülich to the Prussian king, Frederick
William I., in return for a guarantee of the pragmatic sanction. A
little later, however, he promised the same duchy to the count palatine
of Sulzbach, a kinsman of the count palatine of Neuburg. Then Frederick
the Great, having secured Silesia, abandoned his claim to Jülich, which
thus passed to Sulzbach when, in 1742, the family of Neuburg became
extinct. From Sulzbach the duchy came to the electors palatine of the
Rhine, and, when this family died out in 1799, to the elector of
Bavaria, the head of the other branch of the house of Wittelsbach. In
1801 Jülich was seized by France, and by the settlement of 1815 it came
into the hands of Prussia. Its area was just over 1600 sq. m. and its
population about 400,000.

See Kuhl, _Geschichte der Stadt Jülich_; M. Ritter, _Sachsen und der
Jülicher Erbfolgestreit_ (1873), and _Der Jülicher Erbfolgekrieg, 1610
und 1611_ (1877); A. Müller, _Der Jülich-Klevesche Erbfolgestreit im
Jahre 1614_ (1900) and H. H. Koch, _Die Reformation im Herzogtum
Jülich_ (1883-1888).

JULIEN, STANISLAS (1797?-1873), French orientalist, was born at Orleans,
probably on the 13th of April 1797. Stanislas Julien, a mechanic of
Orleans, had two sons, Noël, born on the 13th of April 1797, and
Stanislas, born on the 20th of September 1799. It appears that the
younger son died in America, and that Noël then adopted his brother's
name. He studied classics at the collège de France, and in 1821 was
appointed assistant professor of Greek. In the same year he published an
edition of the [Greek: Helenês harpagê] of Coluthus, with versions in
French, Latin, English, German, Italian and Spanish. He attended the
lectures of Abel Rémusat on Chinese, and his progress was as rapid as it
had been in other languages. From the first, as if by intuition, he
mastered the genius of the language; and in 1824 he published a Latin
translation of a part of the works of Mencius (Mang-tse), one of the
nine classical books of the Chinese. Soon afterwards he translated the
modern Greek odes of Kalvos under the title of _La Lyre patriotique de
la Grèce_. But such works were not profitable in a commercial sense,
and, being without any patrimony, Julien was glad to accept the
assistance of Sir William Drummond and others, until in 1827 he was
appointed sublibrarian to the French institute. In 1832 he succeeded
Rémusat as professor of Chinese at the collège de France. In 1833 he was
elected a member of the Académie des Inscriptions in the place of the
orientalist, Antoine Jean Saint-Martin. For some years his studies had
been directed towards the dramatic and lighter literature of the
Chinese, and in rapid succession he now brought out translations of the
_Hoei-lan-ki_ (_L'Histoire du cercle de craie_), a drama in which occurs
a scene curiously analogous to the judgment of Solomon; the _Pih shay
tsing ki_; and the _Tchao-chi kou eul_, upon which Voltaire had founded
his _Orphelin de la Chine_ (1755). With the versatility which belonged
to his genius, he next turned, apparently without difficulty, to the
very different style common to Taoist writings, and translated in 1835
_Le Livre des récompenses et des peines_ of Lao-tsze. About this time
the cultivation of silkworms was beginning to attract attention in
France, and by order of the minister of agriculture Julien compiled, in
1837, a _Résumé des principaux traités chinois sur la culture des
mûriers, et l'éducation des vers-à-soie_, which was speedily translated
into English, German, Italian and Russian.

Nothing was more characteristic of his method of studying Chinese than
his habit of collecting every peculiarity of idiom and expression which
he met with in his reading; and, in order that others might reap the
benefit of his experiences, he published in 1841 _Discussions
grammaticales sur certaines règles de position qui, en chinois, jouent
le même rôle que les inflexions dans les autres langues_, which he
followed in 1842 by _Exercices pratiques d'analyse, de syntaxe, et de
lexigraphie chinoise_. Meanwhile in 1839, he had been appointed joint
keeper of the Bibliothèque royale, with the especial superintendence of
the Chinese books, and shortly afterwards he was made administrator of
the collège de France.

The facility with which he had learned Chinese, and the success which
his proficiency commanded, naturally inclined less gifted scholars to
resent the impatience with which he regarded their mistakes, and at
different times bitter controversies arose between Julien and his fellow
sinologues on the one subject which they had in common. In 1842 appeared
from his busy pen a translation of the _Tao te King_, the celebrated
work in which Lao-tsze attempted to explain his idea of the relation
existing between the universe and something which he called _Tao_, and
on which the religion of Taoism is based. From Taoism to Buddhism was a
natural transition, and about this time Julien turned his attention to
the Buddhist literature of China, and more especially to the travels of
Buddhist pilgrims to India. In order that he might better understand the
references to Indian institutions, and the transcriptions in Chinese of
Sanskrit words and proper names, he began the study of Sanskrit, and in
1853 brought out his _Voyages du pélérin Hiouen-tsang_, which is
regarded by some critics as his most valuable work. Six years later he
published _Les Avadânas, contes et apologues Indiens inconnus jusqu'à ce
jour, suivis de poésies et de nouvelles chinoises_. For the benefit of
future students he disclosed his system of deciphering Sanskrit words
occurring in Chinese books in his _Méthode pour déchiffrer et transcrire
les noms sanscrits qui se rencontrent dans les livres chinois_ (1861).
This work, which contains much of interest and importance, falls short
of the value which its author was accustomed to attach to it. It had
escaped his observation that, since the translations of Sanskrit works
into Chinese were undertaken in different parts of the empire, the same
Sanskrit words were of necessity differently represented in Chinese
characters in accordance with the dialectical variations. No hard and
fast rule can therefore possibly be laid down for the decipherment of
Chinese transcriptions of Sanskrit words, and the effect of this
impossibility was felt though not recognized by Julien, who in order to
make good his rule was occasionally obliged to suppose that wrong
characters had by mistake been introduced into the texts. His Indian
studies led to a controversy with Joseph Toussaint Reinaud, which was
certainly not free from the gall of bitterness. Among the many subjects
to which he turned his attention were the native industries of China,
and his work on the _Histoire et fabrication de la porcelaine chinoise_
is likely to remain a standard work on the subject. In another volume he
also published an account of the _Industries anciennes et modernes de
l'empire chinois_ (1869), translated from native authorities. In the
intervals of more serious undertakings he translated the _San tseu King_
(_Le Livre des trois mots_); _Thsien tseu wen_ (_Le Livre de mille
mots_); _Les Deux cousines_; _Nouvelles chinoises_; the _Ping chan ling
yen_ (_Les Deux jeunes filles lettrées_); and the _Dialoghi Cinesi_,
_Ji-tch'ang k' eou-t' eou-koa_. His last work of importance was _Syntaxe
nouvelle de la langue chinoise_ (1869), in which he gave the result of
his study of the language, and collected a vast array of facts and of
idiomatic expressions. A more scientific arrangement and treatment of
his subject would have added much to the value of this work, which,
however, contains a mine of material which amply repays exploration. One
great secret by which Julien acquired his grasp of Chinese, was, as we
have said, his methodical collection of phrases and idiomatic
expressions. Whenever in the course of his reading he met with a new
phrase or expression, he entered it on a card which took its place in
regular order in a long series of boxes. At his death, which took place
on the 14th of February 1873, he left, it is said, 250,000 of such
cards, about the fate of which, however, little seems to be known. In
politics Julien was imperialist, and in 1863 he was made a commander of
the legion of honour in recognition of the services he had rendered to
literature during the second empire.

See notice and bibliography by Wallon, _Mém. de l'Acad. des Inscr._
(1884), xxxi. 409-458. (R. K. D.)

JULIUS, the name of three popes.

JULIUS I., pope from 337 to 352, was chosen as successor of Marcus after
the Roman see had been vacant four months. He is chiefly known by the
part which he took in the Arian controversy. After the Eusebians had, at
a synod held in Antioch, renewed their deposition of Athanasius they
resolved to send delegates to Constans, emperor of the West, and also to
Julius, setting forth the grounds on which they had proceeded. The
latter, after expressing an opinion favourable to Athanasius, adroitly
invited both parties to lay the case before a synod to be presided over
by himself. This proposal, however, the Eastern bishops declined to
accept. On his second banishment from Alexandria, Athanasius came to
Rome, and was recognized as a regular bishop by the synod held in 340.
It was through the influence of Julius that, at a later date, the
council of Sardica in Illyria was held, which was attended only by
seventy-six Eastern bishops, who speedily withdrew to Philippopolis and
deposed Julius, along with Athanasius and others. The Western bishops
who remained confirmed the previous decisions of the Roman synod; and by
its 3rd, 4th and 5th decrees relating to the rights of revision, the
council of Sardica endeavoured to settle the procedure of ecclesiastical
appeals. Julius on his death in April 352 was succeeded by Liberius.
(L. D.*)

JULIUS II. (Giuliano della Rovere), pope from the 1st of November 1503
to the 21st of February 1513, was born at Savona in 1443. He was at
first intended for a commercial career, but later was sent by his uncle,
subsequently Sixtus IV., to be educated among the Franciscans, although
he does not appear to have joined that order. He was loaded with favours
during his uncle's pontificate, being made bishop of Carpentras, bishop
of Bologna, bishop of Vercelli, archbishop of Avignon, cardinal-priest
of S. Pietro in Vincoli and of Sti Dodici Apostoli, and cardinal-bishop
of Sabina, of Frascati, and finally of Ostia and Velletri. In 1480 he
was made legate to France, mainly to settle the question of the
Burgundian inheritance, and acquitted himself with such ability during
his two years' stay that he acquired an influence in the college of
cardinals which became paramount during the pontificate of Innocent
VIII. A rivalry, however, growing up between him and Roderigo Borgia, he
took refuge at Ostia after the latter's election as Alexander VI., and
in 1494 went to France, where he incited Charles VIII. to undertake the
conquest of Naples. He accompanied the young king on his campaign, and
sought to convoke a council to inquire into the conduct of the pope with
a view to his deposition, but was defeated in this through Alexander's
machinations. During the remainder of that pontificate Della Rovere
remained in France, nominally in support of the pope, for whom he
negotiated the treaty of 1498 with Louis XII., but in reality bitterly
hostile to him. On the death of Alexander (1503) he returned to Italy
and supported the election of Pius III., who was then suffering from an
incurable malady, of which he died shortly afterwards. Della Rovere then
won the support of Cesare Borgia and was unanimously elected pope.
Julius II. from the beginning repudiated the system of nepotism which
had flourished under Sixtus IV., Innocent VIII. and Alexander VI., and
set himself with courage and determination to restore, consolidate and
extend the temporal possessions of the Church. By dexterous diplomacy he
first succeeded (1504) in rendering it impossible for Cesare Borgia to
remain in Italy. He then pacified Rome and the surrounding country by
reconciling the powerful houses of Orsini and Colonna and by winning the
other nobles to his own cause. In 1504 he arbitrated on the differences
between France and Germany, and concluded an alliance with them in order
to oust the Venetians from Faenza, Rimini and other towns which they
occupied. The alliance at first resulted only in compelling the
surrender of a few unimportant fortresses in the Romagna; but Julius
freed Perugia and Bologna in the brilliant campaign of 1506. In 1508 he
concluded against Venice the famous league of Cambray with the emperor
Maximilian, Louis XII. of France and Ferdinand of Aragon, and in the
following year placed the city of Venice under an interdict. By the
single battle of Agnadello the Italian dominion of Venice was
practically lost; but as the allies were not satisfied with merely
effecting his purposes, the pope entered into a combination with the
Venetians against those who immediately before had been engaged in his
behalf. He absolved the Venetians in the beginning of 1510, and shortly
afterwards placed the ban on France. At a synod convened by Louis XII.
at Tours in September, the French bishops announced their withdrawal
from the papal obedience and resolved, with Maximilian's co-operation,
to seek the deposition of Julius. In November 1511 a council actually
met at Pisa for this object, but its efforts were fruitless. Julius
forthwith formed the Holy league with Ferdinand of Aragon and with
Venice against France, in which both Henry VIII. and the emperor
ultimately joined. The French were driven out of Italy in 1512 and papal
authority was once more securely established in the states immediately
around Rome. Julius had already issued, on the 18th of July 1511, the
summons for a general council to deal with France, with the reform of
the Church, and with a war against the Turks. This council, which is
known as the Fifth Lateran, assembled on the 3rd of May 1512, condemned
the celebrated pragmatic sanction of the French church, and was still
in session when Julius died. In the midst of his combats, Julius never
neglected his ecclesiastical duties. His bull of the 14th of January
1505 against simony in papal elections was re-enacted by the Lateran
council (February 16, 1513). He condemned duelling by bull of the 24th
of February 1509. He effected some reforms in the monastic orders; urged
the conversion of the sectaries in Bohemia; and sent missionaries to
America, India, Abyssinia and the Congo. His government of the Papal
States was excellent. Julius is deserving of particular honour for his
patronage of art and literature. He did much to improve and beautify
Rome; he laid the foundation-stone of St Peter's (April 18, 1506); he
founded the Vatican museum; and he was a friend and patron of Bramante,
Raphael and Michelangelo. While moderate in personal expenditure, Julius
resorted to objectionable means of replenishing the papal treasury,
which had been exhausted by Alexander VI., and of providing funds for
his numerous enterprises; simony and traffic in indulgences were
increasingly prevalent. Julius was undoubtedly in energy and genius one
of the greatest popes since Innocent III., and it is a misfortune of the
Church that his temporal policy eclipsed his spiritual office. Though
not despising the Machiavellian arts of statecraft so universally
practised in his day, he was nevertheless by nature plain-spoken and
sincere, and in his last years grew violent and crabbed. He died of a
fever on the 21st of February 1513, and was succeeded by Leo X.

See L. Pastor, _History of the Popes_, vol. vi., trans. by F. I.
Antrobus (1898); M. Creighton, _History of the Papacy_, vol. v.
(1901); F. Gregorovius, _Rome in the Middle Ages_, vol. viii., trans.
by Mrs G. W. Hamilton (1900-1902); Hefele-Hergenröther,
_Conciliengeschichte_, vol. viii., 2nd ed.; J. Klaczko, _Rome et la
renaissance ... Jules II._ (1898), trans. into English by J. Dennie
(New York, 1903); M. Brosch, _Papst Julius II. u. die Gründung des
Kirchenstaates_ (1878); A. J. Dumesnil, _Histoire de Jules II._
(1873); J. J. I. von Döllinger, _Beiträge zur polit., kirchl., u.
Cultur-Geschichte der sechs letzten Jahrhunderte_, vol. iii. (1882);
A. Schulte, _Die Fugger in Rom 1495-1523, mit Studien zur Gesch. des
kirchlichen Finanzwesens jener Zeit_ (1904). (C. H. Ha.)

JULIUS III. (Giovanni Maria del Monte), pope from 1550 to 1555, was born
on the 10th of September 1487. He was created cardinal by Paul III. in
1536, filled several important legations, and was elected pope on the
7th of February 1550, despite the opposition of Charles V., whose enmity
he had incurred as president of the council of Trent. Love of ease and
desire for peace moved him, however, to adopt a conciliatory attitude,
and to yield to the emperor's desire for the reassembling of the council
(September 1551), suspended since 1549. But deeming Charles's further
demands inconvenient, he soon found occasion in the renewal of
hostilities to suspend the council once more (April 1552). As an
adherent of the emperor he suffered in consequence of imperial reverses,
and was forced to confirm Parma to Ottavio Farnese, the ally of France
(1552). Weary of politics, and obeying a natural inclination to
pleasure, Julius then virtually abdicated the management of affairs, and
gave himself up to enjoyment, amusing himself with the adornment of his
villa, near the Porta del Popolo, and often so far forgetting the
proprieties of his office as to participate in entertainments of a
questionable character. His nepotism was of a less ambitious order than
that of Paul III.; but he provided for his family out of the offices and
revenues of the Church, and advanced unworthy favourites to the
cardinalate. What progress reform made during his pontificate was due to
its acquired momentum, rather than to the zeal of the pope. Yet under
Julius steps were taken to abolish plurality of benefices and to restore
monastic discipline; the Collegium Germanicum, for the conversion of
Germans, was established in Rome, 1552; and England was absolved by the
cardinal-legate Pole, and received again into the Roman communion
(1554). Julius died on the 23rd of March 1555, and was succeeded by
Marcellus II.

See Panvinio, continuator of Platina, _De Vitis Pontiff. Rom._;
Ciaconius, _Vitae et res gestae summorum Pontiff. Rom._ (Rome,
1601-1602) (both contemporaries of Julius III.); Ranke, _Popes_ (Eng.
trans., Austin), i. 276 seq.; v. Reumont, _Gesch. der Stadt Rom._,
iii. 2, 503 seq.; Brosch, _Gesch. des Kirchenstaates_ (1880), i. 189
seq.; and extended bibliography in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopädie_,
s.v. "Julius III." (T. F. C.)

JULLIEN, LOUIS ANTOINE (1812-1860), musical conductor, was born at
Sisteron, Basses Alpes, France, on the 23rd of April 1812, and studied
at the Paris conservatoire. His fondness for the lightest forms of music
cost him his position in the school, and after conducting the band of
the Jardin Turc he was compelled to leave Paris to escape his creditors,
and came to London, where he formed a good orchestra and established
promenade concerts. Subsequently he travelled to Scotland, Ireland and
America with his orchestra. For many years he was a familiar figure in
the world of popular music in England, and his portly form with its
gorgeous waistcoats occurs very often in the early volumes of _Punch_.
He brought out an opera, _Pietro il Grande_, at Covent Garden (1852) on
a scale of magnificence that ruined him, for the piece was a complete
failure. He was in America until 1854, when he returned to London for a
short time; ultimately he went back to Paris, where, in 1859, he was
arrested for debt and put into prison. He lost his reason soon
afterwards, and died on the 14th of March 1860.

JULLUNDUR, or JALANDHAR, a city of British India, giving its name to a
district and a division in the Punjab. The city is 260 m. by rail N.W.
of Delhi. Pop. (1901), 67,735. It is the headquarters of a brigade in
the 3rd division of the northern army. There are an American
Presbyterian mission, a government normal school, and high schools
supported by Hindu bodies.

The DISTRICT OF JULLUNDUR occupies the lower part of the tract known as
the Jullundur Doab, between the rivers Sutlej and Beas, except that it
is separated from the Beas by the state of Kapurthala. Area, 1431 sq. m.
Pop. (1901), 917,587, showing an increase of 1% in the decade; the
average density is 641 persons per square mile, being the highest in the
province. Cotton-weaving and sugar manufacture are the principal
industries for export trade, and silk goods and wheat are also exported.
The district is crossed by the main line of the North-Western railway
from Phillaur towards Amritsar.

The Jullundur Doab in early times formed the Hindu kingdom of Katoch,
ruled by a family of Rajputs whose descendants still exist in the petty
princes of the Kangra hills. Under Mahommedan rule the Doab was
generally attached to the province of Lahore, in which it is included as
a _circar_ or governorship in the great revenue survey of Akbar. Its
governors seem to have held an autonomous position, subject to the
payment of a fixed tribute into the imperial treasury. The Sikh revival
extended to Jullundur at an early period, and a number of petty
chieftains made themselves independent throughout the Doab. In 1766 the
town of Jullundur fell into the hands of the Sikh confederacy of
Faiz-ulla-puria, then presided over by Khushal Singh. His son and
successor built a masonry fort in the town, while several other leaders
similarly fortified themselves in the suburbs. Meanwhile, Ranjit Singh
was consolidating his power in the south, and in 1811 he annexed the
Faiz-ulla-puria dominions. Thenceforth Jullundur became the capital of
the Lahore possessions in the Doab until the British annexation at the
close of the first Sikh war (1846).

The DIVISION OF JULLUNDUR comprises the five districts of Kangra,
Hoshiarpur, Jullundur, Ludhiana and Ferozepore, all lying along the
river Sutlej. Area, 19,410 sq. m. Pop. (1901), 4,306,662.

See _Jullundur District Gazetteer_ (Lahore, 1908).

JULY, the seventh month in the Christian calendar, consisting of
thirty-one days. It was originally the fifth month of the year, and as
such was called by the Romans _Quintilis_. The later name of Julius was
given in honour of Julius Caesar (who was born in the month); it came
into use in the year of his death. The Anglo-Saxons called July
_Hegmônath_, "hay-month," or _Maed-mônath_, "mead-month," the meadows
being then in bloom. Another name was _aftera lîða_, "the latter mild
month," in contradistinction to June, which was named "the former mild
month." Chief dates of the month: 3rd July, Dog Days begin; 15th July,
St Swithin; 25th July, St James.

JUMALA, the supreme god of the ancient Finns and Lapps. Among some
tribes he is called Num or Jilibeambaertje, as protector of the flocks.
Jumala indicates rather godhead than a divine being. In the runes Ukko,
the grandfather, the sender of the thunder, takes the place of Jumala.

JUMIÈGES, a village of north-western France, in the department of
Seine-Inférieure, 17 m. W. of Rouen by road, on a peninsula formed by a
bend of the Seine. Pop. (1906), 244. Jumièges is famous for the imposing
ruins of its abbey, one of the great establishments of the Benedictine
order. The principal remains are those of the abbey-church, built from
1040 to 1067; these comprise the façade with two towers, the walls of
the nave, a wall and sustaining arch of the great central tower and
débris of the choir (restored in the 13th century). Among the minor
relics, preserved in a small museum in a building of the 14th century,
are the stone which once covered the grave of Agnes Sorel, and two
recumbent figures of the 13th century, commonly known as the _Énervés_,
and representing, according to one legend, two sons of Clovis II., who,
as a punishment for revolt against their father, had the tendons of
their arms and legs cut, and were set adrift in a boat on the Seine.
Another tradition states that the statues represent Thassilo, duke of
Bavaria, and Theodo his son, relegated to Jumièges by Charlemagne. The
church of St Pierre, which adjoins the south side of the abbey-church,
was built in the 14th century as a continuation of a previous church of
the time of Charlemagne, of which a fragment still survives. Among the
other ruins, those of the chapter-house (13th century) and refectory
(12th and 15th centuries) also survive.

The abbey of Jumièges was founded about the middle of the 7th century by
St Philibert, whose name is still to be read on gold and silver coins
obtained from the site. The abbey was destroyed by the Normans, but was
rebuilt in 928 by William Longsword, duke of Normandy, and continued to
exist till 1790. Charles VII. often resided there with Agnes Sorel, who
had a manor at Mesnil-sous-Jumièges in the neighbourhood, and died in
the monastery in 1450.

JUMILLA, a town of eastern Spain, in the province of Murcia, 40 m. N. by
W. of Murcia by road, on the right bank of the Arroyo del Jua, a
left-bank tributary of the Segura. Pop. (1900), 16,446. Jumilla occupies
part of a narrow valley, enclosed by mountains. An ancient citadel,
several churches, a Franciscan convent, and a hospital are the principal
buildings. The church of Santiago is noteworthy for its fine paintings
and frescoes, some of which have been attributed, though on doubtful
authority, to Peter Paul Rubens and other illustrious artists. The local
trade is chiefly in coarse cloth, esparto fabrics, wine and farm
produce.

JUMNA, or JAMUNA, a river of northern India. Rising in the Himalayas in
Tehri state, about 5 m. N. of the Jamnotri hot springs, in 31° 3´ N. and
78° 30´ E., the stream first flows S. for 7 m., then S.W. for 32 m., and
afterwards due S. for 26 m., receiving several small tributaries in its
course. It afterwards turns sharply to the W. for 14 m., when it is
joined by the large river Tons from the north. The Jumna here emerges
from the Himalayas into the valley of the Dun, and flows in a S.W.
direction for 22 m., dividing the Kiarda Dun on the W. from the Dehra
Dun on the E. It then, at the 95th mile of its course, forces its way
through the Siwalik hills, and debouches upon the plains of India at
Fyzabad in Saharanpur district. By this time a large river, it gives
off, near Fyzabad, the eastern and western Jumna canals. From Fyzabad
the river flows for 65 m. in a S.S.W. direction, receiving the Maskarra
stream from the east. Near Bidhauli, in Muzaffarnagar district, it turns
due S. for 80 m. to Delhi city, thence S.E. for 27 m. to near Dankaur,
receiving the waters of the Hindan river on the east. From Dankaur it
resumes its southerly course for 100 m. to Mahaban near Muttra, where it
turns E. for nearly 200 m., passing the towns of Agra, Ferozabad and
Etawah, receiving on its left bank the Karwan-nadi, and on its right the
Banganga (Utanghan). From Etawah it flows 140 m. S.E. to Hamirpur, being
joined by the Sengar on its north bank, and on the south by the great
river Chambal from the west, and by the Sind. From Hamirpur, the Jumna
flows nearly due E., until it enters Allahabad district and passes
Allahabad city, below which it falls into the Ganges in 25° 25´ N. and
81° 55´ E. In this last part of its course it receives the waters of the
Betwa and the Ken. Where the Jumna and the Ganges unite is the _prayag_,
or place of pilgrimage, where devout Hindus resort in thousands to wash
and be sanctified.

The Jumna, after issuing from the hills, has a longer course through the
United Provinces than the Ganges, but is not so large nor so important a
river; and above Agra in the hot season it dwindles to a small stream.
This is no doubt partly caused by the eastern and western Jumna canals,
of which the former, constructed in 1823-1830, irrigates 300,000 acres
in the districts of Saharanpur, Muzaffarnagar and Meerut, in the United
Provinces; while the latter, consisting of the reopened channels of two
canals dating from about 1350 and 1628 respectively, extends through the
districts of Umballa, Karnal, Hissar, Rohtak and Delhi, and the native
states of Patiala and Jind in the Punjab, irrigating 600,000 acres. The
headworks of the two canals are situated near the point where the river
issues from the Siwaliks.

The traffic on the Jumna is not very considerable; in its upper portion
timber, and in the lower stone, grain and cotton are the chief articles
of commerce, carried in the clumsy barges which navigate its stream. Its
waters are clear and blue, while those of the Ganges are yellow and
muddy; the difference between the streams can be discerned for some
distance below the point at which they unite. Its banks are high and
rugged, often attaining the proportions of cliffs, and the ravines which
run into it are deeper and larger than those of the Ganges. It traverses
the extreme edge of the alluvial plain of Hindustan, and in the latter
part of its course it almost touches the Bundelkhand offshoots of the
Vindhya range of mountains. Its passage is therefore more tortuous, and
the scenery along its banks more varied and pleasing, than is the case
with the Ganges.

The Jumna at its source near Jamnotri is 10,849 ft. above the sea-level;
at Kotnur, 16 m. lower, it is only 5036 ft.; so that, between these two
places, it falls at the rate of 314 ft. in a mile. At its junction with
the Tons it is 1686 ft. above the sea; at its junction with the Asan,
1470 ft.; and at the point where it issues from the Siwalik hills into
the plains, 1276 ft. The catchment area of the river is 118,000 sq. m.;
its flood discharge at Allahabad is estimated at 1,333,000 cub. ft. per
second. The Jumna is crossed by railway bridges at Delhi, Muttra, Agra
and Allahabad, while bridges of boats are stationed at many places.

JUMPING,[1] a branch of athletics which has been cultivated from the
earliest times (see ATHLETIC SPORTS). Leaping competitions formed a part
of the _pentathlon_, or quintuple games, of the Olympian festivals, and
Greek chronicles record that the athlete Phayllus jumped a distance of
55 Olympian, or more than 30 English, feet. Such a leap could not have
been made without weights carried in the hands and thrown backwards at
the moment of springing. These were in fact employed by Greek jumpers
and were called _halteres_. They were masses of stone or metal, nearly
semicircular, according to Pausanias, and the fingers grasped them like
the handles of a shield. Halteres were also used for general exercise,
like modern dumb-bells. The Olympian jumping took place to the music of
lutes.

Jumping has always been popular with British athletes, and tradition has
handed down the record of certain leaps that border on the incredible.
Two forms of jumping are included in modern athletic contests, the
running long jump and the running high jump; but the same jumps, made
from a standing position, are also common forms of competition, as well
as the hop step and jump, two hops and jump, two jumps, three jumps,
five jumps and ten jumps, either with a run or from a standing position.
These events are again divided into two categories by the use of
weights, which are not allowed in championship contests.

In the running long jump anything over 18 ft. was once considered good,
while Peter O'Connor's world's record (1901) is 24 ft. 11¾ in. The jump
is made, after a short fast run on a cinder path, from a joist sunk into
the ground flush with the path, the jumper landing in a pit filled with
loose earth, its level a few inches below that of the path. The joist,
called the "take-off," is painted white, and all jumps are measured from
its edge to the nearest mark made by any part of the jumper's person in
landing.

In the standing long jump, well spiked shoes should be worn, for it is
in reality nothing but a push against the ground, and a perfect purchase
is of the greatest importance. Weights held in the hands of course
greatly aid the jumper. Without weights J. Darby (professional) jumped
12 ft. 1½ in. and R. C. Ewry (American amateur) 11 ft. 4(7/8) in. With
weights J. Darby covered 14 ft. 9 in. at Liverpool in 1890, while the
amateur record is 12 ft. 9½ in., made by J. Chandler and G. L. Hellwig
(U.S.A.). The standing two, three, five and ten jumps are merely
repetitions of the single jump, care being taken to land with the proper
balance to begin the next leap. The record for two jumps without weights
is 22 ft. 2½ in., made by H. M. Johnson (U.S.A.); for three jumps
without weights, R. C. Ewry, 35 ft. 7¼ in.; with weights J. Darby, 41
ft. 7 in.

The hop step and jump is popular in Ireland and often included in the
programmes of minor meetings, and so is the two hops and a jump. The
record for the first, made by W. McManus, is 49 ft. 2½ in. with a run
and without weights; for the latter, also with a run and without
weights, 49 ft. ½ in., made by J. B. Conolly.

In the running high jump also the standard has improved. In 1864 a jump
of 5 ft. 6 in. was considered excellent. The Scotch professional Donald
Dinnie, on hearing that M. J. Brooks of Oxford had jumped 6 ft. 2½ in.
in 1876, wrote to the newspapers to show that upon _a priori_ grounds
such an achievement was impossible. Since then many jumpers who can
clear over 6 ft. have appeared. In 1895 M. F. Sweeney of New York
accomplished a jump of 6 ft. 5(5/8) in. Ireland has produced many
first-class high jumpers, nearly all tall men, P. Leahy winning the
British amateur record in Dublin in 1898 with a jump of 6 ft. 4¾ in. The
American A. Bird Page, however, although only 5 ft. 6¾ in. in height,
jumped 6 ft. 4 in. High jumping is done over a light staff or lath
resting upon pins fixed in two uprights upon which a scale is marked.
The "take-off," or ground immediately in front of the uprights from
which the spring is made, is usually grass in Great Britain and cinders
in America. Some jumpers run straight at the bar and clear it with body
facing forward, the knees being drawn up almost to the chin as the body
clears the bar; others run and spring sideways, the feet being thrown
upwards and over the bar first, to act as a kind of lever in getting the
body over. There should be a shallow pit of loose earth or a mattress to
break the fall.

The standing high jump is rarely seen in regular athletic meetings. The
jumper stands sideways to the bar with his arms extended upwards. He
then swings his arms down slowly, bending his knees at the same time,
and, giving his arms a violent upward swing, springs from the ground. As
the body rises the arms are brought down, one leg is thrown over the
bar, and the other pulled, almost jerked, after it. The record for the
standing high jump without weights is 6 ft., by J. Darby in 1892.

By the use of a spring-board many extraordinary jumps have been made,
but this kind of leaping is done only by circus gymnasts and is not
recognized by athletic authorities.

For pole-jumping see POLE-VAULTING.

See _Encyclopaedia of Sport_; M. W. Ford, "Running High Jump,"
_Outing_, vol. xviii.; "Running Broad Jump," _Outing_, vol. xix.;
"Standing Jumping," _Outing_, vol. xix.; "Miscellaneous Jumping,"
_Outing_, vol. xx. Also _Sporting and Athletic Register_ (annual).

FOOTNOTE:

[1] The verb "to jump" only dates from the beginning of the 16th
century. The _New English Dictionary_ takes it to be of onomatopoeic
origin and does not consider a connexion with Dan. _gumpe_, Icel.
_goppa_, &c., possible. The earlier English word is "leap" (O.E.
_hléapan_, to run, jump, cf. Ger. _laufen_).

JUMPING-HARE, the English equivalent of springhaas, the Boer name of a
large leaping south and east African rodent mammal, _Pedetes caffer_,
typifying a family by itself, the _Pedetidae_. Originally classed with
the jerboas, to which it has no affinity, this remarkable rodent
approximates in the structure of its skull to the porcupine-group, near
which it is placed by some naturalists, although others consider that
its true position is with the African scaly-tailed flying squirrels
(_Anomaluridae_). The colour of the creature is bright rufous fawn; the
eyes are large; and the bristles round the muzzle very long, the former
having a fringe of long hairs. The front limbs are short, and the hind
ones very long; and although the fore-feet have five toes, those of the
hind-feet are reduced to four. The bones of the lower part of the hind
leg (tibia and fibula) are united for a great part of their length.
There are four pairs of cheek-teeth in each jaw, which do not develop
roots. The jumping-hare is found in open or mountainous districts, and
has habits very like a jerboa. It is nocturnal, and dwells in composite
burrows excavated and tenanted by several families. When feeding it
progresses on all four legs, but if frightened takes gigantic leaps on
the hind-pair alone; the length of such leaps frequently reaches twenty
feet, or even more. The young are generally three or four in number, and
are born in the summer. A second smaller species has been named. (See
RODENTIA.)

JUMPING-MOUSE, the name of a North American mouse-like rodent, _Zapus
hudsonius_, belonging to the family _Jaculidae_ (_Dipodidae_), and the
other members of the same genus. Although mouse-like in general
appearance, these rodents are distinguished by their elongated hind
limbs, and, typically, by the presence of four pairs of cheek-teeth in
each jaw. There are five toes to all the feet, but the first in the
fore-feet is rudimentary, and furnished with a flat nail. The cheeks are
provided with pouches. Jumping-mice were long supposed to be confined to
North America, but a species is now known from N.W. China. It is
noteworthy that whereas E. Coues in 1877 recognized but a single
representative of this genus, ranging over a large area in North
America, A. Preble distinguishes no fewer than twenty North American
species and sub-species, in addition to the one from Szechuen. Among
these, it may be noted that _Z. insignis_ differs from the typical _Z.
hudsonius_ by the loss of the premolar, and has accordingly been
referred to a sub-genus apart. Moreover, the Szechuen jumping-mouse
differs from the typical _Zapus_ by the closer enamel-folds of the
molars, the shorter ears, and the white tail-tip, and is therefore made
the type of another sub-genus. In America these rodents inhabit forest,
pasture, cultivated fields or swamps, but are nowhere numerous. When
disturbed, they start off with enormous bounds of eight or ten feet in
length, which soon diminish to three or four; and in leaping the feet
scarcely seem to touch the ground. The nest is placed in clefts of
rocks, among timber or in hollow trees, and there are generally three
litters in a season. (See RODENTIA.)

JUMPING-SHREW, a popular name for any of the terrestrial insectivora of
the African family _Macroscelididae_, of which there are a number of
species ranging over the African continent, representing the tree-shrews
of Asia. They are small long-snouted gerbil-like animals, mainly
nocturnal, feeding on insects, and characterized by the great length of
the metatarsal bones, which have been modified in accordance with their
leaping mode of progression. In some (constituting the genus
_Rhyncocyon_) the muzzle is so much prolonged as to resemble a
proboscis, whence the name elephant-shrews is sometimes applied to the
members of the family.

JUNAGARH, or JUNAGADH, a native state of India, within the Gujarat
division of Bombay, extending inland from the southern coast of the
peninsula of Kathiawar. Area, 3284 sq. m.; pop. (1901), 395,428, showing
a decrease of 19% in the decade, owing to famine; estimated gross
revenue, £174,000; tribute to the British government and the gaekwar of
Baroda, £4200; a considerable sum is also received as tribute from minor
states in Kathiawar. The state is traversed by a railway from Rajkot, to
the seaport of Verawal. It includes the sacred mountain of Girnar and
the ruined temple of Somnath, and also the forest of Gir, the only place
in India where the lion survives. Junagarh ranks as a first-class state
among the many chiefships of Kathiawar, and its ruler first entered into
engagements with the British in 1807. Nawab Sir Rasul Khanji, K.C.S.I.,
was born in 1858 and succeeded his brother in 1892.

The modern town of JUNAGARH (34,251), 60 m. by rail S. of Rajkot, is
handsomely built and laid out. In November 1897 the foundation-stones of
a hospital, library and museum were laid, and an arts college has
recently been opened.

JUNCACEAE (rush family), in botany, a natural order of flowering plants
belonging to the series Liliiflorae of the class Monocotyledons,
containing about two hundred species in seven genera, widely distributed
in temperate and cold regions. It is well represented in Britain by the
two genera which comprise nearly the whole order--_Juncus_, rush, and
_Luzula_, woodrush. They are generally perennial herbs with a creeping
underground stem and erect, unbranched, aerial stems, bearing slender
leaves which are grass-like or cylindrical or reduced to membranous
sheaths. The small inconspicuous flowers are generally more or less
crowded in terminal or lateral clusters, the form of the inflorescence
varying widely according to the manner of branching and the length of
the pedicels. The flowers are hermaphrodite and regular, with the same
number and arrangement of parts as in the order Liliaceae, from which
they differ in the inconspicuous membranous character of the perianth,
the absence of honey or smell, and the brushlike stigmas with long
papillae-adaptations to wind-pollination as contrasted with the methods
of pollination by insect agency, which characterize the Liliaceae.
Juncaceae are, in fact, a less elaborated group of the same series as
Liliaceae, but adapted to a simpler and more uniform environment than
that larger and much more highly developed family.

[Illustration: _Juncus effusus_, common rush.

1. Plant.
2. Inflorescence.
3. End of branch of inflorescence, slightly enlarged.
4. Flower, enlarged.
5. Fruit, enlarged.
6. Seed.
7. Seed, much enlarged.]

JUNCTION CITY, a city and the county-seat of Geary county, Kansas,
U.S.A., between Smoky Hill and Republican rivers, about 3 m. above their
confluence to form the Kansas, and 72 m. by rail W. of Topeka. Pop.
(1900), 4695, of whom 545 were foreign-born and 292 were negroes;
(1905), 5494; (1910), 5598. Junction City is served by the Union Pacific
and the Missouri, Kansas & Texas railways. It is the commercial centre
of a region in whose fertile valleys great quantities of wheat, Indian
corn, oats and hay are grown and live stock is raised, and whose uplands
contain extensive beds of limestone, which is quarried for building
purposes. Excellent water-power is available and is partly utilized by
flour mills. The municipality owns and operates the water-works. At the
confluence of Smoky Hill and Republican rivers and connected with the
city by an electric railway is Fort Riley, a U.S. military post, which
was established in 1853 as Camp Centre but was renamed in the same year
in honour of General Bennett Riley (1787-1853); in 1887 the mounted
service school of the U.S. army was established here. Northward from the
post is a rugged country over which extends a military reservation of
about 19,000 acres. Adjoining the reservation and about 5 m. N.E. of
Junction City is the site of the short-lived settlement of Pawnee, where
from the 2nd to the 6th of July 1855 the first Kansas legislature met,
in a building the ruins of which still remain; the establishment of
Pawnee (in December 1854) was a speculative pro-slavery enterprise
conducted by the commandant of Fort Riley, other army officers and
certain territorial officials, and when a government survey showed that
the site lay within the Fort Riley reservation, the settlers were
ordered (August 1855) to leave, and the commandant of Fort Riley was
dismissed from the army; one of the charges brought against Governor A.
H. Reeder was that he had favoured the enterprise. Junction City was
founded in 1857 and was chartered as a city in 1859.

JUNE, the sixth month in the Christian calendar, consisting of thirty
days. Ovid (_Fasti_, vi. 25) makes Juno assert that the name was
expressly given in her honour. Elsewhere (_Fasti_, vi. 87) he gives the
derivation _a junioribus_, as May had been derived from _majores_, which
may be explained as in allusion either to the two months being dedicated
respectively to youth and age in general, or to the seniors and juniors
of the government of Rome, the senate and the _comitia curiata_ in
particular. Others connect the term with the gentile name Junius, or
with the consulate of Junius Brutus. Probably, however, it originally
denoted the month in which crops grow to ripeness. In the old Latin
calendar June was the fourth month, and in the so-called year of Romulus
it is said to have had thirty days; but at the time of the Julian reform
of the calendar its days were only twenty-nine. To these Caesar added
the thirtieth. The Anglo-Saxons called June "the dry month," "midsummer
month," and, in contradistinction to July, "the earlier mild month." The
summer solstice occurs in June. Principal festival days in this month:
11th June, St Barnabas; 24th June, Midsummer Day (Nativity of St John
the Baptist); 29th June, St Peter.

JUNEAU, formerly HARRISBURG, a mining and trading town picturesquely
situated at the mouth of Gold Creek on the continental shore of
Gastineau channel, south-east Alaska, and the capital of Alaska. Pop.
(1900), 1864 (450 Indians); (1910), 1644. It has a United States
custom-house and court-house. The city has fishing, manufacturing and
trading interests, but its prosperity is chiefly due to the gold mines
in the adjacent Silver Bow basin, the source of Gold Creek, and the site
of the great Perseverance mine, and to those on the Treadwell lode on
Douglas Island, 2 m. from Juneau. Placer gold was found at the mouth of
the creek in 1879, and the city was settled in 1880 by two prospectors
named Joseph Juneau and Richard Harris. The district was called Juneau
and the camp Harrisburg by the first settlers; exploring naval officers
named the camp Rockwell, in honour of Commander Charles Henry Rockwell,
U.S.N. (b. 1840). A town meeting then adopted the name of Juneau. The
town was incorporated in 1900. In October 1906 the seat of government of
Alaska was removed from Sitka to Juneau.

JUNG, JOHANN HEINRICH (1740-1817), best known by his assumed name of
HEINRICH STILLING, German author, was born in the vlllage of Grund near
Hilchenbach in Westphalia on the 12th of September 1740. His father,
Wilhelm Jung, schoolmaster and tailor, was the son of Eberhard Jung,
charcoal-burner, and his mother was Dortchen Moritz, daughter of a poor
clergyman. Jung became, by his father's desire, schoolmaster and tailor,
but found both pursuits equally wearisome. After various teaching
appointments he went in 1768 with "half a French dollar" to study
medicine at the university of Strassburg. There he met Goethe, who
introduced him to Herder. The acquaintance with Goethe ripened into
friendship; and it was by his influence that Jung's first and best work,
_Heinrich Stillings Jugend_ was written. In 1772 he settled at Elberfeld
as physician and oculist, and soon became celebrated for operations in
cases of cataract. Surgery, however, was not much more to his taste than
tailoring or teaching; and in 1778 he was glad to accept the appointment
of lecturer on "agriculture, technology, commerce and the veterinary
art" in the newly established Kameralschule at Kaiserslautern, a post
which he continued to hold when the school was absorbed in the
university of Heidelberg. In 1787 he was appointed professor of
economical, financial and statistical science in the university of
Marburg. In 1803 he resigned his professorship and returned to
Heidelberg, where he remained until 1806, when he received a pension
from the grand-duke Charles Frederick of Baden, and removed to
Karlsruhe, where he remained until his death on the 2nd of April 1817.
He was married three times, and left a numerous family. Of his works his
autobiography _Heinrich Stillings Leben_, from which he came to be known
as Stilling, is the only one now of any interest, and is the chief
authority for his life. His early novels reflect the piety of his early
surroundings.

A complete edition of his numerous works, in 14 vols. 8vo, was
published at Stuttgart in 1835-1838. There are English translations by
Sam. Jackson of the Leben (1835) and of the _Theorie der Geisterkunde_
(London, 1834, and New York, 1851); and of _Theobald, or the Fanatic_,
a religious romance, by the Rev. Sam. Schaeffer (1846). See
biographies by F. W. Bodemann (1868), J. v. Ewald (1817), Peterson
(1890).

JUNG BAHADUR, SIR, MAHARAJAH (1816-1877), prime minister of Nepal, was a
grand-nephew of Bhim sena Thapa (Bhim sen Thappa), the famous military
minister of Nepal, who from 1804 to 1839 was _de facto_ ruler of the
state under the rani Tripuri and her successor. Bhimsena's supremacy was
threatened by the Kala Pandry, and many of his relations, including Jung
Bahadur, went into exile in 1838, thus escaping the cruel fate which
overtook Bhimsena in the following year. The Pandry leaders, who then
reverted to power, were in turn assassinated in 1843, and Matabar Singh,
uncle of Jung Bahadur, was created prime minister. He appointed his
nephew general and chief judge, but shortly afterwards he was himself
put to death. Fateh Jung thereon formed a ministry, of which Jung
Bahadur was made military member. In the following year, 1846, a quarrel
was fomented, in which Fateh Jung and thirty-two other chiefs were
assassinated, and the rani appointed Jung Bahadur sole minister. The
rani quickly changed her mind, and planned the death of her new
minister, who at once appealed to the maharaja. But the plot failed. The
raja and the rani wisely sought safety in India, and Jung Bahadur firmly
established his own position by the removal of all dangerous rivals. He
succeeded so well that in January 1850 he was able to leave for a visit
to England, from which he did not return to Nepal until the 6th of
February 1851. On his return, and frequently on subsequent dates, he
frustrated conspiracies for his assassination. The reform of the penal
code, and a desultory war with Tibet, occupied his attention until news
of the Indian Mutiny reached Nepal. Jung Bahadur resisted all overtures
from the rebels, and sent a column to Gorakpur in July 1857. In December
he furnished a force of 8000 Gurkhas, which reached Lucknow on the 11th
of March 1858, and took part in the siege. The moral support of the
Nepalese was more valuable even than the military services rendered by
them. Jung Bahadur was made a G.C.B., and a tract of country annexed in
1815 was restored to Nepal. Various frontier disputes were settled, and
in 1875 Sir Jung Bahadur was on his way to England when he had a fall
from his horse in Bombay and returned home. He received a visit from the
Prince of Wales in 1876. On the 25th of February 1877 he died, having
reached the age of sixty-one. Three of his widows immolated themselves
on his funeral pyre. (W. L.-W.)

JUNG-BUNZLAU (Czech, _Mladá Boleslav_), a town of Bohemia, 44 m. N.N.E.
of Prague by rail. Pop. (1900), 13,479, mostly Czech. The town contains
several old buildings of historical interest, notably the castle, built
towards the end of the 10th century, and now used as barracks. There are
several old churches. In that of St Maria the celebrated bishop of the
Bohemian brethren, Johann August, was buried in 1595; but his tomb was
destroyed in 1621. The church of St Bonaventura with the convent,
originally belonging to the friars minor and later to the Bohemian
brethren, is now a Piaristic college. The church of St Wenceslaus, once
a convent of the brotherhood, is now used for military stores.
Jung-Bunzlau was built in 995, under Boleslaus II., as the seat of a
_gaugraf_ or royal count. Early in the 13th century it was given the
privileges of a town and pledged to the lords of Michalovic. In the
Hussite wars Jung-Bunzlau adhered to the Taborites and became later the
metropolis of the Bohemian Brethren. In 1595 Bohuslav of Lobkovic sold
his rights as over-lord to the town, which was made a royal city by
Rudolf II. During the Thirty Years' War it was twice burned, in 1631 by
the imperialists, and in 1640 by the Swedes.

JUNGFRAU, a well-known Swiss mountain (13,669 ft.), admirably seen from
Interlaken. It rises on the frontier between the cantons of Bern and of
the Valais, and is reckoned among the peaks of the Bernese Oberland, two
of which (the Finsteraarhorn, 14,026 ft., and the Aletschhorn, 13,721
ft.) surpass it in height. It was first ascended in 1811 by the brothers
Meyer, and again in 1812 by Gottlieb Meyer (son of J. R. Meyer), in both
cases by the eastern or Valais side, the foot of which (the final ascent
being made by the 1811-1812 route) was reached in 1828 over the
Mönchjoch by six peasants from Grindelwald. In 1841 Principal J. D.
Forbes, with Agassiz, Desor and Du Châtelier, made the fourth ascent by
the 1812 route. It was not till 1865 that Sir George Young and the Rev.
H. B. George succeeded in making the first ascent from the west or
Interlaken side. This is a far more difficult route than that from the
east, the latter being now frequently taken in the course of the summer.
(W. A. B. C.)

JUNGLE (Sans. _jangala_), an Anglo-Indian term for a forest, a thicket,
a tangled wilderness. The Hindustani word means strictly waste,
uncultivated ground; then such ground covered with trees or long grass;
and thence again the Anglo-Indian application is to forest or other wild
growth, rather than to the fact that it is not cultivated.

JUNIN, an interior department of central Peru, bounded N. by Huanuco, E.
by Loreto and Cuzco, S. by Huancavelica, and W. by Lima and Ancachs.
Pop. (1906 estimate), 305,700. It lies wholly within the Andean zone and
has an area of 23,353 sq. m. It is rich in minerals, including silver,
copper, mercury, bismuth, molybdenum, lead and coal. The Huallaga and
Mantaro rivers have their sources in this department, the latter in Lake
Junin, or Chanchaycocha, 13,230 ft. above sea-level. The capital of
Junin is Cerro de Pasco, and its two principal towns are Jauja and Tarma
(pop., 1906, about 12,000 and 5000 respectively).

JUNIPER. The junipers, of which there are twenty-five or more species,
are evergreen bushy shrubs or low columnar trees, with a more or less
aromatic odour, inhabiting the whole of the cold and temperate northern
hemisphere, but attaining their maximum development in the Mediterranean
region, the North Atlantic islands, and the eastern United States. The
leaves are usually articulated at the base, spreading, sharp-pointed and
needle-like in form, destitute of oil-glands, and arranged in
alternating whorls of three; but in some the leaves are minute and
scale-like, closely adhering to the branches, the apex only being free,
and furnished with an oil-gland on the back. Sometimes the same plant
produces both kinds of leaves on different branches, or the young plants
produce acicular leaves, while those of the older plants are squamiform.
The male and female flowers are usually produced on separate plants. The
male flowers are developed at the ends of short lateral branches, are
rounded or oblong in form, and consist of several antheriferous scales
in two or three rows, each scale bearing three or six almost spherical
pollen-sacs on its under side. The female flower is a small bud-like
cone situated at the apex of a small branch, and consists of two or
three whorls of two or three scales. The scales of the upper or middle
series each bear one or two erect ovules. The mature cone is fleshy,
with the succulent scales fused together and forming the fruit-like
structure known to the older botanists as the _galbulus_, or berry of
the juniper. The berries are red or purple in colour, varying in size
from that of a pea to a nut. They thus differ considerably from the
cones of other members of the order Coniferae, of _Gymnosperms_ (q.v.),
to which the junipers belong. The seeds are usually three in number,
sometimes fewer (1), rarely more (8), and have the surface near the
middle or base marked with large glands containing oil. The genus occurs
in a fossil state, four species having been described from rocks of
Tertiary age.

The genus is divided into three sections, _Sabina_, _Oxycedrus_ and
_Caryocedrus_. _Juniperus Sabina_ is the savin, abundant on the
mountains of central Europe, an irregularly spreading much-branched
shrub with scale-like glandular leaves, and emitting a disagreeable
odour when bruised. The plant is poisonous, acting as a powerful local
and general stimulant, diaphoretic, emmenagogue and anthelmintic; it was
formerly employed both internally and externally. The oil of savin is
now occasionally used criminally as an abortifacient. _J. bermudiana_, a
tree about 40 or 50 ft. in height, yields a fragrant red wood, which was
used for the manufacture of "cedar" pencils. The tree is now very scarce
in Bermuda, and the "red cedar," _J. virginiana_, of North America is
employed instead for pencils and cigar-boxes. The red cedar is abundant
in some parts of the United States and in Virginia is a tree 50 ft. in
height. It is very widely distributed from the Great Lakes to Florida
and round the Gulf of Mexico, and extends as far west as the Rocky
Mountains and beyond to Vancouver Island. The wood is applied to many
uses in the United States. The fine red fragrant heart-wood takes a high
polish, and is much used in cabinet-work and inlaying, but the small
size of the planks prevents its more extended use. The galls produced at
the ends of the branches have been used in medicine, and the wood yields
cedar-camphor and oil of cedar-wood. _J. thurifera_ is the incense
juniper of Spain and Portugal, and _J. phoenicea_ (_J. lycia_) from the
Mediterranean district is stated by Loudon to be burned as incense.

_J. communis_, the common juniper (see fig.), and several other species,
belong to the section _Oxycedrus_. The common juniper is a very widely
distributed plant, occurring in the whole of northern Europe, central
and northern Asia to Kamchatka, and east and west North America. It
grows at considerable elevations in southern Europe, in the Alps,
Apennines, Pyrenees and Sierra Nevada (4000 to 8000 ft.). It also grows
in Asia Minor, Persia, and at great elevations on the Himalayas. In
Great Britain it is usually a shrub with spreading branches, less
frequently a low tree. In former times the juniper seems to have been a
very well-known plant, the name occurring almost unaltered in many
languages. The Lat. _juniperus_, probably formed from _juni_--crude form
of _juvenis_, fresh, young, and _parere_, to produce, is represented by
Fr. _genièvre_, Sp. _enebro_, Ital. _ginepito_, &c. The dialectical
names, chiefly in European languages, were collected by Prince L. L.
Bonaparte, and published in the _Academy_ (July 17, 1880, No. 428, p.
45). The common juniper is official in the British pharmacopoeia and in
that of the United States, yielding the oil of juniper, a powerful
diuretic, distilled from the unripe fruits. This oil is closely allied
in composition to oil of turpentine and is given in doses of a half to
three minims. The _Spiritus juniperi_ of the British pharmacopoeia is
given in doses up to one drachm. Much safer and more powerful diuretics
are now in use. The wood is very aromatic and is used for ornamental
purposes. In Lapland the bark is made into ropes. The fruits are used
for flavouring gin (a name derived from _juniper_, through Fr.
_genièvre_); and in some parts of France a kind of beer called
_genévrette_ was made from them by the peasants. _J. Oxycedrus_, from
the Mediterranean district and Madeira, yields cedar-oil which is
official in most of the European pharmacopoeias, but not in that of
Britain. This oil is largely used by microscopists in what is known as
the "oil-immersion lens."

The third section, _Caryocedrus_, consists of a single species, _J.
drupacea_ of Asia Minor. The fruits are large and edible: they are known
in the East by the name _habhel_.

[Illustration: (From Bentley and Trimen's _Medicinal Plants_, by
permission of J. & A. Churchill.)

Juniper (_Juniperus communis_).

1. Vertical section of fruit.
2. Male catkin.]

JUNIUS, the pseudonym of a writer who contributed a series of letters to
the London _Public Advertiser_, from the 21st of January 1769 to the
21st of January 1772. The signature had been already used by him in a
letter of the 21st of November 1768, which he did not include in his
collection of the _Letters of Junius_ published in 1772. The name was
chosen in all probability because he had already signed "Lucius" and
"Brutus," and wished to exhaust the name of Lucius Junius Brutus the
Roman patriot. Whoever the writer was, he wrote under other pseudonyms
before, during and after the period between January 1769 and January
1772. He acknowledged that he had written as "Philo-Junius," and there
is evidence that he was identical with "Veteran," "Nemesis" and other
anonymous correspondents of the _Public Advertiser_. There is a marked
distinction between the "letters of Junius" and his so-called
miscellaneous letters. The second deal with a variety of subjects, some
of a purely personal character, as for instance the alleged injustice of
Viscount Barrington the secretary at war to the officials of his
department. But the "letters of Junius" had a definite object--to
discredit the ministry of the duke of Grafton. This administration had
been formed in October 1768, when the earl of Chatham was compelled by
ill health to retire from office, and was a reconstruction of his
cabinet of July 1766. Junius fought for the return to power of Chatham,
who had recovered and was not on good terms with his successors. He
communicated with Chatham, with George Grenville, with Wilkes, all
enemies of the duke of Grafton, and also with Henry Sampson Woodfall,
printer and part owner of the _Public Advertiser_. This private
correspondence has been preserved. It is written in the disguised hand
used by Junius.

The letters are of interest on three grounds--their political
significance, their style, and the mystery which long surrounded their
authorship. As political writings they possess no intrinsic value.
Junius was wholly destitute of insight, and of the power to disentangle,
define and advocate principles. The matter of his letters is always
invective. He began by a general attack on the ministry for their
personal immorality or meanness. An ill-judged defence of one of the
body--the marquess of Granby, commander-in-chief--volunteered by Sir
William Draper, gave him an easy victory over a vulnerable opponent. He
then went on to pour acrimonious abuse on Grafton, on the duke of
Bedford, on King George III. himself in the letter of the 19th of
December 1769, and ended with a most malignant and ignorant assault on
Lord Chief Justice Mansfield. Several of his accusations were shown to
be unfounded. The practical effect of the letters was insignificant.
They were noticed and talked about. They provoked anger and retorts. But
the letter to the king aroused indignation, and though Grafton's
administration fell in January 1770, it was succeeded by the long-lived
cabinet of Lord North. Junius confessed himself beaten, in his private
letter to Woodfall of the 19th of January 1773. He had materially
contributed to his own defeat by his brutal violence. He sinned indeed
in a large company. The employment of personal abuse had been habitual
in English political controversy for generations, and in the 18th
century there was a strong taste for satire. Latin literature, which was
not only studied but imitated, supplied the inspiration and the models,
in the satires of Juvenal, and the speeches of Cicero against Verres and
Catiline.

If, however, Junius was doing what others did, he did it better than
anybody else--a fact which sufficiently explains his rapid popularity.
His superiority lay in his style. Here also he was by no means original,
and he was unequal. There are passages in his writings which can be best
described in the words which Burke applied to another writer: "A mere
mixture of vinegar and water, at once vapid and sour." But at his best
Junius attains to a high degree of artificial elegance and vigour. He
shows the influence of Bolingbroke, of Swift, and above all of Tacitus,
who appears to have been his favourite author. The imitation is never
slavish. Junius adapts, and does not only repeat. The white heat of his
malignity animates the whole. No single sentence will show the quality
of a style which produces its effect by persistence and repetition, but
such a typical passage as follows displays at once the method and the
spirit. It is taken from Letter XLIX. to the duke of Grafton, June 22,
1771:--

"The profound respect I bear to the gracious prince who governs this
country with no less honour to himself than satisfaction to his
subjects, and who restores you to your rank under his standard, will
save you from a multitude of reproaches. The attention I should have
paid to your failings is involuntarily attracted to the hand which
rewards them; and though I am not so partial to the royal judgment as
to affirm that the favour of a king can remove mountains of infamy, it
serves to lessen at least, for undoubtedly it divides, the burden.
While I remember how much is due to his sacred character, I cannot,
with any decent appearance of propriety, call you the meanest and the
basest fellow in the kingdom. I protest, my Lord, I do not think you
so. You will have a dangerous rival in that kind of fame to which you
have hitherto so happily directed your ambition, as long as there is
one man living who thinks you worthy of his confidence, and fit to be
trusted with any share in his government.... With any other prince,
the shameful desertion of him in the midst of that distress, which you
alone had created, in the very crisis of danger, when he fancied he
saw the throne already surrounded by men of virtue and abilities,
would have outweighed the memory of your former services. But his
majesty is full of justice, and understands the doctrine of
compensations; he remembers with gratitude how soon you had
accommodated your morals to the necessities of his service, how
cheerfully you had abandoned the engagements of private friendship,
and renounced the most solemn professions to the public. The
sacrifice of Lord Chatham was not lost on him. Even the cowardice and
perfidy of deserting him may have done you no disservice in his
esteem. The instance was painful, but the principle might please."

What is artificial and stilted in this style did not offend the would-be
classic taste of the 18th century, and does not now conceal the fact
that the laboriously arranged words, and artfully counterbalanced
clauses, convey a venomous hate and scorn.

The pre-established harmony between Junius and his readers accounts for
the rapidity of his success, and for the importance attributed to him by
Burke and Johnson, far better writers than himself. Before 1772 there
appeared at least twelve unauthorized republications of his letters,
made by speculative printers. In that year he revised the collection
named "_Junius: Stat nominis umbra_," with a dedication to the English
people and a preface. Other independent editions followed in quick
succession. In 1801 one was published with annotations by Robert Heron.
In 1806 another appeared with notes by John Almon. The first new edition
of real importance was issued by the Woodfall family in 1812. It
contained the correspondence of Junius with H. S. Woodfall, a selection
of the miscellaneous letters attributed to Junius, facsimiles of his
handwriting, and notes by Dr Mason Good. Curiosity as to the mystery of
the authorship began to replace political and literary interest in the
writings. Junius himself had been early aware of the advantage he
secured by concealment. "The mystery of Junius increases his importance"
is his confession in a letter to Wilkes dated the 18th of September
1771. The calculation was a sound one. For two generations after the
appearance of the letter of the 21st of January 1769, speculations as to
the authorship of Junius were rife, and discussion had hardly ceased in
1910. Joseph Parkes, author with Herman Merivale of the _Memoirs of Sir
Philip Francis_ (1867), gives a list of more than forty persons who had
been supposed to be Junius. They are: Edmund Burke, Lord George
Sackville, Lord Chatham, Colonel Barré, Hugh Macaulay Boyd, Dr Butler,
John Wilkes, Lord Chesterfield, Henry Flood, William Burke, Gibbon, W.
E. Hamilton, Charles Lloyd, Charles Lee (general in the American War of
Independence), John Roberts, George Grenville, James Grenville, Lord
Temple, Duke of Portland, William Greatrakes, Richard Glover, Sir
William Jones, James Hollis, Laughlin Maclean, Philip Rosenhagen, Horne
Tooke, John Kent, Henry Grattan, Daniel Wray, Horace Walpole, Alexander
Wedderburn (Lord Loughborough), Dunning (Lord Ashburton), Lieut.-General
Sir R. Rich, Dr Philip Francis, a "junto" or committee of writers who
used a common name, De Lolme, Mrs Catherine Macaulay (1733-91), Sir
Philip Francis, Lord Littleton, Wolfram Cornwall and Gov. Thomas
Pownall. In the great majority of cases the attribution is based on
nothing more than a vague guess. Edmund Burke denied that he could have
written the letters of Junius if he would, or would have written them if
he could. Grattan pointed out that he was young when they appeared. More
plausible claims, such as those made for Lord Temple and Lord George
Sackville, could not stand the test of examination. Indeed after 1816
the question was not so much "Who wrote Junius?" as "Was Junius Sir
Philip Francis, or some undiscoverable man?" In that year John Taylor
was led by a careful study of Woodfall's edition of 1812 to publish _The
identity of Junius with a distinguished living character established_,
in which he claimed the letters for Sir Philip Francis. He had at first
been inclined to attribute them to Sir Philip's father, Dr Francis, the
author of translations of Horace and Demosthenes. Taylor applied to Sir
Philip, who did not die till 1818, for leave to publish, and received
from him answers which to an unwary person might appear to constitute
denials of the authorship, but were in fact evasions.

The reasons for believing that Sir Philip Francis (q.v.) was Junius are
very strong. His evasions were only to be expected. Several of the men
he attacked lived nearly as long as himself, the sons of others were
conspicuous in society, and King George III. survived him. Sir Philip,
who had held office, who had been decorated, and who in his later years
was ambitious to obtain the governor-generalship of India, dared not
confess that he was Junius. The similarity of his handwriting to the
disguised hand used by the writer of the letters is very close. If Sir
Philip Francis did, as his family maintain, address a copy of verses to
a Miss Giles in the handwriting of Junius (and the evidence that he did
is weighty) there can be no further question as to the identity of the
two. The similarity of Junius and Francis in regard to their opinions,
their likes and dislikes, their knowledge and their known movements,
amount, apart from the handwriting, almost to proof. It is certain that
many felons have been condemned on circumstantial evidence less
complete. The opposition to his claim is based on such assertions as
that his known handwriting was inferior to the feigned hand of Junius,
and that no man can make a disguised hand better than his own. But the
first assertion is unfounded, and the second is a mere expression of
opinion. It is also said that Francis must have been guilty of baseness
if he wrote Junius, but if that explains why he did not avow the
authorship it can be shown to constitute a moral impossibility only by
an examination of his life.

AUTHORITIES.--The best edition of the _Letters of Junius_, properly so
called, with the _Miscellaneous Letters_, is that of J. Ward (1854).
The most valuable contributions to the controversy as to the
authorship are: _The Handwriting of Junius investigated by Charles
Chabot, expert, with preface and collateral evidence by the Hon. E.
Twisleton_ (1871); _Memoirs of Sir Philip Francis, K.C.B._, by Parkes
and Merivale (1867); _Junius Revealed by his Surviving Grandson_, by
H. R. Francis (1894); _The Francis Letters_, edited by Beata Francis
and Eliza Keary, with a note on the Junius controversy by C. F. Keary
(1901); and "Francis, Sir Philip," by Sir Leslie Stephen, in _Dict. of
Nat. Biog._ The case for those who decline to accept the claim of Sir
Philip Francis is stated by C. W. Dilke, _Papers of a Critic_ (1875),
and Abraham Hayward, _More about Junius, Franciscan Theory Unsound_
(1868). (D. H.)

JUNIUS, FRANZ (in French, François du Jon), the name of two Huguenot
scholars.

(1) FRANZ JUNIUS (1545-1602) was born at Bourges in France on the 1st of
May 1545. He had studied law for two years under Hugo Donellus
(1527-1591) when he was given a place in the retinue of the French
ambassador to Constantinople, but before he reached Lyons the ambassador
had departed. Junius found ample consolation in the opportunities for
study at the gymnasium at Lyons. A religious tumult warned him back to
Bourges, where he was cured of certain rationalistic principles that he
had imbibed at Lyons, and he determined to enter the reformed church. He
went in 1562 to study at Geneva, where he was reduced to the direst
poverty by the failure of remittances from home, owing to civil war in
France. He would accept only the barest sustenance from a humble friend
who had himself been a protégé of Junius's family at Bourges, and his
health was permanently injured. The long-expected remittance from home
was closely followed by the news of the brutal murder of his father by a
Catholic fanatic at Issoudun; and Junius resolved to remain at Geneva,
where his reputation enabled him to live by teaching. In 1565, however,
he was appointed minister of the Walloon church at Antwerp. His foreign
birth excluded him from the privileges of the native reformed pastors,
and exposed him to persecution. Several times he barely escaped arrest,
and finally, after spending six months in preaching at Limburg, he was
forced to retire to Heidelberg in 1567. There he was welcomed by the
elector Frederick II., and temporarily settled in charge of the Walloon
church at Schönau; but in 1568 his patron sent him as chaplain with
Prince William of Orange in his unfortunate expedition to the
Netherlands. Junius escaped as soon as he could from that post, and
returning to his church remained there till 1573. From 1573 till 1578 he
was at Heidelberg, assisting Emmanuel Tremellius (1510-1580), whose
daughter he married, in his Latin version of the Old Testament
(Frankfort, 1579); in 1581 he was appointed to the chair of divinity at
Heidelberg. Thence he was taken to France by the duke of Bouillon, and
after an interview with Henry IV. was sent again to Germany on a
mission. As he was returning to France he was named professor of
theology at Leiden, where he died on the 13th of October 1602.

He was a voluminous writer on theological subjects, and translated and
composed many exegetical works. He is best known from his own edition
of the Latin Old Testament, slightly altered from the former joint
edition, and with a version of the New Testament added (Geneva, 1590;
Hanover, 1624). The _Opera Theologica Francisci Junii Biturigis_ were
published at Geneva (2 vols., 1613), to which is prefixed his
autobiography, written about 1592 (new ed., edited by Abraham Kuypers,
1882 seq.). The autobiography had been published at Leiden (1595), and
is reprinted in the _Miscellanea Groningana_, vol. i., along with a
list of the author's other writings.

(2) FRANZ JUNIUS (1589-1677), son of the above, was born at Heidelberg,
and brought up at Leiden. His attention was diverted from military to
theological studies by the peace of 1609 between Spain and the
Netherlands. In 1617 he became pastor at Hillegondsberg, but in 1620
went to England, where he became librarian to Thomas Howard, earl of
Arundel, and tutor to his son. He remained in England thirty years,
devoting himself to the study of Anglo-Saxon, and afterwards of the
cognate old Teutonic languages. His work, intrinsically valuable, is
important as having aroused interest in a frequently neglected subject.
In 1651 he returned to Holland; and for two years lived in Friesland in
order to study the old dialect. In 1675 he returned to England, and
during the next year resided in Oxford; in 1677 he went to live at
Windsor with his nephew, Isaac Vossius, in whose house he died on the
19th of November 1677. He was buried at Windsor in St George's Chapel.

He was pre-eminently a student. He published _De pictura veterum_
(1637) (in English by the author, 1638; enlarged and improved edition,
edited by J. G. Graevius, who prefixed a life of Junius, with a
catalogue of architects, painters, &c., and their works, Rotterdam,
1694); _Observationes in Willerami Abbatis francicam paraphrasin
cantici canticorum_ (Amsterdam, 1655); _Annotationes in harmoniam
latino-francicam quatuor evangelistarum, latine a Tatiano confectam_
(Amsterdam, 1655); _Caedmonis monachi paraphrasis poetica geneseos_
(Amsterdam, 1655) (see criticism under CAEDMON); _Quatuor D.N.I.C.
evangeliorum versiones perantiquae duae, gothica scilicet et
anglo-saxonica_ (Dort, 2 vols., 1665) (the Gothic version in this book
Junius transcribed from the Silver Codex of Ulfilas; the Anglo-Saxon
version is from an edition by Thomas Marshall, whose notes to both
versions are given, and a Gothic glossary by Junius); _Etymologicum
anglicanum_, edited by Edward Lye, and preceded by a life of Junius
and George Hickes's Anglo-Saxon grammar (Oxford, 1743) (its results
require careful verification in the light of modern research). His
rich collection of ancient MSS., edited and annotated by him, Junius
bequeathed to the university of Oxford. Graevius gives a list of them;
the most important are a version of the _Ormulum_, the version of
Caedmon, and 9 volumes containing _Glossarium v. linguarum
septentrionalium_.

JUNK. (1) (Through Port. _junco_, adapted from Javanese _djong_, or
Malayan _adjong_, ship), the name of the native sailing vessel, common
to the far eastern seas, and especially used by the Chinese and
Javanese. It is a flat-bottomed, high-sterned vessel with square bows
and masts carrying lug-sails, often made of matting. (2) A nautical term
for small pieces of disused rope or cable, cut up to make fenders,
oakum, &c., hence applied colloquially by sailors to the salt beef and
pork used on board ship. The word is of doubtful origin, but may be
connected with "junk" (Lat. _juncus_), a reed, or rush. This word is now
obsolete except as applied to a form of surgical appliance, used as a
support in cases of fracture where immediate setting is impossible, and
consisting of a shaped pillow or cushion stuffed with straw or
horsehair, formerly with rushes or reeds.

JUNKER, WILHELM (1840-1892), German explorer of Africa, was born at
Moscow on the 6th of April 1840. He studied medicine at Dorpat,
Göttingen, Berlin and Prague, but did not practise for long. After a
series of short journeys to Iceland, Tunis and Lower Egypt, he remained
almost continuously in eastern Equatorial Africa from 1875 to 1886,
making first Khartum and afterwards Lado the base of his expeditions,
Junker was a leisurely traveller and a careful observer; his main object
was to study the peoples with whom he came into contact, and to collect
specimens of plants and animals, and the result of his investigations in
these particulars is given in his _Reisen in Afrika_ (3 vols., Vienna,
1889-1891), a work of high merit. An English translation by A. H. Keane
was published in 1890-1892. Perhaps the greatest service he rendered to
geographical science was his investigation of the Nile-Congo watershed,
when he successfully combated Georg Schweinfurth's hydrographical
theories and established the identity of the Welle and Ubangi. The
Mahdist rising prevented his return to Europe through the Sudan, as he
had planned to do, in 1884, and an expedition, fitted out in 1885 by his
brother in St Petersburg, failed to reach him. Junker then determined to
go south. Leaving Wadelai on the 2nd of January 1886 he travelled by way
of Uganda and Tabora and reached Zanzibar in December 1886. In 1887 he
received the gold medal of the Royal Geographical Society. As an
explorer Junker is entitled to high rank, his ethnographical
observations in the Niam-Niam (Azandeh) country being especially
valuable. He died at St Petersburg on the 13th of February 1892.

See the biographical notice by E. G. Ravenstein in _Proceedings of the
Royal Geographical Society_ (1892), pp. 185-187.

JUNKET, a dish of milk curdled by rennet, served with clotted cream and
flavoured with nutmeg, which is particularly associated in England with
Devonshire and Cornwall. The word is of somewhat obscure history. It
appears to come through O. Fr. _jonquette_, a rush-basket, from Lat.
_juncus_, rush. In Norman dialect this word is used of a cream cheese.
The commonly accepted origin is that it refers to the rush-basket on
which such cream cheeses or curds were served. _Juncade_ appears in
Rabelais, and is explained by Cotgrave as "spoon-meat, rose-water and
sugar." Nicholas Udall (in his translation of Erasmus's _Apophthegms_,
1542) speaks of "marchepaines or wafers with other like junkerie." The
word "junket" is also used for a festivity or picnic.

JUNO, the chief Roman and Latin goddess, and the special object of
worship by women at all the critical moments of life. The etymology of
the name is not certain, but it is usually taken as a shortened form of
_Jovino_, answering to _Jovis_, from a root _div_, shining. Under Greek
influence Juno was early identified with the Greek Hera, with whose cult
and characteristics she has much in common; thus the Juno with whom we
are familiar in Latin literature is not the true Roman deity. In the
_Aeneid_, for example, her policy is antagonistic to the plans of
Jupiter for the conquest of Latium and the future greatness of Rome;
though in the fourth _Eclogue_, as Lucina, she appears in her proper
rôle as assisting at childbirth. It was under Greek influence again that
she became the wife of Jupiter, the mother of Mars; the true Roman had
no such personal interest in his deities as to invent family relations
for them.

That Juno was especially a deity of women, and represents in a sense the
female principle of life, is seen in the fact that as every man had his
_genius_, so every woman had her Juno; and the goddess herself may have
been a development of this conception. The various forms of her cult all
show her in close connexion with women. As Juno Lucina she was invoked
in childbirth, and on the 1st of March, the old Roman New Year's day,
the matrons met and made offerings at her temple in a grove on the
Esquiline; hence the day was known as the _Matronalia_. As _Caprotina_
she was especially worshipped by female slaves on the 7th of July
(_Nonae Caprotinae_); as _Sospita_ she was invoked all over Latium as
the saviour of women in their perils, and later as the saviour of the
state; and under a number of other titles, _Cinxia_, _Unxia_, _Pronuba_,
&c., we find her taking a leading part in the ritual of marriage. Her
real or supposed connexion with the moon is explained by the alleged
influence of the moon on the lives of women; thus she became the deity
of the Kalends, or day of the new moon, when the _regina sacrorum_
offered a lamb to her in the _regia_, and her husband the _rex_ made
known to the people the day on which the Nones would fall. Thus she is
brought into close relation with Janus, who also was worshipped on the
Kalends by the _rex sacrorum_, and it may be that in the oldest Roman
religion these two were more closely connected than Juno and Jupiter.
But in historical times she was associated with Jupiter in the great
temple on the Capitoline hill as Juno _Regina_, the queen of all Junones
or queen of heaven, as Jupiter there was _Optimus Maximus_ (see
JUPITER), and under the same title she was enticed from Veii after its
capture in 392 B.C., and settled in a temple on the Aventine. Thus
exalted above all other female deities, she was prepared for that
identification with Hera which was alluded to above. That she was in
some sense a deity of light seems certain; as Lucina, e.g., she
introduced new-born infants "in luminis oras."

See Roscher's article "Juno" in his Lexicon of Mythology, and his
earlier treatise on Juno and Hera; Wissowa, _Religion und Kultus der
Römer_, 113 foll.; also a fresh discussion by Walter Otto in
_Philologus_ for 1905 (p. 161 foll.). (W. W. F.*)

JUNOT, ANDOCHE, DUKE OF ABRABANTES (1771-1813), French general, was born
at Bussy-le-Grand (Côte d'Or), on the 23rd of October 1771. He went to
school at Chatillon, and was known among his comrades as a blustering
but lovable creature, with a pugnacious disposition. He was studying law
in Paris at the outbreak of the Revolution and joined a volunteer
battalion. He distinguished himself by his valour in the first year of
the Revolutionary wars, and came under the special notice of Napoleon
Bonaparte during the siege of Toulon, while serving as his secretary. It
is related that as he was taking down a despatch, a shell burst hard by
and covered the paper with sand, whereupon he exclaimed, "Bien! nous
n'avions pas de sable pour sécher l'encre! en voici!" He remained the
faithful companion of his chief during the latter's temporary disgrace,
and went with him to Italy as aide-de-camp. He distinguished himself so
much at the battle of Millesimo that he was selected to carry back the
captured colours to Paris; returning to Italy he went through the
campaign with honour, but was badly wounded in the head at Lonato. Many
rash incidents in his career may be traced to this wound, from which he
never completely recovered. During the expedition to Egypt he became a
general of brigade. His devotion to Bonaparte involved him in a duel
with General Lanusse, in which he was again wounded. He had to be left
in Egypt to recover, and in crossing to France was captured by English
cruisers. On his return to France he was made commandant of Paris, and
afterwards promoted general of division. It was at this time that he
married Laure Permon (see JUNOT, LAURE). He next served at Arras in
command of the grenadiers of the army destined for the invasion of
England, and made some alterations in the equipment of the troops which
received the praise of the emperor. It was, however, a bitter
mortification that he was not appointed a marshal of France when he
received the grand cross of the legion of honour. He was made
colonel-general of hussars instead and sent as ambassador to Lisbon, his
entry into which city resembled a royal progress. But he was so restless
and dissatisfied in the Portuguese capital that he set out, without
leave, for the army of Napoleon, with which he took part in the battle
of Austerlitz, behaving with his usual courage and zeal. But he soon
gave fresh offence. Although his early devotion was never forgotten by
the emperor, his uncertain temper and want of self-control made it
dangerous to employ him at court or headquarters, and he was sent to
Parma to put down an insurrection and to be out of the way. In 1806 he
was recalled and became governor of Paris. His extravagance and
prodigality shocked the government, and some rumours of an intrigue with
a lady of the imperial family--it is said Pauline Bonaparte--made it
desirable again to send him away. He was therefore appointed to lead an
invading force into Portugal. For the first time Junot had a great task
to perform, and only his own resources to fall back upon for its
achievement. Early in November 1807 he set out from Salamanca, crossed
the mountains of Beira, rallied his wearied forces at Abrantes, and,
with 1500 men, dashed upon Lisbon, in order, if possible, to seize the
Portuguese fleet, which had, however, just sailed away with the regent
and court to Brazil. The whole movement only took a month; it was
undoubtedly bold and well-conducted, and Junot was made duke of Abrantes
and invested with the governorship of Portugal. But administration was
his weak point. He was not a civil governor, but a _sabreur_, brave,
truculent, and also dissipated and rapacious, though in the last respect
he was far from being the worst offender amongst the French generals in
Spain. His hold on Portugal was never supported by a really adequate
force, and his own conduct, which resembled that of an eastern monarch,
did nothing to consolidate his conquest. After Wellesley encountered him
at Vimiera (see Peninsular War) he was obliged to conclude the so-called
convention of Cintra, and to withdraw from Portugal with all his forces.
Napoleon was furious, but, as he said, was spared the necessity of
sending his old friend before a court martial by the fact that the
English put their own generals on their trial. Junot was sent back to
Spain, where, in 1810-1811, acting under Masséna, he was once more
seriously wounded. His last campaign was made in Russia, and he received
more than a just share of discredit for it. Napoleon next appointed him
to govern Illyria. But Junot's mind had become deranged under the weight
of his misfortunes, and on the 29th of July 1813, at Montbard, he threw
himself from a window in a fit of insanity.

JUNOT, LAURE, DUCHESS OF ABRANTES (1783-1834), wife of the preceding,
was born at Montpellier. She was the daughter of Mme. Permon, to whom
during her widowhood the young Bonaparte made an offer of marriage--such
at least is the version presented by the daughter in her celebrated
_Memoirs_. The Permon family, after various vicissitudes, settled at
Paris, and Bonaparte certainly frequented their house a good deal after
the downfall of the Jacobin party in Thermidor 1794. Mlle. Permon was
married to Junot early in the consulate, and at once entered eagerly
into all the gaieties of Paris, and became noted for her beauty, her
caustic wit, and her extravagance. The first consul nicknamed her
_petite peste_, but treated her and Junot with the utmost generosity, a
fact which did not restrain her sarcasms and slanders in her portrayal
of him in her _Memoirs_. During Junot's diplomatic mission to Lisbon,
his wife displayed her prodigality so that on his return to Paris in
1806 he was burdened with debts, which his own intrigues did not lessen.
She joined him again at Lisbon after he had entered that city as
conqueror at the close of 1807; but even the presents and spoils won at
Lisbon did not satisfy her demands; she accompanied Junot through part
of the Peninsular War. On her return to France she displeased the
emperor by her vivacious remarks and by receiving guests whom he
disliked. The mental malady of Junot thereafter threatened her with
ruin; this perhaps explains why she took some part in the intrigues for
bringing back the Bourbons in 1814. She did not side with Napoleon
during the Hundred Days. After 1815 she spent most of her time at Rome
amidst artistic society, which she enlivened with her sprightly
converse. She also compiled her spirited but somewhat spiteful
_Memoirs_, which were published at Paris in 1831-1834 in 18 volumes.
Many editions have since appeared.

Of her other books the most noteworthy are _Histoires contemporaines_
(2 vols., 1835); _Scènes de la vie espagnole_ (2 vols., 1836);
_Histoire des salons de Paris_ (6 vols., 1837-1838); _Souvenirs d'une
ambassade et d'un séjour en Espagne et en Portugal, de 1808 à 1811_ (2
vols., 1837). (J. Hl. R.)

JUNTA (from _juntar_, to join), a Spanish word meaning (1) any meeting
for a common purpose; (2) a committee; (3) an administrative council or
board. The original meaning is now rather lost in the two derivative
significations. The Spaniards have even begun to make use of the
barbarism _métin_, corrupted from the English "meeting." The word
_junta_ has always been and still is used in the other senses. Some of
the boards by which the Spanish administration was conducted under the
Habsburg and the earlier Bourbon kings were styled _juntas_. The
superior governing body of the Inquisition was the _junta suprema_. The
provincial committees formed to organize resistance to Napoleon's
invasion in 1808 were so called, and so was the general committee chosen
from among them to represent the nation. In the War of Independence
(1808-1814), and in all subsequent civil wars or revolutionary
disturbances in Spain or Spanish America, the local executive bodies,
elected, or in some cases self-chosen, to appoint officers, raise money
and soldiers, look after the wounded, and discharge the functions of an
administration, have been known as juntas.

The form "Junto," a corruption due to other Spanish words ending in
-_o_, came into use in English in the 17th century, often in a
disparaging sense, of a party united for a political purpose, a faction
or cabal; it was particularly applied to the advisers of Charles I., to
the Rump under Cromwell, and to the leading members of the great Whig
houses who controlled the government in the reigns of William III. and
Anne.

JUPITER, the chief deity of the Roman state. The great and constantly
growing influence exerted from a very early period on Rome by the
superior civilization of Greece not only caused a modification of the
Roman god on the analogy of Zeus, the supreme deity of the Greeks, but
led the Latin writers to identify the one with the other, and to
attribute to Jupiter myths and family relations which were purely Greek
and never belonged to the real Roman religion. The Jupiter of actual
worship was a Roman god; the Jupiter of Latin literature was more than
half Greek. This identification was facilitated by the community of
character which really belonged to Jupiter and Zeus as the Roman and
Greek developments of a common original conception of the god of the
light and the heaven.

That this was the original idea of Jupiter, not only in Rome, but among
all Italian peoples, admits of no doubt. The earliest form of his name
was _Diovis pater_, or _Diespiter_, and his special priest was the
flamen dialis; all these words point to a root _div_, shining, and the
connexion with _dies_, day, is obvious (cf. JUNO). One of his most
ancient epithets is _Lucetius_, the light-bringer; and later literature
has preserved the same idea in such phrases as _sub Jove_, under the
open sky. All days of the full moon (_idus_) were sacred to him; all
emanations from the sky were due to him and in the oldest form of
religious thought were probably believed to be manifestations of the god
himself. As Jupiter _Elicius_ he was propitiated, with a peculiar
ritual, to send rain in time of drought; as Jupiter _Fulgur_ he had an
altar in the Campus Martius, and all places struck by lightning were
made his property and guarded from the profane by a circular wall. The
vintage, which needs especially the light and heat of the sun, was under
his particular care, and in the festivals connected with it (_Vinalia
urbana_) and _Meditrinalia_, he was the deity invoked, and his flamen
the priest employed. Throughout Italy we find him worshipped on the
summits of hills, where nothing intervened between earth and heaven, and
where all the phenomena of the sky could be conveniently observed. Thus
on the Alban hill south of Rome was an ancient seat of his worship as
Jupiter _Latiaris_, which was the centre of the league of thirty Latin
cities of which Rome was originally an ordinary member. At Rome itself
it is on the Capitoline hill that we find his oldest temple, described
by Livy (i. 10); here we have a tradition of his sacred tree, the oak,
common to the worship both of Zeus and Jupiter, and here too was kept
the _lapis silex_, perhaps a celt, believed to have been a thunderbolt,
which was used symbolically by the fetiales when officially declaring
war and making treaties on behalf of the Roman state. Hence the curious
form of oath, _Jovem lapident jurare_, used both in public and private
life at Rome.

In this oldest Jupiter of the Latins and Romans, the god of the light
and the heaven, and the god invoked in taking the most solemn oaths, we
may undoubtedly see not only the great protecting deity of the race, but
one, and perhaps the only one, whose worship embodies a distinct moral
conception. He is specially concerned with oaths, treaties and leagues,
and it was in the presence of his priest that the most ancient and
sacred form of marriage, _confarreatio_, took place. The lesser deities,
Dius Fidius and Fides, were probably originally identical with him, and
only gained a separate existence in course of time by a process familiar
to students of ancient religion. This connexion with the conscience,
with the sense of obligation and right dealing, was never quite lost
throughout Roman history. In Virgil's great poem, though Jupiter is in
many ways as much Greek as Roman, he is still the great protecting deity
who keeps the hero in the path of duty (_pietas_) towards gods, state
and family.

But this aspect of Jupiter gained a new force and meaning at the close
of the monarchy with the building of the famous temple on the Capitol,
of which the foundations are still to be seen. It was dedicated to
Jupiter _Optimus Maximus_, i.e. the best and greatest of all the
Jupiters, and with him were associated Juno and Minerva, in a fashion
which clearly indicates a Graeco-Etruscan origin; for the combination of
three deities in one temple was foreign to the ancient Roman religion,
while it is found both in Greece and Etruria. This temple was built on a
scale of magnificence quite unknown to primitive Rome, and was beyond
doubt the work of Etruscan architects employed, we may presume, by the
Tarquinii. Its three _cellae_ contained the statues of the three
deities, with Jupiter in the middle holding his thunderbolt.
Henceforward it was the centre of the religious life of the state, and
symbolized its unity and strength. Its dedication festival fell on the
13th of September, on which day the consuls originally succeeded to
office; accompanied by the senate and other magistrates and priests, and
in fulfilment of a vow made by their predecessors, they offered to the
great god a white heifer, his favourite sacrifice, and after rendering
thanks for the preservation of the state during the past year, made the
same vow as that by which they themselves had been bound. Then followed
the _epulum Jovis_ or feast of Jupiter, in which the three deities seem
to have been visibly present in the form of their statues, Jupiter
having a couch and each goddess a _sella_, and shared the meal with
senate and magistrates. In later times this day became the central point
of the great Roman games (_ludi Romani_), originally games vowed in
honour of the god if he brought a war to a successful issue. When a
victorious army returned home, it was to this temple that the triumphal
procession passed, and the triumph of which we hear so often in Roman
history may be taken as a religious ceremonial in honour of Jupiter. The
general was dressed and painted to resemble the statue of Jupiter
himself, and was drawn on a gilded chariot by four white horses through
the Porta Triumphalis to the Capitol, where he offered a solemn
sacrifice to the god, and laid on his knees the victor's laurels (see
TRIUMPH).

Throughout the period of the Republic the great god of the Capitol in
his temple looking down on the Forum continued to overshadow all other
worships as the one in which the whole state was concerned, in all its
length and breadth, rather than any one gens or family. Under Augustus
and the new monarchy it is sometimes said that the Capitoline worship
suffered to some extent an eclipse (J. B. Carter, _The Religion of
Numa_, p. 160 seq.); and it is true that as it was the policy of
Augustus to identify the state with the interests of his own family, he
did what was feasible to direct the attention of the people to the
worships in which he and his family were specially concerned; thus his
temple of Apollo on the Palatine, and that of Mars Ultor in the Forum
Augusti, took over a few of the prerogatives of the cult on the Capitol.
But Augustus was far too shrewd to attempt to oust Jupiter Optimus
Maximus from his paramount position; and he became the protecting deity
of the reigning emperor as representing the state, as he had been the
protecting deity of the free republic. His worship spread over the whole
empire; it is probable that every city had its temple to the three
deities of the Roman Capitol, and the fact that the Romans chose the
name of Jupiter in almost every case, by which to indicate the chief
deity of the subject peoples, proves that they continued to regard him,
so long as his worship existed at all, as the god whom they themselves
looked upon as greatest.

See ZEUS, ROMAN RELIGION. Excellent accounts of Jupiter may be found
in Roscher's _Mythological Lexicon_, and in Wissowa's _Religion und
Kultus der Römer_ (p. 100 seq.). (W. M. Ra.; W. W. F.*)

JUPITER, in astronomy, the largest planet of the solar system; his size
is so great that it exceeds the collective mass of all the others in the
proportion of 5 to 2. He travels in his orbit at a mean distance from
the sun exceeding that of the earth 5.2 times, or 483,000,000 miles. The
eccentricity of this orbit is considerable, amounting to 0.048, so that
his maximum and minimum distances are 504,000,000 and 462,000,000 miles
respectively. When in opposition and at his mean distance, he is
situated 390,000,000 miles from the earth. His orbit is inclined about
1° 18´ 40´´ to the ecliptic. His sidereal revolution is completed in
4332.585 days or 11 years 314.9 days, and his synodical period, or the
mean interval separating his returns to opposition, amounts to 398.87
days. His real polar and equatorial diameters measure 84,570 and 90,190
miles respectively, so that the mean is 87,380 miles. His apparent
diameter (equatorial) as seen from the earth varies from about 32´´,
when in conjunction with the sun, to 50´´ in opposition to that
luminary. The oblateness, or compression, of his globe amounts to about
1/16; his volume exceeds that of the earth 1390 times, while his mass is
about 300 times greater. These values are believed to be as accurate as
the best modern determinations allow, but there are some differences
amongst various observers and absolute exactness cannot be obtained.

The discovery of telescopic construction early in the 17th century and
the practical use of the telescope by Galileo and others greatly
enriched our knowledge of Jupiter and his system. Four of the satellites
were detected in 1610, but the dark bands or belts on the globe of the
planet do not appear to have been noticed until twenty years later.
Though Galileo first sighted the satellites and perseveringly studied
the Jovian orb, he failed to distinguish the belts, and we have to
conclude either that these features were unusually faint at the period
of his observations, or that his telescopes were insufficiently powerful
to render them visible. The belts were first recognized by Nicolas
Zucchi and Daniel Bartoli on the 17th of May 1630. They were seen also
by Francesco Fontana in the same and immediately succeeding years, and
by other observers of about the same period, including Zuppi, Giovanni
Battista Riccioli and Francesco Maria Grimaldi. Improvements in
telescopes were quickly introduced, and between 1655 and 1666 C.
Huygens, R. Hooke and J. D. Cassini made more effective observations.
Hooke discovered a large dark spot in the planet's southern hemisphere
on the 19th of May 1664, and from this object Cassini determined the
rotation period, in 1665 and later years, as 9 hours 56 minutes.

The belts, spots and irregular markings on Jupiter have now been
assiduously studied during nearly three centuries. These markings are
extremely variable in their tones, tints and relative velocities, and
there is little reason to doubt that they are atmospheric formations
floating above the surface of the planet in a series of different
currents. Certain of the markings appear to be fairly durable, though
their rates of motion exhibit considerable anomalies and prove that they
must be quite detached from the actual sphere of Jupiter. At various
times determinations of the rotation period were made as follows:--

_Date._ _Observer._ _Period._ _Place of Spot._

1672 J. D. Cassini 9 h. 55 m. 50 s. Lat. 16° S.
1692 " 9 h. 50 m. Equator.
1708 J. P. Maraldi 9 h. 55 m. 48 s. S. tropical zone
1773 J. Sylvabelle 9 h. 56 m. " "
1788 J. H. Schröter 9 h. 55 m. 33.6 s. Lat. 12° N.
1788 " 9 h. 55 m. 17.6 s. Lat. 20° S.
1835 J. H. Mädler 9 h. 55 m. 26.5 s. Lat. 5° N.
1835 G. B. Airy 9 h. 55 m. 21.3 s. N. tropical zone.

A great number of Jovian features have been traced in more recent years
and their rotation periods ascertained. According to the researches of
Stanley Williams the rates of motion for different latitudes of the
planet are approximately as under:--

_Latitude._ _Rotation Period._

+85° to +28° 9 h. 55 m. 37.5 s.
+28° to +24° 9 h. 54½ m. to 9 h. 56½ m.
+24° to +20° 9 h. 48 m. to 9 h. 49½ m.
+20° to +10° 9 h. 55 m. 33.9 s.
+10° to -12° 9 h. 50 m. 20 s.
-12° to -18° 9 h. 55 m. 40 s.
-18° to -37° 9 h. 55 m. 18.1 s.
-37° to -55° 9 h. 55 m. 5 s.

W. F. Denning gives the following relative periods for the years 1898 to
1905:--

_Latitude._ _Rotation Period._

N.N. temperate 9 h. 55 m. 41.5 s.
N. temperate 9 h. 55 m. 53.8 s.
N. tropical 9 h. 55 m. 30 s.
Equatorial 9 h. 50 m. 27 s.
S. temperate 9 h. 55 m. 19.5 s.
S.S. temperate 9 h. 55 m. 7 s.

[Illustration: FIG. 1.--Inverted disk of Jupiter, showing the different
currents and their rates of rotation.]

The above are the mean periods derived from a large number of markings.
The bay or hollow in the great southern equatorial belt north of the red
spot has perhaps been observed for a longer period than any other
feature on Jupiter except the red spot itself. H. Schwabe saw the hollow
in the belt on the 5th of September 1831 and on many subsequent dates.
The rotation period of this object during the seventy years to the 5th
of September 1901 was 9 h. 55 m. 36 s. from 61,813 rotations. Since 1901
the mean period has been 9 h. 55 m. 40 s., but it has fluctuated between
9 h. 55 m. 38 s. and 9 h. 55 m. 42 s. The motion of the various features
is not therefore dependent upon their latitude, though at the equator
the rate seems swifter as a rule than in other zones. But exceptions
occur, for in 1880 some spots appeared in about 23° N. which rotated in
9 h. 48 m. though in the region immediately N. of this the spot motion
is ordinarily the slowest of all and averages 9 h. 55 m. 53.8 s. (from
twenty determinations). These differences of speed remind us of the
sun-spots and their proper motions. The solar envelope, however, appears
to show a pretty regular retardation towards the poles, for according to
Gustav Spörer's formula, while the equatorial period is 25 d. 2 h. 15 m.
the latitudes 46° N. and S. give a period of 28 d. 15 h. 0 m.

The Jovian currents flow in a due east and west direction as though
mainly influenced by the swift rotatory movement of the globe, and
exhibit little sign of deviation either to N. or S. These currents do
not blend and pass gradually into each other, but seem to be definitely
bounded and controlled by separate, phenomena well capable of preserving
their individuality. Occasionally, it is true, there have been slanting
belts on Jupiter (a prominent example occurred in the spring of 1861),
as though the materials were evolved with some force in a polar
direction, but these oblique formations have usually spread out in
longitude and ultimately formed bands parallel with the equator. The
longitudinal currents do not individually present us with an equable
rate of motion. In fact they display some curious irregularities, the
spots carried along in them apparently oscillating to and fro without
any reference to fixed periods or cyclical variations. Thus the
equatorial current in 1880 moved at the rate of 9 h. 50 m. 6 s. whereas
in 1905 it was 9 h. 50 m. 33 s. The red spot in the S. tropical zone
gave 9 h. 55 m. 34 s. in 1879-1880, whereas during 1900-1908 it has
varied a little on either side of 9 h. 55 m. 40.6 s. Clearly therefore
no fixed period of rotation can be applied for any spot since it is
subject to drifts E. or W. and these drifts sometimes come into
operation suddenly, and may be either temporary or durable. Between 1878
and 1900 the red spot in the planet's S. hemisphere showed a continuous
retardation of speed.

It must be remembered that in speaking of the rotation of these
markings, we are simply alluding to the irregularities in the vaporous
envelope of Jupiter. The rotation of the planet itself is another matter
and its value is not yet exactly known, though it is probably little
different from that of the markings, and especially from those of the
most durable character, which indicate a period of about 9 h. 56 m. We
never discern the actual landscape of Jupiter or any of the individual
forms really diversifying it.

Possibly the red spot which became so striking an object in 1878, and
which still remains faintly visible on the planet, is the same feature
as that discovered by R. Hooke in 1664 and watched by Cassini in
following years. It was situated in approximately the same latitude of
the planet and appears to have been hidden temporarily during several
periods up to 1713. But the lack of fairly continuous observations of
this particular marking makes its identity with the present spot
extremely doubtful. The latter was seen by W. R. Dawes in 1857, by Sir
W. Huggins in 1858, by J. Baxendell in 1859, by Lord Rosse and R.
Copeland in 1873, by H. C. Russell in 1876-1877, and in later years it
has formed an object of general observation. In fact it may safely be
said that no planetary marking has ever aroused such widespread interest
and attracted such frequent observation as the great red spot on
Jupiter.

The slight inclination of the equator of this planet to the plane of his
orbit suggests that he experiences few seasonal changes. From the
conditions we are, in fact, led to expect a prevailing calm in his
atmosphere, the more so from the circumstance that the amount of the
sun's heat poured upon each square mile of it is (on the average) less
than the 27th part of that received by each square mile of the earth's
surface. Moreover, the seasons of Jupiter have nearly twelve times the
duration of ours, so that it would be naturally expected that changes in
his atmosphere produced by solar action take place with extreme
slowness. But this is very far from being the case. Telescopes reveal
the indications of rapid changes and extensive disturbances in the
aspect and material forming the belts. New spots covering large areas
frequently appear and as frequently decay and vanish, implying an
agitated condition of the Jovian atmosphere, and leading us to admit the
operation of causes much more active than the heating influence of the
sun.

[Illustration: FIG. 2.--Jupiter, 1903, July 10, 2.50 a.m.]

[Illustration: FIG. 3.--Jupiter, 1906, April 15, 5.50 p.m.]

When we institute a comparison between Jupiter and the earth on the
basis that the atmosphere of the former planet bears the same relation
to his mass as the atmosphere of the earth bears to her mass, we find
that a state of things must prevail on Jupiter very dissimilar to that
affecting our own globe. The density of the Jovian atmosphere we should
expect to be fully six times as great as the density of our air at
sea-level, while it would be comparatively shallow. But the telescopic
aspect of Jupiter apparently negatives the latter supposition. The belts
and spots grow faint as they approach the limb, and disappear as they
near the edge of the disk, thus indicating a dense and deep atmosphere.
R. A. Proctor considered that the observed features suggested inherent
heat, and adopted this conclusion as best explaining the surface
phenomena of the planet. He regarded Jupiter as belonging, on account of
his immense size, to a different class of bodies from the earth, and was
led to believe that there existed greater analogy between Jupiter and
the sun than between Jupiter and the earth. Thus the density of the sun,
like that of Jupiter, is small compared with the earth's; in fact, the
mean density of the sun is almost identical with that of Jupiter, and
the belts of the latter planet may be much more aptly compared with the
spot zones of the sun than with the trade zones of the earth.

In support of the theory of inherent heat on Jupiter it has been said
that his albedo (or light reflected from his surface) is much greater
than the amount would be were his surface similar to that of the moon,
Mercury or Mars, and the reasoning has been applied to the large outer
planets, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, as well as to Jupiter. The average
reflecting capacity of the moon and five outer planets would seem to be
(on the assumption that they possess no inherent light) as follows:--

Moon 0.1736 Jupiter 0.6238 Uranus 0.6400
Mars 0.2672 Saturn 0.4981 Neptune 0.4848

These values were considered to support the view that the four larger
and more distant orbs shine partly by inherent lustre, and the more so
as spectroscopic analysis indicates that they are each involved in a
deep vapour-laden atmosphere. But certain observations furnish a
contradiction to Proctor's views. The absolute extinction of the
satellites, even in the most powerful telescopes, while in the shadow of
Jupiter, shows that they cannot receive sufficient light from their
primary to render them visible, and the darkness of the shadows of the
satellites when projected on the planet's disk proves that the latter
cannot be self-luminous except in an insensible degree. It is also to be
remarked that, were it only moderately self-luminous, the colour of the
light which it sends to us would be red, such light being at first
emitted from a heated body when its temperature is raised. Possibly,
however, the great red spot, when the colouring was intense in 1878 and
several following years, may have represented an opening in the Jovian
atmosphere, and the ruddy belts may be extensive rifts in the same
envelope. If Jupiter's actual globe emitted a good deal of heat and
light we should probably distinguish little of it, owing to the
obscuring vapours floating above the surface. Venus reflects relatively
more light than Jupiter, and there is little doubt that the albedo of a
planet is dependent upon atmospheric characteristics, and is in no case
a direct indication of inherent light and heat.

The colouring of the belts appears to be due to seasonal variations, for
Stanley Williams has shown that their changes have a cycle of twelve
years, and correspond as nearly as possible with a sidereal revolution
of Jupiter. The variations are of such character that the two great
equatorial belts are alternately affected; when the S. equatorial belt
displays maximum redness the N. equatorial is at a minimum and vice
versa.

The most plausible hypothesis with regard to the red spot is that it is
of the nature of an island floating upon a liquid surface, though its
great duration does not favour this idea. But it is an open question
whether the belts of Jupiter indicate a liquid or gaseous condition of
the visible surface. The difficulty in the way of the liquid hypothesis
is the great difference in the times of rotation between the equatorial
portions of the planet and the spots in temperate latitudes. The latter
usually rotate in periods between 9 h. 55 m. and 9 h. 56 m., while the
equatorial markings make a revolution in about five minutes less, 9 h.
50 m. to 9 h. 51 m. The difference amounts to 7.5° in a terrestrial day
and proves that an equatorial spot will circulate right round the
enormous sphere of Jupiter (circumference 283,000 m.) in 48 days. The
motion is equivalent to about 6000 m. per day and 250 m. per hour.
(W. F. D.)

_Satellites of Jupiter._

Jupiter is attended by eight known satellites, resolvable as regards
their visibility into two widely different classes. Four satellites were
discovered by Galileo and were the only ones known until 1892. In
September of that year E. E. Barnard, at the Lick Observatory,
discovered a fifth extremely faint satellite, performing a revolution in
somewhat less than twelve hours. In 1904 two yet fainter satellites, far
outside the other five, were photographically discovered by C. D.
Perrine at the Lick Observatory. The eighth satellite was discovered by
P. J. Melotte of Greenwich on the 28th of February 1908. It is of the
17th magnitude and appears to be very distant from Jupiter; a
re-observation on the 16th of January 1909 proved it to be retrograde,
and to have a very eccentric orbit. These bodies are usually numbered in
the order of their discovery, the nearest to the sun being V. In
apparent brightness each of the four Galilean satellites may be roughly
classed as of the sixth magnitude; they would therefore be visible to a
keen eye if the brilliancy of the planet did not obscure them. Some
observers profess to have seen one or more of these bodies with the
naked eye notwithstanding this drawback, but the evidence can scarcely
be regarded as conclusive. It does not however seem unlikely that the
third, which is the brightest, might be visible when in conjunction with
one of the others.

Under good conditions and sufficient telescopic power the satellites are
visible as disks, and not mere points of light. Measures of the apparent
diameter of objects so faint are, however, difficult and uncertain. The
results for the Galilean satellites range between 0´´.9 and 1´´.5,
corresponding to diameters of between 3000 and 5000 kilometres. The
smallest is therefore about the size of our moon. Satellite I. has been
found to exhibit marked variations in its brightness and aspect, but the
law governing them has not been satisfactorily worked out. It seems
probable that one hemisphere of this satellite is brighter than the
other, or that there is a large dark region upon it. A revolution on its
axis corresponding with that of the orbital revolution around the planet
has also been suspected, but is not yet established. Variations of light
somewhat similar, but less in amount, have been noticed in the second
and third satellites.

The most interesting and easily observed phenomena of these bodies are
their eclipses and their transits across the disk of Jupiter. The four
inner satellites pass through the shadow of Jupiter at every superior
conjunction, and across his disk at every inferior conjunction. The
outer Galilean satellite does the same when the conjunctions are not too
near the line of nodes of the satellites' orbit. When most distant from
the nodes, the satellites pass above or below the shadow and below or
above the disk. These phenomena for the four Galilean satellites are
predicted in the nautical almanacs.

When one of the four Galilean satellites is in transit across the disk
of Jupiter it can generally be seen projected on the face of the planet.
It is commonly brighter than Jupiter when it first enters upon the limb
but sometimes darker near the centre of the disk. This is owing to the
fact that the planet is much darker at the limb. During these transits
the shadow of the satellites can also be seen projected on the planet as
a dark point.

The theories of the motion of these bodies form one of the more
interesting problems of celestial mechanics. Owing to the great
ellipticity of Jupiter, growing out of his rapid rotation, the
influence of this ellipticity upon the motions of the five inner
satellites is much greater than that of the sun, or of the satellites
on each other. The inclination of the orbits to the equator of Jupiter
is quite small and almost constant, and the motion of each node is
nearly uniform around the plane of the planet's equator.

The most marked feature of these bodies is a relation between the mean
longitudes of Satellites I., II. and III. The mean longitude of I.
plus twice that of III. minus three times that of II. is constantly
near to 180°. It follows that the same relations subsist among the
mean motions. The cause of this was pointed out by Laplace. If we put
L1 L2 and L3 for the mean longitudes, and define an angle U as
follows:--

U = L1 - 3 L2 + 2 L3.

it was shown mathematically by Laplace that if the longitudes and mean
motions were such that the angle U differed a little from 180°, there
was a minute residual force arising from the mutual actions of the
several bodies tending to bring this angle towards the value 180°.
Consequently, if the mean motions were such that this angle increased
only with great slowness, it would after a certain period tend back
toward the value 180°, and then beyond it, exactly as a pendulum drawn
out of the perpendicular oscillates towards and beyond it. Thus an
oscillation would be engendered in virtue of which the angle would
oscillate very slowly on each side of the central value. Computation
of the mean longitude from observations has indicated that the angle
does differ from 180°, but it is not certain whether this deviation is
greater than the possible result of the errors of observation. However
this may be, the existence of the libration, and its period if it does
exist, are still unknown.

The following are the principal elements of the orbits of the five
inner satellites, arranged in the order of distance from Jupiter. The
mean longitudes are for 1891, 20th of October, G.M.T., and are
referred to the equinox of the epoch, 1891, 2nd of October:--

+--------------------+-----------+--------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+
| Satellite | V. | I. | II. | III. | IV. |
+--------------------+-----------+--------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+
| Mean Long. | 264°.29 | 313°.7193 | 39°.1187 | 171°.2448 | 62°.2000 |
| Synodic Period |11 h. 58 m.|1 d. 18 h. .48| 3d. 13h. .30|7d. 3h. .99|16d. 18m. .09|
| Mean Distance |106,400 m. | 260,000 m. | 414,000 m. | 661,000 m.| 1,162,000 m.|
| Mass ÷ Mass of Jup.| (?) | .00002831 | .00002324 | .00008125 | .00002149 |
| Stellar Mag. | 13 | 6.0 | 6.1 | 5.6 | 6.6 |
+--------------------+-----------+--------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+

The following numbers relating to the planet itself have been supplied
mostly by Professor Hermann Struve.

Filar Mic. Heliom.

Equatorial diameter of Jupiter (Dist. 5.2028) 38´´.50 37´´.50
Polar diameter of Jupiter 36´´.02 35´´.23
Ellipticity 1 ÷ 15.5 1 ÷ 16.5
Theoretical ellipticity from motion of
900´´ in the pericentreof Sat. V 1 ÷ 15.3
Centrifugal force ÷ gravity at equator 0.0900
Mass of Jupiter ÷ Mass of Sun, now used in tables 1 ÷ 1047.34
Inclination of planet's equator to ecliptic 2° 9´.07 + 0.006t
" " " " orbit 3° 4´.80
Long. of Node of equator on ecliptic 336° 21´.47 + 0´.762t
" " " " orbit 135°25´.81 + 0.729t

The longitudes are referred to the mean terrestrial equinox, and t is
the time in years from 1900.0.

For the elements of Jupiter's orbit, see SOLAR SYSTEM; and for
physical constants, see PLANET. (S. N.)

JUR (DIUR), the Dinka name for a tribe of negroes of the upper Nile
valley, whose real name is Luoh, or Lwo. They appear to be immigrants,
and tradition places their home in the south; they now occupy a district
of the Bahr-el-Ghazal between the Bongo and Dinka tribes. Of a reddish
black colour, fairer than the Dinka, they are well proportioned, with
the hair short. Tattooing is not common, but when found is similar to
that of the Dinka; they pierce the ears and nose, and in addition to the
ornaments found among the Dinka (q.v.) wear a series of iron rings on
the forearm covering it from wrist to elbow. They are mainly
agricultural, but hunt and fish to a considerable extent; they are also
skilful smiths, smelting their own iron, of which they supply quantities
to the Dinka. They are a prosperous tribe and in consequence spinsters
are unknown among them. Their chief currency is spears and hoe-blades,
and cowrie shells are used in the purchase of wives. Their chief weapons
are spears and bows.

See G. Schweinfurth, _The Heart of Africa: Travels 1868-1871_, trans.
G. E. E. Frewer (2nd ed., 1874); W. Junker, _Travels in Africa_ (Eng.
ed., 1890-1892).

JURA, a department of France, on the eastern frontier, formed from the
southern portion of the old province of Franche-Comté. It is bounded N
by the department of Haute-Saône, N.E. by Doubs, E. by Switzerland, S.
by Ain, and W. by Saône-et-Loire and Côte d'Or. Pop. (1906), 257,725.
Area, 1951 sq. m. Jura comprises four distinct zones with a general
direction from north to south. In the S.E. lie high eastern chains of
the central Jura, containing the Crêt Pela (4915 ft.), the highest point
in the department. More to the west there is a chain of forest-clad
plateaus bordered on the E. by the river Ain. Westward of these runs a
range of hills, the slopes of which are covered with vineyards. The
north-west region of the department is occupied by a plain which
includes the fertile Finage, the northern portion of the Bresse, and is
traversed by the Doubs and its left affluent the Loue, between which
lies the fine forest of Chaux, 76 sq. m. in area. Jura falls almost
wholly within the basin of the Rhone. Besides those mentioned, the chief
rivers are the Valouze and the Bienne, which water the south of the
department. There are several lakes, the largest of which is that of
Chalin, about 12 m. E. of Lons-le-Saunier. The climate is, on the whole,
cold; the temperature is subject to sudden and violent changes, and
among the mountains winter sometimes lingers for eight months. The
rainfall is much above the average of France.

Jura is an agricultural department: wheat, oats, maize and barley are
the chief cereals, the culture of potatoes and rape being also of
importance. Vines are grown mainly in the cantons of Arbois, Poligny,
Salins and Voiteur. Woodlands occupy about a fifth of the area: the oak,
hornbeam and beech, and, in the mountains, the spruce and fir, are the
principal varieties. Natural pasture is abundant on the mountains.
Forests, gorges, torrents and cascades are characteristic features of
the scenery. Its minerals include iron and salt and there are
stone-quarries. Peat is also worked. Lons-le-Saunier and Salins have
mineral springs. Industries include the manufacture of Gruyère,
Septmoncel and other cheeses (made in co-operative cheese factories or
_fruitières_), metal founding and forging, saw-milling, flour-milling,
the cutting of precious stones (at Septmoncel and elsewhere), the
manufacture of nails, tools and other iron goods, paper, leather,
brier-pipes, toys and fancy wooden-ware and basket-work. The making of
clocks, watches, spectacles and measures, which are largely exported,
employs much labour in and around Morez. Imports consist of grain,
cattle, wine, leaf-copper, horn, ivory, fancy-wood; exports of
manufactured articles, wine, cheese, stone, timber and salt. The
department is served chiefly by the Paris-Lyon-Méditerranée railway, the
main line from Paris to Neuchâtel traversing its northern region. The
canal from the Rhone to the Rhine, which utilizes the channel of the
Doubs over portions of its course, traverses it for 25 m.
Lons-le-Saunier is the chief town of Jura, which embraces four
arrondissements named after the towns of Lons-le-Saunier, Dôle, Poligny
and St Claude, with 32 cantons and 584 communes. The department forms
the diocese of St Claude and part of the ecclesiastical province of
Besançon; it comes within the region of the VIIth army corps and the
educational circumscription (académie) of Besançon, where is its court
of appeal. Lons-le-Saunier, Dôle, Arbois, Poligny, St Claude and Salins,
the more noteworthy towns, receive separate notices. At
Baume-les-Messieurs, 8 m. N.E. of Lons-le-Saunier, there is an ancient
abbey with a fine church of the 12th century.

JURA ("deer island"), an island of the inner Hebrides, the fourth
largest of the group, on the west coast of Argyllshire, Scotland. Pop.
(1901), 560. On the N. it is separated from the island of Scarba by the
whirlpool of Corrievreckan, caused by the rush of the tides, often
running over 13 m. an hour, and sometimes accelerated by gales, on the
E. from the mainland by the sound of Jura, and on the S. and S.W. from
Islay by the sound of Islay. At Kinuachdrach there is a ferry to Aird in
Lorne, in Argyllshire, and at Faolin there is a ferry to Port Askaig in
Islay. Its area is about 160 sq. m., the greatest length is about 27 m.,
and the breadth varies from 2 m. to 8 m. The surface is mountainous and
the island is the most rugged of the Hebrides. A chain of hills
culminating in the Paps of Jura--Beinn-an-Oir (2571 ft.) and Beinn
Chaolais (2407 ft.)--runs the whole length of the island, interrupted
only by Tarbert loch, an arm of the sea, which forms an indentation
nearly 6 m. deep and almost cuts the island in two. Jura derived its
name from the red deer which once abounded on it. Cattle and sheep are
raised; oats, barley and potatoes are cultivated along the eastern
shore, and there is some fishing. Granite is quarried and silicious
sand, employed in glass-making is found. The parish of Jura comprises
the islands of Balnahua, Fladda, Garvelloch, Jura, Lunga, Scarba and
Skervuile.

JURA, a range which may be roughly described as the block of mountains
rising between the Rhine and the Rhone, and forming the frontier between
France and Switzerland. The gorges by which these two rivers force their
way to the plains cut off the Jura from the Swabian and Franconian
ranges to the north and those of Dauphiné to the south. But in very
early days, before these gorges had been carved out, there were no
openings in the Jura at all, and even now its three chief rivers--the
Doubs, the Loue and the Ain--flow down the western slope, which is both
much longer and but half as steep as the eastern. Some geographers
extend the name Jura to the Swabian and Franconian ranges between the
Danube and the Neckar and the Main; but, though these are similar in
point of composition and direction to the range to the south, it is most
convenient to limit the name to the mountain ridges lying between France
and Switzerland, and this narrower sense will be adopted here.

The Jura has been aptly described as a huge plateau about 156 m. long
and 38 m. broad, hewn into an oblong shape, and raised by internal
forces to an average height of from 1950 to 2600 ft. above the
surrounding plains. The shock by which it was raised and the vibration
caused by the elevation of the great chain of the Alps, produced many
transverse gorges or "cluses," while on the plateaus between these
subaerial agencies have exercised their ordinary influence.

Geologically the Jura Mountains belong to the Alpine system; and the
same forces which crumpled and tore the strata of the one produced the
folds and faults in the other. Both chains owe their origin to the mass
of crystalline and unyielding rock which forms the central plateau of
France, the Vosges and the Black Forest, and which, between the Vosges
and the central plateau, lies at no great depth beneath the surface.
Against this mass the more yielding strata which lay to the south and
west were crushed and folded, and the Alps and the Jura were carved from
the ridges which were raised. But the folding decreases in intensity
towards the north; the folding in the Alps is much more violent than the
folding in the Jura, and in the Jura itself the folding is most marked
along its southern flanks.

The Jura is composed chiefly of Jurassic rocks--it is from this chain
that the Jurassic system derives its name--but Triassic, Cretaceous and
Tertiary beds take part in its formation. It may be divided into three
zones which run parallel to the length of the chain and differ from one
another in their structure. The innermost zone, which rises directly
from the plain of Switzerland, is the _folded Jura_ (_Jura plissé,
Kettenjura_), formed of narrow parallel undulations which diminish in
intensity towards the French border. This is followed by the _Jura
plateau_ (_Jura tabulaire_, _Tafeljura_), in which the beds are
approximately horizontal but are broken up into blocks by fractures or
faults. Finally, along its western face there is a zone of numerous
dislocations, and the range descends abruptly to the plain of the Saône.
This is the _Région du vignoble_ and is well shown at Arbois.

Owing to the convergence of the faults which bound it, the plateau zone
decreases in width towards the south, while towards the north it forms a
large proportion of the chain. The folded zone is more constant. Along
its inner margin the folds are frequently overthrown, leaning towards
France, but elsewhere they are simple anticlinals and synclinals,
parallel to the length of the chain, and as a rule there is a remarkable
freedom from dislocations of any importance, except towards Neuchâtel
and Bienne.

The countless blocks of gneiss, granite and other crystalline formations
which are found in such numbers on the slopes of the Jura, and go by the
name of "erratic blocks" (of which the best known instance--the Pierre à
Bot--is 40 ft. in diameter, and rests on the side of a hill 800 ft.
above the Lake of Neuchâtel), have been transported thither from the
Alps by ancient glaciers, which have left their mark on the Jura range
itself in the shape of striations and moraines.

The general direction of the chain is from north-east to south-west, but
a careful study reveals the fact that there were in reality two main
lines of upheaval, viz. north to south and east to west, the former best
seen in the southern part of the range and the latter in the northern;
and it was by the union of these two forces that the lines north-east to
south-west (seen in the greater part of the chain), and north-west to
south-east (seen in the Villebois range at the south-west extremity of
the chain), were produced. This is best realized if we take Besançon as
a centre; to the north the ridges run east and west, to the south, north
and south, while to the east the direction is north-east to south-west.

Before considering the topography of the interior of the Jura, it may
be convenient to take a brief survey of its outer slopes.

1. The _northern face_ dominates on one side the famous "Trouée" (or
Trench) of Belfort, one of the great geographical centres of Europe,
whence routes run north down the Rhine to the North Sea, south-east to
the Danube basin and Black Sea, and south-west into France, and so to
the Mediterranean basin. It is now so strongly fortified that it
becomes a question of great strategical importance to prevent its
being turned by means of the great central plateau of the Jura, which,
as we shall see, is a network of roads and railways. On the other side
it overhangs the "Trouée" of the Black Forest towns on the Rhine
(Rheinfelden, Säckingen, Laufenburg and Waldshut), through which the
central plain of Switzerland is easily gained. On this north slope two
openings offer routes into the interior of the chain--the valley of
the Doubs belonging to France, and the valley of the Birse belonging
to Switzerland. Belfort is the military, Mülhausen the industrial, and
Basel the commercial centre of this slope.

2. The _eastern and western faces_ offer many striking parallels. The
plains through which flow the Aar and the Saône have each been the bed
of an ancient lake, traces of which remain in the lakes of Neuchâtel,
Bienne and Morat. The west face runs mainly north and south like its
great river, and for a similar reason the east face runs north-east to
south-west. Again, both slopes are pierced by many transverse gorges
or "cluses" (due to fracture and not to erosion), by which access is
gained to the great central plateau of Pontarlier, though these are
seen more plainly on the east face than on the west; thus the gorges
at the exit from which Lons-le-Saunier, Poligny, Arbois and Salins are
built balance those of the Suze, of the Val de Ruz, of the Val de
Travers, and of the Val d'Orbe, though on the east face there is but
one city which commands all these important routes--Neuchâtel. This
town is thus marked out by nature as a great military and industrial
centre, just as is Besançon on the west, which has besides to defend
the route from Belfort down the Doubs. These easy means of
communicating with the Free County of Burgundy or Franche-Comté
account for the fact that the dialect of Neuchâtel is Burgundian, and
that it was held generally by Burgundian nobles, though most of the
country near it was in the hands of the house of Savoy until gradually
annexed by Bern. The Chasseron (5286 ft.) is the central point of the
eastern face, commanding the two great railways which join Neuchâtel
and Pontarlier. This ridge is in a certain sense parallel to the
valley of the Loue on the west face, which flows into the Doubs a
little to the south of Dôle, the only important town of the central
portion of the Saône basin. The Chasseron is wholly Swiss, as are the
lower summits of the Chasseral (5279 ft.), the Mont Suchet (5220 ft.),
the Aiguille de Baulmes (5128 ft.), the Dent de Vaulion (4879 ft.),
the Weissenstein (4223 ft.), and the Chaumont (3845 ft.), the two
last-named points being probably the best-known points in the Jura, as
they are accessible by carriage road from Soleure and Neuchâtel
respectively. South of the Orbe valley the east face becomes a rocky
wall which is crowned by all the highest summits (the first and second
Swiss, the rest French) of the chain--the Mont Tendre (5512 ft.), the
Dôle (5505 ft.), the Reculet (5643 ft.), the Crêt de la Neige (5653
ft.) and the Grand Crédo (5328 ft.), the uniformity of level being as
striking as on the west edge of the Jura, though there the absolute
height is far less. The position of the Dôle is similar to that of the
Chasseron, as along the sides of it run the great roads of the Col de
St Cergues (3973 ft.) and the Col de la Faucille (4341 ft.), the
latter leading through the Vallée des Dappes, which was divided in
1862 between France and Switzerland, after many negotiations. The
height of these roads shows that they are passages across the chain,
rather than through natural depressions.

3. The _southern face_ is supported by two great pillars--on the east
by the Grand Crédo and on the west by the ridge of Revermont (2529
ft.) above Bourg en Bresse; between these a huge bastion (the district
of _Bugey_) stretches away to the south, forcing the Rhone to make a
long détour. On the two sides of this bastion the plains in which
Ambérieu and Culoz stand balance one another, and are the meeting
points of the routes which cut through the bastion by means of deep
gorges. On the eastern side this great wedge is steep and rugged,
ending in the Grand Colombier (5033 ft.) above Culoz, and it sinks on
the western side to the valley of the Ain, the district of Bresse, and
the plateau of Dombes. The junction of the Ain and the Surand at Pont
d'Ain on the west balances that of the Valserine and the Rhone at
Bellegarde on the east.

The Jura thus dominates on the north one of the great highways of
Europe, on the east and west divides the valleys of the Saône and the
Aar, and stretches out to the south so as nearly to join hands with
the great mass of the Dauphiné Alps. It therefore commands the routes
from France into Germany, Switzerland and Italy, and hence its
enormous historical importance.

Let us now examine the topography of the interior of the range. This
naturally falls into three divisions, each traversed by one of the
three great rivers of the Jura--the Doubs, the Loue and the Ain.

1. In the _northern division_ it is the east and west line which
prevails--the Lomont, the Mont Terrible, the defile of the Doubs from
St Ursanne to St Hippolyte, and the "Trouée" of the Black Forest
towns. It thus bars access to the central plateau from the north, and
this natural wall does away with the necessity of artificial
fortifications. This division falls again into two distinct portions.

(a) The first is the _part east of the deep gorge of the Doubs_ after
it turns south at St Hippolyte; it is thus quite cut off on this side,
and is naturally Swiss territory. It includes the basin of the river
Birse, and the great plateau between the Doubs and the Aar, on which,
at an average height of 2600 ft., are situated a number of towns, one
of the most striking features of the Jura. These include Le Locle
(q.v.) and La Chaux de Fonds (q.v.), and are mainly occupied with
watch-making, an industry which does not require bulky machinery, and
is therefore well fitted for a mountain district.

(b) _The part west of the "cluse" of the Doubs_: of this, the district
east of the river Dessoubre, isolated in the interior of the range
(unlike the Le Locle plateau), is called the Haute Montagne, and is
given up to cheese-making, curing of hams, saw-mills, &c. But little
watch-making is carried on there, Besançon being the chief French
centre of this industry, and being connected with Geneva by a chain of
places similarly occupied, which fringe the west plateau of the Jura.
The part west of the Dessoubre, or the Moyenne Montagne, a huge
plateau north of the Loue, is more especially devoted to agriculture,
while along its north edge metal-working and manufacture of hardware
are carried on, particularly at Besançon and Audincourt.

2. The _central division_ is remarkable for being without the deep
gorges which are found so frequently in other parts of the range. It
consists of the basin of which Pontarlier is the centre, through
notches in the rim of which routes converge from every direction; this
is the great characteristic of the middle region of the Jura. Hence
its immense strategical and commercial importance. On the north-east
roads run to Morteau and Le Locle, on the north-west to Besançon, on
the west to Salins, on the south-west to Dôle and Lons-le-Saunier, on
the east to the Swiss plain. The Pontarlier plateau is nearly
horizontal, the slight indentations in it being due to erosion, e.g.
by the river Drugeon. The keys to this important plateau are to the
east the Fort de Joux, under the walls of which meet the two lines of
railway from Neuchâtel, and to the west Salins, the meeting place of
the routes from the Col de la Faucille, from Besançon, and from the
French plain.

The Ain rises on the south edge of this plateau, and on a lower shelf
or step, which it waters, are situated two points of great military
importance--Nozeroy and Champagnole. The latter is specially
important, since the road leading thence to Geneva traverses one after
another, not far from their head, the chief valleys which run down
into the South Jura, and thus commands the southern routes as well as
those by St Cergues and the Col de la Faucille from the Geneva region,
and a branch route along the Orbe river from Jougne. The fort of Les
Rousses, near the foot of the Dôle, serves as an advanced post to
Champagnole, just as the Fort de Joux does to Pontarlier.

The above sketch will serve to show the character of the central Jura
as the meeting place of routes from all sides, and the importance to
France of its being strongly fortified, lest an enemy approaching from
the north-east should try to turn the fortresses of the "Trouée de
Belfort." It is in the western part of the central Jura that the north
and south lines first appear strongly marked. There are said to be in
this district no less than fifteen ridges running parallel to each
other, and it is these which force the Loue to the north, and thereby
occasion its very eccentric course. The cultivation of wormwood
wherewith to make the tonic "absinthe" has its headquarters at
Pontarlier.

3. The _southern division_ is by far the most complicated and
entangled part of the Jura. The lofty ridge which bounds it to the
east forces all its drainage to the west, and the result is a number
of valleys of erosion (of which that of the Ain is the chief
instance), quite distinct from the natural "cluses" or fissures of
those of the Doubs and of the Loue. Another point of interest is the
number of roads which intersect it, despite its extreme irregularity.
This is due to the great "cluses" of Nantua and Virieu, which traverse
it from east to west. The north and south line is very clearly seen in
the eastern part of this division; the north-east and south-west is
entirely wanting, but in the Villebois range south of Ambérieu we have
the principal example of the north-west to south-east line. The
plateaus west of the Ain are cut through by the valleys of the Valouse
and of the Surand, and like all the lowest terraces on the west slope
do not possess any considerable towns. The Ain receives three
tributaries from the east:--

(a) The Bienne, which flows from the fort of Les Rousses by St Claude,
the industrial centre of the south Jura, famous for the manufacture of
wooden toys, owing to the large quantity of boxwood in the
neighbourhood. Septmoncel is busied with cutting of gems, and Morez
with watch and spectacle making. Cut off to the east by the great
chain, the industrial prosperity of this valley is of recent origin.

(b) The Oignin, which flows from south to north. It receives the
drainage of the lake of Nantua, a town noted for combs and silk
weaving, and which communicates by the "cluse" of the Lac de Silan
with the Valserine valley, and so with the Rhone at Bellegarde, and
again with the various routes which meet under the walls of the fort
of Les Rousses, while by the Val Romey and the Séran Culoz is easily
gained.

(c) The Albarine, connected with Culoz by the "cluse" of Virieu, and
by the Furan flowing south with Belley, the capital of the district of
Bugey (the old name for the South Jura).

The "cluses" of Nantua and Virieu are now both traversed by important
railways; and it is even truer than of old that the keys of the south
Jura are Lyons and Geneva. But of course the strategic importance of
these gorges is less than appears at first sight, because they can be
turned by following the Rhone in its great bend to the south.

The range is mentioned by Caesar (_Bell. Gall._ i. 2-3, 6 (1), and 8
(1)), Strabo (iv. 3, 4, and 6, 11), Pliny (iii. 31; iv. 105; xvi. 197)
and Ptolemy (ii. ix. 5), its name being a word which appears under many
forms (e.g. Joux, Jorat, Jorasse, Juriens), and is a synonym for a wood
or forest. The German name is Leberberg, _Leber_ being a provincial word
for a hill.

Politically the Jura is French (departments of the Doubs, Jura and Ain)
and Swiss (parts of the cantons of Geneva, Vaud, Neuchâtel, Bern,
Soleure and Basel); but at its north extremity it takes in a small bit
of Alsace (Pfirt or Ferrette). In the middle ages the southern, western
and northern sides were parcelled out into a number of districts, all of
which were gradually absorbed by the French crown, viz., Gex, Val Romey,
Bresse and Bugey (exchanged in 1601 by Savoy for the marquisate of
Saluzzo), Franche-Comté, or the Free County of Burgundy, an imperial
fief till annexed in 1674, the county of Montbéliard (Mömpelgard)
acquired in 1793, and the county of Ferrette (French 1648-1871). The
northern part of the eastern side was held till 1792 (part till 1797) by
the bishop of Basel as a fief of the empire, and then belonged to France
till 1814, but was given to Bern in 1815 (as a recompense for its loss
of Vaud), and now forms the Bernese Jura, a French-speaking district.
The centre of the eastern slope formed the principality of Neuchâtel
(q.v.) and the county of Valangin, which were generally held by
Burgundian nobles, came by succession to the kings of Prussia in 1707,
and were formed into a Swiss canton in 1815, though they did not become
free from formal Prussian claims until 1857. The southern part of the
eastern slope originally belonged to the house of Savoy, but was
conquered bit by bit by Bern, which was forced in 1815 to accept its
subject district Vaud as a colleague and equal in the Swiss
Confederation. It was Charles the Bold's defeats at Grandson and Morat
which led to the annexation by the confederates of these portions of
Savoyard territory.

AUTHORITIES.--E. F. Berlioux, _Le Jura_ (Paris, 1880); F. Machacek,
_Der Schweizer Jura_ (Gotha, 1905); A. Magnin, _Les lacs du Jura_
(Paris, 1895); J. Zimmerli, "Die Sprachgrenze im Jura" (vol. i. of his
_Die Deutsch-französische Sprachgrenze in der Schweiz_ (Basel, 1891).
For the French slope see Joanne's large _Itinéraire_ to the Jura, and
the smaller volumes relating to the departments of the Ain, Doubs and
Jura, in his _Géographies départementales_. For the Swiss slope see 3
vols. in the series of the _Guides Monod_ (Geneva); A. Monnier, _La
Chaux de Fonds et le Haut-Jura Neuchâtelois_; J. Monod, _Le Jura
Bernois_; and E. J. P. de la Harpe, _Le Jura Vaudois_.
(W. A. B. C.)

JURASSIC, in geology, the middle period of the Mesozoic era, that is to
say, succeeding the Triassic and preceding the Cretaceous periods. The
name Jurassic (French _jurassique_; German _Juraformation_ or _Jura_)
was first employed by A. Brongniart and A. von Humboldt for the rocks of
this age in the western Jura mountains of Switzerland, where they are
well developed. It was in England, however, that they were first studied
by William Smith, in whose hands they were made to lay the foundations
of stratigraphical geology. The names adopted by him for the
subdivisions he traced across the country have passed into universal
use, and though some of them are uncouth English provincial names, they
are as familiar to the geologists of France, Switzerland and Germany as
to those of England. During the following three decades Smith's work was
elaborated by W. D. Conybeare and W. Phillips. The Jurassic rocks of
fossils of the European continent were described by d'Orbigny,
1840-1846; by L. von Buch, 1839; by F. A. Quenstedt, 1843-1888; by A.
Oppel, 1856-1858; and since then by many other workers: E. Benecke, E.
Hébert, W. Waagen, and others. The study of Jurassic rocks has continued
to attract the attention of geologists, partly because the bedding is so
well defined and regular--the strata are little disturbed anywhere
outside the Swiss Jura and the Alps--and partly because the fossils are
numerous and usually well-preserved. The result has been that no other
system of rocks has been so carefully examined throughout its entire
thickness; many "zones" have been established by means of the
fossils--principally by ammonites--and these zones are not restricted to
limited districts, but many of them hold good over wide areas. Oppel
distinguished no fewer than thirty-three zonal horizons, and since then
many more sub-zonal divisions have been noted locally.

The existence of _faunal regions_ in Jurassic times was first pointed
out by J. Marcou; later M. Neumayr greatly extended observations in this
direction. According to Neumayr, three distinct geographical regions of
deposit can be made out among the Jurassic rocks of Europe: (1) The
Mediterranean province, embracing the Pyrenees, Alps and Carpathians,
with all the tracts lying to the south. One of the biological characters
of this area was the great abundance of ammonites belonging to the
groups of _Heterophylli_ (_Phylloceras_) and _Fimbriati_ (_Lytoceras_).
(2) The central European province, comprising the tracts lying to the
north of the Alpine ridge, and marked by the comparative rarity of the
ammonites just mentioned, which are replaced by others of the groups
_Inflati_ (_Aspidoceras_) and _Oppelia_, and by abundant reefs and
masses of coral. (3) The boreal or Russian province, comprising the
middle and north of Russia, Spitzbergen and Greenland. The life in this
area was much less varied than in the others, showing that in Jurassic
times there was a perceptible diminution of temperature towards the
north. The ammonites of the more southern tracts here disappear,
together with the corals.

[Illustration: Map of the probable distribution of Land & Sea in the
Jurassic Period.]

The cause of these faunal regions Neumayr attributed to climatic
belts--such as exist to-day--and in part, at least, he was probably
correct. It should be borne in mind, however, that although Neumayr was
able to trace a broad, warm belt, some 60° in width, right round the
earth, with a narrower mild belt to the north and an arctic or boreal
belt beyond, and certain indications of a repetition of the climatic
zones on the southern side of the thermal equator, more recent
discoveries of fossils seem to show that other influences must have been
at work in determining their distribution; in short, the identity of the
Neumayrian climatic boundaries becomes increasingly obscured by the
advance of our knowledge.

The Jurassic period was marked by a great extension of the sea, which
commenced after the close of the Trias and reached its maximum during
the Callovian and Oxfordian stages; consequently, the Middle Jurassic
rocks are much more widely spread than the Lias. In Europe and elsewhere
Triassic beds pass gradually up into the Jurassic, so that there is
difficulty sometimes in agreement as to the best line for the base of
the latter; similarly at the top of the system there is a passage from
the Jurassic to the Cretaceous rocks (Alps).

Towards the close of the period elevation began in certain regions;
thus, in America, the Sierras, Cascade Mountains, Klamath Mountains, and
Humboldt Range probably began to emerge. In England the estuarine
Portlandian resulted partly from elevation, but in the Alps marine
conditions steadily persisted (in the Tithonian stage). There appears to
have been very little crustal disturbance or volcanic activity; tuffs
are known in Argentina and California; volcanic rocks of this age occur
also in Skye and Mull.

The rocks of the Jurassic system present great petrological diversity.
In England the name "Oolites" was given to the middle and higher members
of the system on account of the prevalence of oolitic structure in the
limestones and ironstones; the same character is a common feature in the
rocks of northern Europe and elsewhere, but it must not be overlooked
that clays and sandstones together bulk more largely in the aggregate
than the oolites. The thickness of Jurassic rocks in England is 4000 to
5000 ft., and in Germany 2000 to 3000 ft. Most of the rocks represent
the deposits of shallow seas, but estuarine conditions and land deposits
occur as in the Purbeck beds of Dorset and the coals of Yorkshire. Coal
is a very important feature among Jurassic rocks, particularly in the
Liassic division; it is found in Hungary, where there are twenty-five
workable beds; in Persia, Turkestan, Caucasus, south Siberia, China,
Japan, Further India, New Zealand and in many of the Pacific Islands.

Being shallow water formations, petrological changes come in rapidly as
many of the beds are traced out; sandstones pass laterally into clays,
and the latter into limestones, and so on, but a reliable guide to the
classification and correlation is found in the fossil contents of the
rocks. In the accompanying table a list is given of some of the zonal
fossils which regularly occur in the order indicated; other forms are
known that are equally useful. It will be noticed that while there is
general agreement as to the order in which the zonal forms occur, the
line of division between one formation and another is liable to vary
according to factors in the personal equation of the authors.

The Jurassic formations stretch across England in a varying band from
the mouth of the Tees to the coast of Dorsetshire. They consist of
harder sandstones and limestones interstratified with softer clays and
shales. Hence they give rise to a characteristic type of scenery--the
more durable beds standing out as long ridges, sometimes even with low
cliffs, while the clays underlie the level spaces between.

Jurassic rocks cover a vast area in Central Europe. They rise from
under the Cretaceous formations in the north-east of France, whence
they range southwards down the valleys of the Saône and Rhone to the
Mediterranean. They appear as a broken border round the old
crystalline nucleus of Auvergne. Eastwards they range through the Jura
Mountains up to the high grounds of Bohemia. They appear in the outer
chains of the Alps on both sides, and on the south they rise along the
centre of the Apennines, and here and there over the Spanish
Peninsula. Covered by more recent formations they underlie the great
plain of northern Germany, whence they range eastwards and occupy
large tracts in central and eastern Russia.

Lower Jurassic rocks are absent from much of northern Russia, the
stages represented being the Callovian, Oxfordian and Volgian (of
Professor S. Nikitin); the fauna differs considerably from that of
western Europe, and the marine equivalents of the Purbeck beds are
found in this region. In south Russia, the Crimea and Caucasus, Lias
and Lower Jurassic rocks are present. In the Alps, the Lower Jurassic
rocks are intimately associated with the underlying Triassic
formations, and resemble them in consisting largely of reddish
limestones and marbles; the ammonites in this region differ in certain
respects from those of western and central Europe. The Oxfordian,
Callovian, Corallian and Astartian stages are also present. The Upper
Jurassic is mainly represented by a uniform series of limestones, with
a peculiar and characteristic fauna, to which Oppel gave the name
"Tithonian." This includes most of the horizons from Kimeridgian to
Cretaceous; it is developed on the southern flanks of the Alps,
Carpathians, Apennines, as well as in south France and other parts of
the Mediterranean basin. A characteristic formation on this horizon is
the "Diphya limestone," so-called from the fossil _Terebratula diphya_
(_Pygope janitor_) seen in the well-known escarpments (_Hochgebirge
Kalk_). Above the Diphya limestone comes the Stramberg limestone
(Stramberg in Moravia), with "Aptychus" beds and coral reefs. The
rocks of the Mediterranean basin are on the whole more calcareous than
those of corresponding age in north-west Europe; thus the Lias is
represented by 1500 ft. of white crystalline limestone in Calabria and
a similar rock occurs in Sicily, Bosnia, Epirus, Corfu; in Spain the
Liassic strata are frequently dolomitic; in the Apennines they are
variegated limestones and marls. The Higher Jurassic beds of Portugal
show traces of the proximity of land in the abundant plant remains
that are found in them. In Scania the Lias succeeds the Rhaetic beds
in a regular manner, and Jurassic rocks have been traced northward
well within the polar circle; they are known in the Lofoten Isles,
Spitzbergen, east Greenland, King Charles's Island, Cape Stewart in
Scoresby Sound, Grinnell Land, Prince Patrick Land, Bathurst and
Exmouth Island; in many cases the fossils denote a climate
considerably milder than now obtains in these latitudes.

In the American continent Jurassic rocks are not well developed.
Marine Lower and Middle Jurassic beds occur on the Pacific coast
(California and Oregon), and in Wyoming, the Dakotas, Colorado, east
Mexico and Texas. Above the marine beds in the interior are brackish
and fresh-water deposits, the Morrison and Como beds (Atlantosaurus
and Baptanodon beds of Marsh). Later Jurassic rocks are found in
northern British Columbia and perhaps in Alaska, Wyoming, Utah,
Montana, Colorado, the Dakotas, &c. In California some of the
gold-bearing, metamorphic slates are of this age. Marine Jurassic
rocks have not been clearly identified on the Atlantic side of
America. The Patuxent and Arundel formations (non-marine) are
doubtfully referred to this period. Lower and Middle Jurassic
formations occur in Argentina and Bolivia. Jurassic rocks have been
recognized in Asia, including India, Afghanistan, Persia, Kurdistan,
Asia Minor, the Caspian region, Japan and Borneo. The best marine
development is in Cutch, where the following groups are distinguished
from above downwards: the Umia series = Portlandian and Tithonian of
south Europe, passing upwards into the Neocomian; the Katrol series =
Oxfordian (part) and Kimeridgian; the Chari series = Callovian and
part of the Oxfordian; the Patcham series = Bathonian. In the western
half of the Salt Range and the Himalayas, Spiti shales are the
equivalents of the European Callovian and Kimeridgian. The upper part
of the Gondwana series is not improbably Jurassic. On the African
continent, Liassic strata are found in Algeria, and Bathonian
formations occur in Abyssinia, Somaliland, Cape Colony and western
Madagascar. In Australia the Permo-Carboniferous formations are
succeeded in Queensland and Western Australia by what may be termed
the Jura-Trias, which include the coal-bearing "Ipswich" and "Burrum"
formations of Queensland. In New Zealand there is a thick series of
marine beds with terrestrial plants, the Mataura series in the upper
part of Hutton's Hokanui system. Sir J. Hector included also the
Putakaka series (as Middle Jurassic) and the Flag series with the
Catlin's River and Bastion series below. Jurassic rocks have been
recorded from New Guinea and New Caledonia.

JURASSIC SYSTEM

+---------------------+----------------+---+---------+------+---------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| | | O | Sub- | | | |
| | | p | stages | Von | A. de Lapparent, | |
| Stages[1] | Ammonite Zones | p | of | Buch | _Traité_, 5th ed. | Alpine |
| | | e | Quen- | | | |
| | | l | stedt | | | |
+---+---+-------------+----------------+---+---------+------+------------+----------+---+----------------------------------------+
| | U | | Perisphinctes | | | | Purbeckien | | | \ |
| | p | Purbeckian | transitorius | | | U | or | | | | |
| | p | | | | | p | Aquilonien | | | | |
| | e +-------------+ | | | p +------------+ Port- | | | |
| | r | | Perisphinctes | | | e | | landien | N | | |
| | | Portlandian | giganteus | | [zeta] | r | Bononien | | é | | _Diphya_-Kalke |
| | O | | Olcostephanus | | | | | | o | | |
| | o | | gigas | | | o | | | j | | Ammonitico |
| | l +-------------+ | | | r +------------+----------+ u | | rosso of \ _Acanthicus_ |
| | i | | Reineckia | |[epsilon]| | Virgulien | | r | > Tithonien, | Beds |
| | t | Kimeridgian | eudoxus | | [delta] | W | | Kimerid- | a | | southern | |
| | e | | Oppelia | | [gamma] | h +------------+ gien | s | | Alps | |
| | s | | tenuilobata | M | | i | Pteroceran | | s | | | |
| +---+-------------+ | a | | t +------------+----------+ i | | | |
| | M | Corallian | Peltoceras | l | [beta] | e | Astartien | Sequa- | q | | | |
| | i | | bimammatum | m | | | Rauracien | nien | u | | | |
| | d +-------------+ | | | J +------------+----------+ e | | | |
| | d | | Peltoceras | | | u | Argovien | | | | | |
| | l | Oxfordian | transversarium| | [alpha] | r +------------+ Oxfor- | | / | Aptychen- |
| O | e | | Aspidoceras | | | a | Neuvizien | dien | | > Kalke and |
| O | | | perarmatum | | | | | | | | Radiolariengesteine |
| L | O +-------------+ | | +------+------------+----------+ | | |
| I | o | | Peltoceras | | | | | | | | |
| T | l | | athleta | | [zeta] | | Upper | | | | |
| E | i | Callovian | Cosmoceras | | | | Divesien | Callovien| | | |
| S | t | | Jason | | | M | Lower | | | | |
| | e | | Macrocephalites| | | i | Divesien | | | | |
| | s | | macrocephalus | | | d | | | | | |
| +---+-------------+ +---+ | d +------------+----------+ | | Posidonien Beds|
| | | | Oppelia | |[epsilon]| l | | | | (S. Alps) |
| | L | Bathonian | aspidoides | | | e | Bathonien | | | Klauss Beds |
| | o | | Parkinsonia | | | | | | | (N. Alps) |
| | w | | ferruginea | | | o | | | / |
| | e +-------------+ | | | r +------------+ | |
| | r | | Parkinsonia | | | | | M | |
| | | | Parkinsoni | D | | B | | é | |
| | O | | Coeloceras | o | | r | | s | _Sauzei_-Kalke |
| | o | Bajocian | Humphresianus | g | | o | | o | |
| | l | (Inferior | Sphæroceras | g | | w | Bajocien | j | |
| | i | Oolite) | Sauzei | e | | n | | u | |
| | t | | Sonninia | r | [delta] | | | r | |
| | e | | Sowerbyi | | [gamma] | J | | a | |
| | s | | Harpoceras | | [beta] | u | | s | |
| | | | Murchisonae | | | r | | s | Oolite of San |
+---+---+-------------+----------------+ | | a +------------+ | i | Vigilio |
| | | Harpoceras | | [alpha] | | | | q | |
| | (_passage beds_)| (Lioceras) | | | | | | u | |
| | | opalinum | | | | | | e | |
+---+-----------------+----------------+---+---------+------+ | | | |
| | | Lytoceras | | [zeta] | | | | | |
| | Upper Lias | jurense | | | | | | | |
| | | Posidonia | |[epsilon]| | Toarcien | | | |
| | | Bronni | | | | | | | |
| +-----------------+ | | | +------------+ | | \ |
| | | Amaltheus | | [beta] | | | | | \ | |
| | | spinatus | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Amaltheus | | | L | | | | | | |
| | | margaritatus | | | o | | | | | | |
| | Middle Lias | Dactylioceras | | | w | Charmou- | | | | | |
| | | Davoëi | | | e | thien | | | | Adne- | \ |
| | | Phylloceras | | [gamma] | r | | | | > ter | | |
| | | ibex | L | | | | | É | | Kalke| | |
| | | Aegoceras | i | | o | | | o | | | | \ |
| | | Jamesoni | a | | r | | | j | | | Brachio- | Algäu | |
| L +-----------------+ | s | | +------------+ | u | | > pod or > Beds | |
| I | | Arietites | | [beta] | B | | S | r | \ | | Hierlatz| | |
| A | | raricostatus | | | l | | y | a | | / | facies | | |
| S | | Oxynoticeras | | | a | | s | s | | | | | Flec- |
| | | oxynotum | | | c | | t | s | | | / > ken- |
| | | Arietites | | | k | | è | i | | | | mergel|
| | Lower Lias | obtusus | | | | | m | q | | | | |
| | | Arietites | | | J | | e | u | | | | |
| | | Bucklandi | | | u | | | e | | Gres- | | |
| | | Schlotheimia | | | r | | L | | > tener | | |
| | | angulata | | | a | Sine- | i | | | Beds | | |
| | | Psiloceras | | [alpha] | | mourien | a | | | (Coal) | / |
| | | planorbis | | | | Hettangien | s | | | | |
| +-----------------+----------------+---+---------+ | (part) | s | | | / |
| | | | | | | Hettangien | i | | | |
| | | | | | | (part) | q | | | |
| | | | | | | Rhétien | u | | | |
| | | | | | | |Infra- e | | | |
| | | | | | | |Lias | | / |
+---+-----------------+----------------+---+---------+------+------------+----------+---+----------------------------------------+

_Life in the Jurassic Period._--The expansion of the sea during this
period, with the formation of broad sheets of shallow and probably
warmish water, appears to have been favourable to many forms of marine
life. Under these conditions several groups of organisms developed
rapidly along new directions, so that the Jurassic period as a whole
came to have a fauna differing clearly and distinctly from the
preceding Palaeozoic or succeeding Tertiary faunas. In the seas, all
the main groups were represented as they are to-day. Corals were
abundant, and in later portions of the period covered large areas in
Europe; the modern type of coral became dominant; besides
reef-building forms such as _Thamnastrea_, _Isastrea_, _Thecosmilia_,
there were numerous single forms like _Montivaltia_. Crinoids existed
in great numbers in some of the shallow seas; compared with Palaeozoic
forms there is a marked reduction in the size of the calyx with a
great extension in the number of arms and pinnules; _Pentacrinus_,
_Eugeniacrinus_, _Apiocrinus_ are all well known; Antedon was a
stalkless genus. Echinoids (urchins) were gradually developing the
so-called "irregular" type, _Echinobrissus_, _Holectypus_,
_Collyrites_, _Clypeus_, but the "regular" forms prevailed, _Cidaris_,
_Hemicidaris_, _Acrosalenia_. Sponges were important rock-builders in
Upper Jurassic times (_Spongiten Kalk_); they include lithistids such
as _Cnemediastrum_, _Hyalotragus_, _Peronidella_; hexactinellids,
_Tremadictyon_, _Craticularia_; and horny sponges have been found in
the Lias and Middle Jurassic.

Polyzoa are found abundantly in some of the beds, _Stomatopora_,
_Berenicia_, &c. Brachiopods were represented principally by
terebratulids (_Terebratula_, _Waldheimia_, _Megerlea_), and by
rhynchonellids; _Thecae_, _Lingula_ and _Crania_ were also present.
The Palaeozoic spirifirids and athyrids still lingered into the Lias.
More important than the brachiopods were the pelecypods; _Ostrea_,
_Exogyra_, _Gryphaea_ were very abundant (Gryphite limestone, Gryphite
grit); the genus _Trigonia_, now restricted to Australian waters, was
present in great variety; _Aucella_, _Lima_, _Pecten_, _Pseudomonotis_
_Gervillia_, _Astarte_, _Diceras_, _Isocardia_, _Pleuromya_ may be
mentioned out of many others. Amongst the gasteropods the
_Pleurotomariidae_ and _Turbinidae_ reached their maximum development;
the Palaeozoic _Conularia_ lived to see the beginning of this period
(_Pleurotomaria_, _Nerinea_, _Pteroceras_, _Cerithium_, _Turritella_).

Cephalopods flourished everywhere; first in importance were the
ammonites; the Triassic genera _Phylloceras_ and _Lytoceras_ were
still found in the Jurassic waters, but all the other numerous genera
were new, and their shells are found with every variation of size and
ornamentation. Some are characteristic of the older Jurassic rocks,
_Arietites_, _Aegoceras_, _Amaltheus_, _Harpoceras_, _Oxynoticeras_,
_Stepheoceras_, and the two genera mentioned above; in the middle
stages are found _Cosmoceras_, _Perisphinctes_, _Cardioceras_,
_Kepplerites Aspidoceras_; in the upper stages _Olcostephanus_,
_Perisphinctes_, _Reineckia_, _Oppelia_. So regularly do certain forms
characterize definite horizons in the rocks that some thirty zones
have been distinguished in Europe, and many of them can be traced even
as far as India. Another cephalopod group, the belemnites, that had
been dimly outlined in the preceding Trias, now advanced rapidly in
numbers and in variety of form, and they, like the ammonites, have
proved of great value as zone-indicators. The Sepioids or cuttlefish
made their first appearance in this period (_Beloteuthis_,
_Geoteuthis_,) and their ink-bags can still be traced in examples from
the Lias and lithographic limestone. Nautiloids existed but they were
somewhat rare.

A great change had come over the crustaceans; in place of the
Palaeozoic trilobites we find long-tailed lobster-like forms,
_Penaeus_, _Eryon_, _Magila_, and the broad crab-like type first
appeared in _Prosopon_. Isopods were represented by _Archaeoniscus_
and others. Insects have left fairly abundant remains in the Lias of
England, Schambelen (Switzerland) and Dobbertin (Mecklenburg), and
also in the English Purbeck. Neuropterous forms predominate, but
hemiptera occur from the Lias upwards; the earliest known flies
(Diptera) and ants (Hymenoptera) appeared; orthoptera, cockroaches,
crickets, beetles, &c., are found in the Lias, Stonesfield slate and
Purbeck beds.

Fishes were approaching the modern forms during this period,
heterocercal ganoids becoming scarce (the _Coelacanthidae_ reached
their maximum development), while the homocercal forms were abundant
(_Gyrodus_, _Microdon_, _Lepidosteus_, _Lepidotus_, _Dapedius_). The
Chimaeridae, sea-cats, made their appearance (_Squaloraja_). The
ancestors of the modern sturgeons, garpikes and selachians, _Hybodus_,
_Acrodus_ were numerous. Bony-fish were represented by the small
_Leptolepis_.

So important a place was occupied by reptiles during this period that
it has been well described as the "age of reptiles." In the seas the
fish-shaped Ichthyosaurs and long-necked Plesiosaurs dwelt in great
numbers and reached their maximum development; the latter ranged in
size from 6 to 40 ft. in length. The Pterosaurs, with bat-like wings
and pneumatic bones and keeled breast-bone, flew over the land;
_Pterodactyl_ with short tail and _Rhamphorhyncus_ with long tail are
the best known. Curiously modified crocodilians appeared late in the
period (_Mystriosaurus_, _Geosaurus_, _Steneosaurus_, _Teleosaurus_).
But even more striking than any of the above were the Dinosaurs; these
ranged in size from a creature no larger than a rabbit up to the
gigantic _Atlantosaurus_, 100 ft. long, in the Jurassic of Wyoming.
Both herbivorous and carnivorous forms were present; _Brontosaurus_,
_Megalosaurus_, _Stegosaurus_, _Cetiosaurus_, _Diplodocus_,
_Ceratosaurus_ and _Campsognathus_ are a few of the genera. By
comparison with the Dinosaurs the mammals took a very subordinate
position in Jurassic times; only a few jaws have been found, belonging
to quite small creatures; they appear to have been marsupials and were
probably insectivorous (_Plagiaulax Bolodon_, _Triconodon_,
_Phascolotherium_, _Stylacodon_). Of great interest are the remains of
the earliest known bird (_Archaeopteryx_) from the Solenhofen slates
of Bavaria. Although this was a great advance beyond the Pterodactyls
in avian characters, yet many reptilian features were retained.

Comparatively little change took place in the vegetation in the time
that elapsed between the close of the Triassic and the middle of the
Jurassic periods. Cycads, _Zamites_, _Podozamites_, &c., appeared to
reach their maximum; Equisetums were still found growing to a great
size and Ginkgos occupied a prominent place; ferns were common; so too
were pines, yews, cypresses and other conifers, which while they
outwardly resembled their modern representatives, were quite distinct
in species. No flowering plants had yet appeared, although a primitive
form of angiosperm has been reported from the Upper Jurassic of
Portugal.

The economic products of the Jurassic system are of considerable
importance; the valuable coals have already been noticed; the
well-known iron ores of the Cleveland district in Yorkshire and those
of the Northampton sands occur respectively in the Lias and Inferior
Oolites. Oil shales are found in Germany, and several of the Jurassic
formations in England contain some petroleum. Building stones of great
value are obtained from the Great Oolite, the Portlandian and the
Inferior Oolite; large quantities of hydraulic cement and lime have
been made from the Lias. The celebrated lithographic stone of
Solenhofen in Bavaria belongs to the upper portion of this system.

See D'Orbigny, _Paléontologie française_, _Terrain Jurassique_ (1840,
1846); L. von Buch, "Über den Jura in Deutschland" (_Abhand. d. Berlin
Akad._, 1839); F. A. Quenstedt, _Flötzgebirge Württembergs_ (1843) and
other papers, also _Der Jura_ (1883-1888); A. Oppel, _Die
Juraformation Englands, Frankreichs und s.w. Deutschlands_
(1856-1858). For a good general account of the formations with many
references to original papers, see A. de Lapparent, _Traité de
géologie_, vol. ii. 5th ed. (1906). The standard work for Great
Britain is the series of _Memoirs of the Geological Survey_ entitled
_The Jurassic Rocks of Britain_, i and ii. "Yorkshire" (1892); iii.
"The Lias of England and Wales" (1893); iv. "The Lower Oolite Rocks of
England (Yorkshire excepted)" (1894); v. "The Middle and Upper Oolitic
Rocks of England (Yorkshire excepted)" (1895). The map is after that
of M. Neumayr, "Die geographische Verbreitung der Juraformation,"
_Denkschr. d. k. Akad. d. Wiss., Wien, Math. u. Naturwiss._, cl. L.,
_Abth._ i, _Karte_ 1. (1885). (J. A. H.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] _Purbeckian_ from the "Isle" of Purbeck. _Aquilonien_ from Aquilo
(Nord). _Bononien_ from Bononia (Boulogne). _Virgulien_ from _Exogyra
virgula_. _Pteroceran_ from _Pteroceras oceani_. _Astartien_ from
_Astarte supracorollina_. _Rauracien_ from Rauracia (Jura).
_Argovien_ from Argovie (Switzerland). _Neuvizien_ from Neuvizy
(Ardennes). _Divesien_ from Dives (Calvados). _Bathonien_ from Bath
(England). _Bajocien_ from Bayeux (Calvados). _Toarcien_ from
Toarcium (Tours). _Charmouthien_ from Charmouth (England).
_Sinemourien_ from Sinemurum, Semur (Côte d'Or). _Hettangien_ from
Hettange (Lorraine).

JURAT (through Fr. from med. Lat. _juratus_, one sworn, Lat. _jurare_,
to swear), a name given to the sworn holders of certain offices. Under
the _ancien régime_ in France, in several towns, of the south-west, such
as Rochelle and Bordeaux, the _jurats_ were members of the municipal
body. The title was also borne by officials, corresponding to aldermen,
in the Cinque Ports, but is now chiefly used as a title of office in the
Channel Islands. There are two bodies, consisting each of twelve jurats,
for Jersey and the bailiwick of Guernsey respectively. They are elected
for life, in Jersey by the ratepayers, in Guernsey by the elective
states. They form, with the bailiff as presiding judge, the royal court
of justice, and are a constituent part of the legislative bodies. In
English law, the word jurat (_juratum_) is applied to that part of an
affidavit which contains the names of the parties swearing the affidavit
and the person before whom it was sworn, the date, place and other
necessary particulars.

JURIEN DE LA GRAVIÈRE, JEAN BAPTISTE EDMOND (1812-1892), French admiral,
son of Admiral Jurien, who served through the Revolutionary and
Napoleonic wars and was a peer of France under Louis Philippe, was born
on the 19th of November 1812. He entered the navy in 1828, was made a
commander in 1841, and captain in 1850. During the Russian War he
commanded a ship in the Black Sea. He was promoted to be rear-admiral on
the 1st of December 1855, and appointed to the command of a squadron in
the Adriatic in 1859, when he absolutely sealed the Austrian ports with
a close blockade. In October 1861 he was appointed to command the
squadron in the Gulf of Mexico, and two months later the expedition
against Mexico. On the 15th of January 1862 he was promoted to be
vice-admiral. During the Franco-German War of 1870 he had command of the
French Mediterranean fleet, and in 1871 he was appointed "director of
charts." As having commanded in chief before the enemy, the age-limit
was waived in his favour, and he was continued on the active list.
Jurien died on the 4th of March 1892. He was a voluminous author of
works on naval history and biography, most of which first appeared in
the _Revue des deux mondes_. Among the most noteworthy of these are
_Guerres maritimes sous la république et l'empire_, which was translated
by Lord Dunsany under the title of _Sketches of the Last Naval War_
(1848); _Souvenirs d'un amiral_ (1860), that is, of his father, Admiral
Jurien; _La Marine d'autrefois_ (1865), largely autobiographical; and
_La Marine d'aujourd'hui_ (1872). In 1866 he was elected a member of the
Academy.

JURIEU, PIERRE (1637-1713), French Protestant divine, was born at Mer,
in Orléanais, where his father was a Protestant pastor. He studied at
Saumur and Sedan under his grandfather, Pierre Dumoulin, and under
Leblanc de Beaulieu. After completing his studies in Holland and
England, Jurieu received Anglican ordination; returning to France he was
ordained again and succeeded his father as pastor of the church at Mer.
Soon after this he published his first work, _Examen de livre de la
réunion du Christianisme_ (1671). In 1674 his _Traité de la dévotion_
led to his appointment as professor of theology and Hebrew at Sedan,
where he soon became also pastor. A year later he published his
_Apologie pour la morale des Réformés_. He obtained a high reputation,
but his work was impaired by his controversial temper, which frequently
developed into an irritated fanaticism, though he was always entirely
sincere. He was called by his adversaries "the Goliath of the
Protestants." On the suppression of the academy of Sedan in 1681, Jurieu
received an invitation to a church at Rouen, but, afraid to remain in
France on account of his forthcoming work, _La Politique du clergé de
France_, he went to Holland and was pastor of the Walloon church of
Rotterdam till his death on the 11th of January 1713. He was also
professor at the école illustre. Jurieu did much to help those who
suffered by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685). He himself
turned for consolation to the Apocalypse, and succeeded in persuading
himself (_Accomplissement des prophéties_, 1686) that the overthrow of
Antichrist (i.e. the papal church) would take place in 1689. H. M. Baird
says that "this persuasion, however fanciful the grounds on which it was
based, exercised no small influence in forwarding the success of the
designs of William of Orange in the invasion of England." Jurieu
defended the doctrines of Protestantism with great ability against the
attacks of Antoine Arnauld, Pierre Nicole and Bossuet, but was equally
ready to enter into dispute with his fellow Protestant divines (with
Louis Du Moulin and Claude Payon, for instance) when their opinions
differed from his own even on minor matters. The bitterness and
persistency of his attacks on his colleague Pierre Bayle led to the
latter being deprived of his chair in 1693.

One of Jurieu's chief works is _Lettres pastorales adressées aux
fidèles de France_ (3 vols., Rotterdam, 1686-1687; Eng. trans., 1689),
which, notwithstanding the vigilance of the police, found its way into
France and produced a deep impression on the Protestant population.
His last important work was the _Histoire critique des dogmes et des
cultes_ (1704; Eng. trans., 1715). He wrote a great number of
controversial works.

See the article in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopädie_; also H. M. Baird,
_The Huguenots and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes_ (1895).

JURIS, a tribe of South American Indians, formerly occupying the country
between the rivers Iça (lower Putumayo) and Japura, north-western
Brazil. In ancient days they were the most powerful tribe of the
district, but in 1820 their numbers did not exceed 2000. Owing to
inter-marrying, the Juris are believed to have been extinct for half a
century. They were closely related to the Passes, and were like them a
fair-skinned, finely built people with quite European features.

JURISDICTION, in general, the exercise of lawful authority, especially
by a court or a judge; and so the extent or limits within which such
authority is exercisable. Thus each court has its appropriate
jurisdiction; in the High Court of Justice in England administration
actions are brought in the chancery division, salvage actions in the
admiralty, &c. The jurisdiction of a particular court is often limited
by statute, as that of a county court, which is local and is also
limited in amount. In international law jurisdiction has a wider
meaning, namely, the rights exercisable by a state within the bounds of
a given space. This is frequently referred to as the territorial theory
of jurisdiction. (See INTERNATIONAL LAW; INTERNATIONAL LAW, PRIVATE.)

JURISPRUDENCE (Lat. _jurisprudentia_, knowledge of law, from _jus_,
right, and _prudentia_, from _providere_, to foresee), the general term
for "the formal science of positive law" (T. E. Holland); see LAW. The
essential principles involved are discussed below and in JURISPRUDENCE,
COMPARATIVE; the details of particular laws or sorts of law (CONTRACT,
&c.) and of individual national systems of law (ENGLISH LAW, &c.) being
dealt with in separate articles.

The human race may be conceived as parcelled out into a number of
distinct groups or societies, differing greatly in size and
circumstances, in physical and moral characteristics of all kinds. But
they all resemble each other in that they reveal on examination certain
rules of conduct in accordance with which the relations of the members
_inter se_ are governed. Each society has its own system of laws, and
all the systems, so far as they are known, constitute the appropriate
subject matter of jurisprudence. The jurist may deal with it in the
following ways. He may first of all examine the leading conceptions
common to all the systems, or in other words define the leading terms
common to them all. Such are the terms _law_ itself, _right_, _duty_,
_property_, _crime_, and so forth, which, or their equivalents, may,
notwithstanding delicate differences of connotation, be regarded as
common terms in all systems. That kind of inquiry is known in England as
analytical jurisprudence. It regards the conceptions with which it deals
as fixed or stationary, and aims at expressing them distinctly and
exhibiting their logical relations with each other. What is really meant
by a right and by a duty, and what is the true connexion between a right
and a duty, are types of the questions proper to this inquiry. Shifting
our point of view, but still regarding systems of law in the mass, we
may consider them, not as stationary, but as changeable and changing, we
may ask what general features are exhibited by the record of the change.
This, somewhat crudely put, may serve to indicate the field of
historical or comparative jurisprudence. In its ideal condition it would
require an accurate record of the history of all legal systems as its
material. But whether the material be abundant or scanty the method is
the same. It seeks the explanation of institutions and legal principles
in the facts of history. Its aim is to show how a given rule came to be
what it is. The legislative source--the emanation of the rule from a
sovereign authority--is of no importance here; what is important is the
moral source--the connexion of the rule with the ideas prevalent during
contemporary periods. This method, it is evident, involves not only a
comparison of successive stages in the history of the same system, but a
comparison of different systems, of the Roman with the English, of the
Hindu with the Irish, and so on. The historical method as applied to law
may be regarded as a special example of the method of comparison. The
comparative method is really employed in all generalizations about law;
for, although the analysis of legal terms might be conducted with
exclusive reference to one system, the advantage of testing the result
by reference to other systems is obvious. But, besides the use of
comparison for purposes of analysis and in tracing the phenomena of the
growth of laws, it is evident that for the purposes of practical
legislation the comparison of different systems may yield important
results. Laws are contrivances for bringing about certain definite ends,
the larger of which are identical in all systems. The comparison of
these contrivances not only serves to bring their real object, often
obscured as it is in details, into clearer view, but enables legislators
to see where the contrivances are deficient, and how they may be
improved.

The "science of law," as the expression is generally used, means the
examination of laws in general in one or other of the ways just
indicated. It means an investigation of laws which exist or have existed
in some given society in fact--in other words, positive laws; and it
means an examination not limited to the exposition of particular
systems. Analytical jurisprudence is in England associated chiefly with
the name of John Austin (q.v.), whose _Province of Jurisprudence
Determined_ systematized and completed the work begun in England by
Hobbes, and continued at a later date and from a different point of view
by Bentham.

Austin's first position is to distinguish between laws properly so
called and laws improperly so called. In any of the older writers on
law, we find the various senses in which the word is used grouped
together as variations of one common meaning. Thus Blackstone advances
to his proper subject, municipal laws, through (1) the laws of inanimate
matter, (2) the laws of animal nutrition, digestion, &c., (3) the laws
of nature, which are rules imposed by God on men and discoverable by
reason alone, and (4) the revealed or divine law which is part of the
law of nature directly expounded by God. All of these are connected by
this common element that they are "rules of action dictated by some
superior being." And some such generalization as this is to be found at
the basis of most treatises on jurisprudence which have not been
composed under the influence of the analytical school. Austin disposes
of it by the distinction that some of those laws are commands, while
others are not commands. The so-called laws of nature are not commands;
they are uniformities which resemble commands only in so far as they may
be supposed to have been ordered by some intelligent being. But they are
not commands in the only proper sense of that word--they are not
addressed to reasonable beings, who may or may not will obedience to
them. Laws of nature are not addressed to anybody, and there is no
possible question of obedience or disobedience to them. Austin
accordingly pronounces them laws improperly so called, and confines his
attention to laws properly so called, which are commands addressed by a
human superior to a human inferior.

This distinction seems so simple and obvious that the energy and even
bitterness with which Austin insists upon it now seem superfluous. But
the indiscriminate identification of everything to which common speech
gives the name of a law was, and still is, a fruitful source of
confusion. Blackstone's statement that when God "put matter into motion
He established certain laws of motion, to which all movable matter must
conform," and that in those creatures that have neither the power to
think nor to will such laws must be invariably obeyed, so long as the
creature itself subsists, for its existence depends on that obedience,
imputes to the law of gravitation in respect of both its origin and its
execution the qualities of an act of parliament. On the other hand the
qualities of the law of gravitation are imputed to certain legal
principles which, under the name of the law of nature, are asserted to
be binding all over the globe, so that "no human laws are of any
validity if contrary to this." Austin never fails to stigmatize the use
of "natural laws" in the sense of scientific facts as improper, or as
metaphorical.

Having eliminated metaphorical or figurative laws, we restrict ourselves
to those laws which are commands. This word is the key to the analysis
of law, and accordingly a large portion of Austin's work is occupied
with the determination of its meaning. A _command_ is an order issued by
a superior to an inferior. It is a signification of desire distinguished
by this peculiarity that "the party to whom it is directed is liable to
evil from the other, in case he comply not with the desire." "If you are
able and willing to harm me in case I comply not with your wish, the
expression of your wish amounts to a command." Being liable to evil in
case I comply not with the wish which you signify, I am _bound_ or
obliged by it, or I lie under a _duty_ to obey it. The evil is called a
_sanction_, and the command or duty is said to be _sanctioned_ by the
chance of incurring the evil. The three terms _command_, _duty_ and
_sanction_ are thus inseparably connected. As Austin expresses it in the
language of formal logic, "each of the three terms signifies the same
notion, but each _denotes_ a different part of that notion and
_connotes_ the residue."

All commands, however, are not laws. That term is reserved for those
commands which oblige generally to the performance of acts of a class. A
command to your servant to rise at such an hour on such a morning is a
particular command, but not a law or rule; a command to rise always at
that hour is a law or rule. Of this distinction it is sufficient to say
in the meantime that it involves, when we come to deal with positive
laws, the rejection of particular enactments to which by inveterate
usage the term law would certainly be applied. On the other hand it is
not, according to Austin, necessary that a true law should bind persons
as a class. Obligations imposed on the grantee of an office specially
created by parliament would imply a law; a general order to go into
mourning addressed to the whole nation for a particular occasion would
not be a law.

So far we have arrived at a definition of laws properly so called.
Austin holds superiority and inferiority to be necessarily implied in
command, and such statements as that "laws emanate from superiors" to be
the merest tautology and trifling. Elsewhere he sums up the
characteristics of true laws as ascertained by the analysis thus: (1)
laws, being commands, emanate from a determinate source; (2) every
sanction is an evil annexed to a command; and (3) every duty implies a
command, and chiefly means obnoxiousness to the evils annexed to
commands.

Of true laws, those only are the subject of jurisprudence which are laws
strictly so called, or positive laws. Austin accordingly proceeds to
distinguish positive from other true laws, which are either laws set by
God to men or laws set by men to men, not, however, as political
superiors nor in pursuance of a legal right. The discussion of the first
of these true but not positive laws leads Austin to his celebrated
discussion of the utilitarian theory. The laws set by God are either
revealed or unrevealed, i.e. either expressed in direct command, or made
known to men in one or other of the ways denoted by such phrases as the
"light of nature," "natural reason," "dictates of nature," and so forth.
Austin maintains that the principle of general utility, based ultimately
on the assumed benevolence of God, is the true index to such of His
commands as He has not chosen to reveal. Austin's exposition of the
meaning of the principle is a most valuable contribution to moral
science, though he rests its claims ultimately on a basis which many of
its supporters would disavow. And the whole discussion is now generally
condemned as lying outside the proper scope of the treatise, although
the reason for so condemning it is not always correctly stated. It is
found in such assumptions of fact as that there is a God, that He has
issued commands to men in what Austin calls the "truths of revelation,"
that He designs the happiness of all His creatures, that there is a
predominance of good in the order of the world--which do not now command
universal assent. It is impossible to place these propositions on the
same scientific footing as the assumptions of fact with reference to
human society on which jurisprudence rests. If the "divine laws" were
facts like acts of parliament, it is conceived that the discussion of
their characteristics would not be out of place in a scheme of
jurisprudence.

The second set of laws properly so called, which are not positive laws,
consists of three classes: (1) those which are set by men living in a
state of nature; (2) those which are set by sovereigns but not as
political superiors, e.g. when one sovereign commands another to act
according to a principle of international law; and (3) those set by
subjects but not in pursuance of legal rights. This group, to which
Austin gives the name of positive morality, helps to explain his
conception of positive law. Men are living in a state of nature, or a
state of anarchy, when they are not living in a state of government or
as members of a political society. "Political society" thus becomes the
central fact of the theory, and some of the objections that have been
urged against it arise from its being applied to conditions of life in
which Austin would not have admitted the existence of a political
society. Again, the third set in the group is intimately connected with
positive laws on the one hand and rules of positive morality which are
not even laws properly so called on the other. Thus laws set by subjects
in consequence of a legal right are clothed with legal sanctions, and
are laws positive. A law set by guardian to ward, in pursuance of a
right which the guardian is bound to exercise, is a positive law pure
and simple; a law set by master to slave, in pursuance of a legal right,
which he is not bound to exercise, is, in Austin's phraseology, to be
regarded both as a positive moral rule and as a positive law.[1] On the
other hand the rules set by a club or society, and enforced upon its
members by exclusion from the society, but not in pursuance of any legal
right, are laws, but not positive laws. They are imperative and proceed
from a determinate source, but they have no legal or political
sanction. Closely connected with this positive morality, consisting of
true but not positive laws, is the positive morality whose rules are not
laws properly so called at all, though they are generally denominated
laws. Such are the laws of honour, the laws of fashion, and, most
important of all, international law.

Nowhere does Austin's phraseology come more bluntly into conflict with
common usage than in pronouncing the law of nations (which in substance
is a compact body of well-defined rules resembling nothing so much as
the ordinary rules of law) to be not laws at all, even in the wider
sense of the term. That the rules of a private club should be law
properly so called, while the whole mass of international jurisprudence
is mere opinion, shocks our sense of the proprieties of expression. Yet
no man was more careful than Austin to observe these properties. He
recognizes fully the futility of definitions which involve a painful
struggle with the current of ordinary speech. But in the present
instance the apparent paralogism cannot be avoided if we accept the
limitation of laws properly so called to commands proceeding from a
determinate source. And that limitation is so generally present in our
conception of law that to ignore it would be a worse anomaly than this.
No one finds fault with the statement that the so-called code of honour
or the dictates of fashion are not, properly speaking, laws. We repel
the same statement applied to the law of nature, because it resembles in
so many of its most striking features--in the certainty of a large
portion of it, in its terminology, in its substantial principles--the
most universal elements of actual systems of law, and because, moreover,
the assumption that brought it into existence was nothing else than
this, that it consisted of those abiding portions of legal systems which
prevail everywhere by their own authority. But, though "positive
morality" may not be the best phrase to describe such a code of rules,
the distinction insisted on by Austin is unimpeachable.

The elimination of those laws properly and improperly so called which
are not positive laws brings us to the definition of positive law, which
is the keystone of the system. Every positive law is "set by a sovereign
person, or sovereign body of persons, to a member or members of the
independent political society wherein that person or body is sovereign
or superior." Though possibly sprung directly from another source, it is
a positive law, by the institution of that present sovereign in the
character of a political superior. The question is not as to the
historical origin of the principle, but as to its present authority.
"The legislator is he, not by whose authority the law was first made,
but by whose authority it continues to be law." This definition involves
the analysis of the connected expressions _sovereignty_, _subjection_
and _independent political society_, and of _determinate body_--which
last analysis Austin performs in connexion with that of commands. These
are all excellent examples of the logical method of which he was so
great a master. The broad results alone need be noticed here. In order
that a given society may form a society political and independent, the
_generality or bulk_ of its members must be in a _habit_ of obedience to
a certain and common superior; whilst that certain person or body of
persons must not be _habitually_ obedient to a certain person or body.
All the italicized words point to circumstances in which it might be
difficult to say whether a given society is political and independent or
not. Several of these Austin has discussed--e.g. the state of things in
which a political society yields obedience which may or may not be
called habitual to some external power, and the state of things in which
a political society is divided between contending claimants for
sovereign power, and it is uncertain which shall prevail, and over how
much of the society. So long as that uncertainty remains we have a state
of _anarchy_. Further, an independent society to be political must not
fall below a number which can only be called considerable. Neither then
in a state of anarchy, nor in inconsiderable communities, nor among men
living in a state of nature, have we the proper phenomena of a political
society. The last limitation goes some way to meet the most serious
criticism to which Austin's system has been exposed, and it ought to be
stated in his own words. He supposes a society which may be styled
independent, which is considerable in numbers, and which is in a savage
or extremely barbarous condition. In such a society, "the bulk of its
members is not in the habit of obedience to one and the same superior.
For the purpose of attacking an external enemy, or for the purpose of
repelling an attack, the bulk of its members who are capable of bearing
arms submits to one leader or one body of leaders. But as soon as that
emergency passes the transient submission ceases, and the society
reverts to the state which may be deemed its ordinary state. The bulk of
each of the families which compose the given society renders habitual
obedience to its own peculiar chief, but those domestic societies are
themselves independent societies, or are not united and compacted into
one political society by habitual and general obedience to one common
superior, and there is no law (simply or strictly so styled) which can
be called the law of that society. The so-called laws which are common
to the bulk of the community are purely and properly customary
laws--that is to say, laws which are set or imposed by the general
opinion of the community, but are not enforced by legal or political
sanctions." Such, he says, are the savage societies of hunters and
fishers in North America, and such were the Germans as described by
Tacitus. He takes no account of societies in an intermediate stage
between this and the condition which constitutes political society.

We need not follow the analysis in detail. Much ingenuity is displayed
in grouping the various kinds of government, in detecting the sovereign
authority under the disguises which it wears in the complicated state
system of the United States or under the fictions of English law, in
elucidating the precise meaning of abstract political terms.
Incidentally the source of many celebrated fallacies in political
thought is laid bare. That the question who is sovereign in a given
state is a question of fact and not of law or morals or religion, that
the sovereign is incapable of legal limitation, that law is such by the
sovereign's command, that no real or assumed compact can limit his
action--are positions which Austin has been accused of enforcing with
needless iteration. He cleared them, however, from the air of paradox
with which they had been previously encumbered, and his influence was in
no direction more widely felt than in making them the commonplaces of
educated opinion in this generation.

Passing from these, we may now consider what has been said against the
theory, which may be summed up in the following terms. Laws, no matter
in what form they be expressed, are in the last resort reducible to
commands set by the person or body of persons who are in fact sovereigns
in any independent political society. The sovereign is the person or
persons whose commands are habitually obeyed by the great bulk of the
community; and by an independent society we mean that such sovereign
head is not himself habitually obedient to any other determinate body of
persons. The society must be sufficiently numerous to be considerable
before we can speak of it as a political society. From command, with its
inseparable incident of sanction, come the duties and rights in terms of
which laws are for the most part expressed. Duty means that the person
of whom it is predicated is liable to the sanction in case he fails to
obey the command. Right means that the person of whom it is predicated
may set the sanction in operation in case the command be disobeyed.

We may here interpolate a doubt whether the condition of independence
on the part of the head of a community is essential to the legal
analysis. It seems to us that we have all the elements of a true law
present when we point to a community habitually obedient to the
authority of a person or determinate body of persons, no matter what
the relations of that superior may be to any external or superior
power. Provided that in fact the commands of the lawgiver are those
beyond which the community never looks, it seems immaterial to inquire
whether this lawgiver in turn takes his orders from somebody else or
is habitually obedient to such orders when given. One may imagine a
community governed by a dependent legislatorial body or person, while
the supreme sovereign whose representative and nominee such body or
person may be never directly addresses the community at all. We do not
see that in such a case anything is gained in clearness by
representing the law of the community as set by the suzerain, rather
than the dependent legislator. Nor is the ascertainment of the
ultimate seat of power necessary to define political societies. That
we get when we suppose a community to be in the habit of obedience to
a single person or to a determinate combination of persons.

The use of the word "command" is not unlikely to lead to a
misconception of Austin's meaning. When we say that a law is a command
of the sovereign, we are apt to think of the sovereign as enunciating
the rule in question for the first time. Many laws are not traceable
to the sovereign at all in this sense. Some are based upon immemorial
practices, some can be traced to the influence of private citizens,
whether practising lawyers or writers on law, and in most countries a
vast body of law owes its existence as such to the fact that it has
been observed as law in some other society. The great bulk of modern
law owes its existence and its shape ultimately to the labours of the
Roman lawyers of the empire. Austin's definition has nothing to do
with this, the historical origin of laws. Most books dealing with law
in the abstract generalize the modes in which laws may be originated
under the name of the "sources" of law, and one of these is
legislation, or the direct command of the sovereign body. The
connexion of laws with each other as principles is properly the
subject matter of historical jurisprudence, the ideal perfection of
which would be the establishment of the general laws governing the
evolution of law in the technical sense. Austin's definition looks,
not to the authorship of the law as a principle, not to its inventor
or originator, but to the person or persons who in the last resort
cause it to be obeyed. If a given rule is enforced by the sovereign it
is a law.

It may be convenient to notice here what is usually said about the
sources of law, as the expression sometimes proves a stumbling-block
to the appreciation of Austin's system. In the _corpus juris_ of any
given country only a portion of the laws is traceable to the direct
expression of his commands by the sovereign. Legislation is one, but
only one, of the sources of law. Other portions of the law may be
traceable to other sources, which may vary in effect in different
systems. The list given in the _Institutes_ of Justinian of the ways
in which law may be made--_lex_, _plebiscitum_, _principis placita_,
_edicta magistratuum_, and so on--is a list of sources. Among the
sources of law other than legislation which are most commonly
exemplified are the laws made by judges in the course of judicial
decisions, and law originating as custom. The source of the law in the
one case is the judicial decision, in the other the custom. In
consequence of the decisions and in consequence of the custom the rule
has prevailed. English law is largely made up of principles derived in
each of those ways, while it is deficient in principles derived from
the writings of independent teachers, such as have in other systems
exercised a powerful influence on the development of law. The
_responsa prudentum_, the opinions of learned men, published as such,
did undoubtedly originate an immense portion of Roman law. No such
influence has affected English law to any appreciable extent--a result
owing to the activity of the courts of the legislature. This
difference has profoundly affected the form of English law as compared
with that of systems which have been developed by the play of free
discussion. These are the most definite of the influences to which the
beginning of laws may be traced. The law once established, no matter
how, is nevertheless law in the sense of Austin's definition. It is
enforced by the sovereign authority. It was originated by something
very different. But when we speak of it as a command we think only of
the way in which it is to-day presented to the subject. The newest
order of an act of parliament is not more positively presented to the
people as a command to be obeyed than are the elementary rules of the
common law for which no legislative origin can be traced. It is not
even necessary to resort to the figure of speech by which alone,
according to Sir Henry Maine (_Early History of Institutions_, p.
314), the common law can be regarded as the commands of the
government. "The common law," he says, "consists of their commands
because they can repeal or alter or restate it at pleasure." "They
command because, being by the assumption possessed of uncontrollable
force, they could innovate without limit at any moment." On the
contrary, it may be said that they command because they do as a matter
of fact enforce the rules laid down in the common law. It is not
because they could innovate if they pleased in the common law that
they are said to command it, but because it is known that they will
enforce it as it stands.

The criticism of Austin's analysis resolved itself into two different
sets of objections. One relates to the theory of sovereignty which
underlies it; the other to its alleged failure to include rules which in
common parlance are laws, and which it is felt ought to be included in
any satisfactory definition of law. As the latter is to some extent
anticipated and admitted by Austin himself, we may deal with it first.

Frederic Harrison (_Fortnightly Review_, vols. xxx., xxxi.) was at great
pains to collect a number of laws or rules of law which do not square
with the Austinian definition of law as a command creating rights and
duties. Take the rule that "every will must be in writing." It is a very
circuitous way of looking at things, according to Harrison, to say that
such a rule creates a specific right in any determinate person of a
definite description. So, again, the rule that "a legacy to the witness
of a will is void." Such a rule is not "designed to give any one any
rights, but simply to protect the public against wills made under undue
influence." Again, the technical rule in Shelley's case that a gift to A
for life, followed by a gift to the heirs of A, is a gift to A in fee
simple, is pronounced to be inconsistent with the definition. It is an
idle waste of ingenuity to force any of these rules into a form in which
they might be said to create rights.

This would be a perfectly correct description of any attempt to take any
of these rules separately and analyse it into a complete command
creating specific rights and duties. But there is no occasion for doing
anything of the kind. It is not contended that every grammatically
complete sentence in a textbook or a statute is _per se_ a command
creating rights and duties. A law, like any other command, must be
expressed in words, and will require the use of the usual aids to
expression. The gist of it may be expressed in a sentence which,
standing by itself, is not intelligible; other sentences locally
separate from the principal one may contain the exceptions and the
modifications and the interpretations to which that is subject. In no
one of these taken by itself, but in the substance of them all taken
together, is the true law, in Austin's sense, to be found. Thus the rule
that every will must be in writing is a mere fragment--only the limb of
a law. It belongs to the rule which fixes the rights of devisees or
legatees under a will. That rule in whatever form it may be expressed
is, without any straining of language, a command of the legislator. That
"every person named by a testator in his last will and testament shall
be entitled to the property thereby given him" is surely a command
creating rights and duties. After testament add "expressed in writing";
it is still a command. Add further, "provided he be not one of the
witnesses to the will," and the command, with its product of rights and
duties, is still there. Each of the additions limits the operation of
the command stated imperatively in the first sentence. So with the rule
in Shelley's case. It is resolvable into the rule that every person to
whom an estate is given by a conveyance expressed in such and such a way
shall take such and such rights. To take another example from later
legislation. An English statute passed in 1881 enacts nothing more than
this, that an act of a previous session shall be construed as if "that"
meant "this." It would be futile indeed to force this into conformity
with Austin's definition by treating it as a command addressed to the
judges, and as indirectly creating rights to have such a construction
respected. As it happens, the section of the previous act referred to
(the Burials Act 1880) was an undeniable command addressed to the
clergy, and imposed upon them a specific duty. The true command--the
law--is to be found in the two sections taken together.

All this confusion arises from the fact that laws are not habitually
expressed in imperative terms. Even in a mature system like that of
England the great bulk of legal rules is hidden under forms which
disguise their imperative quality. They appear as principles, maxims,
propositions of fact, generalizations, points of pleading and procedure,
and so forth. Even in the statutes the imperative form is not uniformly
observed. It might be said that the more mature a legal system is the
less do its individual rules take the form of commands. The greater
portion of Roman law is expressed in terms which would not misbecome
scientific or speculative treatises. The institutional works abound in
propositions which have no legal significance at all, but which are not
distinguished from the true law in which they are embedded by any
difference in the forms of expression. Assertions about matters of
history, dubious speculations in philology, and reflections on human
conduct are mixed up in the same narrative with genuine rules of law.
Words of description are used, not words of command, and rules of law
assimilate themselves in form to the extraneous matter with which they
are mixed up.

It has been said that Austin himself admitted to some extent the force
of these objections. He includes among laws which are not imperative
"declaratory laws, or laws explaining the import of existing positive
law, and laws abrogating or repealing existing positive law." He thus
associates them with rules of positive morality and with laws which are
only metaphorically so called. This collocation is unfortunate and out
of keeping with Austin's method. Declaratory and repealing laws are as
completely unlike positive morality and metaphorical laws as are the
laws which he describes as properly so called. And if we avoid the error
of treating each separate proposition enunciated by the lawgiver as _a_
law, the cases in question need give us no trouble. Read the declaratory
and the repealing statutes along with the principal laws which they
affect, and the result is perfectly consistent with the proposition that
all law is to be resolved into a species of command. In the one case we
have in the principal taken together with the interpretative statute a
law, and whether it differs or not from the law as it existed before the
interpretative statute was passed makes no difference to the true
character of the latter. It contributes along with the former to the
expression of a command which is a true law. In the same way repealing
statutes are to be taken together with the laws which they repeal--the
result being that there is no law, no command, at all. It is wholly
unnecessary to class them as laws which are not truly imperative, or as
exceptions to the rule that laws are a species of commands. The
combination of the two sentences in which the lawgiver has expressed
himself, yields the result of silence--absence of law--which is in no
way incompatible with the assertion that a law, when it exists, is a
kind of command. Austin's theory does not logically require us to treat
every act of parliament as being a complete law in itself, and therefore
to set aside a certain number of acts of parliament as being exceptions
to the great generalization which is the basis of the whole system.

Rules of procedure again have been alleged to constitute another
exception. They cannot, it is said, be regarded as commands involving
punishment if they be disobeyed. Nor is anything gained by considering
them as commands addressed to the judge and other ministers of the law.
There may be no doubt in the law of procedure a great deal that is
resolvable into law in this sense, but the great bulk of it is to be
regarded like the rules of interpretation as entering into the
substantive commands which are laws. They are descriptions of the
sanction and its mode of working. The bare prohibition of murder without
any penalty to enforce it would not be a law. To prohibit it under
penalty of death implies a reference to the whole machinery of criminal
justice by which the penalty is enforced. Taken by themselves the rules
of procedure are not, any more than canons of interpretation, complete
laws in Austin's sense of the term. But they form part of the complete
expression of true laws. They imply a command, and they describe the
sanction and the mode in which it operates.

A more formidable criticism of Austin's position is that which attacks
the definition of sovereignty. There are countries, it is said, where
the sovereign authority cannot by any stretch of language be said to
command the laws, and yet where law manifestly exists. The ablest and
the most moderate statement of this view is given by Sir Henry Maine in
_Early History of Institutions_, p. 380:--

"It is from no special love of Indian examples that I take one from
India, but because it happens to be the most modern precedent in
point. My instance is the Indian province called the Punjaub, the
country of the Five Rivers, in the state in which it was for about a
quarter of a century before its annexation to the British Indian
Empire. After passing through every conceivable phase of anarchy and
dormant anarchy, it fell under the tolerably consolidated dominion of
a half-military half-religious oligarchy known as the Sikhs. The Sikhs
themselves were afterwards reduced to subjection by a single chieftain
belonging to their order, Runjeet Singh. At first sight there could be
no more perfect embodiment than Runjeet Singh of sovereignty as
conceived by Austin. He was absolutely despotic. Except occasionally
on his wild frontier he kept the most perfect order. He could have
commanded anything; the smallest disobedience to his commands would
have been followed by death or mutilation; and this was perfectly well
known to the enormous majority of his subjects. Yet I doubt whether
once in all his life he issued a command which Austin would call a
law. He took as his revenue a prodigious share of the produce of the
soil. He harried villages which recalcitrated at his exactions, and
he executed great numbers of men. He levied great armies; he had all
material of power, and he exercised it in various ways. But he never
made a law. The rules which regulated the lives of his subjects were
derived from their immemorial usages, and those rules were
administered by domestic tribunals in families or village
communities--that is, in groups no larger or little larger than those
to which the application of Austin's principles cannot be effected on
his own admission without absurdity."

So far as the mere size of the community is concerned, there is no
difficulty in applying the Austinian theory. In postulating a
considerably numerous community Austin was thinking evidently of small
isolated groups which could not without provoking a sense of the
ridiculous be termed nations. Two or three families, let us suppose,
occupying a small island, totally disconnected with any great power,
would not claim to be and would not be treated as an independent
political community. But it does not follow that Austin would have
regarded the village communities spoken of by Maine in the same light.
Here we have a great community, consisting of a vast number of small
communities, each independent of the other, and disconnected with all
the others, so far as the administration of anything like law is
concerned. Suppose in each case that the headman or council takes his
orders from Runjeet Singh, and enforces them, each in his own sphere,
relying as the last resort on the force at the disposal of the suzerain.
The mere size of the separate communities would make no sort of
difference to Austin's theory. He would probably regard the empire of
Runjeet Singh as divided into small districts--an assumption which
inverts no doubt the true historical order, the smaller group being
generally more ancient than the larger. But provided that the other
conditions prevail, the mere fact that the law is administered by local
tribunals for minute areas should make no difference to the theory. The
case described by Maine is that of the undoubted possession of supreme
power by a sovereign, coupled with the total absence of any attempt on
his part to _originate_ a law. That no doubt is, as we are told by the
same authority, "the type of all Oriental communities in their native
state during their rare intervals of peace and order." The empire was in
the main in each case a tax-gathering empire. The unalterable law of the
Medes and Persians was not a law at all but an occasional command. So
again Maine puts his position clearly in the following sentences: "The
Athenian assembly made true laws for residents on Attic territory, but
the dominion of Athens over her subject cities and islands was clearly a
tax-taking as distinguished from a legislating empire." Maine, it will
be observed, does not say that the sovereign assembly did not command
the laws in the subject islands--only that it did not legislate.

In the same category may be placed without much substantial difference
all the societies that have ever existed on the face of the earth
previous to the point at which _legislation_ becomes active. Maine is
undoubtedly right in connecting the theories of Bentham and Austin with
the overwhelming activity of legislatures in modern times. And formal
legislation, as he elsewhere shows, comes late in the history of most
legal systems. Law is generated in other ways, which seem irreconcilable
with anything like legislation. Not only the tax-gathering emperors of
the East, indifferent to the condition of their subjects, but even
actively benevolent governments have up to a certain point left the law
to grow by other means than formal enactments. What is _ex facie_ more
opposed to the idea of a sovereign's commands than the conception of
schools of law? Does it not "sting us with a sense of the ridiculous" to
hear principles which are the outcome of long debates between Proculians
and Sabinians described as commands of the emperor? How is sectarianism
in law possible if the sovereign's command is really all that is meant
by a law? No mental attitude is more common than that which regards law
as a natural product--discoverable by a diligent investigator, much in
the same way as the facts of science or the principles of mathematics.
The introductory portions of Justinian's _Institutes_ are certainly
written from this point of view, which may also be described without
much unfairness as the point of view of German jurisprudence. And yet
the English jurist who accepts Austin's postulate as true for the
English system of our own day would have no difficulty in applying it to
German or Roman law generated under the influence of such ideas as
these.

Again, referring to the instance of Runjeet Singh, Sir H. Maine says no
doubt rightly that "he never did or could have dreamed of changing the
civil rules under which his subjects lived. Probably he was as strong a
believer in the independent obligatory force of such rules as the elders
themselves who applied them." That too might be said with truth of
states to which the application of Austin's system would be far from
difficult. The sovereign body or person enforcing the rules by all the
ordinary methods of justice might conceivably believe that the rules
which he enforced had an obligatory authority of their own, just as most
lawyers at one time, and possibly some lawyers now, believe in the
natural obligatoriness, independently of courts or parliaments, of
portions of the law of England. But nevertheless, whatever ideas the
sovereign or his delegates might entertain as to "the independent
obligatory force" of the rules which they enforce, the fact that they do
enforce them distinguishes them from all other rules. Austin seizes upon
this peculiarity and fixes it as the determining characteristic of
positive law. When the rule is enforced by a sovereign authority as he
defines it, it is his command, even if he should never so regard it
himself, or should suppose himself to be unable to alter it in a single
particular.

It may be instructive to add to these examples of dubious cases one
taken from what is called ecclesiastical law. In so far as this has
not been adopted and enforced by the state, it would, on Austin's
theory, be, not positive law, but either positive morality or possibly
a portion of the Divine law. No jurist would deny that there is an
essential difference between so much of ecclesiastical law as is
adopted by the state and all the rest of it, and that for scientific
purposes this distinction ought to be recognized. How near this kind
of law approaches to the positive or political law may be seen from
the sanctions on which it depended. "The theory of penitential
discipline was this: that the church was an organized body with an
outward and visible form of government; that all who were outside her
boundaries were outside the means of divine grace; that she had a
command laid upon her, and authority given to her, to gather men into
her fellowship by the ceremony of baptism, but, as some of those who
were admitted proved unworthy of their calling, she also had the right
by the power of the keys to deprive them temporarily or absolutely of
the privilege of communion with her, and on their amendment to restore
them once more to church membership. On this power of exclusion and
restoration was founded the system of ecclesiastical discipline. It
was a purely spiritual jurisdiction. It obtained its hold over the
minds of men from the belief, universal in the Catholic church of the
early ages, that he who was expelled from her pale was expelled also
from the way of salvation, and that the sentence which was pronounced
by God's church on earth was ratified by Him in heaven." (Smith's
_Dictionary of Christian Antiquities_, art. "Penitence," p. 1587.)

These laws are not the laws of the jurists, though they resemble them
closely in many points--indeed in all points except that of the
sanction by which they are enforced. It is a spiritual not a political
sanction. The force which lies behind them is not that of the
sovereign or the state. When physical force is used to compel
obedience to the laws of the church they become positive laws. But so
long as the belief in future punishments or the fear of the purely
spiritual punishments of the church is sufficient to procure obedience
to them, they are to be regarded as commands, not by the state, but by
the church. That difference Austin makes essential. In rejecting
spiritual laws from the field of positive law his example would be
followed by jurists who would nevertheless include other laws, not
ecclesiastical in purpose, but enforced by very similar methods.

Austin's theory in the end comes to this, that true laws are in all
cases obeyed in consequence of the application of regulated physical
force by some portion of the community. That is a fair paraphrase of the
position that laws are the commands of the sovereign, and is perhaps
less objectionable inasmuch as it does not imply or suggest anything
about the forms in which laws are enunciated. All rules, customs,
practices and laws--or by whatever name these uniformities of human
conduct may be called--have either this kind of force at their back or
they have not. Is it worth while to make this difference the basis of a
scientific system or not? Apparently it is. If it were a question of
distinguishing between the law of the law courts and the laws of
fashion no one would hesitate. Why should laws or rules having no
support from any political authority be termed laws positive merely
because there are no other rules in the society having such support?

The question may perhaps be summed up as follows. Austin's definitions
are in strict accordance with the facts of government in civilized
states; and, as it is put by Maine, certain assumptions or postulates
having been made, the great majority of Austin's positions follow as of
course or by ordinary logical process. But at the other extreme end of
the scale of civilization are societies to which Austin himself refuses
to apply his system, and where, it would be conceded on all sides, there
is neither political community nor sovereign nor law--none of the facts
which jurisprudence assumes to exist. There is an intermediate stage of
society in which, while the rules of conduct might and generally would
be spoken of as laws, it is difficult to trace the connexion between
them and the sovereign authority whose existence is necessary to
Austin's system. Are such societies to be thrown out of account in
analytical jurisprudence, or is Austin's system to be regarded as only a
partial explanation of the field of true law, and his definitions good
only for the laws of a portion of the world? The true answer to this
question appears to be that when the rules in any given case are
habitually enforced by physical penalties, administered by a determinate
person or portion of the community, they should be regarded as positive
laws and the appropriate subject matter of jurisprudence. Rules which
are not so enforced, but are enforced in any other way, whether by what
is called public opinion, or spiritual apprehensions, or natural
instinct, are rightly excluded from that subject matter. In all stages
of society, savage or civilized, a large body of rules of conduct,
habitually obeyed, are nevertheless not enforced by any state sanction
of any kind. Austin's method assimilates such rules in primitive
society, where they subserve the same purpose as positive laws in an
advanced society, not to the positive laws which they resemble in
purpose but to the moral or other rules which they resemble in
operation. If we refuse to accept this position we must abandon the
attempt to frame a general definition of law and its dependent terms, or
we must content ourselves with saying that law is one thing in one state
of society and another thing in another. On the ground of clearness and
convenience Austin's method is, we believe, substantially right, but
none the less should the student of jurisprudence be on his guard
against such assumptions as that legislation is a universal phenomenon,
or that the relation of sovereign and subject is discernible in all
states of human society. And a careful examination of Maine's criticism
will show that it is devoted not so much to a rectification of Austin's
position as to correction of the misconceptions into which some of his
disciples may have fallen. It is a misconception of the analysis to
suppose that it involves a difference in juridical character between
custom not yet recognized by any judicial decision and custom after such
recognition. There is no such difference except in the case of what is
properly called "judicial legislation"--wherein an absolutely new rule
is added for the first time to the law. The recognition of a custom or
law is not necessarily the beginning of the custom or law. Where a
custom possesses the marks by which its legality is determined according
to well understood principles, the courts pronounce it to have been law
at the time of the happening of the facts as to which their jurisdiction
is invoked. The fact that no previous instance of its recognition by a
court of justice can be produced is not material. A lawyer before any
such decision was given would nevertheless pronounce the custom to be
law--with more or less hesitation according as the marks of a legal
custom were obvious or not. The character of the custom is not changed
when it is for the first time enforced by a court of justice, and hence
the language used by Maine must be understood in a very limited sense.
"Until customs are enforced by courts of justice"--so he puts the
position of Austin--they are merely "positive morality," rules enforced
by opinion; but as soon as courts of justice enforce them they become
commands of the sovereign, conveyed through the judges who are his
delegates or deputies. This proposition, on Austin's theory, would only
be true of customs as to which these marks were absent. It is of course
true that when a rule enforced only by opinion becomes for the first
time enforceable by a court of justice--which is the same thing as the
first time of its being actually enforced--its juridical character is
changed. It was positive morality; it is now law. So it is when that
which was before the opinion of the judge only becomes by his decision a
rule enforceable by courts of justice. It was not even positive morality
but the opinion of an individual; it is now law.

The most difficult of the common terms of law to define is _right_; and,
as right rather than duty is the basis of classification, it is a point
of some importance. Assuming the truth of the analysis above discussed,
we may go on to say that in the notion of law is involved an obligation
on the part of some one, or on the part of every one, to do or forbear
from doing. That obligation is duty; what is right? Dropping the
negative of forbearance, and taking duty to mean an obligation to do
something, with the alternative of punishment in default, we find that
duties are of two kinds. The thing to be done may have exclusive
reference to a determinate person or class of persons, on whose motion
or complaint the sovereign power will execute the punishment or sanction
on delinquents; or it may have no such reference, the thing being
commanded, and the punishment following on disobedience, without
reference to the wish or complaint of individuals. The last are absolute
duties, and the omission to do, or forbear from doing, the thing
specified in the command is in general what is meant by a crime. The
others are relative duties, each of them implying and relating to a
right in some one else. A person has a right who may in this way set in
operation the sanction provided by the state. In common thought and
speech, however, right appears as something a good deal more positive
and definite than this--as a power or faculty residing in individuals,
and suggesting not so much the relative obligation as the advantage or
enjoyment secured thereby to the person having the right. J. S. Mill, in
a valuable criticism of Austin, suggests that the definition should be
so modified as to introduce the element of "advantage to the person
exercising the right." But it is exceedingly difficult to frame a
positive definition of right which shall not introduce some term at
least as ambiguous as the word to be defined. T. E. Holland defines
right in general as a man's "capacity of influencing the acts of another
by means, not of his own strength, but of the opinion or the force of
society." Direct influence exercised by virtue of one's own strength,
physical or otherwise, over another's acts, is "might" as distinguished
from right. When the indirect influence is the opinion of society, we
have a "moral right." When it is the force exercised by the sovereign,
we have a legal right. It would be more easy, no doubt, to pick holes in
this definition than to frame a better one.[2]

The distinction between rights available against determinate persons and
rights available against all the world, _jura in personam_ and _jura in
rem_, is of fundamental importance. The phrases are borrowed from the
classical jurists, who used them originally to distinguish actions
according as they were brought to enforce a personal obligation or to
vindicate rights of property. The owner of property has a right to the
exclusive enjoyment thereof, which avails against all and sundry, but
not against one person more than another. The parties to a contract have
rights available against each other, and against no other persons. The
_jus in rem_ is the badge of property; the _jus in personam_ is a mere
personal claim.

That distinction in rights which appears in the division of law into the
law of persons and the law of things is thus stated by Austin. There are
certain rights and duties, with certain capacities and incapacities, by
which persons are determined to various classes. The rights, duties,
&c., are the condition or status of the person; and one person may be
invested with many status or conditions. The law of persons consists of
the rights, duties, &c., constituting conditions or status; the rest of
the law is the law of things. The separation is a mere matter of
convenience, but of convenience so great that the distinction is
universal. Thus any given right may be exercised by persons belonging to
innumerable classes. The person who has the right may be under
twenty-one years of age, may have been born in a foreign state, may have
been convicted of crime, may be a native of a particular county, or a
member of a particular profession or trade, &c.; and it might very well
happen, with reference to any given right, that, while persons in
general, under the circumstances of the case, would enjoy it in the same
way, a person belonging to any one of these classes would not. If
belonging to any one of those classes makes a difference not to one
right merely but to many, the class may conveniently be abstracted, and
the variations in rights and duties dependent thereon may be separately
treated under the law of persons. The personality recognized in the law
of persons is such as modifies indefinitely the legal relations into
which the individual clothed with the personality may enter.

T. E. Holland disapproves of the prominence given by Austin to this
distinction, instead of that between public and private law. This,
according to Holland, is based on the public or private character of the
persons with whom the right is connected, public persons being the state
or its delegates. Austin, holding that the state cannot be said to have
legal rights or duties, recognizes no such distinction. The term "public
law" he confines strictly to that portion of the law which is concerned
with political conditions, and which ought not to be opposed to the rest
of the law, but "ought to be inserted in the law of persons as one of
the limbs or members of that supplemental department."

Lastly, following Austin, the main division of the law of things is into
(1) primary rights with primary relative duties, (2) sanctioning rights
with sanctioning duties (relative or absolute). The former exist, as it
has been put, for their own sake, the latter for the sake of the former.
Rights and duties arise from facts and events; and facts or events which
are violations of rights and duties are _delicts_ or _injuries_. Rights
and duties which arise from delicts are remedial or sanctioning, their
object being to prevent the violation of rights which do not arise from
delicts.

There is much to be said for Frederic Harrison's view (first expressed
in the _Fortnightly Review_, vol. xxxi.), that the rearrangement of
English law on the basis of a scientific classification, whether
Austin's or any other, would not result in advantages at all
compensating for its difficulties. If anything like a real code were to
be attempted, the scientific classification would be the best; but in
the absence of that, and indeed in the absence of any habit on the part
of English lawyers of studying the system as a whole, the arrangement of
facts does not very much matter. It is essential, however, to the
abstract study of the principles of law. Scientific arrangement might
also be observed with advantage in treatises affecting to give a view of
the whole law, especially those which are meant for educational rather
than professional uses. As an example of the practical application of a
scientific system of classification to a complete body of law, we may
point to W. A. Hunter's elaborate _Exposition of Roman Law_ (1876).

It is impossible to present the conclusions of historical jurisprudence
in anything like the same shape as those which we have been discussing.
Under the heading JURISPRUDENCE, COMPARATIVE, an account will be found
of the method and results of what is practically a new science. The
inquiry is in that stage which is indicated in one way by describing it
as a philosophy. It resembles, and is indeed only part of, the study
which is described as the philosophy of history. Its chief interest has
been in the light which it has thrown upon rules of law and legal
institutions which had been and are generally contemplated as positive
facts merely, without reference to their history, or have been
associated historically with principles and institutions not really
connected with them.

The historical treatment of law displaces some very remarkable
misconceptions. Peculiarities and anomalies abound in every legal
system; and, as soon as laws become the special study of a professional
class, some mode of explaining or reconciling them will be resorted to.
One of the prehistorical ways of philosophizing about law was to account
for what wanted explanation by some theory about the origin of technical
words. This implied some previous study of words and their history, and
is an instance of the deep-seated and persistent tendency of the human
mind to identify names with the things they represent. The _Institutes_
of Justinian abound in explanations, founded on a supposed derivation of
some leading term. _Testamentum_, we are told, _ex eo appellatur quod
testatio mentis est_. A testament was no doubt, in effect, a declaration
of intention on the part of the testator when this was written. But the
-_mentum_ is a mere termination, and has nothing to do with _mens_ at
all. The history of testaments, which, it may be noted incidentally, has
been developed with conspicuous success, gives a totally different
meaning to the institution from that which was expressed by this
fanciful derivation. So the perplexing subject of _possessio_ was
supposed in some way to be explained by the derivation from _pono_ and
_sedeo_--_quasi sedibus positio_. _Posthumi_ was supposed to be a
compound of _post_ and _humus_. These examples belong to the class of
rationalizing derivations with which students of philosophy are
familiar. Their characteristic is that they are suggested by some
prominent feature of the thing as it then appeared to observers--which
feature thereupon becomes identified with the essence of the thing at
all times and places.

Another prehistorical mode of explaining law may be described as
metaphysical. It conceives of a rule or principle of law as existing by
virtue of some more general rule or principle in the nature of things.
Thus, in the English law of inheritance, until the passing of the
Inheritance Act 1833, an estate belonging to a deceased intestate would
pass to his uncle or aunt, to the exclusion of his father or other
lineal ancestor. This anomaly from an early time excited the curiosity
of lawyers, and the explanation accepted in the time of Bracton was that
it was an example of the general law of nature: "Descendit itaque jus
quasi ponderosum quid cadens deorsum recta linea vel transversali, et
nunquam reascendit ea via qua descendit." It has been suggested that the
"rule really results from the associations involved in the word
descent." It seems more likely, however, that these associations
explained rather than that they suggested the rule--that the omission of
the lineal ancestor existed in custom before it was discovered to be in
harmony with the law of nature. It would imply more influence than the
reasoning of lawyers is likely to have exercised over the development of
law at that time to believe that a purely artificial inference of this
kind should have established so very remarkable a rule. However that may
be, the explanation is typical of a way of looking at law which was
common enough before the dawn of the historical method. Minds capable of
reasoning in this way were, if possible, farther removed from the
conceptions implied in the reasoning of the analytical jurists than they
were from the historical method itself. In this connexion it may be
noticed that the great work of Blackstone marks an era in the
development of legal ideas in England. It was not merely the first, as
it still remains the only, adequate attempt to expound the leading
principles of the whole body of law, but it was distinctly inspired by a
rationalizing method. Blackstone tried not merely to express but to
illustrate legal rules, and he had a keen sense of the value of
historical illustrations. He worked of course with the materials at his
command. His manner and his work are obnoxious alike to the modern
jurist and to the modern historian. He is accused by the one of
perverting history, and by the other of confusing the law. But his
scheme is a great advance on anything that had been attempted before;
and, if his work has been prolific in popular fallacies, at all events
it enriched English literature by a conspectus of the law, in which the
logical connexion of its principles _inter se_, and its relations to
historical facts, were distinctly if erroneously recognized.

While the historical method has superseded the verbal and metaphysical
explanation of legal principles, it had apparently, in some cases, come
into conflict with the conclusions of the analytical school. The
difference between the two systems comes out most conspicuously in
relation to customs. There is an unavoidable break in the analytical
method between societies in which rules are backed by regulated physical
force and those in which no such force exists. At what point in its
development a given society passes into the condition of "an independent
political society" it may not be easy to determine, for the evidence is
obscure and conflicting. To the historical jurist there is no such
breach. The rule which in one stage of society is a law, in another
merely a rule of "positive morality," is the same thing to him
throughout. By the Irish Land Act 1881 the Ulster custom of tenant-right
and other analogous customs were legalized. For the purposes of
analytical jurisprudence there is no need to go beyond the act of
parliament. The laws known as the Ulster custom are laws solely in
virtue of the sovereign government. Between the law as it now is and the
custom as it existed before the act there is all the difference in the
world. To the historical jurist no such separation is possible. His
account of the law would not only be incomplete without embracing the
precedent custom, but the act which made the custom law is only one of
the facts, and by no means the most significant or important, in the
history of its development. An exactly parallel case is the legalization
in England of that customary tenant-right known as copyhold. It is to
the historical jurist exactly the same thing as the legalization of the
Ulster tenant right. In the one case a practice was made law by formal
legislation, and in the other without formal legislation. And there can
be very little doubt that in an earlier stage of society, when formal
legislation had not become the rule, the custom would have been
legalized relatively much sooner than it actually was.

Customs then are the same thing as laws to the historical jurist, and
his business is to trace the influences under which they have grown up,
flourished and decayed, their dependence on the intellectual and moral
conditions of society at different times, and their reaction upon them.
The recognized science--and such it may now be considered to be--with
which historical, or more properly comparative, jurisprudence has most
analogy is the science of language. Laws and customs are to the one what
words are to the other, and each separate municipal system has its
analogue in a language. Legal systems are related together like
languages and dialects, and the investigation in both cases brings us
back at last to the meagre and obscure records of savage custom and
speech. A great master of the science of language (Max Müller) has
indeed distinguished it from jurisprudence, as belonging to a totally
different class of sciences. "It is perfectly true," he says, "that if
language be the work of man in the same sense in which a statue, or a
temple, or a poem, or a law are properly called the works of man, the
science of language would have to be classed as an historical science.
We should have a history of language as we have a history of art, of
poetry and of jurisprudence; but we could not claim for it a place side
by side with the various branches of natural history." Whatever be the
proper position of either philology or jurisprudence in relation to the
natural sciences, it would not be difficult to show that laws and
customs on the whole are equally independent of the efforts of
individual human wills--which appears to be what is meant by language
not being the work of man. The most complete acceptance of Austin's
theory that law everywhere and always is the command of the sovereign
does not involve any withdrawal of laws from the domain of natural
science, does not in the least interfere with the scientific study of
their affinities and relationships. Max Müller elsewhere illustrates his
conception of the different relations of words and laws to the
individual will by the story of the emperor Tiberius, who was reproved
for a grammatical mistake by Marcellus, whereupon Capito, another
grammarian, observed that, if what the emperor said was not good Latin,
it would soon be so. "Capito," said Marcellus, "is a liar; for, Caesar,
thou canst give the Roman citizenship to men, but not to words." The
mere impulse of a single mind, even that of a Roman emperor, however,
probably counts for little more in law than it does in language. Even in
language one powerful intellect or one influential academy may, by its
own decree, give a bent to modes of speech which they would not
otherwise have taken. But whether law or language be conventional or
natural is really an obsolete question, and the difference between
historical and natural sciences in the last result is one of names.

The application of the historical method to law has not resulted in
anything like the discoveries which have made comparative philology a
science. There is no Grimm's law for jurisprudence; but something has
been done in that direction by the discovery of the analogous processes
and principles which underlie legal systems having no external
resemblance to each other. But the historical method has been applied
with special success to a single system--the Roman law. The Roman law
presents itself to the historical student in two different aspects. It
is, regarded as the law of the Roman Republic and Empire, a system whose
history can be traced throughout a great part of its duration with
certainty, and in parts with great detail. It is, moreover, a body of
rationalized legal principles which may be considered apart from the
state system in which they were developed, and which have, in fact,
entered into the jurisprudence of the whole of modern Europe on the
strength of their own abstract authority--so much so that the continued
existence of the civil law, after the fall of the Empire, is entitled to
be considered one of the first discoveries of the historical method.
Alike, therefore, in its original history, as the law of the Roman
state, and as the source from which the fundamental principles of modern
laws have been taken, the Roman law presented the most obvious and
attractive subject of historical study. An immense impulse was given to
the history of Roman law by the discovery of the _Institutes_ of Gaius
in 1816. A complete view of Roman law, as it existed three centuries and
a half before Justinian, was then obtained, and as the later
_Institutes_ were, in point of form, a recension of those of Gaius, the
comparison of the two stages in legal history was at once easy and
fruitful. Moreover, Gaius dealt with antiquities of the law which had
become obsolete in the time of Justinian, and were passed over by him
without notice.

Nowhere did Roman law in its modern aspect give a stronger impulse to
the study of legal history than in Germany. The historical school of
German jurists led the reaction of national sentiment against the
proposals for a general code made by Thibaut. They were accused by their
opponents of setting up the law of past times as intrinsically entitled
to be observed, and they were no doubt strongly inspired by reverence
for customs and traditions. Through the examination of their own
customary laws, and through the elimination and separate study of the
Roman element therein, they were led to form general views of the
history of legal principles. In the hands of Savigny, the greatest
master of the school, the historical theory was developed into a
universal philosophy of law, covering the ground which we should assign
separately to jurisprudence, analytical and historical, and to theories
of legislation. There is not in Savigny's system the faintest approach
to the Austinian analysis. The range of it is not the analysis of law as
a command, but that of a _Rechtsverhältniss_ or legal relation. Far from
regarding law as the creation of the will of individuals, he maintains
it to be the natural outcome of the consciousness of the people, like
their social habits or their language. And he assimilates changes in law
to changes in language. "As in the life of individual men no moment of
complete stillness is experienced, but a constant organic development,
such also is the case in the life of nations, and in every individual
element in which this collective life consists; so we find in language a
constant formation and development, and in the same way in law." German
jurisprudence is darkened by metaphysical thought, and weakened, as we
believe, by defective analysis of positive law. But its conception of
laws is exceedingly favourable to the growth of a historical philosophy,
the results of which have a value of their own, apart altogether from
the character of the first principles. Such, for instance, is Savigny's
famous examination of the law of possession.

There is only one other system of law which is worthy of being placed by
the side of Roman law, and that is the law of England. No other European
system can be compared with that which is the origin and substratum of
them all; but England, as it happens, is isolated in jurisprudence. She
has solved her legal problems for herself. Whatever element of Roman law
may exist in the English system has come in, whether by conscious
adaptation or otherwise, _ab extra_; it is not of the essence of the
system, nor does it form a large portion of the system. And, while
English law is thus historically independent of Roman law, it is in all
respects worthy of being associated with it on its own merits. Its
originality, or, if the phrase be preferred, its peculiarity, is not
more remarkable than the intellectual qualities which have gone to its
formation--the ingenuity, the rigid logic, the reasonableness, of the
generations of lawyers and judges who have built it up. This may seem
extravagant praise for a legal system, the faults of which are and
always have been matter of daily complaint, but it would be endorsed by
all unprejudiced students. What men complain of is the practical
hardship and inconvenience of some rule or process of law. They know,
for example, that the law of real property is exceedingly complicated,
and that, among other things, it makes the conveyance of land expensive.
But the technical law of real property, which rests to this day on ideas
that have been buried for centuries, has nevertheless the qualities we
have named. So too with the law of procedure as it existed under the
"science" of special pleading. The greatest practical law reformer, and
the severest critic of existing systems that has ever appeared in any
age or country, Jeremy Bentham, has admitted this: "Confused,
indeterminate, inadequate, ill-adapted, and inconsistent as to a vast
extent the provision or no provision would be found to be that has been
made by it for the various cases that have happened to present
themselves for decision, yet in the character of a repository of such
cases it affords, for the manufactory of real law, a stock of materials
which is beyond all price. Traverse the whole continent of Europe,
ransack all the libraries belonging to all the jurisprudential systems
of the several political states, add the contents together, you would
not be able to compose a collection of cases equal in variety, in
amplitude, in clearness of statement--in a word, all points taken
together, in constructiveness--to that which may be seen to be afforded
by the collection of English reports of adjudged cases" (Bentham's
_Works_, iv. 460). On the other hand, the fortunes of English
jurisprudence are not unworthy of comparison even with the catholic
position of Roman law. In the United States of America, in India, and in
the vast Colonial Empire, the common law of England constitutes most of
the legal system in actual use, or is gradually being superimposed upon
it. It would hardly be too much to say that English law of indigenous
growth, and Roman law, between them govern the legal relations of the
whole civilized world. Nor has the influence of the former on the
intellectual habits and the ideas of men been much if at all inferior.
Those who set any store by the analytical jurisprudence of the school of
Austin will be glad to acknowledge that it is pure outcome of English
law. Sir Henry Maine associated its rise with the activity of modern
legislatures, which is of course a characteristic of the societies in
which English laws prevail. And it would not be difficult to show that
the germs of Austin's principles are to be found in legal writers who
never dreamed of analysing a law. It is certainly remarkable, at all
events, that the acceptance of Austin's system is as yet confined
strictly to the domain of English law. Maine found no trace of its being
even known to the jurists of the Continent, and it would appear that it
has been equally without influence in Scotland, which, like the
continent of Europe, is essentially Roman in the fundamental elements of
its jurisprudence.

The substance of the above article is repeated from Professor E.
Robertson's (Lord Lochee's) article "Law," in the 9th ed. of this
work.

Among numerous English textbooks, those specially worth mention are:
T. E. Holland, _The Elements of Jurisprudence_ (1880; 10th ed., 1906);
J. Austin, _Lectures on Jurisprudence_ (4th ed., 1873); W. Jethro
Brown, _The Austinian Theory of Law_ (1906); Sir F. Pollock, _A First
Book on Jurisprudence_ (1896; 2nd ed., 1904).

FOOTNOTES:

[1] This appears to be an unnecessary complication. The sovereign has
authorized the master to set the law, although not compelling him to
do so, and enforces the law when set. There seems no good reason why
the law should be called a rule of positive morality at all.

[2] In English speech another ambiguity is happily wanting which in
many languages besets the phrase expressing "a right." The Latin
"jus," the German "Recht," the Italian "diritto," and the French
"droit" express, not only a right, but also law in the abstract. To
indicate the distinction between "law" and "a right" the Germans are
therefore obliged to resort to such phrases as "objectives" and
"subjectives Recht," meaning by the former law in the abstract, and
by the latter a concrete right. And Blackstone, paraphrasing the
distinction drawn by Roman law between the "jus quod ad res" and the
"jus quod ad personas attinet," devotes the first two volumes of his
_Commentaries_ to the "Rights of Persons and the Rights of Things."
See Holland's _Elements of Jurisprudence_, 10th ed., 78 seq.

JURISPRUDENCE, COMPARATIVE. The object of this article is to give a
general survey of the study of the evolution of law. It is not concerned
with analytical jurisprudence as a theory of legal thought, or an
encyclopaedic introduction to legal teaching. Jurisprudence in such a
philosophic or pedagogical sense has certainly to reckon with the methods
and results of a comparative study of law, but its aims are distinct from
those of the latter: it deals with more general problems. On the other
hand, the comparative study of law may itself be treated in two different
ways: it may be directed to a comparison of existing systems of
legislation and law, with a view to tracing analogies and contrasts in
the treatment of practical problems and taking note of expedients and of
possible solutions. Or else it may aim at discovering the principles
regulating the development of legal systems, with a view to explain the
origin of institutions and to study the conditions of their life. In the
first sense, comparative jurisprudence resolves itself into a study of
home and foreign law (cf. Hofmann in the _Zeitschrift für das private und
öffentliche Recht der Gegenwart_, 1878). In the second sense, comparative
jurisprudence is one of the aspects of so-called sociology, being the
study of social evolution in the special domain of law. From this point
of view it is, in substance, immaterial whether the legal phenomena
subjected to investigation are ancient or modern, are drawn from
civilized or from primitive communities. The fact that they are being
observed and explained as features of social evolution characterizes the
inquiry and forms the distinctive attribute separating these studies from
kindred subjects. It is only natural, however, that early periods and
primitive conditions have attracted investigators in this field more than
recent developments. The interest of students seems to have stood in
inverse ratio to the chronological vicinity of the facts under
consideration--the farther from the observer, the more suggestive and
worthy of attention the facts were found to be. This peculiarity is
easily explained if we take into account the tendency of all evolutionary
investigations to obtain a view of origins in order to follow up the
threads of development from their initial starting-point. Besides, it has
been urged over and over again that the simpler phenomena of ancient and
primitive society afford more convenient material for generalizations as
to legal evolution than the extremely complex legal institutions of
civilized nations. But there is no determined line of division between
ancient and modern comparative jurisprudence in so far as both are aiming
at the study of legal development. The law of Islam or, for that matter,
the German civil code, may be taken up as a subject of study quite as
much as the code of Hammurabi or the marriage customs of Australian
tribes.

The fact that the comparative study of legal evolution is chiefly
represented by investigations of early institutions is therefore a
characteristic, but not a necessary feature in the treatment of the
subject. But it is essential to this treatment that it should be
_historical_ and _comparative_. Historical, because it is only as
history, i.e. a sequence of stages and events, that development can be
thought of. Comparative, because it is not the casual notices about one
or the other chain of historical facts that can supply the basis for any
scientific induction. Comparisons of kindred processes have to be made
in order to arrive at any conception of their general meaning and
scientific regularity. As linguistic science differs from philology in
so far as it treats of the general evolution of language and not of
particular languages, even so comparative jurisprudence differs from the
history of law as a study of general legal evolution distinct from the
development of one or the other national branch of legal enactment.
Needless to say that there are intermediate shades between these groups,
but it is not to these shades we have to attend, but to the main
distinctions and divisions.

1. The idea that the legal enactments and customs of different
countries should be compared for the purpose of deducing general
principles from them is as old as political science itself. It was
realized with especial vividness in epochs when a considerable material
of observations was gathered from different sources and in various
forms. The wealth of varieties and the recurrence of certain leading
views in them led to comparison and to generalizations based on
comparison. Aristotle, who lived at the close of a period marked by the
growth of free Greek cities, summarized, as it were, their political
experience in his _Constitutions_ and _Politics_; students of these know
that the Greek philosopher had to deal with not only public law and
political institutions, but also to some extent private, criminal law,
equity, the relations between law and morals, &c.

Another great attempt at comparative observation was made at the close
of the pre-revolutionary period of modern Europe. Montesquieu took stock
of the analogies and contrasts of law in the commonwealths of his time
and tried to show to what extent particular enactments and rules were
dependent on certain general currents in the life of societies--on forms
of government, on moral conditions corresponding to these, and
ultimately on the geographical facts with which various nationalities
and states have to reckon in their development.

These were, however, only slight beginnings, general forecasts of a
coming line of thought, and Montesquieu's remarks on laws and legal
customs read now almost as if they were meant to serve as materials for
social Utopias, although they were by no means conceived in this sense.
At this distance of time we cannot help perceiving how fragmentary,
incomplete and uncritical his notions of the facts of legal history
were, and how strongly his thought was biased by didactic
considerations, by the wish to teach his contemporaries what politics
and law should be.

It was reserved for the 19th century to come forward with connected and
far-reaching investigations in this field as in many others. We are not
deceived by proximity and self-consciousness when we affirm that
comparative jurisprudence, as understood in these introductory remarks,
dates from the 19th century and especially from its second half.

There were many reasons for such a new departure: two of these reasons
have been especially manifest and decisive. The 19th century was an
eminently historical and an eminently scientific age. In the domain of
history it may be said that it opened an entirely new vista. While,
speaking roughly, before that time history was conceived as a narrative
of memorable events, more or less skilful, more or less sensational, but
appealing primarily to the literary sense of the reader, it became in
the course of the 19th century an encyclopaedia of reasoned knowledge, a
means of understanding social life by observing its phenomena in the
past. The immense growth of historical scholarship in that sense, and
the transformation of its aims, can hardly be denied.

Apart from the personal efforts of eminent writers, a great and general
movement has to be taken into account in order to explain this
remarkable stage of human thought. The historic bent of mind of
19th-century thinkers was to a great extent the result of heightened
political and cultural self-consciousness. It was the reflection in the
world of letters of the tremendous upheaval in the states of Europe and
America which took place from the close of the 18th century onwards. As
one of the greatest leaders of the movement, Niebuhr, pointed out, the
fact of being a witness of such struggles and catastrophes as the
American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Empire and
the national reaction against it, taught every one to think
historically, to appreciate the importance of historical factors, to
measure the force not only of logical argument and moral impulse, but
also of instinctive habits and traditional customs. It is not a matter
of chance that the _historical school_ of jurisprudence, Savigny's
doctrine of the organic growth of law, was formed and matured while
Europe collected its forces after the most violent revolutionary crisis
it had ever experienced, and in most intimate connexion with the
romantic movement, a movement animated by enthusiastic belief in the
historical, traditional life of social groups as opposed to the
intellectual conceptions of individualistic radicalism.

On the other hand, the 19th century was a scientific age and especially
an age of biological science. Former periods--the 16th and 17th
centuries especially--had bequeathed to it high standards of scientific
investigation, an ever-increasing weight of authority in the direction
of an exact study of natural phenomena and a conception of the world as
ruled by laws and not by capricious interference. But these scientific
views had been chiefly applied in the domain of mathematics, astronomy
and physics; although great discoveries had already been made in
physiology and other branches of biology, yet the achievements of
19th-century students in this respect far surpassed those of the
preceding period. And the doctrine of transformation which came to
occupy the central place in scientific thought was eminently fitted to
co-ordinate and suggest investigations of social facts. As F. York
Powell put it, Darwin is the greatest historian of modern times, and
certainly an historian not in the sense of a reader of annals, but in
that of a guide in the understanding of organic evolution. Though much
is expressed in the one name of Darwin, it is perhaps even more
momentous as a symbol of the tendency of a great age than as a mark of
personal work. To this tendency we are indebted for the rise of
anthropology and of sociology, of the scientific study of man and of the
scientific study of society. Of course it ought not to be disregarded
that the application of scientific principles and methods to human and
social facts was made possible by the growth of knowledge in regard to
savage and half-civilized nations called forth by the increased activity
of European and American business men, administrators and explorers.
Ethnography and ethnology have brought some order into the wealth of
materials accumulated by generations of workers in this direction, and
it is with their help that the far-reaching generalizations of modern
inquirers as to man and society have been achieved.

2. It is not difficult to see that the comparative study of legal
evolution finds its definite place in a scientific scheme elaborated
from such points of view. Let us see how, as a matter of fact, the study
in question arose and what its progress has been. The immediate
incitement for the formation of comparative jurisprudence was given by
the great discoveries of comparative philology. When the labours of
Franz Bopp, August Schleicher, Max Müller, W. D. Whitney and others
revealed the profound connexion between the different branches of the
Indo-European race in regard to their languages, and showed that the
development of these languages proceeded on lines which might be studied
in a strictly scientific manner, on the basis of comparative observation
and with the object of tracing the uniformities of the process, it was
natural that students of religion, of folk-lore and of legal
institutions took up the same method and tried to win similar results
(Sir H. Maine, Rede lecture in _Village Communities_, 3rd ed.).

It is interesting to note that one of the leading scholars of the
Germanistic revival in the beginning of the 19th century, Jacob Grimm, a
compeer of Savigny in his own line, took up with fervent zeal and
remarkable results not only the scientific study of the German language,
but also that of Germanic mythology and popular law. His
_Rechtsalterthümer_ are still unrivalled as a collection of data as to
the legal lore of Teutonic tribes. Their basis is undoubtedly a narrow
one: they treat of the varieties of legal custom among the continental
Germans, the Scandinavians and the Germanic tribes of Great Britain, but
the method of treatment is already a comparative one. Grimm takes up the
different subjects--property, contract, procedure, succession, crime,
&c.--and examines them in the light of national, provincial and local
customs, sometimes noticing expressly affinities with Roman and Greek
law (e.g. the subject of imprisonment for debt, _Rechtsalterthümer_, 4th
ed., vol. ii., p. 165).

A broader basis was taken up by a linguist who tried to trace the
primitive institutions and customs of the early Aryans before their
separation into divers branches. Adolphe Pictet (_Les Origines
indo-européennes_, i. 1859; ii. 1863) had to touch constantly on
questions of family law, marriage, property, public authority, in his
attempt to reconstruct the common civilization of the Aryan race, and he
did so on the strength of a comparative study of terms used in the
different Indo-European languages. He showed, for instance, how the idea
of protection was the predominant element in the position of the father
in the Aryan household. The names _pîtar_, _pater_, [Greek: patêr],
_father_, which recur in most branches of the Aryan race, go back to a
root _pa_-, pointing to guardianship or protection. Thus we are led to
consider the _patria potestas_, so stringently formulated in Roman law,
as an expression of a common Aryan notion, which was already in
existence before the Aryan tribes parted company and went their
different ways. Descriptions of Aryan early culture have been given
several times since in connexion with linguistic observations. An
example is W. E. Hearn's _Aryan Household_ (1879). Fustel de Coulanges'
famous volume on the ancient city and Rudolf von Jhering's studies of
primitive Indo-European institutions (_Vorgeschichte der Indoeuropäer_)
start from similar observations, although the first of these scholars is
chiefly interested in tracing the influence of religion on the material
arrangements of life, while the latter draws largely on principles of
public and private law, studied more especially in Roman antiquity.

3. The chief work in that direction has been achieved in one sense by a
German scholar, B. W. Leist. His Graeco-Roman legal history, his _Jus
Gentium of Primitive Aryans_, and his _Jus Civile of Primitive Aryans_,
form the most complete and learned attempt not only to reconstitute the
fundamental rules of common Aryan law before the separation of tongues
and nations, but also to trace the influence of this original stock of
juridical ideas in the later development of different branches of the
Aryan race. These three books present three stages of comparison, marked
by a successive widening of the horizon. He began his legal history by
putting together the data as to Roman and Greek legal origins; in the
_Alt-arisches Jus Gentium_ the material of Hindu law is not only drawn
into the range of observation, but becomes its very centre; in the
_Alt-arisches Jus Civile_ the legal customs of the Zend branch, of
Celts, Germans and Slavs, are taken into account, although the most
important part of the inquiry is still directed to the combination of
Hindu, Greek and Roman law. In this way Leist builds up his theories by
the comparative method, but he restricts its use consciously and
consistently to a definite range. He does not want to plunge into
haphazard analogies, but seeks common ground before all things in order
to be able to watch for the appearance of ramifications and to explain
them. According to his view comparison is of use only between "coherent"
lines of facts. Common origin, not similarity of features, appears to
him as the fundamental basis for fruitful comparison. It may be said
that Leist's work is characterized by the attempt to draw up a
continuous history of a supposed archaic common law of the Aryan race
rather than to put different solutions of kindred legal problems by the
side of each other. For him Aryan tribal organization with its
double-sided relationship--cognatic and agnatic--through men and through
women--is one, and although he does not draw its picture as Fustel de
Coulanges does by the help of traits taken indiscriminately from Hindu,
Roman and Greek material, although he notices divisions, degrees and
variations, at bottom he writes the history of one set of principles
exemplified and modulated, as it were, in the six or seven main
varieties of the race. Even so the nine rules of conduct prescribed by
Hindu sacral law are, according to his view, the directing rules of
Roman, Greek, Germanic, Celtic, Slavonic legal custom--the duties in
regard to gods, parents and fatherland, guests, personal purity, the
prohibitions against homicide, adultery and theft--are variations of one
and the same religious, moral and legal system, and their original unity
is reflected and proved by the unity of legal terminology itself.

The same leading idea is embodied in the books of Otto
Schräder--_Urgeschichte und Sprachvergleichung_ (1st ed., 1883; 2nd ed.,
1890) and _Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde_ (1901). In
this case we have to do not with a jurist but with a linguist and a
student of cultural history. His training made him especially fit to
trace the national affinities in the data of language, and the sense of
the intimate connexion between the growth of institutions on one side,
of words and linguistic forms on the other, underlies all his
investigations. But Schrader testifies also to another powerful
influence--to that of Victor Hehn, the author of a remarkable book on
early civilization, _Kulturpflanzen und Hausthiere in ihrem Übergang aus
Asien in Europa_ (1st ed., 1870; 7th ed., 1902), dealing with the
migrations of tribes and their modes of acquiring material civilization.
Although the linguistic and archaeological sides naturally predominate
in Schrader's works, he has constantly to consider legal subjects, and
he strives conscientiously to obtain a clear and common-sense view of
the early legal notions of the Aryans. Speaking of the "ordeals," the
"waging of God's law," for example, he traces the customs of
purification by fire, water, iron, &c., to the practice of oaths (Sans.
_am_; Gr. [Greek: omnymi]; O. Ital. _omr_ = first group; O. Ger. _aiþs_,
Ir. _óeth_ = second group; O. Norse _rota_, Arm. _erdnum_ = I swear =
third group). The central idea of the ordeal is thus shown to be the
imprecation--"Let him be cursed whose assertion is false."

The comparative study of the Aryan group assumed another aspect in the
works of Sir Henry Maine. He did not rely on linguistic affinities, but
made great use of another element of investigation which plays hardly
any part in the books of the writers mentioned hitherto. His best
personal preparation for the task was that he had not only taught law in
England, but had come into contact with living legal customs in India.
For him the comparison between the legal lore of Rome and that of India
did not depend on linguistic roots or on the philological study of the
laws of Manu, but was the result of recognizing again and again, in
actual modern custom, the views, rules and institutions of which he had
read in Gaius or in the fragments of the Twelve Tables. The sense of
historical analogy and evolution which had shown itself already in the
lectures on _Ancient Law_, which, after all, were mainly a presentment
of Roman legal history mapped out by a man of the world, averse from
pedantic disquisitions. But what appears as the expression of Maine's
personal aptitude and intelligent reading in _Ancient Law_ gets to be
the interpretation of popular legal principles by modern as well as by
ancient instances of their application in _Village Communities_, _The
Early History of Institutions_, _Early Law and Custom_. The evolution of
property in land out of archaic collectivism, ancient forms of contract
and compulsion, rudimentary forms of feudalism and the like, were
treated in a new light in consequence of systematic comparisons with the
conditions not only of India but of southern Slavonic nations, medieval
celts and Teutons. This breadth of view seemed startling when the
lectures appeared, and the original treatment of the subject was hailed
on all sides as a most welcome new departure in the study of legal
customs and institutions. And yet Maine set very definite boundaries to
his comparative surveys. He renounced the chronological limitation
confining such inquiries to the domain of antiquaries, but he upheld the
ethnographical limitation confining them to laws of the same race. In
his case it was the Aryan race, and in his _Law and Custom_ he opposed
in a determined manner the attempts of more daring students to extend to
the Aryans generalizations drawn from the life of savage tribes
unconnected with the Aryans by blood.

Thus, notwithstanding all diversities in the treatment of particular
problems, one leading methodical principle runs through the works of all
the above-mentioned exponents of comparative study. It was to proceed on
the basis of common origin and on the assumption of a certain common
stock of language, religion, material culture, and law to start with.
What Pictet, Leist, Schrader, and Maine were doing for the Aryans, F.
Hommel, Robertson Smith and others did in a lesser degree for the
Semitic race.

4. The literary group which started from the discoveries of comparative
philology and history was met on the way by what may be called the
ethnological school of inquirers. The original impetus was given, in
this case, by jurists and historians who took up the study in the field
of ancient history, but treated it from the beginning in such a way as
to break up the subdivisions of historic races and to direct the inquiry
to a state of culture best illustrated by savage customs. The first
impulse may be said to have come from J. J. Bachofen (_Mutterrecht_,
1861; _Antiquarische Briefe_, 1880; _Die Sage von Tanaquil_). All the
representatives of Aryan antiquities are at one in laying stress on the
patriarchal and agnatic system of the kindreds in the different Aryan
nations; even Leist, although dwelling on the importance of cognatic
ties, looks to agnatic relationship for the explanation of military
organization and political authority. And undoubtedly, if we argue from
the predominant facts and from the linguistic evidence of parallel
terms, we are led to assume that already before their separation the
Aryans lived in a patriarchal state of society. Now, Bachofen discovered
in the very tradition of classical antiquity traces of a fundamentally
different state of things, the central conception of which was not
patriarchal power, but maternity, relationship being traced through
mothers, the wife presenting the constant and directing element of the
household, while the husband (and perhaps several husbands) joined her
from time to time in more or less inconstant unions. Such a state of
society is definitely described by Herodotus in the case of the Lycians,
it is clearly noticeable even in later historical times in Sparta; the
passage from this matriarchal conception to the recognition of the
claims of the father is reflected in poetical fiction in the famous
Orestes myth, based on the struggle between the moral incitement which
prompted the son to avenge his father and the absolute reverence for the
mother required by ancient law. Although chiefly drawing his materials
from classical literature, Bachofen included in his _Antiquarian
Letters_ an interesting study of the marriage custom and systems of
relationship of the Malabar Coast in India; they attracted his attention
by the contrasts between different layers of legal tradition--the
Brahmans living in patriarchal order, while the class next to them, the
Nayirs (Nairs), follow rules of matriarchy.

Similar ideas were put forward in a more comprehensive form by J. F.
McLennan. His early volume (_Studies in Ancient History_, 1876) contains
several essays published some time before that date. He starts from the
wide occurrence of marriage by capture in primitive societies, and
groups the tribes of which we have definite knowledge into endogamous
and exogamous societies according as they take their wives from among
the kindred or outside it. Marriage by capture and by purchase are signs
of exogamy, connected with the custom in many tribes of killing female
offspring. The development of marriage by capture and purchase is a
powerful agent in bringing about patriarchal rule, agnatic relationship,
and the formation of clans or _gentes_, but the more primitive forms of
relationship appear as variations of systems based on mother-right.
These views are supported by ethnological observations and used as a
clue to the history of relationship and family law in ancient Greece. In
further contributions published after McLennan's death these researches
are supplemented and developed in many ways. The peculiarities of
exogamous societies, for instance, are traced back to the even more
primitive practice of Totemism, the grouping of men according to their
conceptions of animal worship and to their symbols. McLennan's line of
inquiry was taken up in a very effective manner not only by
anthropologists like E. B. Tylor or A. Lang, but also in a more special
manner by students of primitive family law. One of the most brilliant
monographs in this direction is Robertson Smith's study of _Kinship and
Marriage in Arabia_.

But perhaps the most decisive influence was exercised on the development
of the ethnological study of law by the discoveries of an American,
Lewis H. Morgan. In his epoch-making works on _Systems of Consanguinity_
(1869) and on _Ancient Society_ (1877) he drew attention to the
remarkable fact that in the case of a number of tribes--the Red Indians
of America, the Australian black tribes, some of the polar races, and
several Asiatic tribes, mostly of Turanian race--degrees of relationship
are reckoned and distinguished by names, not as ties between
individuals, but as ties between entire groups, classes or generations.
Instead of a mother and a father a man speaks of fathers and mothers;
all the individuals of a certain group are deemed husbands or wives of
corresponding individuals of another group; sisters and brothers have to
be sought in entire generations, and not among the descendants of a
definite and common parent, and so forth. There are variations and types
in these forms of organization, and intermediate links may be traced
between unions of consanguine people--brothers and sisters of the same
blood--on the one hand, and the monogamic marriage prevailing nowadays,
on the other; but the central and most striking fact seems to be that in
early civilizations, in conditions which we should attribute to savage
and barbarian life, marriage appears as a tie, not between single pairs,
but between classes, all the men of a class being regarded as potential
or actual husbands of the women of a corresponding class. Facts of this
kind produce very peculiar and elaborate systems of relationship, which
have been copiously illustrated by Morgan in his tables. In his _Ancient
Society_ he attempted to reduce all the known forms and facts of
marriage and kinship arrangements to a comprehensive view of evolution
leading up to the Aryan, Semitic and Uralian family, as exhibiting the
most modern type of relationship.

These observations, in conjunction with Bachofen's and McLennan's
teaching on mother-right, brought about a complete change of perspective
in the comparative study of man and society. The rights of ethnologists
to have their say in regard to legal, political and social development
was forcibly illustrated from both ends, as it were. On the one hand,
classical antiquity itself proved to be a rather thin layer of human
civilization hardly sufficient to conceal the long periods of barbarism
and primitive evolution which had gone to its making. On the other hand,
unexpected combinations in regard to family, property, social order,
were discovered in every corner of the inhabited world, and our trite
notions as to the character of laws and institutions were reduced to the
rank of variations on themes which recur over and over again, but may be
and have been treated in very different ways.

There is no need to speak of the use made of ethnological material in
the wider range of anthropological and sociological studies--the works
of Tylor, Lubbock, Lippert, Spencer are in everybody's hands--but
attention must be called to the further influence of the ethnological
point of view in comparative jurisprudence. An interesting example of
the passage from one line of investigation to another, from the
historical to the anthropological line, if the expression may be used
for the sake of brevity, is presented in the works of one of the
founders of the _Zeitschrift für vgl. Rechtswissenschaft_--Franz
Bernhöft. He appears in his earlier books as an exponent of the
comparative study of Greek and Roman antiquities, more or less in the
style of Leist. Like the latter he was gradually incited to draw India
into the range of his observations, but unlike Leist, he ended by fully
recognizing the importance of ethnological evidence, and although he did
not do much original research in that direction himself, the influence
of Bachofen and of the ethnologists made itself felt in Bernhöft's
treatment of classical antiquity itself: in his _State and Law in Rome
at the Time of the Kings_ he starts from the view that patricians and
plebeians represent two ethnological layers of society--a patriarchal
Aryan and a matriarchal pre-Aryan one.

But, of course, the utmost use was made of ethnological evidence by
writers who cut themselves entirely free from the special study of
classical or European antiquities. The enthusiasm of the explorers of
new territory led them naturally to disregard the peculiar claims of
European development in the history of higher civilization. They wanted
material for a study of the _genus homo_ in all its varieties, and they
had no time to look after the minute questions of philological and
antiquarian research which had so long constituted the daily bread of
inquirers into the history of laws. The most characteristic
representative of the new methods of extensive comparison was
undoubtedly A. H. Post (1839-1895)--the author of many works, in which
he ranges over the whole domain of mankind--Hovas, Zulus, Maoris,
Tunguses, alternating in a kaleidoscopic fashion with Hindus, Teutons,
Jews, Egyptians. The order of his compositions is systematic, not
chronological or even ethnographical in the sense of grouping kindred
races together. He takes up the different subdivisions of law and traces
them through all the various tribes which present any data in regard to
them. His method is not only not bound by history, it is opposed to it.
He writes:--

"The method of comparative ethnology is different from the historical
method, inasmuch as it collects the given material from an entirely
distinct point of view. Historical investigation tries to get at the
causes of the facts of rational life by observing the development of
these facts from such as preceded them within the range of separate
kindreds, tribes and peoples. The investigation of comparative
ethnology inquires after the causes of facts in national life by
collecting identical or similar ethnological data wherever they may be
found in the world, and by drawing inferences from these materials to
identical or similar causes. This method is therefore _quite
unhistorical_. It severs things that have been hitherto regarded as
closely joined and arranges these shreds into new combinations"
(_Grundriss_, i. 14).

This is not a mere paradox, but the necessary outcome of the situation
in respect of the material used. What is being sought is not common
origin or a common stock of ideas, but recourse to similar expedients in
similar situations, and it is one of the most striking results of
ethnology that it can show how peoples entirely cut off from each other
and even placed in very different planes of development can resort to
analogous solutions in analogous emergencies. Is not the custom of the
so-called _Couvade_--the pretended confinement of the husband when a
child is born to his wife--a most quaint and seemingly recondite
ceremony? Yet we find it practised in the same way by Basques,
Californian Indians, and some Siberian tribes. They have surely not
borrowed from each other, nor have they kept the ceremony as a remnant
of the time when they formed one race: in each case, evidently the
passage from a matriarchal state to a patriarchal has suggested it, and
a very appropriate method it seems to establish the fact of fatherhood
in a solemn and graphic though artificial manner. Again, an inscription
from the Cretan town of Gortyn, published in the American _Journal of
Archaeology_ (2nd series, vol. i., 1897) by Halbherr, tells us that the
weapons of a warrior, the wool of a woman, the plough of a peasant,
could not be taken from them as pledges. We find a similar idea in the
prohibition to take from a knight his weapons, from a villein his
plough, in payment of fines, which obtained in medieval England and was
actually inserted in Magna Carta. Here also the similarity extends to
details, and is certainly not derived from direct borrowing or common
origin but from analogies of situations translating themselves into
analogies of legal thought. It may be said in a sense that for the
ethnological school the less relationship there is between the compared
groups the more instructive the comparison turns out to be.

The collection of ethnological parallels for the use of sociology and
comparative jurisprudence has proceeded in a most fruitful manner. By
the side of special monographs about single tribes or geographical
groups of tribes, such as _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, by L. Fison & A. W.
Howitt (1880), and _The Native Tribes of Australia_, by Baldwin Spencer
& F. G. Gillen (1899), the whole range of ethnological jurisprudence was
gone through by Wilken in regard to the inhabitants of the Dutch
possessions in Asia, by M. M. Kovalevsky in regard to Caucasians, &c. As
a rule the special monographs turned out to be more successful than the
general surveys, but the interest of the special monographs themselves
depended partly on the fact that people's eyes had been opened to the
recurrence of certain widespread phenomena and types of development.

5. Ethnologists of Post's school have not had it entirely their own way,
however. Not only did their natural opponents, the philologists,
historians and jurists, reproach them with lack of critical
discrimination, with a tendency to disregard fundamental distinctions,
to wipe out characteristic features, to throw the most disparate
elements into the same pot. In their own ranks a number of conscientious
and scientifically trained investigators protested against the
haphazard manner in which the most intricate problems were treated, and
sought to evolve more definite methodical rules. P. and F. Sarrasin in
their description of the Ceylon Veddahs showed a most primitive race
scattered in small clusters, monogamous and patriarchal in their
marriage customs and systems of relationship. E. A. Westermarck
challenged the sweeping generalizations indulged in by many ethnologists
about primitive promiscuity in sexual relations and the necessary
passage of all human tribes through the stages of matriarchy and group
marriage.

A very interesting departure was attempted by Dargun in his studies on
the origin and development of property and his treatise on mother-right
and marriage by capture. His lead was followed by R. Hildebrand in the
monograph on law and custom. The principal idea of these inquirers may
be stated as follows. We must utilize ethnological as well as historical
materials from the whole world, but it is no use doing this
indiscriminately. Fruitful comparisons may be instituted mainly in the
case of tribes on the same level in their general culture and especially
their economic pursuits. Hunting tribes must be primarily compared with
other hunters, fishers with fishers, pastoral nations with pastoral
nations, agriculturists with agriculturists; nations in transitional
stages from one type of culture to the other have to be grouped and
examined by themselves. The result would be to establish certain
parallel lines in the development of institutions and customs. From this
point of view both Dargun and Hildebrand attacked the prevailing theory
of primitive communism and insisted on the atomistic individualism of
the rudimentary civilization of hunting tribes. Collectivism in the
treatment of ownership, common field husbandry, practices of joint
holdings, co-aration, common stores, &c., make their appearance
according to Dargun in consequence of the drawing together of scattered
groups and smaller independent settlements. An evolution of the same
kind leading from loose unions around mothers through marriage by
capture to patriarchal kindreds was traced in the history of
relationship. Grosse (_Die Formen der Familie und der Wirtschaft_, 1896)
followed in a similar strain. Another line of criticism was opened up
from the side of exact sociological study. Its best exponent is
Steinmetz, who represents with Wilken the Dutch group of investigators
of social phenomena. He takes up a standpoint which severs him entirely
from the linguistic and historic school. In a discourse on the _Meaning
of Sociology_ (p. 10) he expresses himself in the following words: "One
who judges of the social state of the Hindus by the book of Manu takes
the ideal notions of one portion of the people for the actual conditions
of all its parts." In regard to jurisprudence he distinguishes carefully
between art and science. "Jurisprudence in the wider sense is an art,
the art of framing rules for social intercourse in so far as these rules
can be put into execution by the state and its organs, as well as the
art of interpreting and applying these rules. In another sense it is
pure science, the investigation of all consciously formulated and
actually practised rules, and of their conditions and foundations, in
fact of the entire social life of existing and bygone nations, without a
knowledge and understanding of which a knowledge and understanding of
law as its outcome is, of course, impossible." In this sense
jurisprudence is a part of ethnology and of the comparative history of
culture. But in order to grapple with such a tremendous task comparative
jurisprudence has not only to call to help the study of scattered
ethnological facts. This is not sufficient to widen the frame of
observation and to realize the relative character of the principles with
which practical lawyers operate, without ever putting in question their
general acceptance or logical derivations. Ethnological studies
themselves have to look for guidance to psychology, especially to the
psychology of emotional life and of character. Although these branches
of psychological science have been much less investigated than the study
of intellectual processes, they still afford material help to the
ethnologist and the comparative jurist; and Steinmetz himself made a
remarkable attempt to utilize a psychological analysis of the feelings
of revenge in his _Origins of Punishment_.

6. The necessity of employing more stringent standards of criticisms and
more exact methods is now recognized, and it is characteristic that the
foremost contemporary representative of comparative jurisprudence,
Joseph Kohler of Berlin, principal editor of the _Zeitschrift für vgl.
Rechtswissenschaft_, often gives expression to this view. Beginning with
studies of procedure and private law in the provinces of Germany where
the French law of the Code Napoléon was still applied, he has thrown his
whole energy into monographic surveys and investigations in all the
departments of historical and ethnological jurisprudence. The code of
Khammurabi and the Babylonian contracts, the ancient Hindu codes and
juridical commentaries on them, the legal customs of the different
tribes and provinces of India, the collection and sifting of the legal
customs of aborigines in the German colonies in Africa, the materials
supplied by investigators of Australian and American tribes, the history
of legal customs of the Mahommedans, and numberless other points of
ethnological research, have been treated by him in articles in his
_Zeitschrift_ and in other publications. Comprehensive attempts have
also been made by him at a synthetic treatment of certain sides of the
law--like the law of debt in his _Shakespeare vor dem Forum der
Jurisprudenz_ (1883) or his _Primitive History of Marriage_. Undoubtedly
we have not to deal in this case with mere accumulation of material or
with remarks on casual analogies. And yet the importance of these works
consists mainly in their extensive range of observation. The critical
side is still on the second plane, although not conspicuously absent as
in the case of Post and some of his followers. We may sympathize
cordially with Kohler's exhortation to work for a universal history of
law without yet perceiving clearly what the stages of this universal
history are going to be. We may acknowledge the enormous importance of
Morgan's and Bachofen's discoveries without feeling bound to recognize
that all tribes and nations of the earth have gone substantially through
the same forms of development in respect of marriage custom, and without
admitting that the evidence for a universal spread of group-marriage has
been produced. Altogether the reproach seems not entirely unfounded that
investigations of this kind are carried on too much under the sway of a
preconceived notion that some highly peculiar arrangement entirely
different from what we are practising nowadays--say sexual promiscuity
or communism in the treatment of property--must be made out as a
universal clue to earlier stages of development. Kohler's occasional
remarks on matters of method (e.g. _Zeitschift für vgl.
Rechtswissenschaft_, xii. 193 seq.) seem hardly adequate to dispel this
impression. But in his own work and in that of some of his compeers and
followers, J. E. Hitzig, Hellwig, Max Huber, R. Dareste, more exact
forms and means of inquiry are gradually put into practice, and the
results testify to a distinct heightening of the scientific standard in
this group of studies on comparative jurisprudence. Especially
conspicuous in this respect are three tendencies: (a) the growing
disinclination to accept superficial analysis between phenomena
belonging to widely different spheres of culture as necessarily produced
by identical causes (e.g. Darinsky's review of Kovalevsky's assumptions
as to group marriage among the Caucasian tribes, _Z. für vgl. Rw._, xiv.
151 seq.); (b) the selection of definite historical or ethnological
territories for monographic inquiries, in the course of which
arrangements observed elsewhere are treated as suggestive material for
supplying gaps and starting possible explanations: Kohler's own
contributions have been mainly of this kind; (c) the treatment of
selected subjects by an intensive legal analysis, bringing out the
principles underlying one or the other rule, its possible
differentiation, the means of its application in practice, &c.:
Hellwig's monograph on the right of sanctuary in savage communities
(_Das Asylrecht der Naturvölker_) may be named in illustration of this
analytical tendency. Altogether, there can be no doubt that the stage
has been reached by comparative jurisprudence when, after a hasty, one
might almost say a voracious consumption of materials, investigators
begin to strive towards careful sifting of evidence and a conscious
examination of methods and critical rules which have to be followed in
order to make the investigations undertaken in this line worthy of
their scientific aims. Until the latter has been done many students,
whose trend of thought would seem to lead them naturally into this
domain, may be repelled by the uncritical indistinctness with which mere
analogies are treated as elusive proofs by some of the representatives
of the comparative school. F. W. Maitland, for instance, was always kept
back by such considerations.

7. It is desirable, in conclusion, to review the entire domain of
comparative jurisprudence, and to formulate the chief principles of
method which have to be taken into consideration in the course of this
study. It is evident, to begin with, that a scientific comparison of
facts must be directed towards two aims--towards establishing and
explaining similarity, and towards enumerating and explaining
differences. As a matter of fact the same material may be studied from
both points of view, though logically these are two distinct processes.

(a) Now at this initial stage we have already to meet a difficulty and
to guard against a misconception: we have namely to reckon with the
_plurality of causes_, and are therefore debarred from assuming that
wherever similar phenomena are forthcoming they are always produced by
identical causes. Death may be produced by various agents--by sickness,
by poison, by a blow. The habit of wearing mourning upon the death of a
relation is a widespread habit, and yet it is not always to be ascribed
to real or supposed grief and the wish to express it in one's outward
get-up. Savage people are known to go into mourning in order to conceal
themselves from the terrible spirit of the dead which would recognize
them in their everyday costume (Jhering, _Der Zweck im Recht_, 2nd ed.,
1884-1886). This is certainly a momentous difficulty at the start, but
it can be greatly reduced and guarded against in actual investigation.
In the example taken we are led to suppose different origin because we
are informed as to the motives of the external ceremony, and thus we are
taught to look not only to bare facts, but to the psychological
environment in which they appear. And it is evident that the greater the
complexity of observed phenomena, the more they are made up of different
elements welded into one sum, the less probability there is that we have
to do with consequences derived from different causes. The recurrence of
group-marriage in Australia and among the Red Indians of North America
can in no way be explained by the working of entirely different
agencies. And it may be added that in most cases of an analysis of
social institutions the limits of human probability and reasonable
assumption do not coincide with mathematical possibility in any sense.
When we register our facts and causes in algebraic forms, marking the
first with _a_, _b_, _c_, and the latter with _x_, _y_, _z_, we are apt
to demand a degree of precision which is hardly ever to be met with in
dealing with social facts and causes. Let us rest content with
reasonable inferences and probable explanations.

(b) The easiest way of explaining a given similarity is by attributing
it to a direct _loan_. The process of reception, of the borrowing of one
people from the other, plays a most notable part in the history of
institutions and ideas. The Japanese have in our days engrafted many
European institutions on their perfectly distinct civilization; the
Germans have used for centuries what was termed euphemistically the
Roman law of the present time (_heutiges römisches Recht_); the Romans
absorbed an enormous amount of Greek and Oriental law in their famous
jurisprudence. A check upon explanation by direct loan will, of course,
lie in the fact that two societies are entirely disconnected, so that it
comes to be very improbable that one drew its laws from the other.
Although migrations of words, legends, beliefs, charms, have been shown
by Theodor Benfey and his school to range over much wider areas than
might be supposed on the face of it, still, in the case of law, in so
far as it has to regulate material conditions, the limits have perhaps
to be drawn rather narrowly. In any case we shall not look to India in
order to explain the burning of widows among the negroes of Africa; the
_suttee_ may be the example of this custom which happens to be most
familiar to us, but it is certainly not the only root of it on the
surface of the earth.

It is much more difficult to make out the share of direct borrowing in
the case of peoples who might conceivably have influenced one another. A
hard and fast rule cannot be laid down in such cases, and everything
depends on the weighing of evidence and sometimes on almost instinctive
estimates. The use of a wager for the benefit of the tribunal in the
early procedure of the Romans and Greeks, the _sacramentum_ and the
[Greek: prutaneia], with a similar growth of the sum laid down by the
parties in proportion to the interests at stake, has been explained by a
direct borrowing by the Romans from the Greeks at the time of the Twelve
Tables legislation (Hofmann, _Beiträge zur Geschichte des griechischen
und römischen Rechts_). No direct proof is available for this
hypothesis, and the question in dispute might have lain for ever between
this explanation and that based on the analogous development in the two
closely related branches of law. The further study of the legal
antiquities of other branches of the Aryan race leads one to suppose,
however, that we have actually to do with the latter and not with the
former eventuality. Why should the popular custom of the _Vzdání_ in
Bohemia (Kapras, "Das Pfandrecht in altböhmischen Landrecht," _Z. für
vgl. R.-wissenschaft_, xvii. 424 seq.), regulating the wager of
litigation in the case of two parties submitting their dispute to the
decision of a public tribunal, turn out to be so similar to the Greek
and the Roman process? And the Teutonic Wedde would further countenance
the view that we have to do in this case with analogous expediency or,
possibly, common origin, not loans. But while dwelling on considerations
which may disprove the assumption of direct loans, we must not omit to
mention circumstances that may render such an assumption the best
available explanation for certain points of similarity. We mean
especially the recurrence of special secondary traits not deducible from
the nature of the relations compared. Terminological parallels are
especially convincing in such cases. An example of most careful
linguistic investigation attended by important results is presented by
W. Thomsen's treatment of the affinities between the languages and
cultures of the peoples of northern and eastern Europe. Taking the
indications in regard to the influence of Germanic tribes on Finns and
Lapps, we find, for instance, that the Finnish race has stood for some
1500 or 2000 years under "the influence of several Germanic
languages--partly of a more ancient form of Gothic than that represented
by Ulfilas, partly of a northern (Scandinavian) tongue and even possibly
of a common Gothic-northern one." The importance of these linguistic
investigations for our subject becomes apparent when we find that a
series of most important legal and political terms has been imported
from Teutonic into Finnish. For example, the Finnish _Kuningas_, "king,"
comes from a Germanic root illustrated by O. Norse _konung_, O. H. Ger.
_chuning_, A.-S. _cyning_, Goth. _thiudans_. The Finnish _valta_,
"power," "authority," is of Germanic origin, as shown by O. N. _vald_,
Goth. _valdan_. The Finnish _kihla_, a compact secured by solemn
promise, is akin with O. N. _gisl_, A.-S. _gisel_, O. H. Ger. _gisal_,
"hostage." The explanation for Finnish _vuokra_, "interest," "usury," is
to be found in Gothic _vokrs_, O. N. _okr_, Ger. _Wucher_, &c. (W.
Thomsen, _Über den Einfluss der germanischen Sprachen auf die
Finnisch-lappischen_, trans. E. Sievers, 1870, p. 166 seq.; cf. W.
Thomsen, _The Relations between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia and the
Origin of the Russian State_, p. 127 seq.; Miklosich, "Die Fremdwörter
in den slavischen Sprachen," _Denkschriften der Wiener Akademie_, Ph.
hist. Klasse, XV.).

(c) The next group of analogies is formed by cases which may be reduced
to _common origin_. In addition to what has already been said on the
subject in connexion with the literature of the historical school, we
must point out that in the case of kindred peoples this form of
derivation has, of course, to be primarily considered. This is
especially the case when we have to deal with the original stock of
cultural notions of a race, and when analogies in the framing and
working of institutions and legal rules are supported by linguistic
affinities. The testimony of the Aryan languages in regard to terms
denoting family organization and relationship can in no way be
disregarded, whatever our view may be about the most primitive stages
of development in this respect. The fact that the common stock of Aryan
languages and of Aryan legal customs points to a patriarchal
organization of the family may be regarded as established, and it is
certainly an important fact drawn from a very ancient stage of human
history, although there are indications that still more primitive
formations may be discovered.

Inferences in the direction of common origin become more doubtful when
we argue, not that certain facts proceed from a common stock of notions
embodied in the early culture of a race before it was broken up into
several branches, but that they have to be accounted for as instances of
a similar treatment of legal problems by different peoples of the same
ethnic family. The only thing that can be said in such a case is that,
methodically, the customs of kindred nations have the first claim to
comparison. It is evident that in dealing with blood feud, composition
for homicide, and the like, among the Germans or Slavs, the evidence of
other Aryan tribes has to be primarily studied. But it is by no means
useless for the investigator of these problems to inform himself about
the aspect of such customs in the life of nations of other descent, and
especially of savage tribes. The motives underlying legal rules in this
respect are to a large extent suggested by feelings and considerations
which are not in any way peculiarly Aryan, and may be fully illustrated
from other sources, as has been done e.g. in Steinmetz's _Origins of
Punishment_.

(d) This leads to the consideration of what maybe called _disconnected
analogies_. They are instructive in so far as they go back, not to any
continuous development, but to the fundamental, psychological and
logical unity of human nature. In similar circumstances human beings are
likely to solve the same problems in the same way. Take a rather late
and special case. In the Anglo-Saxon laws of Ine, a king who lived in
the 7th century, it is enacted that no landowner should be allowed to
claim personal labour service from his tenants unless he provides them
not merely with land, but with their homesteads. Now an exactly similar
rule is found in the statement of rural by-laws to be enforced on great
domains in Africa, which had been taken over by the imperial fiscus--the
Lex Manciana (cf. Schulten, _Lex manciana_). There is absolutely no
reason for assuming a direct transference of the rule from one place to
the other: it reflects considerations of natural equity which in both
cases were directed against similar encroachments of powerful landowners
on a dependent peasant population. In both instances government
interfered to draw the line between the payment of rent and the
performance of labour, and fastened on the same feature to fix the
limit, namely, on the difference between peasants living in their own
homes and those who had been settled by the landowner on his farms. Of
such analogies, the study of savage life presents a great number, e.g.
the widely spread practices of purification by ordeal (H. C. Lea,
_Superstition and Force_).

(e) Organizing thought always seeks to substitute order for chaotic
variety. Observations as to disconnected analogies lead to attempts to
systematize them from some comprehensive point of view. These attempts
may take the shape of a theory of _consecutive stages_ of development.
Similar facts appear over and over again in ethnological and antiquarian
evidence, because all peoples and tribes, no matter what their race and
geographical position, go through the same series of social
arrangements. This is the fundamental idea which directed the researches
of Maine, McLennan, Morgan, Post, Kohler, although each of these
scholars formulated his sequence of stages in a peculiar way. McLennan,
for instance, puts the idea referred to in the following words:--

"In short, it is suggested to us, that the history of human society is
that of a development following very slowly one general law, and that
the variety of forms of life--of domestic and civil institution--is
ascribable mainly to the unequal development of the different sections
of mankind.... The first thing to be done is to inform ourselves of
the facts relating to the least developed races. To begin with them is
to begin with history at the farthest-back point of time to which,
except by argument and inference, we can reach. Their condition, as
it may to-day be observed, is truly the most ancient condition of man"
(_Studies in Ancient History_, 2nd series, 9, 15).

On this basis we might draw up tables of consecutive stages, of which
the simplest may be taken from Post:--

"Four types of organization: the tribal, the territorial, the
seignorial, and the social. The first has as its basis marriage and
relationship by blood; the second, neighbouring occupation of a
district; the third, patronage relations between lord and dependants;
the fourth, social intercourse and contractual relations between
individual personalities" (Post, _Grundriss_, i. 14).

This may be supplemented from Friedrichs in regard to initial stages of
family organization. He reckons four stages of this kind: promiscuity,
loose relations, matriarchal family, patriarchal family, modern,
bilateral family (_Z. f. vgl. R. wissenschaft_). This mode of grouping
similar phenomena as a sequence of stages leads to a conception of
universal history of a peculiar kind. And as such it has been realized
and advocated by Kohler (see e.g. his article in Helmolt's _World's
History_, Eng. trans. i.). Prompted by this conception several
representatives of comparative jurisprudence have found no difficulty to
insert such a peculiar institution as group-marriage into the general
and obligatory course of legal evolution. It is to be noticed, however,
that Kohler himself has entered a distinct protest against McLennan's
and Post's view that the more rudimentary a people's culture is, the
more archaic it is, and the earlier it has to be placed in the natural
sequence of evolution. This would create difficulties in the case of
tribes of exceedingly low culture, like the Ceylon Veddahs, who live in
monogamous and patriarchal groups. According to Kohler's view, neither
the mere fact of a low standard of culture, nor the fact that a certain
legal custom precedes another in some cases in point of time, settles
the natural sequence of development. The process of development must be
studied in cases when it is sufficiently clear, gaps in other cases have
to be supplied accordingly, and the working together of distinct
institutions, especially in cases when there is no ethnic connexion has
to be especially noticed. These are counsels of perfection, but Kohler's
own example shows sufficiently that it is not easy to follow them to the
letter. One thing is, however, clearly indicated by these and similar
criticisms; it is, at the least, premature to sketch anything like a
course of universal development for legal history. We have grave doubts
whether the time will ever come for laying down any single course of
that kind. The attempts made hitherto have generally led to overstating
the value of certain parts of the evidence and to squeezing special
traits into a supposed general course of evolution.

(f) Another group of thinkers is therefore content to systematize and
explain the material from the point of view, not of universal history,
but of _correspondence to economic stages and types_. This is, as we
have seen, the leading idea in Dargun's or Hildebrand's investigations.
It is needless to go into the question of the right or wrong of
particular suggestions made by these writers. The place assigned to
individualism and collectivism may be adequate or not; how far can be
settled only by special inquiries. But the general trend of study
initiated in this direction is certainly a promising one, if only one
consideration of method is well kept in view. Investigators ought to be
very chary of laying down certain combinations as the necessary outcome
of certain economic situations. Such combinations or consequences
certainly exist; pastoral husbandry, the life of scattered hunting
groups, the conditions of agriculturists under feudal rule, certainly
contain elements which will recur in divers ethnical surroundings. But
we must not forget a feature which is constantly before our eyes in real
life: namely, that different minds and characters will draw different
and perhaps opposite conclusions in exactly similar outward conditions.
This may happen in identical or similar geographical environment; let us
only think of ancient Greeks and Turks on the Balkan peninsula, or of
ancient Greeks and modern Greeks for that matter. But even the same
_historical medium_ leaves, as a rule, scope for treatment of legal
problems on divers lines. Take systems of succession. They exercise the
most potent influence on the structure and life of society. Undivided
succession, whether in the form of primogeniture or in that of junior
right, sacrifices equity and natural affection to the economic
efficiency of estates. Equal-partition rules, like _gavelkind_ or
_parage_, lead in an exactly opposite direction. And yet both sets of
rules coexisted among the agriculturists of feudal England; communities
placed in nearly identical historical positions followed one or the
other of these rules. The same may be said of types of dwelling and
forms of settlement. In other words, it is not enough to start from a
given economic condition as if it were bound to regulate with fatalistic
precision all the incidents of legal custom and social intercourse. We
have to start from actual facts as complex results of many causes, and
to try to reduce as much as we can of this material to the action of
economic forces in a particular stage or type of development.

(g) The psychological diversities of mankind in dealing with the same or
similar problems of food and property, of procreation and marriage, of
common defence and relationship, of intercourse and contrast, &c., open
another possibility for the grouping of facts and the explanation of
their evolution. It may be difficult or impossible to trace the reasons
and causes of synthetic combinations in the history of society. That is,
we can hardly go beyond noting that certain disconnected features of
social life appear together and react on each other. But it is easier
and more promising to approach the mass of our material from the
_analytical_ side, taking hold of certain principles, or rules, or
institutions, and tracing them to their natural consequences either
through a direct systematization of recorded facts or, when these fail,
through logical inferences. Some of the most brilliant and useful work
in the historical study of law has been effected on these lines.
Mommsen's theory of Roman magistracy, Jhering's theory of the struggle
for right, Kohler's view of the evolution of contract, &c., have been
evolved by such a process of legal analysis; and, even when such
generalizations have to be curtailed or complicated later on, they serve
their turn as a powerful means of organizing evidence and suggesting
reasonable explanations. The attribute of "reasonableness" has to be
reckoned with largely in such cases. Analytical explanations are
attractive to students because they substitute logical clearness for
irrational accumulation of traits and facts. They do so to a large
extent through appeals to the logic and to the reason common to us and
to the people we are studying. This deductive element has to be closely
watched and tested from the side of a concrete study of the evidence,
but it seems destined to play a very prominent part in the comparative
history of law, because legal analysis and construction have at all
times striven to embody logic and equity in the domain of actual
interests and forces. And, as we have seen in our survey of the
literature of the subject, recent comparative studies tend to make the
share of juridical analysis in given relative surroundings larger and
larger. What is so difficult of attainment to single workers--a
harmonious appreciation of the combined influences of common origin,
reception of foreign custom, recurring psychological combinations, the
driving forces of economic culture and of the dialectical process of
legal thought, will be achieved, it may be hoped, by the enthusiastic
and brotherly exertions of all the workers in the field.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Of the principal works of reference may be mentioned:
_Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft_, edited by
Bernhöft, Cohn and Kohler (1878- ); _Nouvelle revue historique de
droit français et étranger_, edited by Dareste, Esmein, Appert,
Fournier, Tardiff and Prou (1877- ); A. Pictet, _Les Origines
indo-européennes_ (i. 1859, ii. 1863); Fustel de Coulanges, _La Cité
antique_ (1890); W. E. Hearn, _The Aryan Household_ (1879); R. v.
Jhering, _Vorgeschichte der Indoeuropäer_ (1894); B. W. Leist,
_Graekoitalische Rechtsgeschichte_ (1884), _Alt-arisches Jus Gentium_
(1889), _Alt-arisches Jus Civile_ (1892-1896); Hruza, _Geschichte des
griechischen und römischen Familienrechtes_ (1893); O. Schrader,
_Urgeschichte und Sprachvergleichung_ (1890), _Reallexikon des
indo-germanischen Altertumskunde_ (1901); B. Delbrück, _Die
indo-germanischen Verwandtschaftsnamen_ (1889), _Das Mutterrecht bei
den Indogermanen_; Sir H. S. Maine, _Ancient Law_, with notes by Sir
F. Pollock (1906), _Village Communities_ (1871), _Early History of
Institutions_ (1875), _Early Law and Custom_ (1883); M. H. d'Arbois de
Jubainville, _Études de droit celtique_ (1895), _La Famille celtique_
(1905); J. J. Bachofen, _Das Mutterrecht_ (1861), _Antiquarische
Briefe_ (1880); J. F. McLennan, _Studies in Ancient History_ (1876),
_Patriarchal Theory_ (1885), _Studies in Ancient History_ (2nd series,
1896); Giraud Teulon, _Origines de la famille et du mariage_ (1884);
L. H. Morgan, "Systems of Consanguinity" in the publications of the
Smithsonian Institution, vol. xvii. (1869); _Ancient Society_ (1877);
E. B. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_ (1871); Lord Avebury (Sir J.
Lubbock), _Origin of Civilization_ (1870); J. Lippert,
_Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit_ (1887); W. Robertson Smith, _Kinship
and Marriage in Arabia_ (1885); F. Bernhöft, _Staat und Recht der
römischen Königszeit im Verhältniss zu verwandten Rechten_ (1882); A.
H. Post, _Aufgaben einer allgemeinen Rechtswissenschaft_ (1891), _Die
Anfänge des Staatsund Rechtslebens_ (1878), _Bausteine einer
allgemeinen Rechtsgeschichte auf vergleichend-ethnologischer Basis_
(1881), _Einleitung in das Studium der ethnologischen Jurisprudenz_
(1886), _Grundlagen des Rechts und Grundzüge seiner
Entwickelungsgeschichte_ (1882), _Studien zur Entwicklungsgeschichte
des Familienrechts_ (1889), _Afrikanische Jurisprudenz_ (1887),
_Grundriss der ethnologischen Jurisprudenz_ (1894); Wilken, _Das
Matriarchat im alten Arabien_ (1884); M. M. Kovalevsky, _Coutume
contemporaine et loi ancienne_ (1893), _Gesetz und Gewohnheit im
Kaukasus_ (1890), _Tableau du développement de la famille et de la
propriété_ (1889); Dargun, "Mutterrecht und Raubehe," in Otto Gierke's
_Untersuchungen zur deutschen Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte_ (1883); R.
Hildebrand, _Das Problem einer allgemeinen Entwicklungsgeschichte des
Rechts und der Sitte_ (1894), _Recht und Sitte auf den verschiedenen
wirtschaftlichen Kulturstufen_ (1896); E. Grosse, _Die Formen der
Familie und der Wirtschaft_ (1896); E. A. Westermarck, _History of
Human Marriage_ (1894), _The Origin and Development of the Moral
Ideas_ (1906); C. N. Starcke, _Die primitive Familie_ (1888); G.
Tarde, _Les Transformations du droit_ (2nd ed., 1894); Steinmetz,
_Ethnologische Studien zur ersten Entwicklung der Strafe_ (1894); J.
Kohler, _Das Recht als Kulturerscheinung: Einleitung in die
vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft_ (1885), _Shakespeare vor dem Forum
der Jurisprudenz_ (1884), "Das chinesische Strafrecht," _Beitrag zur
Universalgeschichte des Strafrechts_ (1886), _Rechtsvergleichende
Studien über islamitisches Recht, Recht der Berbern, chinesisches
Recht und Recht auf Ceylon_ (1889), _Altindisches Prozessrecht_
(1892), _Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe_ (1897), _Kulturrechte des Alten
Amerikas, das Recht der Azteken_ (1892), _Das Negerrecht_ (1895);
Kohler and Peisker, _Aus dem babylonischen Rechtsleben_ (1890),
_Hammurubi's Gesetz_ (1904); A. Lang, _The Secret of the Totem_
(1905); P. J. H. Grierson, _The Silent Trade_ (1903); J. G. Frazer,
_Lectures on the Early History of the Kingship_ (1905); R. Dareste,
_Études d'histoire de droit_ (1889), _Nouvelles études d'histoire de
droit_ (1896); Lambert, _La Fonction du droit civil comparé_ (1903);
Fritz Hommel, _Semitische Alterthumskunde_ (Eng. trans., _The Ancient
Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 1897); H. C. Lea,
_Superstition and Force_ (1866); A. Hellwig, _Das Asylrecht der
Naturvölker_ (Berliner juristische Beiträge, 1893); F. Seebohm,
_Tribal Custom in Anglo-Saxon Law_ (1902). (P. Vi.)

JURJANI, the name of two Arabic scholars.

1. ABU BAKR 'ABDU-L-QAHIR IBN 'ABDUR-RAHMAN UL-JURJANI (d. 1078,)
Arabian grammarian, belonged to the Persian school and wrote a famous
grammar, the _Kitab ul-'Awamil ul-Mi'a or Kitab Mi'at 'Amil_, which was
edited by Erpenius (Leiden, 1617), by Baillie (Calcutta, 1803), and by
A. Lockett (Calcutta, 1814). Ten Arabic commentaries on this work exist
in MS., also two Turkish. It has been versified five times and
translated into Persian. Another of his grammatical works on which
several commentaries have been written is the _Kitab Jumal fin-Nahw_.

For other works see C. Brockelmann's _Gesch. der Arabischen
Litteratur_ (1898), i. 288.

2. 'ALI IBN MAHOMMED UL-JURJANI (1339-1414), Arabian encyclopaedic
writer, was born near Astarabad and became professor in Shiraz. When
this city was plundered by Timur (1387) he removed to Samarkand, but
returned to Shiraz in 1405, and remained there until his death. Of his
thirty-one extant works, many being commentaries on other works, one of
the best known is the _Ta'rifat_ (_Definitions_), which was edited by G.
Flügel (Leipzig, 1845), published also in Constantinople (1837), Cairo
(1866, &c.), and St Petersburg (1897). (G. W. T.)

JURY, in English law, a body of laymen summoned and sworn (_jurati_) to
ascertain, under the guidance of a judge, the truth as to questions of
fact raised in legal proceedings whether civil or criminal. The
development of the system of trial by jury has been regarded as one of
the greatest achievements of English jurisprudence; it has even been
said that the ultimate aim of the English constitution is "to get twelve
good men into a box."[1] In modern times the English system of trial by
jury has been adopted in many countries in which jury trial was not
native or had been strangled or imperfectly developed under local
conditions.

The origin of the system in England has been much investigated by
lawyers and historians. The result of these investigations is a fairly
general agreement that the germ of jury trial is to be found in the
Frankish inquest (_recognitio_ or _inquisitio_) transplanted into
England by the Norman kings. The essence of this inquest was the
summoning of a body of neighbours by a public officer to give answer
upon oath (_recognoscere veritatem_) on some question of fact or law
(_jus_), or of mixed fact and law. At the outset the object of the
inquiry was usually to obtain information for the king, e.g. to
ascertain facts needed for assessing taxation. Indeed Domesday Book
appears to be made up by recording the answers of inquests.

The origin of juries is very fully discussed in W. Forsyth's _History of
Trial by Jury_ (1852), and the various theories advanced are more
concisely stated in W. Stubbs's _Constitutional History_ (vol. i.) and
in E. A. Freeman's _Norman Conquest_ (vol. v.). Until the modern
examination of historical documents proved the contrary, the jury
system, like all other institutions, was popularly regarded as the work
of a single legislator, and in England it has been usually assigned to
Alfred the Great. This supposition is without historical foundation, nor
is it correct to regard the jury as "copied from this or that kindred
institution to be found in this or that German or Scandinavian land," or
brought over ready made by Hengist or by William.[2] "Many writers of
authority," says Stubbs, "have maintained that the entire jury system is
indigenous in England, some deriving it from Celtic tradition based on
the principles of Roman law, and adopted by the Anglo-Saxons and Normans
from the people they had conquered. Others have regarded it as a product
of that legal genius of the Anglo-Saxons of which Alfred is the mythical
impersonation, or as derived by that nation from the customs of
primitive Germany or from their intercourse with the Danes. Nor even
when it is admitted that the system of 'recognition' was introduced from
Normandy have legal writers agreed as to the source from which the
Normans themselves derived it. One scholar maintains that it was brought
by the Norsemen from Scandinavia; another that it was derived from the
processes of the canon law; another that it was developed on Gallic soil
from Roman principles; another that it came from Asia through the
crusades," or was borrowed by the Angles and Saxons from their Slavonic
neighbours in northern Europe. The true answer is that forms of trial
resembling the jury system in various particulars are to be found in the
primitive institutions of all nations. That which comes nearest in time
and character to trial by jury is the system of recognition by sworn
inquest, introduced into England by the Normans. "That inquest," says
Stubbs, "is directly derived from the Frank capitularies, into which it
may have been adopted from the fiscal regulations of the Theodosian
code, and thus own some distant relationship with the Roman
jurisprudence." However that may be, the system of "recognition"
consisted in questions of fact, relating to fiscal or judicial business,
being submitted by the officers of the crown to sworn witnesses in the
local courts. Freeman points out that the Norman rulers of England were
obliged, more than native rulers would have been, to rely on this system
for accurate information. They needed to have a clear and truthful
account of disputed points set before them, and such an account was
sought for in the oaths of the recognitors.[3] The Norman conquest,
therefore, fostered the growth of those native germs common to England
with other countries out of which the institution of juries grew.
Recognition, as introduced by the Normans, is only, in this point of
view, another form of the same principle which shows itself in the
compurgators, in the _frith-borh_ (frank-pledge), in every detail of the
action of the popular courts before the conquest. Admitting with Stubbs
that the Norman recognition was the instrument which the lawyers in
England ultimately shaped into trial by jury, Freeman maintains none the
less that the latter is distinctively English. Forsyth comes to
substantially the same conclusion. Noting the jury germs of the
Anglo-Saxon period, he shows how out of those elements, which continued
in full force under the Anglo-Normans, was produced at last the
institution of the jury. "As yet it was only implied in the requirement
that disputed questions should be determined by the voice of sworn
witnesses taken from the neighbourhood, and deposing to the truth of
what they had seen or heard." The conclusions of Sir F. Pollock and F.W.
Maitland, expressed in their _History of English Law_, and based on a
closer study, are to the same effect.

This inquest then was a royal institution and not a survival from
Anglo-Saxon law or popular custom, under which compurgation and the
ordeal were the accepted modes of trying issues of fact.

The inquest by recognition, formerly an inquest of office, i.e. to
ascertain facts in the interests of the crown or the exchequer, was
gradually allowed between subjects as a mode of settling disputes of
fact. This extension began with the assize of novel disseisin, whereby
the king protected by royal writ and inquest of neighbours every seisin
of a freehold. This was followed by the grand assize, applicable to
questions affecting freehold or status. A defendant in such an action
was enabled by an enactment of Henry II. to decline trial by combat and
choose trial by assize, which was conducted as follows. The sheriff
summoned four knights of the neighbourhood, who being sworn chose the
twelve lawful knights most cognisant of the facts, to determine on their
oaths which had the better right to the land. If they all knew the facts
and were agreed as to their verdict, well and good; if some or all were
ignorant, the fact was certified in court, and new knights were named,
until twelve were found to be agreed. The same course was followed when
the twelve were not unanimous. New knights were added until the twelve
were agreed. This was called afforcing the assize. At this time the
knowledge on which the jurors acted was their own personal knowledge,
acquired independently of the trial. "So entirely," says Forsyth, "did
they proceed upon their own previously formed view of the facts in
dispute that they seem to have considered themselves at liberty to pay
no attention to evidence offered in court, however clearly it might
disprove the case which they were prepared to support." The use of
recognition is prescribed by the constitutions of Clarendon (1166) for
cases of dispute as to lay or clerical tenure. See Forsyth, p. 131;
Stubbs, i. 617.

This procedure by the assize was confined to real actions, and while it
preceded, it is not identical with the modern jury trial in civil cases,
which was gradually introduced by consent of the parties and on pressure
from the judges. Jury trial proper differs from the grand and petty
assizes in that the assizes were summoned at the same time as the
defendant to answer a question formulated in the writ; whereas in the
ordinary jury trial no order for a jury could be made till the parties
by their pleadings had come to an issue of fact and had put themselves
on the country, _posuerunt se super patriam_ (Pollock and Maitland, i.
119-128; ii. 601, 615, 621).

_The Grand Jury._--In Anglo-Saxon times there was an institution
analogous to the grand jury in criminal cases, viz. the twelve senior
thegns, who, according to an ordinance of Æthelred II., were sworn in
the county court that they would accuse no innocent man and acquit no
guilty one. The twelve thegns were a jury of presentment or accusation,
like the grand jury of later times, and the absolute guilt or innocence
of those accused by them had to be determined by subsequent
proceedings--by compurgation or ordeal. Whether this is the actual
origin of the grand jury or not, the assizes of Clarendon (1166) and
Northampton (1176) establish the criminal jury on a definite basis.

In the laws of Edward the Confessor and the earlier Anglo-Saxon kings
are found many traces of a public duty to bring offenders to justice,
by hue and cry, or by action of the _frith-borh_, township, tithing or
hundred. By the assize of Clarendon it is directed that inquiry be made
in each county and in each hundred by twelve lawful (_legaliores_) men
of the hundred, and by four lawful men from each of the four vills
nearest to the scene of the alleged crime, on oath to tell the truth if
in the hundred or vill there is any man accused (_rettatus aut
publicatus_) as a robber or murderer or thief, or receiver of such. The
assize of Northampton added forgery of coin or charters (_falsonaria_)
and arson. The inquiry is to be held by the justices in eyre, and by the
sheriffs in their county courts. On a finding on the oath aforesaid, the
accused was to be taken and to go to the ordeal. By the articles of
visitation of 1194, four knights are to be chosen from the county who by
their oath shall choose two lawful knights of each hundred or wapentake,
or, if knights be wanting, free and legal men, so that the twelve may
answer for all matters within the hundred, including, says Stubbs, "all
the pleas of the crown, the trial of malefactors and their receivers, as
well as a vast amount of civil business." The process thus described is
now regarded as an employment of the Frankish inquest for the collection
of _fama publica_. It was alternative to the rights of a private accuser
by appeal, and the inquest were not exactly either accusers or
witnesses, but gave voice to public repute as to the criminality of the
persons whom they presented. From this form of inquest has developed the
grand jury of presentment or accusation, and the coroner's inquest,
which works partly as a grand jury as to homicide cases, and partly as
an inquest of office as to treasure trove, &c.

The number of the grand jury is fixed by usage at not less than twelve
nor more than twenty-three jurors. Unanimity is not required, but twelve
must concur in the presentment or indictment.[4] This jury retains so
much of its ancient character that it may present of its own knowledge
or information, and is not tied down by rules of evidence. After a
general charge by the judge as to the bills of indictment on the file of
the court, the grand jury considers the bills in private and hears upon
oath in the grand jury chamber some or all the witnesses called in
support of an indictment whose names are endorsed upon the bill. It does
not as a rule hear counsel or solicitors for the prosecution, nor does
it see or hear the accused or his witnesses, and it is not concerned
with the nature of the defence, its functions being to ascertain whether
there is a prima facie case against the accused justifying his trial. If
it thinks that there is such a case, the indictment is returned into
court as a true bill; if it thinks that there is not, the bill is
ignored and returned into court torn up or marked "no bill," or
"_ignoramus_." Inasmuch as no man can be put on trial for treason or
felony, and few are tried for misdemeanour, without the intervention of
the grand jury, the latter has a kind of veto with respect to criminal
prosecutions. The grand jurors are described in the indictment as "the
jurors for our lord the king." As such prosecutions in respect of
indictable offences are now in almost all cases begun by a full
preliminary inquiry before justices, and inasmuch as cases rarely come
before a grand jury until after committal of the accused for trial, the
present utility of the grand jury depends very much on the character of
the justices' courts. As a review of the discretion of stipendiary
magistrates in committing cases for trial, the intervention of the grand
jury is in most cases superfluous; and even when the committing justices
are not lawyers, it is now a common opinion that their views as to the
existence of a case to be submitted to a jury for trial should not be
over-ridden by a lay tribunal sitting in private, and in this opinion
many grand jurors concur. But the abolition of the grand jury would
involve great changes in criminal procedure for which parliament seems
to have no appetite. Forsyth thinks that the grand jury will often
baffle "the attempts of malevolence" by ignoring a malicious and
unfounded prosecution; but it may also defeat the ends of justice by
shielding a criminal with whom it has strong political or social
sympathies. The qualification of the grand jurymen is that they should
be freeholders of the county--to what amount appears to be
uncertain--and they are summoned by the sheriff, or failing him by the
coroner.

The _coroner's jury_ must by statute (1887) consist of not more than
twenty-three nor less than twelve jurors. It is summoned by the coroner
to hold an inquest _super visum corporis_ in cases of sudden or violent
death, and of death in prisons or lunatic asylums, and to deal with
treasure trove. The qualification of the coroner's jurors does not
depend on the Juries Acts 1825 and 1870, and in practice they are drawn
from householders in the immediate vicinity of the place where the
inquest is held. Unanimity is not required of a coroner's jury; but
twelve must concur in the verdict. If it charges anyone with murder or
manslaughter, it is duly recorded and transmitted to a court of assize,
and has the same effect as an indictment by a grand jury, i.e. it is
accusatory only and is not conclusive, and is traversable, and the issue
of guilt or innocence is tried by a petty jury.

_The Petty Jury._--The ordeal by water or fire was used as the final
test of guilt or innocence until its abolition by decree of the Lateran
council (1219). On its abolition it became necessary to devise a new
mode of determining guilt as distinguished from ill fame as charged by
the grand jury. So early as 1221 accused persons had begun to put
themselves on the country, or to pay to have a verdict for "good or
ill"; and the trial seems to have been by calling for the opinions of
the twelve men and the four townships, who may have been regarded as a
second body of witnesses who could traverse the opinion of the hundred
jury. (See Pollock and Maitland, ii. 646.) The reference to _judicium
parium_ in Magna Carta is usually taken to refer to the jury, but it is
clear that what is now known as the petty jury was not then developed in
its present form. "The history of that institution is still in
manuscript," says Maitland.

It is not at all clear that at the outset the trial by the country (_in
pais_; _in patria_) was before another and different jury. The earliest
instances look as if the twelve men and the four vills were the _patria_
and had to agree. But by the time of Edward I. the accused seems to have
been allowed to call in a second jury. A person accused by the inquest
of the hundred was allowed to have the truth of the charge tried by
another and different jury.[5] "There is," says Forsyth, "no possibility
of assigning a date to this alteration." "In the time of Bracton (middle
of the 13th century) the usual mode of determining innocence or guilt
was by combat or appeal. But in most cases the appellant had the option
of either fighting with his adversary or putting himself on his country
for trial"--the exceptions being murder by secret poisoning, and certain
circumstances presumed by the law to be conclusive of guilt.[6] But the
separation must have been complete by 1352, in which year it was enacted
"that no indictor shall be put in inquests upon deliverance of the
indictees of felonies or trespass if he be challenged for that same
cause by the indictee."

The jurors, whatever their origin, differed from the Saxon doomsmen and
the jurats of the Channel Islands in that they adjudged nothing; and
from compurgators or oath-helpers in that they were not witnesses
called by a litigant to support his case (Pollock and Maitland, i. 118).
Once established, the jury of trial whether of actions or indictments
developed on the same lines. But at the outset this jury differed in one
material respect from the modern trial jury. The ancient trial jury
certify to the truth from their knowledge of the facts, however
acquired. In other words, they resemble witnesses or collectors of local
evidence or gossip rather than jurors. The complete withdrawal of the
witness character from the jury is connected by Forsyth with the ancient
rules of law as to proof of written instruments, and a peculiar mode of
trial _per sectam_. When a deed is attested by witnesses, you have a
difference between the testimony of the witness, who deposes to the
execution of the deed, and the verdict of the jury as to the fact of
execution. It has been contended with much plausibility that in such
cases the attesting witnesses formed part of the jury. Forsyth doubts
that conclusion, although he admits that, as the jurors themselves were
originally mere witnesses, there was no distinction in principle between
them and the attesting witnesses, and that the attesting witnesses might
be associated with the jury in the discharge of the function of giving a
verdict. However that may be, in the reign of Edward III., although the
witnesses are spoken of "as joined to the assize," they are
distinguished from the jurors. The trial _per sectam_ was used as an
alternative to the assize or jury, and resembled in principle the system
of compurgation. The claimant proved his case by vouching a certain
number of witnesses (_secta_), who had seen the transaction in question,
and the defendant rebutted the presumption thus created by vouching a
larger number of witnesses on his own side. In cases in which this was
allowed, the jury did not interpose at all, but in course of time the
practice arose of the witnesses of the _secta_ telling their story to
the jury. In these two instances we have the jury as judges of the facts
sharply contrasted with the witnesses who testify to the facts; and,
with the increasing use of juries and the development of rules of
evidence, this was gradually established as the true principle of the
system. In the reign of Henry IV. we find the judges declaring that the
jury after they have been sworn should not see or take with them any
other evidence than that which has been offered in open court. But the
personal knowledge of the jurors was not as yet regarded as outside the
evidence on which they might found a verdict, and the stress laid upon
the selection of jurymen from the neighbourhood of the cause of the
action shows that this element was counted on, and, in fact, deemed
essential to a just consideration of the case. Other examples of the
same theory of the duties of the jury may be found in the language used
by legal writers. Thus it has been said that the jury may return a
verdict although no evidence at all be offered, and again, that the
evidence given in court is not binding on the jury, because they are
assumed from their local connexion to be sufficiently informed of the
facts to give a verdict without or in opposition to the oral evidence. A
recorder of London, _temp._ Edward VI., says that, "if the witnesses at
a trial do not agree with the jurors, the verdict of the twelve shall be
taken and the witnesses shall be rejected." Forsyth suggests as a reason
for the continuance of this theory that it allowed the jury an escape
from the _attaint_, by which penalties might be imposed on them for
delivering a false verdict in a civil case. They could suggest that the
verdict was according to the fact, though not according to the evidence.

In England the trial jury (also called petty jury or traverse jury)
consists of twelve jurors, except in the county court, where the number
is eight. In civil but not in criminal cases the trial may by consent be
by fewer than twelve jurors, and the verdict may by consent be that of
the majority. The rule requiring a unanimous verdict has been variously
explained. Forsyth regards the rule as intimately connected with the
original character of the jury as a body of witnesses, and with the
conception common in primitive society that safety is to be found in the
number of witnesses, rather than the character of their testimony. The
old notion seems to have been that to justify an accusation, or to find
a fact, twelve sworn men must be agreed. The afforcing of the jury,
already described, marks an intermediate stage in the development. Where
the juries were not unanimous new jurors were added until twelve were
found to be of the same opinion. From the unanimous twelve selected out
of a large number to the unanimous twelve constituting the whole jury
was a natural step, which, however, was not taken without hesitation. In
some old cases the verdict of eleven jurors out of twelve was accepted,
but it was decided in the reign of Edward III. that the verdict must be
the unanimous opinion of the whole jury. Diversity of opinion was taken
to imply perversity of judgment, and the law sanctioned the application
of the harshest methods to produce unanimity. The jurors while
considering their verdict were not allowed a fire nor any refreshment,
and it is said in some of the old books that, if they failed to agree,
they could be put in a cart and drawn after the justices to the border
of the county, and then upset into a ditch. These rude modes of
enforcing unanimity has been softened in later practice, but in criminal
cases the rule of unanimity is still absolutely fixed.

In civil cases and in trials for misdemeanour, the jurors are allowed to
separate during adjournments and to return to their homes; in trials for
treason, treason-felony and murder, the jurors, once sworn, must not
separate until discharged. But by an act of 1897 jurors on trials for
other felonies may be allowed by the court to separate in the same way
as on trials for misdemeanour.

These rules do not apply to a jury which has retired to consider its
verdict. During the period of retirement it is under the keeping of an
officer of the court.

At common law aliens were entitled to be tried by a jury _de medietate
linguae_--half Englishmen, half foreigners, not necessarily compatriots
of the accused. This privilege was abolished by the Naturalization Act
1870; but by the Juries Act 1870 aliens who have been domiciled in
England or Wales for ten years or upwards, if in other respects duly
qualified, are liable to jury service as if they were natural-born
subjects (s. 8).

A jury of matrons is occasionally summoned, viz. on a writ _de ventre
inspiciendo_, or where a female condemned to death pleads pregnancy in
stay of execution.

The jurors are selected from the inhabitants of the county, borough or
other area for which the court to which they are summoned is
commissioned to act. In criminal cases, owing to the rules as to venue
and that crime is to be tried in the neighbourhood where it is
committed, the mode of selection involves a certain amount of
independent local knowledge on the part of the jurors. Where local
prejudice has been aroused for or against the accused, which is likely
to affect the chance of a fair trial, the proceedings may be removed to
another jurisdiction, and there are a good many offences in which by
legislation the accused may be tried where he is caught, irrespective of
the place where he is alleged to have broken the law. As regards civil
cases, a distinction was at an early date drawn between local actions
which must be tried in the district in which they originated, and
transitory actions which could be tried in any county. These
distinctions are now of no importance, as the place of trial of a civil
action is decided as a matter of procedure and convenience, and regard
is not necessarily paid to the place at which a wrong was done or a
contract broken.

The qualifications for, and exemptions from, service as a petty juror
are in the main contained in the Juries Acts 1825 and 1870, though a
number of further exemptions are added by scattered enactments. The
exemptions include members of the legislature and judges, ministers of
various denominations, and practising barristers and solicitors,
registered medical practitioners and dentists, and officers and soldiers
of the regular army. Persons over sixty are exempt but not disqualified.
Lists of the jurors are prepared by the overseers in rural parishes and
by the town clerks in boroughs, and are submitted to justices for
revision. When jurors are required for a civil or criminal trial they
are summoned by the sheriff or, if he cannot act, by the coroner.

_Special and Common Juries._--For the purpose of civil trials in the
superior courts there are two lists of jurors, special and common. The
practice of selecting special jurors to try important civil cases
appears to have sprung up, without legislative enactment, in the
procedure of the courts. Forsyth says that the first statutory
recognition of it is so late as 3 Geo. II. c. 25, and that in the oldest
book of practice in existence (Powell's _Attourney's Academy_, 1623)
there is no allusion to two classes of jurymen. The acts, however, which
regulate the practice allude to it as well established. The Juries Act
1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 77) defines the class of persons entitled and
liable to serve on special juries thus: Every man whose name shall be on
the jurors' book for any county, &c., and who shall be legally entitled
to be called an esquire, or shall be a person of higher degree, or a
banker or merchant, or who shall occupy a house of a certain rateable
value (e.g. £100 in a town of 20,000 inhabitants, £50 elsewhere), or a
farm of £300 or other premises at £100. A special juryman receives a fee
of a guinea for each cause. Either party may obtain an order for a
special jury, but must pay the additional expenses created thereby
unless the judge certifies that it was a proper case to be so tried. For
the common jury any man is qualified and liable to serve who has £10 by
the year in land or tenements of freehold, copyhold or customary tenure;
or £20 on lands or tenement held by lease for twenty-one years or
longer, or who being a householder is rated at £30 in the counties of
London and Middlesex, or £20 in any other county. A special jury cannot
be ordered in cases of treason or felony, and may be ordered in cases of
misdemeanour only when the trial is in the king's bench division of the
High Court, or the civil side at assizes.

_Challenge._--It has always been permissible for the parties to
challenge the jurors summoned to consider indictments or to try cases.
Both in civil and criminal cases a challenge "for cause" is allowed; in
criminal cases a peremptory challenge is also allowed. Challenge "for
cause" may be either to the _array_, i.e. to the whole number of jurors
returned, or to the _polls_, i.e. to the jurors individually. A
challenge to the array is either a _principal_ challenge (on the ground
that the sheriff is a party to the cause, or related to one of the
parties), or a challenge for _favour_ (on the ground of circumstances
implying "at least a probability of bias or favour in the sheriff"). A
challenge to the polls is an exception to one or more jurymen on either
of the following grounds: (1) _propter honoris respectum_, as when a
lord of parliament is summoned; (2) _propter defectum_, for want of
qualification; (3) _propter affectum_, on suspicion of bias or
partiality; and (4) _propter delictum_, when the juror has been
convicted of an infamous offence. The challenge _propter affectum_ is,
like the challenge to the array, either principal challenge or "to the
favour." In England as a general rule the juror may be interrogated to
show want of qualification; but in other cases the person making the
challenge must prove it without questioning the juror, and the courts do
not allow the protracted examination on the _voir dire_ which precedes
every _cause célèbre_ in the United States. On indictments for treason
the accused has a right peremptorily to challenge thirty-five of the
jurors on the panel; in cases of felony the number is limited to twenty,
and in cases of misdemeanour there is no right of peremptory challenge.
The Crown has not now the right of peremptory challenge and may
challenge only for cause certain (Juries Act 1825, s. 29). In the case
of felony, on the first call of the list jurors objected to by the Crown
are asked to stand by, and the cause of challenge need not be assigned
by the Crown until the whole list has been perused or gone through, or
unless there remain no longer twelve jurors left to try the case,
exclusive of those challenged. This arrangement practically amounts to
giving the Crown the benefit of a peremptory challenge.

_Function of Jury._--The jurors were originally the mouthpiece of local
opinion on the questions submitted to them, or witnesses to fact as to
such questions. They have now become the judges of fact upon the
evidence laid before them. Their province is strictly limited to
questions of fact, and within that province they are still further
restricted to matters proved by evidence in the course of the trial and
in theory must not act upon their own personal knowledge and observation
except so far as it proceeds from what is called a "view" of the
subject matter of the litigation. Indeed it is now well established that
if a juror is acquainted with facts material to the case, he should
inform the court so that he may be dismissed from the jury and called as
a witness; and Lord Ellenborough ruled that a judge would misdirect the
jury if he told them that they might reject the evidence and go by their
own knowledge. The old _decantatum_ assigns to judge and jury their own
independent functions: _Ad quaestionem legis respondent judices: ad
quaestionem facti juratores_ (Plowden, 114). But the independence of the
jurors as to matters of fact was from an early time not absolute. In
certain civil cases a litigant dissatisfied by the verdict could adopt
the procedure by attaint, and if the attaint jury of twenty-four found
that the first jury had given a false verdict, they were fined and
suffered the villainous judgment. Attaints fell into disuse on the
introduction about 1665 of the practice of granting new trials when the
jury found against the weight of the evidence, or upon a wrong direction
as to the law of the case.

In criminal cases the courts attempted to control the verdicts by fining
the jurors for returning a verdict _contra plenam et manifestam
evidentiam_. But this practice was declared illegal in Bushell's case
(1670); and so far as criminal cases are concerned the independence of
the jury as sole judges of fact is almost absolute. If they acquit,
their action cannot be reviewed nor punished, except on proof of wilful
and corrupt consent to "embracery" (Juries Act 1825, s. 61). If they
convict no new trial can be ordered except in the rare instances of
misdemeanours tried as civil cases in the High Court. In trials for
various forms of libel during the 18th century, the judges restricted
the powers of juries by ruling that their function was limited to
finding whether the libel had in fact been published, and that it was
for the court to decide whether the words published constituted an
offence.[7] By Fox's Libel Act 1792 the jurors in such cases were
expressly empowered to bring in a general verdict of libel or no libel,
i.e. to deal with the whole question of the meaning and extent of the
incriminated publication. In other words, they were given the same
independence in cases of libel as in other criminal cases. This
independence has in times of public excitement operated as a kind of
local option against the existing law and as an aid to procuring its
amendment. Juries in Ireland in agrarian cases often acquit in the teeth
of the evidence. In England the independence of the jury in criminal
trials is to some extent menaced by the provisions of the Criminal
Appeal Act 1907.

While the jury is in legal theory absolute as to matters of fact, it is
in practice largely controlled by the judges. Not only does the judge at
the trial decide as to the relevancy of the evidence tendered to the
issues to be proved, and as to the admissibility of questions put to a
witness, but he also advises the jury as to the logical bearing of the
evidence admitted upon the matters to be found by the jury. The rules as
to admissibility of evidence, largely based upon scholastic logic,
sometimes difficult to apply, and almost unknown in continental
jurisprudence, coupled with the right of an English judge to sum up the
evidence (denied to French judges) and to express his own opinion as to
its value (denied to American judges), fetter to some extent the
independence or limit the chances of error of the jury.

"The whole theory of the jurisdiction of the courts to interfere with
the verdict of the constitutional tribunal is that the court is
satisfied that the jury have not acted reasonably upon the evidence but
have been misled by prejudice or passion" (_Watt_ v. _Watt_ (1905), App.
Cas. 118, per Lord Halsbury). In civil cases the verdict may be
challenged on the ground that it is against the evidence or against the
weight of the evidence, or unsupported by any evidence. It is said to be
against the evidence when the jury have completely misapprehended the
facts proved and have drawn an inference so wrong as to be in substance
perverse. The dissatisfaction of the trial judge with the verdict is a
potent but not conclusive element in determining as to the perversity of
a verdict, because of his special opportunity of appreciating the
evidence and the demeanour of the witnesses. But his opinion is less
regarded now that new trials are granted by the court of appeal than
under the old system when the new trial was sought in the court of which
he was a member.

The appellate court will not upset a verdict when there is substantial
and conflicting evidence before the jury. In such cases it is for the
jury to say which side is to be believed, and the court will not
interfere with the verdict. To upset a verdict on the ground that there
is no evidence to go to the jury implies that the judge at the trial
ought to have withdrawn the case from the jury. Under modern procedure,
in order to avoid the risk of a new trial, it is not uncommon to take
the verdict of a jury on the hypothesis that there was evidence for
their consideration, and to leave the unsuccessful party to apply for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The question whether there was any
evidence proper to be submitted to the jury arises oftenest in cases
involving an imputation of negligence--e.g. in an action of damages
against a railway company for injuries sustained in a collision. Juries
are somewhat ready to infer negligence, and the court has to say
whether, on the facts proved, there was any evidence of negligence by
the defendant. This is by no means the same thing as saying whether, in
the opinion of the court, there was negligence. The court may be of
opinion that on the facts there was none, yet the facts themselves may
be of such a nature as to be evidence of negligence to go before a jury.
When the facts proved are such that a reasonable man might have come to
the conclusion that there was negligence, then, although the court would
not have come to the same conclusion, it must admit that there is
evidence to go before the jury. This statement indicates existing
practice but scarcely determines what relation between the facts proved
and the conclusion to be established is necessary to make the facts
evidence from which a jury may infer the conclusion. The true
explanation is to be found in the principle of relevancy. Any fact which
is relevant to the issue constitutes evidence to go before the jury, and
any fact, roughly speaking, is relevant between which and the fact to be
proved there may be a connexion as cause and effect (see EVIDENCE). As
regards damages the court has always had wide powers, as damages are
often a question of law. But when the amount of the damages awarded by a
jury is challenged as excessive or inadequate, the appellate court, if
it considers the amount unreasonably large or unreasonably small, must
order a new trial unless both parties consent to a reduction or increase
of the damages to a figure fixed by the court; see _Watt_ v. _Watt_
(1905), App. Cas. 115.

_Value of Jury System._--The value of the jury in past history as a
bulwark against aggression by the Crown or executive cannot be
over-rated, but the working of the institution has not escaped
criticism. Its use protracts civil trials. The jurors are usually
unwilling and are insufficiently remunerated; and jury trials in civil
cases often drag out much longer and at greater expense than trials by a
judge alone, and the proceedings are occasionally rendered ineffective
by the failure of the jurors to agree.

There is much force in the arguments of Bentham and others against the
need of unanimity--the application of pressure to force conviction on
the minds of jurors, the indifference to veracity which the concurrence
of unconvinced minds must produce in the public mind, the probability
that jurors will disagree and trials be rendered abortive, and the
absence of any reasonable security in the unanimous verdict that would
not exist in the verdict of a majority. All this is undeniably true, but
disagreements are happily not frequent, and whatever may happen in the
jury room no compulsion is now used by the court to induce agreement.

But, apart from any incidental defects, it may be doubted whether, as an
instrument for the investigation of truth, the jury system deserves all
the encomiums which have been passed upon it. In criminal cases,
especially of the graver kind, it is perhaps the best tribunal that
could be devised. There the element of moral doubt enters largely into
the consideration of the case, and that can best be measured by a
popular tribunal. Opinion in England has hitherto been against
subjecting a man to serious punishment as a result of conviction before
a judge sitting without a jury, and the judges themselves would be the
first to deprecate so great a responsibility, and the Criminal Appeal
Act 1907, which constituted the court of criminal appeal, recognized the
responsibility by requiring a quorum of three judges in order to
constitute a court. The same act, by permitting an appeal to persons
convicted on indictment both on questions of fact and of law, removed to
a great extent any possibility of error by a jury. But in civil causes,
where the issue must be determined one way or the other on the balance
of probabilities, a single judge would probably be a better tribunal
than the present combination of judge and jury. Even if it be assumed
that he would on the whole come to the same conclusion as a jury
deliberating under his directions, he would come to it more quickly.
Time would be saved in taking evidence, summing up would be unnecessary,
and the addresses of counsel would inevitably be shortened and
concentrated on the real points at issue. Modern legislation and
practice in England have very much reduced the use of the jury both in
civil and criminal cases.

In the county courts trial by jury is the exception and not the rule. In
the court of chancery and the admiralty court it was never used. Under
the Judicature Acts many cases which in the courts of common law would
have been tried with a jury are now tried before a judge alone, or
(rarely) with assessors, or before an official referee. Indeed cynics
say that a jury is insisted on chiefly in cases when a jury, from
prejudice or other causes, is likely to be more favourable than a judge
alone.

In criminal cases, by reason of the enormous number of offences
punishable on summary conviction and of the provisions made for trying
certain indictable offences summarily if the offender is young or elects
for summary trial, juries are less called on in proportion to the number
of offences committed than was the practice in former years.

_Scotland._--According to the _Regiam Majestatem_, which is identical
with the treatise of Glanvill on the law of England (but whether the
original or only a copy of that work is disputed), trial by jury
existed in Scotland for civil and criminal cases from as early a date
as in England, and there is reason to believe that at all events the
system became established at a very early date. Its history was very
different from that of the English jury system. There was no grand
jury under Scots law, but it was introduced in 1708 for the purpose of
high treason (7 Anne c. 21). For the trial of criminal cases the petty
jury is represented by the criminal "assize." This jury has always
consisted of fifteen persons and the jurors are chosen by ballot by
the clerk of the court from the list containing the names of the
special and common jurors, five from the special, ten from the common.
Prosecutor and accused each have five peremptory challenges, of which
two only may be directed against the special jurors; but there is no
limit to challenges for cause. The jury is not secluded during the
trial except in capital cases or on special order of the court made
_proprio motu_ or on the application of prosecutor or accused. The
verdict need not be unanimous, nor is enclosure a necessary
preliminary to a majority verdict. It is returned viva voce by the
chancellor or foreman, and entered on the record by the clerk of the
court, and the entry read to the jury. Besides the verdicts of
"guilty" and "not guilty," a Scots jury may return a verdict of "not
proven," which has legally the same effect as not guilty in releasing
the accused from further proceedings on the particular charge, but
inflicts on him the stigma of moral guilt.

Jury trial in civil cases was at one time in general if not prevailing
use, but was gradually superseded for most purposes on the institution
of the Court of Session (1 Mackay, _Ct. Sess. Pr._ 33). In this, as in
many other matters, Scots law and procedure tend to follow continental
rather than insular models. The civil jury was reintroduced in 1815
(55 Geo. III. c. 42), mainly on account of the difficulties
experienced by the House of Lords in dealing with questions of fact
raised on Scottish appeals. At the outset a special court was
instituted in the nature of a judicial commission to ascertain by
means of a jury facts deemed relevant to the issues in a cause and
sent for such determination at the discretion of the court in which
the cause was pending. The process was analogous to the sending of an
issue out of chancery for trial in a superior court of common law, or
in a court of assize. In 1830 the jury court ceased to exist as a
separate tribunal and was merged in the Court of Session. By
legislation of 1819 and 1823 certain classes of cases were indicated
as appropriate to be tried by a jury; but in 1850 the cases so to be
tried were limited to actions for defamation and nuisance, or properly
and in substance actions for damages, and under an act of 1866 even in
these cases the jury may be dispensed with by consent of parties.

The civil jury consists as in England of twelve jurors chosen by
ballot from the names on the list of those summoned. There is a right
of peremptory challenge limited to four, and also a right to challenge
for cause. Unanimity was at first but is not now required. The jury if
unanimous may return a verdict immediately on the close of the case.
If they are not unanimous they are enclosed and may at any time not
less than three hours after being enclosed return a verdict by a bare
majority. If after six hours they do not agree by the requisite
majority, i.e. are equally divided, they must be discharged. It was
stated by Commissioner Adam, under whom the Scots civil jury was
originated, that in twenty years he knew of only one case in which the
jury disagreed. Jury trial in civil cases in Scotland has not
flourished or given general satisfaction, and is resorted to only in a
small proportion of cases. This is partly due to its being
transplanted from England.

_Ireland._--The jury laws of Ireland do not differ in substance from
those of England. The qualifications of jurors are regulated by
O'Hagan's Acts 1871 and 1872, and the Juries Acts 1878 and 1894. In
criminal cases much freer use is made than in England of the rights of
the accused to challenge, and of the Crown to order jurors to stand
by, and what is called "jury-packing" seems to be the object of both
sides when some political or agrarian issue is involved in the trial.
Until the passing of the Irish Local Government Act 1898, the grand
jury, besides its functions as a jury of accusation, had large duties
with respect to local government which are now transferred to the
county councils and other elective bodies.

_British Empire._--In most parts of the British Empire the jury system
is in force as part of the original law of the colonists or under the
colonial charters of justice or by local legislation. The grand jury
is not in use in India; was introduced but later abolished in the Cape
Colony; and in Australia has been for most purposes superseded by the
public prosecutor. The ordinary trial jury for criminal cases is
twelve, but in India may be nine, seven, five or three, according to
certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898. In countries
where the British Crown has foreign jurisdiction the jury for criminal
trials has in some cases been fixed at a less number than twelve and
the right of the Crown to fix the number is established; see _ex p.
Carew_, 1897, A.C. 719. In civil cases the number of the jury is
reduced in some colonies, e.g. to seven in Tasmania and Trinidad.

_European Countries._--In France there is no civil jury. In criminal
cases the place of the grand jury is taken by the _chambre des mises
en accusation_, and the more serious crimes are tried before a jury of
twelve which finds its verdict by a majority, the exact number of
which may not be disclosed. In Belgium, Spain, Italy and Germany,
certain classes of crime are tried with the aid of a jury.

_United States._--The English jury system was part of the law of the
American colonies before the declaration of independence; and grand
jury, coroner's jury and petty jury continue in full use in the United
States. Under the Federal Constitution (Article iii.) there is a right
to trial by jury in all criminal cases (except on impeachment) and in
all civil actions at common law in which the subject matter exceeds
$20 in value (amendments vi. and vii.). The trial jury must be of
twelve and its verdict must be unanimous; see Cooley, _Constitutional
Limitations_ (6th ed.), 389. The respective provinces of judge and
jury have been much discussed and there has been a disposition to
declare the jury supreme as to law as well as fact. The whole subject
is fully treated by reference to English and American authorities, and
the conflicting views are stated in _Sparf_ v. _United States_, 1895,
156 U.S. 61. The view of the majority of the court in that case was
that it is the duty of the jury in a criminal case to receive the law
from the court and to apply it as laid down by the court, subject to
the condition that in giving a general verdict the jury may
incidentally determine both law and fact as compounded in the issues
submitted to them in the particular case. The power to give a general
verdict renders the duty one of imperfect obligation and enables the
jury to take its own view of the terms and merits of the law involved.

The extent to which the jury system is in force in the states of the
union depends on the constitution and legislation of each state. In
some the use of juries in civil and even in criminal cases is reduced
or made subject to the election of the accused. In others unanimous
verdicts are not required, while the constitutions of others require
the unanimous verdict of the common law dozen. (W. F. C.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] I.e. the jury-box, or enclosed space in which the jurors sit in
court.

[2] Freeman, _Norman Conquest_, v. 451.

[3] This fact would account for the remarkable development of the
system on English ground, as contrasted with its decay and extinction
in France.

[4] Blackstone puts the principle as being that no man shall be
convicted except by the unanimous voice of twenty-four of his equals
or neighbours--twelve on the grand, and twelve on the petty jury.

[5] The distinction between the functions of the grand jury, which
presents or accuses criminals, and the petty jury, which tries them,
has suggested the theory that the system of compurgation is the
origin of the jury system--the first jury representing the
compurgators of the accuser, the second the compurgators of the
accused.

[6] Forsyth, 206. The number of the jury (twelve) is responsible for
some unfounded theories of the origin of the system. This use of
twelve is not confined to England, nor in England or elsewhere to
judicial institutions. "Its general prevalence," says Hallam (_Middle
Ages_, ch. viii.), "shows that in searching for the origin of trial
by jury we cannot rely for a moment upon any analogy which the mere
number affords." In a _Guide to English Juries_ (1682), by a person
of quality (attributed to Lord Somers), the following passage occurs:
"In analogy of late the jury is reduced to the number of twelve, like
as the prophets were twelve to foretell the truth; the apostles
twelve to preach the truth; the discoverers twelve, sent into Canaan
to seek and report the truth; and the stones twelve that the heavenly
Hierusalem is built on." Lord Coke indulged in similar speculations.

[7] See _R._ v. _Dean of St. Asaph_ (1789), 3 T.R. 418.

JUS PRIMAE NOCTIS, or DROIT DU SEIGNEUR, a custom alleged to have
existed in medieval Europe, giving the overlord a right to the virginity
of his vassals' daughters on their wedding night. For the existence of
the custom in a legalized form there is no trustworthy evidence. That
some such abuse of power may have been occasionally exercised by brutal
nobles in the lawless days of the early middle ages is only too likely,
but the _jus_, it seems, is a myth, invented no earlier than the 16th or
17th century. There appears to have been an entirely religious custom
established by the council of Carthage in 398, whereby the Church
required from the faithful continence on the wedding-night, and this may
have been, and there is evidence that it was, known as _Droit du
Seigneur_, or "God's right." Later the clerical admonition was extended
to the first three days of marriage. This religious abstention, added to
the undoubted fact that the feudal lord extorted fines on the marriages
of his vassals and their children, doubtless gave rise to the belief
that the _jus_ was once an established custom.

The whole subject has been exhaustively treated by Louis Veuillot in
_Le Droit du seigneur au moyen âge_ (1854).

JUS RELICTAE, in Scots law, the widow's right in the movable property of
her deceased husband. The deceased must have been domiciled in Scotland,
but the right accrues from movable property, wherever situated. The
widow's provision amounts to one-third where there are children
surviving, and to one-half where there are no surviving children. The
widow's right vests by survivance, and is independent of the husband's
testamentary provisions; it may however be renounced by contract, or be
discharged by satisfaction. It is subject to alienation of the husband's
movable estate during his lifetime or by its conversion into heritage.
See also WILL.

JUSSERAND, JEAN ADRIEN ANTOINE JULES (1855- ), French author and
diplomatist, was born at Lyons on the 18th of February 1855. Entering
the diplomatic service in 1876, he became in 1878 consul in London.
After an interval spent in Tunis he returned to London in 1887 as a
member of the French Embassy. In 1890 he became French minister at
Copenhagen, and in 1902 was transferred to Washington. A close student
of English literature, he produced some very lucid and vivacious
monographs on comparatively little-known subjects: _Le Théâtre en
Angleterre depuis la conquête jusqu' aux prédécesseurs immédiats de
Shakespeare_ (1878); _Le Roman au temps de Shakespeare_ (1887; Eng.
trans. by Miss E. Lee, 1890); _Les Anglais au moyen âge: la vie nomade
et les routes d'Angleterre au XIV^e siècle_ (1884; Eng. trans., _English
Wayfaring Life in the Middle Ages_, by L. T. Smith, 1889); and _L'Épopée
de Langland_ (1893; Eng. trans., _Piers Plowman_, by M. C. R., 1894).
His _Histoire littéraire du peuple anglais_, the first volume of which
was published in 1895, was completed in three volumes in 1909. In
English he wrote _A French Ambassador at the Court of Charles II._
(1892), from the unpublished papers of the count de Cominges.

JUSSIEU, DE, the name of a French family which came into prominent
notice towards the close of the 16th century, and for a century and a
half was distinguished for the botanists it produced. The following are
its more eminent members:--

1. ANTOINE DE JUSSIEU (1686-1758), born at Lyons on the 6th of July
1686, was the son of Christophe de Jussieu (or Dejussieu), an apothecary
of some repute, who published a _Nouveau traité de la thériaque_ (1708).
Antoine studied at the university of Montpellier, and travelled with his
brother Bernard through Spain, Portugal and southern France. He went to
Paris in 1708, J. P. de Tournefort, whom he succeeded at the Jardin des
Plantes, dying in that year. His own original publications are not of
marked importance, but he edited an edition of Tournefort's
_Institutiones rei herbariae_ (3 vols., 1719), and also a posthumous
work of Jacques Barrelier, _Plantae per Galliam, Hispaniam, et Italiam
observatae_, &c. (1714). He practised medicine, chiefly devoting himself
to the very poor. He died at Paris on the 22nd of April 1758.

2. BERNARD DE JUSSIEU (1699-1777), a younger brother of the above, was
born at Lyons on the 17th of August 1699. He took a medical degree at
Montpellier and began practice in 1720, but finding the work uncongenial
he gladly accepted his brother's invitation to Paris in 1722, when he
succeeded Sébastien Vaillant as sub-demonstrator of plants in the Jardin
du Roi. In 1725 he brought out a new edition of Tournefort's _Histoire
des plantes qui naissent aux environs de Paris_, 2 vols., which was
afterwards translated into English by John Martyn, the original work
being incomplete. In the same year he was admitted into the académie des
sciences, and communicated several papers to that body. Long before
Abraham Trembley (1700-1784) published his _Histoire des polypes d'eau
douce_, Jussieu maintained the doctrine that these organisms were
animals, and not the flowers of marine plants, then the current notion;
and to confirm his views he made three journeys to the coast of
Normandy. Singularly modest and retiring, he published very little, but
in 1759 he arranged the plants in the royal garden of the Trianon at
Versailles, according to his own scheme of classification. This
arrangement is printed in his nephew's _Genera_, pp. lxiii.-lxx., and
formed the basis of that work. He cared little for the credit of
enunciating new discoveries, so long as the facts were made public. On
the death of his brother Antoine, he could not be induced to succeed him
in his office, but prevailed upon L. G. Lemonnier to assume the higher
position. He died at Paris on the 6th of November 1777.

3. JOSEPH DE JUSSIEU (1704-1779), brother of Antoine and Bernard, was
born at Lyons on the 3rd of September 1704. Educated like the rest of
the family for the medical profession, he accompanied C. M. de la
Condamine to Peru, in the expedition for measuring an arc of meridian,
and remained in South America for thirty-six years, returning to France
in 1771. Amongst the seeds he sent to his brother Bernard were those of
_Heliotropium peruvianum_, Linn., then first introduced into Europe. He
died at Paris on the 11th of April 1779.

4. ANTOINE LAURENT DE JUSSIEU (1748-1836), nephew of the three
preceding, was born at Lyons on the 12th of April 1748. Called to Paris
by his uncle Bernard, and carefully trained by him for the pursuits of
medicine and botany, he largely profited by the opportunities afforded
him. Gifted with a tenacious memory, and the power of quickly grasping
the salient points of subjects under observation, he steadily worked at
the improvement of that system of plant arrangement which had been
sketched out by his uncle. In 1789 was issued his _Genera plantarum
secundum ordines naturales disposita, juxta methodum in horto regio
Parisiensi exaratam, anno_ MDCCLXXIV. This volume formed the basis of
modern classification; more than this, it is certain that Cuvier derived
much help in his zoological classification from its perusal. Hardly had
the last sheet passed through the press, when the French Revolution
broke out, and the author was installed in charge of the hospitals of
Paris. The muséum d'histoire naturelle was organized on its present
footing mainly by him in 1793, and he selected for its library
everything relating to natural history from the vast materials obtained
from the convents then broken up. He continued as professor of botany
there from 1770 to 1826, when his son Adrien succeeded him. Besides the
_Genera_, he produced nearly sixty memoirs on botanical topics. He died
at Paris on the 17th of September 1836.

5. ADRIEN LAURENT HENRI DE JUSSIEU (1797-1853), son of Antoine Laurent,
was born at Paris on the 23rd of December 1797. He displayed the
qualities of his family in his thesis for the degree of M.D., _De
Euphorbiacearum generibus medicisque earundem viribus tentamen_, Paris,
1824. He was also the author of valuable contributions to botanical
literature on the _Rutaceae_, _Meliaceae_ and _Malpighiaceae_
respectively, of "Taxonomie" in the _Dictionnaire universelle d'histoire
naturelle_, and of an introductory work styled simply _Botanique_, which
reached nine editions, and was translated into the principal languages
of Europe. He also edited his father's _Introductio in historiam
plantarum_, issued at Paris, without imprint or date, it being a
fragment of the intended second edition of the _Genera_, which Antoine
Laurent did not live to complete. He died at Paris on the 29th of June
1853, leaving two daughters, but no son, so that with him closed the
brilliant botanical dynasty.

6. LAURENT PIERRE DE JUSSIEU (1792-1866), miscellaneous writer, nephew
of Antoine Laurent, was born at Villeurbanne on the 7th of February
1792. His _Simon de Nantua, ou le marchand forain_ (1818), reached
fifteen editions, and was translated into seven languages. He also wrote
_Simples notions de physique et d'histoire naturelle_ (1857), and a few
geological papers. He died at Passy on the 23rd of February 1866.

JUSTICE (Lat. _justitia_), a term used both in the abstract, for the
quality of being or doing what is just, i.e. right in law and equity,
and in the concrete for an officer deputed by the sovereign to
administer justice, and do right by way of judgment. It has long been
the official title of the judges of two of the English superior courts
of common law, and it is now extended to all the judges in the supreme
court of judicature--a judge in the High Court of Justice being styled
Mr Justice, and in the court of appeal Lord Justice. The president of
the king's bench division of the High Court is styled Lord Chief Justice
(q.v.). The word is also applied, and perhaps more usually, to certain
subordinate magistrates who administer justice in minor matters, and who
are usually called _justices of the peace_ (q.v.).

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, an inferior magistrate appointed in England by
special commission under the great seal to keep the peace within the
jurisdiction for which he is appointed. The title is commonly
abbreviated to J.P. and is used after the name. "The whole Christian
world," said Coke, "hath not the like office as justice of the peace if
duly executed." Lord Cowper, on the other hand, described them as "men
sometimes illiterate and frequently bigoted and prejudiced." The truth
is that the justices of the peace perform without any other reward than
the consequence they acquire from their office a large amount of work
indispensable to the administration of the law, and (though usually not
professional lawyers, and therefore apt to be ill-informed in some of
their decisions) for the most part they discharge their duties with
becoming good sense and impartiality. For centuries they have
necessarily been chosen mainly from the landed class of country
gentlemen, usually Conservative in politics; and in recent years the
attempt has been made by the Liberal party to reduce the balance by
appointing others than those belonging to the landed gentry, such as
tradesmen, Nonconformist ministers, and working-men. But it has been
recognized that the appointment of justices according to their political
views is undesirable, and in 1909 a royal commission was appointed to
consider and report whether any and what steps should be taken to
facilitate the selection of the most suitable persons to be justices of
the peace irrespective of creed and political opinion. In great centres
of population, when the judicial business of justices is heavy, it has
been found necessary to appoint paid justices or stipendiary
magistrates[1] to do the work, and an extension of the system to the
country districts has been often advocated.

The commission of the peace assigns to justices the duty of keeping and
causing to be kept all ordinances and statutes for the good of the peace
and for preservation of the same, and for the quiet rule and government
of the people, and further assigns "to you and every two or more of you
(of whom any one of the aforesaid A, B, C, D, &c., we will, shall be
one) to inquire the truth more fully by the oath of good and lawful men
of the county of all and all manner of felonies, poisonings,
enchantments, sorceries, arts, magic, trespasses, forestallings,
regratings, engrossings, and extortions whatever." This part of the
commission is the authority for the jurisdiction of the justices in
_sessions_. Justices named specially in the parenthetical clause are
said to be on the quorum. Justices for counties are appointed by the
Crown on the advice of the lord chancellor, and usually with the
recommendation of the lord lieutenant of the county. Justices for
boroughs having municipal corporations and separate commissions of the
peace are appointed by the crown, the lord chancellor either adopting
the recommendation of the town council or acting independently. Justices
cannot act as such until they have taken the oath of allegiance and the
judicial oath. A justice for a borough while acting as such must reside
in or within seven miles of the borough or occupy a house, warehouse or
other property in the borough, but he need not be a burgess. The mayor
of a borough is _ex officio_ a justice during his year of office and the
succeeding year. He takes precedence over all borough justices, but not
over justices acting in and for the county in which the borough or any
part thereof is situated, unless when acting in relation to the business
of the borough. The chairman of a county council is _ex officio_ a
justice of the peace for the county, and the chairman of an urban or
rural district council for the county in which the district is situated.
Justices cannot act beyond the limits of the jurisdiction for which they
are appointed, and the warrant of a justice cannot be executed out of
his jurisdiction unless it be backed, that is, endorsed by a justice of
the jurisdiction in which it is to be carried into execution. A justice
improperly refusing to act on his office, or acting partially and
corruptly, may be proceeded against by a criminal information, and a
justice refusing to act may be compelled to do so by the High Court of
Justice. An action will lie against a justice for any act done by him in
excess of his jurisdiction, and for any act within his jurisdiction
which has been done wrongfully and with malice, and without reasonable
or probable cause. But no action can be brought against a justice for a
wrongful conviction until it has been quashed. By the Justices'
Qualification Act 1744, every justice for a county was required to have
an estate of freehold, copyhold, or customary tenure in fee, for life or
a given term, of the yearly value of £100. By an act of 1875 the
occupation of a house rated at £100 was made a qualification. No such
qualifications were ever required for a borough justice, and it was not
until 1906 that county justices were put on the same footing in this
respect. The Justices of the Peace Act 1906 did away with all
qualification by estate. It also removed the necessity for residence
within the county, permitting the same residential qualification as for
borough justices, "within seven miles thereof." The same act removed the
disqualification of solicitors to be county justices and assimilated to
the existing power to remove other justices from the commission of the
peace the power to exclude _ex officio_ justices.

The justices for every petty sessional division of a county or for a
borough having a separate commission of the peace must appoint a fit
person to be their salaried clerk. He must be either a barrister of not
less than fourteen years' standing, or a solicitor of the supreme court,
or have served for not less than seven years as a clerk to a police or
stipendiary magistrate or to a metropolitan police court. An alderman or
councillor of a borough must not be appointed as clerk, nor can a clerk
of the peace for the borough or for the county in which the borough is
situated be appointed. A borough clerk is not allowed to prosecute. The
salary of a justice's clerk comes, in London, out of the police fund; in
counties out of the county fund; in county boroughs out of the borough
fund, and in other boroughs out of the county fund.

The vast and multifarious duties of the justices cover some portion of
every important head of the criminal law, and extend to a considerable
number of matters relating to the civil law.

In the United States these officers are sometimes appointed by the
executive, sometimes elected. In some states, justices of the peace have
jurisdiction in civil cases given to them by local regulations.

FOOTNOTE:

[1] Where a borough council desire the appointment of a stipendiary
magistrate they may present a petition for the same to the secretary
of state and it is thereupon lawful for the king to appoint to that
office a barrister of seven years' standing. He is by virtue of his
office a justice for the borough, and receives a yearly salary,
payable in four equal quarterly instalments. On a vacancy,
application must again be made as for a first appointment. There may
be more than one stipendiary magistrate for a borough.

JUSTICIAR (med. Lat. _justiciarius_ or _justitiarius_, a judge), in
English history, the title of the chief minister of the Norman and
earlier Angevin kings. The history of the title in this connotation is
somewhat obscure. _Justiciarius_ meant simply "judge," and was
originally applied, as Stubbs points out (_Const. Hist._ i. 389, note),
to any officer of the king's court, to the chief justice, or in a very
general way to all and sundry who possessed courts of their own or were
qualified to act as _judices_ in the shire-courts, even the style
_capitalis justiciarius_ being used of judges of the royal court other
than the chief. It was not till the reign of Henry II. that the title
_summus_ or _capitalis justiciarius_, or _justiciarius totius Angliae_
was exclusively applied to the king's chief minister. The office,
however, existed before the style of its holder was fixed; and, whatever
their contemporary title (e.g. _Custos Angliae_), later writers refer to
them as _justiciarii_, with or without the prefix _summus_ or
_capitalis_ (ibid. p. 346). Thus Ranulf Flambard, the minister of
William II., who was probably the first to exercise the powers of a
justiciar, is called _justiciarius_ by Ordericus Vitalis.

The origin of the justiciarship is thus given by Stubbs (ibid. p. 276).
The sheriff "was the king's representative in all matters judicial,
military and financial in the shire. From him, or from the courts of
which he was the presiding officer, appeal lay to the king alone; but
the king was often absent from England and did not understand the
language of his subjects. In his absence the administration was
entrusted to a justiciar, a regent or lieutenant of the kingdom; and the
convenience being once ascertained of having a minister who could in the
whole kingdom represent the king, as the sheriff did in the shire, the
justiciar became a permanent functionary."

The fact that the kings were often absent from England, and that the
justiciarship was held by great nobles or churchmen, made this office of
an importance which at times threatened to overshadow that of the Crown.
It was this latter circumstance which ultimately led to its abolition.
Hubert de Burgh (q.v.) was the last of the great justiciars; after his
fall (1231) the justiciarship was not again committed to a great baron,
and the chancellor soon took the position formerly occupied by the
justiciar as second to the king in dignity, as well as in power and
influence. Finally, under Edward I. and his successor, in place of the
justiciar--who had presided over all causes _vice regis_--separate heads
were established in the three branches into which the _curia regis_ as a
judicial body had been divided: justices of common pleas, justices of
the king's bench and barons of the exchequer.

Outside England the title justiciar was given under Henry II. to the
seneschal of Normandy. In Scotland the title of justiciar was borne,
under the earlier kings, by two high officials, one having his
jurisdiction to the north, the other to the south of the Forth. They
were the king's lieutenants for judicial and administrative purposes and
were established in the 12th century, either by Alexander I. or by his
successor David I. In the 12th century a _magister justitiarius_ also
appears in the Norman kingdom of Sicily, title and office being probably
borrowed from England; he presided over the royal court (_Magna curia_)
and was, with his assistants, empowered to decide, _inter alia_, all
cases reserved to the Crown (see Du Cange, _s.v. Magister
Justitiarius_).

See W. Stubbs, _Const. Hist. of England_; Du Cange, _Glossarium_
(Niort, 1885) s.v. "Justitiarius."

JUSTICIARY, HIGH COURT OF, in Scotland, the supreme criminal court,
consisting of five of the lords of session together with the lord
justice-general and the lord justice-clerk as president and
vice-president respectively. The constitution of the court is settled by
the Act 1672 c. 16. The lords of justiciary hold circuits regularly
twice a year according to the ancient practice, which, however, had been
allowed to fall into disuse until revived in 1748. For circuit purposes
Scotland is divided into northern, southern and western districts (see
CIRCUIT). Two judges generally go on a circuit, and in Glasgow they are
by special statute authorized to sit in separate courts. By the Criminal
Procedure (Scotland) Act 1887 all the senators of the college of justice
are lords commissioners of justiciary. The high court, sitting in
Edinburgh, has, in addition to its general jurisdiction, an exclusive
jurisdiction for districts not within the jurisdiction of the
circuits--the three Lothians, and Orkney and Shetland. The high court
also takes up points of difficulty arising before the special courts,
like the court for crown cases reserved in England. The court of
justiciary has authority to try all crimes, unless when its jurisdiction
has been excluded by special enactment of the legislature. It is also
stated to have an inherent jurisdiction to punish all criminal acts,
even if they have never before been treated as crimes. Its judgments are
believed to be not subject to any appeal or review, but it may be
doubted whether an appeal on a point of law would not lie to the house
of lords. The following crimes must be prosecuted in the court of
justiciary: treason, murder, robbery, rape, fire-raising, deforcement of
messengers, breach of duty by magistrates, and all offences for which a
statutory punishment higher than imprisonment is imposed.

JUSTIFICATION, in law, the showing by a defendant in a suit of
sufficient reason why he did what he was called upon to answer, For
example, in an action for assault and battery, the defendant may prove
in justification that the prosecutor assaulted or beat him first, and
that he acted merely in self-defence. The word is employed particularly
in actions for defamation, and has in this connexion a somewhat special
meaning. When a libel consists of a specific charge a plea of
justification is a plea that the words are true in substance and in fact
(see LIBEL AND SLANDER).

JUSTIN I. (450-527), East Roman emperor (518-527), was born in 450 as a
peasant in Asia, but enlisting under Leo I. he rose to be commander of
the imperial guards of Anastasius. On the latter's death in 518 Justin
used for his own election to the throne money that he had received for
the support of another candidate. Being ignorant even of the rudiments
of letters, Justin entrusted the administration of state to his wise and
faithful quaestor Proclus and to his nephew Justinian, though his own
experience dictated several improvements in military affairs. An
orthodox churchman himself, he effected in 519 a reconciliation of the
Eastern and Western Churches, after a schism of thirty-five years (see
HORMISDAS). In 522 he entered upon a desultory war with Persia, in which
he co-operated with the Arabs. In 522 also Justin ceded to Theodoric,
the Gothic king of Italy, the right of naming the consuls. On the 1st of
April 527 Justin, enfeebled by an incurable wound, yielded to the
request of the senate and assumed Justinian at his colleague; on the 1st
of August he died. Justin bestowed much care on the repairing of public
buildings throughout his empire, and contributed large sums to repair
the damage caused by a destructive earthquake at Antioch.

See E. Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ (ed. Bury,
1896), iv. 206-209.

JUSTIN II. (d. 578), East Roman emperor (565-578), was the nephew and
successor of Justinian I. He availed himself of his influence as master
of the palace, and as husband of Sophia, the niece of the late empress
Theodora, to secure a peaceful election. The first few days of his
reign--when he paid his uncle's debts, administered justice in person,
and proclaimed universal religious toleration--gave bright promise, but
in the face of the lawless aristocracy and defiant governors of
provinces he effected few subsequent reforms. The most important event
of his reign was the invasion of Italy by the Lombards (q.v.), who,
entering in 568, under Alboin, in a few years made themselves masters of
nearly the entire country. Justin's attention was distracted from Italy
towards the N. and E. frontiers. After refusing to pay the Avars
tribute, he fought several unsuccessful campaigns against them. In 572
his overtures to the Turks led to a war with Persia. After two
disastrous campaigns, in which his enemies overran Syria, Justin bought
a precarious peace by payment of a yearly tribute. The temporary fits of
insanity into which he fell warned him to name a colleague. Passing over
his own relatives, he raised, on the advice of Sophia, the general
Tiberius (q.v.) to be Caesar in December 574 and withdrew for his
remaining years into retirement.

See E. Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ (ed. Bury,
1896), v. 2-17; G. Finlay, _History of Greece_ (ed. 1877), i. 291-297;
J. Bury, _The Later Roman Empire_ (1889), ii. 67-79. (M. O. B. C.)

JUSTIN (JUNIANUS JUSTINUS), Roman historian, probably lived during the
age of the Antonines. Of his personal history nothing is known. He is
the author of _Historiarum Philippicarum libri XLIV._, a work described
by himself in his preface as a collection of the most important and
interesting passages from the voluminous _Historiae philippicae et
totius mundi origines et terrae situs_, written in the time of Augustus
by Pompeius Trogus (q.v.). The work of Trogus is lost; but the _prologi_
or arguments of the text are preserved by Pliny and other writers.
Although the main theme of Trogus was the rise and history of the
Macedonian monarchy, Justin yet permitted himself considerable freedom
of digression, and thus produced a capricious anthology instead of a
regular epitome of the work. As it stands, however, the history contains
much valuable information. The style, though far from perfect, is clear
and occasionally elegant. The book was much used in the middle ages,
when the author was sometimes confounded with Justin Martyr.

Ed. princeps (1470); J. G. Graevius (1668); J. F. Gronovius (1719); C.
H. Frotscher (1827-1830); J. Jeep (1859); F. Rühl (1886, with
prologues); see also J. F. Fischer, _De elocutione Justini_ (1868); F.
Rühl, _Die Verbreitung des J. im Mittelalter_ (1871); O. Eichert,
_Wörterbuch zu_ J. (1881); Köhler and Rühl in _Neue Jahrbücher für
Philologie_, xci., ci., cxxxiii. There are translations in the chief
European languages; in English by A. Goldyng (1564); R. Codrington
(1682); Brown-Dykes (1712); G. Turnbull (1746); J. Clarke (1790); J.
S. Watson (1853).

JUSTINIAN I. (483-565). Flavius Anicius Justinianus, surnamed the Great,
the most famous of all the emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire, was by
birth a barbarian, native of a place called Tauresium in the district of
Dardania, a region of Illyricum,[1] and was born, most probably, on the
11th of May 483. His family has been variously conjectured, on the
strength of the proper names which its members are stated to have borne,
to have been Teutonic or Slavonic. The latter seems the more probable
view. His own name was originally Uprauda.[2] Justinianus was a Roman
name which he took from his uncle Justin I., who adopted him, and to
whom his advancement in life was due. Of his early life we know nothing
except that he went to Constantinople while still a young man, and
received there an excellent education. Doubtless he knew Latin before
Greek; it is alleged that he always spoke Greek with a barbarian accent.
When Justin ascended the throne in 518, Justinian became at once a
person of the first consequence, guiding, especially in church matters,
the policy of his aged, childless and ignorant uncle, receiving high
rank and office at his hands, and soon coming to be regarded as his
destined successor. On Justin's death in 527, having been a few months
earlier associated with him as co-emperor, Justinian succeeded without
opposition to the throne. About 523 he had married the famous Theodora
(q.v.), who, as empress regnant, was closely associated in all his
actions till her death in 547.

Justinian's reign was filled with great events, both at home and abroad,
both in peace and in war. They may be classed under four heads: (1) his
legal reforms; (2) his administration of the empire; (3) his
ecclesiastical policy; and (4) his wars and foreign policy generally.

1. It is as a legislator and codifier of the law that Justinian's name
is most familiar to the modern world; and it is therefore this
department of his action that requires to be most fully dealt with here.
He found the law of the Roman empire in a state of great confusion. It
consisted of two masses, which were usually distinguished as old law
(_jus vetus_) and new law (_jus novum_). The first of these comprised:
(i.) all such of the statutes (_leges_) passed under the republic and
early empire as had not become obsolete; (ii.) the decrees of the senate
(_senatus consulta_) passed at the end of the republic and during the
first two centuries of the empire; (iii.) the writings of the jurists of
the later republic and of the empire, and more particularly of those
jurists to whom the right of declaring the law with authority (_jus
respondendi_) had been committed by the emperors. As these jurists had
in their commentaries upon the _leges_, _senatus consulta_ and edicts of
the magistrates practically incorporated all that was of importance in
those documents, the books of the jurists may substantially be taken as
including (i.) and (ii.). These writings were of course very numerous,
and formed a vast mass of literature. Many of them had become
exceedingly scarce--many had been altogether lost. Some were of doubtful
authenticity. They were so costly that no person of moderate means could
hope to possess any large number; even the public libraries had nothing
approaching to a complete collection. Moreover, as they proceeded from a
large number of independent authors, who wrote expressing their own
opinions, they contained many discrepancies and contradictions, the
dicta of one writer being controverted by another, while yet both
writers might enjoy the same formal authority. A remedy had been
attempted to be applied to this evil by a law of the emperors
Theodosius II. and Valentinian III., which gave special weight to the
writings of five eminent jurists (Papinian, Paulus, Ulpian, Modestinus,
Gaius); but it was very far from removing it. As regards the _jus
vetus_, therefore, the judges and practitioners of Justinian's time had
two terrible difficulties to contend with--first, the bulk of the law,
which made it impossible for any one to be sure that he possessed
anything like the whole of the authorities bearing on the point in
question, so that he was always liable to find his opponent quoting
against him some authority for which he could not be prepared; and,
secondly, the uncertainty of the law, there being a great many important
points on which differing opinions of equal legal validity might be
cited, so that the practising counsel could not advise, nor the judge
decide, with any confidence that he was right, or that a superior court
would uphold his view.

The new law (_jus novum_), which consisted of the ordinances of the
emperors promulgated during the middle and later empires (_edicta_,
_rescripta_, _mandata_, _decreta_, usually called by the general name of
_constitutiones_), was in a condition not much better. These ordinances
or constitutions were extremely numerous. No complete collection of them
existed, for although two collections (_Codex gregorianus_ and _Codex
hermogenianus_) had been made by two jurists in the 4th century, and a
large supplementary collection published by the emperor Theodosius II.
in 438 (_Codex theodosianus_), these collections did not include all the
constitutions; there were others which it was necessary to obtain
separately, but many whereof it must have been impossible for a private
person to procure. In this branch too of the law there existed some,
though a less formidable, uncertainty; for there were constitutions
which practically, if not formally, repealed or superseded others
without expressly mentioning them, so that a man who relied on one
constitution might find that it had been varied or abrogated by another
he had never heard of or on whose sense he had not put such a
construction. It was therefore clearly necessary with regard to both the
older and the newer law to take some steps to collect into one or more
bodies or masses so much of the law as was to be regarded as binding,
reducing it within a reasonable compass, and purging away the
contradictions or inconsistencies which it contained. The evil had been
long felt, and reforms apparently often proposed, but nothing (except by
the compilation of the _Codex theodosianus_) had been done till
Justinian's time. Immediately after his accession, in 528, he appointed
a commission to deal with the imperial constitutions (_jus novum_), this
being the easier part of the problem. The commissioners, ten in number,
were directed to go through all the constitutions of which copies
existed, to select such as were of practical value, to cut these down by
retrenching all unnecessary matter, and gather them, arranged in order
of date, into one volume, getting rid of any contradictions by omitting
one or other of the conflicting passages.[3] These statute law
commissioners, as one may call them, set to work forthwith, and
completed their task in fourteen months, distributing the constitutions
which they placed in the new collection into ten books, in general
conformity with the order of the Perpetual Edict as settled by Salvius
Julianus and enacted by Hadrian. By this means the bulk of the statute
law was immensely reduced, its obscurities and internal discrepancies in
great measure removed, its provisions adapted, by the abrogation of what
was obsolete, to the circumstances of Justinian's own time. This _Codex
constitutionum_ was formally promulgated and enacted as one great
consolidating statute in 529, all imperial ordinances not included in it
being repealed at one stroke.

The success of this first experiment encouraged the emperor to attempt
the more difficult enterprise of simplifying and digesting the older law
contained in the treatises of the jurists. Before entering on this,
however, he wisely took the preliminary step of settling the more
important of the legal questions as to which the older jurists had been
divided in opinion, and which had therefore remained sources of
difficulty, a difficulty aggravated by the general decline, during the
last two centuries, of the level of forensic and judicial learning. This
was accomplished by a series of constitutions known as the "Fifty
Decisions" (_Quinquaginta decisiones_), along with which there were
published other ordinances amending the law in a variety of points, in
which old and now inconvenient rules had been suffered to subsist. Then
in December 530 a new commission was appointed, consisting of sixteen
eminent lawyers, of whom the president, the famous Tribonian (who had
already served on the previous commission), was an exalted official
(_quaestor_), four were professors of law, and the remaining eleven
practising advocates. The instructions given to them by the emperor were
as follows:--they were to procure and peruse all the writings of all the
authorized jurists (those who had enjoyed the _jus respondendi_); were
to extract from these writings whatever was of most permanent and
substantial value, with power to change the expressions of the author
wherever conciseness or clearness would be thereby promoted, or wherever
such a change was needed in order to adapt his language to the condition
of the law as it stood in Justinian's time; were to avoid repetitions
and contradictions by giving only one statement of the law upon each
point; were to insert nothing at variance with any provision contained
in the _Codex constitutionum_; and were to distribute the results of
their labours into fifty books, subdividing each book into titles, and
following generally the order of the Perpetual Edict.[4]

These directions were carried out with a speed which is surprising when
we remember not only that the work was interrupted by the terrible
insurrection which broke out in Constantinople in January 532, and which
led to the temporary retirement from office of Tribonian, but also that
the mass of literature which had to be read through consisted of no less
than two thousand treatises, comprising three millions of sentences. The
commissioners, who had for greater despatch divided themselves into
several committees, presented their selection of extracts to the emperor
in 533, and he published it as an imperial statute on December 16th of
that year, with two prefatory constitutions (those known as _Omnem
reipublicae_ and _Dedit nobis_). It is the Latin volume which we now
call the _Digest_ (_Digesta_) or _Pandects_ ([Greek: Pandektai]) and
which is by far the most precious monument of the legal genius of the
Romans, and indeed, whether one regards the intrinsic merits of its
substance or the prodigious influence it has exerted and still exerts,
the most remarkable law-book that the world has seen. The extracts
comprised in it are 9123 in number, taken from thirty-nine authors, and
are of greatly varying length, mostly only a few lines long. About
one-third (in quantity) come from Ulpian, a very copious writer; Paulus
stands next. To each extract there is prefixed the name of the author,
and of the treatise whence it is taken.[5] The worst thing about the
_Digest_ is its highly unscientific arrangement. The order of the
Perpetual Edict, which appears to have been taken as a sort of model for
the general scheme of books and titles, was doubtless convenient to the
Roman lawyers from their familiarity with it, but was in itself rather
accidental and historical than logical. The disposition of the extracts
inside each title was still less rational; it has been shown by a modern
jurist to have been the result of the way in which the committees of the
commissioners worked through the books they had to peruse.[6] In
enacting the _Digest_ as a law book, Justinian repealed all the other
law contained in the treatises of the jurists (that _jus vetus_ which
has been already mentioned), and directed that those treatises should
never be cited in future even by way of illustration; and he of course
at the same time abrogated all the older statutes, from the Twelve
Tables downwards, which had formed a part of the _jus vetus_. This was a
necessary incident of his scheme of reform. But he went too far, and
indeed attempted what was impossible, when he forbade all commentaries
upon the _Digest_. He was obliged to allow a Greek translation to be
made of it, but directed this translation to be exactly literal.

These two great enterprises had substantially despatched Justinian's
work; however, he, or rather Tribonian, who seems to have acted both as
his adviser and as his chief executive officer in all legal affairs,
conceived that a third book was needed, viz. an elementary manual for
beginners which should present an outline of the law in a clear and
simple form. The little work of Gaius, most of which we now possess
under the title of _Commentarii institutionum_, had served this purpose
for nearly four centuries; but much of it had, owing to changes in the
law, become inapplicable, so that a new manual seemed to be required.
Justinian accordingly directed Tribonian, with two coadjutors,
Theophilus, professor of law in the university of Constantinople, and
Dorotheus, professor in the great law school at Beyrout, to prepare an
elementary textbook on the lines of Gaius. This they did while the
_Digest_ was in progress, and produced the useful little treatise which
has ever since been the book with which students commonly begin their
studies of Roman law, the _Institutes of Justinian_. It was published as
a statute with full legal validity shortly before the _Digest_. Such
merits as it possesses--simplicity of arrangement, clearness and
conciseness of expression--belong less to Tribonian than to Gaius, who
was closely followed wherever the alterations in the law had not made
him obsolete. However, the spirit of that great legal classic seems to
have in a measure dwelt with and inspired the inferior men who were
recasting his work; the _Institutes_ is better both in Latinity and in
substance than we should have expected from the condition of Latin
letters at that epoch, better than the other laws which emanate from
Justinian.

In the four years and a half which elapsed between the publication of
the _Codex_ and that of the _Digest_, many important changes had been
made in the law, notably by the publication of the "Fifty Decisions,"
which settled many questions that had exercised the legal mind and given
occasion to intricate statutory provisions. It was therefore natural
that the idea should present itself of revising the _Codex_, so as to
introduce these changes into it, for by so doing, not only would it be
simplified, but the one volume would again be made to contain the whole
statute law, whereas now it was necessary to read along with it the
ordinances issued since its publication. Accordingly another commission
was appointed, consisting of Tribonian with four other coadjutors, full
power being given them not only to incorporate the new constitutions
with the _Codex_ and make in it the requisite changes, but also to
revise the _Codex_ generally, cutting down or filling in wherever they
thought it necessary to do so. This work was completed in a few months;
and in November 534 the revised _Codex_ (_Codex repetitae
praelectionis_) was promulgated with the force of law, prefaced by a
constitution (_Cordi nobis_) which sets forth its history, and declares
it to be alone authoritative, the former _Codex_ being abrogated. It is
this revised _Codex_ which has come down to the modern world, all copies
of the earlier edition having disappeared.

The constitutions contained in it number 4652, the earliest dating
from Hadrian, the latest being of course Justinian's own. A few thus
belong to the period to which the greater part of the _Digest_
belongs, i.e. the so-called classical period of Roman law down to the
time of Alexander Severus (244); but the great majority are later, and
belong to one or other of the four great eras of imperial legislation,
the eras of Diocletian, of Constantine, of Theodosius II., and of
Justinian himself. Although this _Codex_ is said to have the same
general order as that of the _Digest_, viz. the order of the Perpetual
Edict, there are considerable differences of arrangement between the
two. It is divided into twelve books. Its contents, although of course
of the utmost practical importance to the lawyers of that time, and of
much value still, historical as well as legal, are far less
interesting and scientifically admirable than the extracts preserved
in the _Digest_. The difference is even greater than that between the
English reports of cases decided since the days of Lord Holt and the
English acts of parliament for the same two centuries.

The emperor's scheme was now complete. All the Roman law had been
gathered into two volumes of not excessive size, and a satisfactory
manual for beginners added. But Justinian and Tribonian had grown so
fond of legislating that they found it hard to leave off. Moreover,
the very simplifications that had been so far effected brought into
view with more clearness such anomalies or pieces of injustice as
still continued to deform the law. Thus no sooner had the work been
rounded off than fresh excrescences began to be created by the
publication of new laws. Between 534 and 565 Justinian issued a great
number of ordinances, dealing with all sorts of subjects and seriously
altering the law on many points--the majority appearing before the
death of Tribonian, which happened in 545. These ordinances are
called, by way of distinction, new constitutions, _Novellae
constitutiones post codicem_ ([Greek: nearai diataxeis]), _Novels_.
Although the emperor had stated in publishing the Codex that all
further statutes (if any) would be officially collected, this promise
does not seem to have been redeemed. The three collections of the
_Novels_ which we possess are apparently private collections, nor do
we even know how many such constitutions were promulgated. One of the
three contains 168 (together with 13 Edicts), but some of these are by
the emperors Justin II. and Tiberius II. Another, the so-called
_Epitome of Julian_, contains 125 Novels in Latin; and the third, the
_Liber authenticarum_ or _vulgata versio_, has 134, also in Latin.
This last was the collection first known and chiefly used in the West
during the middle ages; and of its 134 only 97 have been written on by
the _glossatores_ or medieval commentators; these therefore alone have
been received as binding in those countries which recognize and obey
the Roman law,--according to the maxim _Quicquid non agnoscit glossa,
nec agnoscit curia_. And, whereas Justinian's constitutions contained
in the _Codex_ were all issued in Latin, the rest of the book being in
that tongue, these _Novels_ were nearly all published in Greek, Latin
translations being of course made for the use of the western
provinces. They are very bulky, and with the exception of a few,
particularly the 116th and 118th, which introduce the most sweeping
and laudable reforms into the law of intestate succession, are much
more interesting, as supplying materials for the history of the time,
social, economical and ecclesiastical, than in respect of any purely
legal merits. They may be found printed in any edition of the _Corpus
juris civilis_.

This _Corpus juris_, which bears and immortalizes Justinian's name,
consists of the four books described above: (1) The authorized
collection of imperial ordinances (_Codex constitutionum_); (2) the
authorized collection of extracts from the great jurists (_Digesta_ or
_Pandectae_); (3) the elementary handbook (_Institutiones_); (4) the
unauthorized collection of constitutions subsequent to the _Codex_
(_Novellae_).

From what has been already stated, the reader will perceive that
Justinian did not, according to a strict use of terms, codify the Roman
law. By a codification we understand the reduction of the whole
pre-existing body of law to a new form, the re-stating it in a series of
propositions, scientifically ordered, which may or may not contain some
new substance, but are at any rate new in form. If he had, so to speak,
thrown into one furnace all the law contained in the treatises of the
jurists and in the imperial ordinances, fused them down, the gold of the
one and the silver of the other, and run them out into new moulds, this
would have been codification. What he did do was something quite
different. It was not codification but consolidation, not remoulding but
abridging. He made extracts from the existing law, preserving the old
words, and merely cutting out repetitions, removing contradictions,
retrenching superfluities, so as immensely to reduce the bulk of the
whole. And he made not one set of such extracts but two, one for the
jurist law, the other for the statute law. He gave to posterity not one
code but two digests or collections of extracts, which are new only to
this extent that they are arranged in a new order, having been
previously altogether unconnected with one another, and that here and
there their words have been modified in order to bring one extract into
harmony with some other. Except for this, the matter is old in
expression as well as in substance.

Thus regarded, even without remarking that the _Novels_, never having
been officially collected, much less incorporated with the _Codex_, mar
the symmetry of the structure, Justinian's work may appear to entitle
him and Tribonian to much less credit than they have usually received
for it. But let it be observed, first, that to reduce the huge and
confused mass of pre-existing law into the compass of these two
collections was an immense practical benefit to the empire; secondly,
that, whereas the work which he undertook was accomplished in seven
years, the infinitely more difficult task of codification might probably
have been left unfinished at Tribonian's death, or even at Justinian's
own, and been abandoned by his successor; thirdly, that in the extracts
preserved in the _Digest_ we have the opinions of the greatest legal
luminaries given in their own admirably lucid, philosophical and concise
language, while in the extracts of which the _Codex_ is composed we
find valuable historical evidence bearing on the administration and
social condition of the later Pagan and earlier Christian empire;
fourthly, that Justinian's age, that is to say, the intellect of the men
whose services he commanded, was quite unequal to so vast an undertaking
as the fusing upon scientific principles into one new organic whole of
the entire law of the empire. With sufficient time and labour the work
might no doubt have been done; but what we possess of Justinian's own
legislation, and still more what we know of the general condition of
literary and legal capacity in his time, makes it certain that it would
not have been well done, and that the result would have been not more
valuable to the Romans of that age, and much less valuable to the modern
world, than are the results, preserved in the _Digest_ and the _Codex_,
of what he and Tribonian actually did.

To the merits of the work as actually performed some reference has
already been made. The chief defect of the _Digest_ is in point of
scientific arrangement, a matter about which the Roman lawyers, perhaps
one may say the ancients generally, cared very little. There are some
repetitions and some inconsistencies, but not more than may fairly be
allowed for in a compilation of such magnitude executed so rapidly.
Tribonian has been blamed for the insertions the compilers made in the
sentences of the old jurists (the so-called _Emblemata Triboniani_); but
it was a part of Justinian's plan that such insertions should be made,
so as to adapt those sentences to the law as settled in the emperor's
time. On Justinian's own laws, contained in the _Codex_ and in his
_Novels_, a somewhat less favourable judgment must be pronounced. They,
and especially the latter, are diffuse and often lax in expression,
needlessly prolix, and pompously rhetorical. The policy of many,
particularly of those which deal with ecclesiastical matters, may also
be condemned; yet some gratitude is due to the legislator who put the
law of intestate succession on that plain and rational footing whereon
it has ever since continued to stand. It is somewhat remarkable that,
although Justinian is so much more familiar to us by his legislation
than by anything else, this sphere of his imperial labour is hardly
referred to by any of the contemporary historians, and then only with
censure. Procopius complains that he and Tribonian were always repealing
old laws and enacting new ones, and accuses them of venal motives for
doing so.

The _Corpus Juris_ of Justinian continued to be, with naturally a few
additions in the ordinances of succeeding emperors, the chief law-book
of the Roman world till the time of the Macedonian dynasty when,
towards the end of the 9th century, a new system was prepared and
issued by those sovereigns, which we know as the _Basilica_. It is of
course written in Greek, and consists of parts of the substance of the
_Codex_ and the _Digest_, thrown together and often altered in
expression, together with some matter from the _Novels_ and imperial
ordinances posterior to Justinian. In the western provinces, which had
been wholly severed from the empire before the publication of the
_Basilica_, the law as settled by Justinian held its ground; but
copies of the _Corpus Juris_ were extremely rare, nor did the study of
it revive until the end of the 11th century.

The best edition of the _Digest_ is that of Mommsen (Berlin
1868-1870), and of the _Codex_ that of Krüger (Berlin 1875-1877).

2. In his financial administration of the empire, Justinian is
represented to us as being at once rapacious and extravagant. His
unwearied activity and inordinate vanity led him to undertake a great
many costly public works, many of them, such as the erection of palaces
and churches, unremunerative. The money needed for these, for his wars,
and for buying off the barbarians who threatened the frontiers, had to
be obtained by increasing the burdens of the people. They suffered, not
only from the regular taxes, which were seldom remitted even after bad
seasons, but also from monopolies; and Procopius goes so far as to
allege that the emperor made a practice of further recruiting his
treasury by confiscating on slight or fictitious pretexts the property
of persons who had displeased Theodora or himself. Fiscal severities
were no doubt one cause of the insurrections which now and then broke
out, and in the gravest of which, (532) thirty thousand persons are said
to have perished in the capital. It is not always easy to discover,
putting together the trustworthy evidence of Justinian's own laws and
the angry complaints of Procopius, what was the nature and
justification of the changes made in the civil administration. But the
general conclusion seems to be that these changes were always in the
direction of further centralization, increasing the power of the chief
ministers and their offices, bringing all more directly under the
control of the Crown, and in some cases limiting the powers and
appropriating the funds of local municipalities. Financial necessities
compelled retrenchment, so that a certain number of offices were
suppressed altogether, much to the disgust of the office-holding class,
which was numerous and wealthy, and had almost come to look on the civil
service as its hereditary possession. The most remarkable instance of
this policy was the discontinuance of the consulship. This great office
had remained a dignity centuries after it had ceased to be a power; but
it was a very costly dignity, the holder being expected to spend large
sums in public displays. As these sums were provided by the state,
Justinian saved something considerable by stopping the payment. He named
no consul after Basilius, who was the name-giving consul of 541.

In a bureaucratic despotism the greatest merit of a sovereign is to
choose capable and honest ministers. Justinian's selections were usually
capable, but not so often honest; probably it was hard to find
thoroughly upright officials; possibly they would not have been most
serviceable in carrying out the imperial will, and especially in
replenishing the imperial treasury. Even the great Tribonian labours
under the reproach of corruption, while the fact that Justinian
maintained John of Cappadocia in power long after his greed, his
unscrupulousness, and the excesses of his private life had excited the
anger of the whole empire, reflects little credit on his own principles
of government and sense of duty to his subjects. The department of
administration in which he seems to have felt most personal interest was
that of public works. He spent immense sums on buildings of all sorts,
on quays and harbours, on fortifications, repairing the walls of cities
and erecting castles in Thrace to check the inroads of the barbarians,
on aqueducts, on monasteries, above all, upon churches. Of these works
only two remain perfect, St Sophia in Constantinople, now a mosque, and
one of the architectural wonders of the world, and the church of SS
Sergius and Bacchus, now commonly called Little St Sophia, which stands
about half a mile from the great church, and is in its way a very
delicate and beautiful piece of work. The church of S. Vitale at
Ravenna, though built in Justinian's reign, and containing mosaic
pictures of him and Theodora, does not appear to have owed anything to
his mind or purse.

3. Justinian's ecclesiastical policy was so complex and varying that it
is impossible within the limits of this article to do more than indicate
its bare outlines. For many years before the accession of his uncle
Justin, the Eastern world had been vexed by the struggles of the
Monophysite party, who recognized only one nature in Christ, against the
view which then and ever since has maintained itself as orthodox, that
the divine and human natures coexisted in Him. The latter doctrine had
triumphed at the council of Chalcedon, and was held by the whole Western
Church, but Egypt, great part of Syria and Asia Minor, and a
considerable minority even in Constantinople clung to Monophysitism. The
emperors Zeno and Anastasius had been strongly suspected of it, and the
Roman bishops had refused to communicate with the patriarchs of
Constantinople since 484, when they had condemned Acacius for accepting
the formula of conciliation issued by Zeno. One of Justinian's first
public acts was to put an end to this schism by inducing Justin to make
the then patriarch renounce this formula and declare his full adhesion
to the creed of Chalcedon. When he himself came to the throne he
endeavoured to persuade the Monophysites to come in by summoning some of
their leaders to a conference. This failing, he ejected suspected
prelates, and occasionally persecuted them, though with far less
severity than that applied to the heretics of a deeper dye, such as
Montanists or even Arians. Not long afterwards, his attention having
been called to the spread of Origenistic opinions in Syria, he issued an
edict condemning fourteen propositions drawn from the writings of the
great Alexandrian, and caused a synod to be held under the presidency
of Mennas (whom he had named patriarch of Constantinople), which renewed
the condemnation of the impugned doctrines and anathematized Origen
himself. Still later, he was induced by the machinations of some of the
prelates who haunted his court, and by the influence of Theodora,
herself much interested in theological questions, and more than
suspected of Monophysitism, to raise a needless, mischievous, and
protracted controversy. The Monophysites sometimes alleged that they
could not accept the decrees of the council of Chalcedon because that
council had not condemned, but (as they argued) virtually approved,
three writers tainted with Nestorian principles, Theodore of Mopsuestia,
Theodoret, and Ibas, bishop of Edessa. It was represented to the
emperor, who was still pursued by the desire to bring back the
schismatics, that a great step would have been taken towards
reconciliation if a condemnation of these teachers, or rather of such of
their books as were complained of, could be brought about, since then
the Chalcedonian party would be purged from any appearance of sympathy
with the errors of Nestorius. Not stopping to reflect that in the angry
and suspicious state of men's minds he was sure to lose as much in one
direction as he would gain in the other, Justinian entered into the
idea, and put forth an edict exposing and denouncing the errors
contained in the writings of Theodore generally, in the treatise of
Theodoret against Cyril of Alexandria, and in a letter of Bishop Ibas (a
letter whose authenticity was doubted, but which passed under his name)
to the Persian bishop Maris. This edict was circulated through the
Christian world to be subscribed by the bishops. The four Eastern
patriarchs, and the great majority of the Eastern prelates generally,
subscribed, though reluctantly, for it was felt that a dangerous
precedent was being set when dead authors were anathematized, and that
this new movement could hardly fail to weaken the authority of the
council of Chalcedon. Among the Western bishops, who were less disposed
both to Monophysitism and to subservience, and especially by those of
Africa, the edict was earnestly resisted. When it was found that Pope
Vigilius did not forthwith comply, he was summoned to Constantinople.
Even there he resisted, not so much, it would seem, from any scruples of
his own, for he was not a high-minded man, as because he knew that he
dared not return to Italy if he gave way. Long disputes and negotiations
followed, the end of which was that Justinian summoned a general council
of the church, that which we reckon the Fifth, which condemned the
impugned writings, and anathematized several other heretical authors.
Its decrees were received in the East but long contested in the Western
Church, where a schism arose that lasted for seventy years. This is the
controversy known as that of the Three Chapters (_Tria capitula_,
[Greek: tria kephalaia]), apparently from the three propositions or
condemnations contained in Justinian's original edict, one relating to
Theodore's writings and person, the second to the incriminated treatise
of Theodoret (whose person was not attacked), the third to the letter
(if genuine) of Ibas (see Hefele, _Conciliengeschichte_, ii. 777).

At the very end of his long career of theological discussion, Justinian
himself lapsed into heresy, by accepting the doctrine that the earthly
body of Christ was incorruptible, insensible to the weaknesses of the
flesh, a doctrine which had been advanced by Julian, bishop of
Halicarnassus, and went by the name of Aphthartodocetism. According to
his usual practice, he issued an edict enforcing this view, and
requiring all patriarchs, metropolitans, and bishops to subscribe to it.
Some, who not unnaturally held that it was rank Monophysitism, refused
at once, and were deprived of their sees, among them Eutychius the
eminent patriarch of Constantinople. Others submitted or temporized; but
before there had been time enough for the matter to be carried through,
the emperor died, having tarnished if not utterly forfeited by this last
error the reputation won by a life devoted to the service of Orthodoxy.

As no preceding sovereign had been so much interested in church affairs,
so none seems to have shown so much activity as a persecutor both of
pagans and of heretics. He renewed with additional stringency the laws
against both these classes. The former embraced a large part of the
rural population in certain secluded districts, such as parts of Asia
Minor and Peloponnesus; and we are told that the efforts directed
against them resulted in the forcible baptism of 70,000 persons in Asia
Minor alone. Paganism, however, survived; we find it in Laconia in the
end of the 9th century, and in northern Syria it has lasted till our own
times. There were also a good many crypto-pagans among the educated
population of the capital. Procopius, for instance, if he was not
actually a Pagan, was certainly very little of a Christian. Inquiries
made in the third year of Justinian's reign drove nearly all of these
persons into an outward conformity, and their offspring seem to have
become ordinary Christians. At Athens, the philosophers who taught in
the schools hallowed by memories of Plato still openly professed what
passed for Paganism, though it was really a body of moral doctrine,
strongly tinged with mysticism, in which there was far more of
Christianity and of the speculative metaphysics of the East than of the
old Olympian religion. Justinian, partly from religious motives, partly
because he discountenanced all rivals to the imperial university of
Constantinople, closed these Athenian schools (529). The professors
sought refuge at the court of Chosroes, king of Persia, but were soon so
much disgusted by the ideas and practices of the fire-worshippers that
they returned to the empire, Chosroes having magnanimously obtained from
Justinian a promise that they should be suffered to pass the rest of
their days unmolested. Heresy proved more obstinate. The severities
directed against the Montanists of Phrygia led to a furious war, in
which most of the sectaries perished, while the doctrine was not
extinguished. Harsh laws provoked the Samaritans to a revolt, from whose
effects Palestine had not recovered when conquered by the Arabs in the
following century. The Nestorians and the Eutychian Monophysites were
not threatened with such severe civil penalties, although their worship
was interdicted, and their bishops were sometimes banished; but this
vexatious treatment was quite enough to keep them disaffected, and the
rapidity of the Mahommedan conquests may be partly traced to that
alienation of the bulk of the Egyptian and a large part of the Syrian
population which dates from Justinian's persecutions.

4. Justinian was engaged in three great foreign wars, two of them of his
own seeking, the third a legacy which nearly every emperor had come into
for three centuries, the secular strife of Rome and Persia. The Sassanid
kings of Persia ruled a dominion which extended from the confines of
Syria to those of India, and from the straits of Oman to the Caucasus.
The martial character of their population made them formidable enemies
to the Romans, whose troops were at this epoch mainly barbarians, the
settled and civilized subjects of the empire being as a rule averse from
war. When Justinian came to the throne, his troops were maintaining an
unequal struggle on the Euphrates against the armies of Kavadh I.
(q.v.). After some campaigns, in which the skill of Belisarius obtained
considerable successes, a peace was concluded in 533 with Chosroes I.
(q.v.). This lasted till 539, when Chosroes declared war, alleging that
Justinian had been secretly intriguing against him with the Hephthalite
Huns, and doubtless moved by alarm and envy at the victories which the
Romans had been gaining in Italy. The emperor was too much occupied in
the West to be able adequately to defend his eastern frontier. Chosroes
advanced into Syria with little resistance, and in 540 captured Antioch,
then the greatest city in Asia, carrying off its inhabitants into
captivity. The war continued with varying fortunes for four years more
in this quarter; while in the meantime an even fiercer struggle had
begun in the mountainous region inhabited by the Lazi at the
south-eastern corner of the Black Sea (see COLCHIS). When after
two-and-twenty years of fighting no substantial advantage had been
gained by either party, Chosroes agreed in 562 to a peace which left
Lazica to the Romans, but under the dishonourable condition of their
paying 30,000 pieces of gold annually to the Persian king. Thus no
result of permanent importance flowed from these Persian wars, except
that they greatly weakened the Roman Empire, increased Justinian's
financial embarrassments, and prevented him from prosecuting with
sufficient vigour his enterprises in the West. (See further PERSIA:
_Ancient History_, "The Sassanid Dynasty.")

These enterprises had begun in 533 with an attack on the Vandals, who
were then reigning in Africa. Belisarius, despatched from Constantinople
with a large fleet and army, landed without opposition, and destroyed
the barbarian power in two engagements. North Africa from beyond the
straits of Gibraltar to the Syrtes became again a Roman province,
although the Moorish tribes of the interior maintained a species of
independence; and part of southern Spain was also recovered for the
empire. The ease with which so important a conquest had been effected
encouraged Justinian to attack the Ostrogoths of Italy, whose kingdom,
though vast in extent, for it included part of south-eastern Gaul,
Raetia, Dalmatia and part of Pannonia, as well as Italy, Sicily,
Sardinia and Corsica, had been grievously weakened by the death first of
the great Theodoric, and some years later of his grandson Athalaric, so
that the Gothic nation was practically without a head. Justinian began
the war in 535, taking as his pretext the murder of Queen Amalasuntha,
daughter of Theodoric, who had placed herself under his protection, and
alleging that the Ostrogothic kingdom had always owned a species of
allegiance to the emperor at Constantinople. There was some foundation
for this claim, although of course it could not have been made effective
against Theodoric, who was more powerful than his supposed suzerain.
Belisarius, who had been made commander of the Italian expedition,
overran Sicily, reduced southern Italy, and in 536 occupied Rome. Here
he was attacked in the following year by Vitiges, who had been chosen
king by the Goths, with a greatly superior force. After a siege of over
a year, the energy, skill, and courage of Belisarius, and the sickness
which was preying on the Gothic troops, obliged Vitiges to retire.
Belisarius pursued his diminished army northwards, shut him up in
Ravenna, and ultimately received the surrender of that impregnable city.
Vitiges was sent prisoner to Constantinople, where Justinian treated
him, as he had previously treated the captive Vandal king, with
clemency. The imperial administration was established through Italy, but
its rapacity soon began to excite discontent, and the kernel of the
Gothic nation had not submitted. After two short and unfortunate reigns,
the crown had been bestowed on Totila or Baduila, a warrior of
distinguished abilities, who by degrees drove the imperial generals and
governors out of Italy. Belisarius was sent against him, but with forces
too small for the gravity of the situation. He moved from place to place
during several years, but saw city after city captured by or open its
gates to Totila, till only Ravenna, Otranto and Ancona remained.
Justinian was occupied by the ecclesiastical controversy of the Three
Chapters, and had not the money to fit out a proper army and fleet;
indeed, it may be doubted whether he would ever have roused himself to
the necessary exertions but for the presence at Constantinople of a knot
of Roman exiles, who kept urging him to reconquer Italy, representing
that with their help and the sympathy of the people it would not be a
difficult enterprise. The emperor at last complied, and in 552 a
powerful army was despatched under Narses, an Armenian eunuch now
advanced in life, but reputed the most skilful general of the age, as
Belisarius was the hottest soldier. He marched along the coast of the
Gulf of Venice, and encountered the army of Totila at Taginae not far
from Cesena. Totila was slain, and the Gothic cause irretrievably lost.
The valiant remains of the nation made another stand under Teias on the
Lactarian Hill in Campania; after that they disappear from history.
Italy was recovered for the empire, but it was an Italy terribly
impoverished and depopulated, whose possession carried little strength
with it. Justinian's policy both in the Vandalic and in the Gothic War
stands condemned by the result. The resources of the state, which might
better have been spent in defending the northern frontier against Slavs
and Huns and the eastern frontier against Persians, were consumed in the
conquest of two countries which had suffered too much to be of any
substantial value, and which, separated by language as well as by
intervening seas, could not be permanently retained. However, Justinian
must have been almost preternaturally wise to have foreseen this: his
conduct was in the circumstances only what might have been expected from
an ambitious prince who perceived an opportunity of recovering
territories that had formerly belonged to the empire, and over which its
rights were conceived to be only suspended.

Besides these three great foreign wars, Justinian's reign was troubled
by a constant succession of border inroads, especially on the northern
frontier, where the various Slavonic and Hunnish tribes who were
established along the lower Danube and on the north coast of the Black
Sea made frequent marauding expeditions into Thrace and Macedonia,
sometimes penetrating as far as the walls of Constantinople in one
direction and the Isthmus of Corinth in another. Immense damage was
inflicted by these marauders on the subjects of the empire, who seem to
have been mostly too peaceable to defend themselves, and whom the
emperor could not spare troops enough to protect. Fields were laid
waste, villages burnt, large numbers of people carried into captivity;
and on one occasion the capital was itself in danger.

5. It only remains to say something regarding Justinian's personal
character and capacities, with regard to which a great diversity of
opinion has existed among historians. The civilians, looking on him as a
patriarch of their science, have as a rule extolled his wisdom and
virtues; while ecclesiastics of the Roman Church, from Cardinal Baronius
downwards, have been offended by his arbitrary conduct towards the
popes, and by his last lapse into heresy, and have therefore been
disposed to accept the stories which ascribe to him perfidy, cruelty,
rapacity and extravagance. The difficulty of arriving at a fair
conclusion is increased by the fact that Procopius, who is our chief
authority for the events of his reign, speaks with a very different
voice in his secret memoirs (the _Anecdota_) from that which he has used
in his published history, and that some of the accusations contained in
the former work are so rancorous and improbable that a certain measure
of discredit attaches to everything which it contains. The truth seems
to be that Justinian was not a great ruler in the higher sense of the
word, that is to say, a man of large views, deep insight, a capacity for
forming just such plans as the circumstances needed, and carrying them
out by a skilful adaptation of means to ends. But he was a man of
considerable abilities, wonderful activity of mind, and admirable
industry. He was interested in many things, and threw himself with
ardour into whatever he took up; he contrived schemes quickly, and
pushed them on with an energy which usually made them succeed when no
long time was needed, for, if a project was delayed, there was a risk of
his tiring of it and dropping it. Although vain and full of
self-confidence, he was easily led by those who knew how to get at him,
and particularly by his wife. She exercised over him that influence
which a stronger character always exercises over a weaker, whatever
their respective positions; and unfortunately it was seldom a good
influence, for Theodora (q.v.) seems to have been a woman who, with all
her brilliant gifts of intelligence and manner, had no principles and no
pity. Justinian was rather quick than strong or profound; his policy
does not strike one as the result of deliberate and well-considered
views, but dictated by the hopes and fancies of the moment. His activity
was in so far a misfortune as it led him to attempt too many things at
once, and engage in undertakings so costly that oppression became
necessary to provide the funds for them. Even his devotion to work,
which excites our admiration, in the centre of a luxurious court, was to
a great extent unprofitable, for it was mainly given to theological
controversies which neither he nor any one else could settle. Still,
after making all deductions, it is plain that the man who accomplished
so much, and kept the whole world so occupied, as Justinian did during
the thirty-eight years of his reign, must have possessed no common
abilities. He was affable and easy of approach to all his subjects, with
a pleasant address; nor does he seem to have been, like his wife, either
cruel or revengeful. We hear several times of his sparing those who had
conspired against him. But he was not scrupulous in the means he
employed, and he was willing to maintain in power detestable ministers
if only they served him efficiently and filled his coffers. His chief
passion, after that for his own fame and glory, seems to have been for
theology and religion; it was in this field that his literary powers
exerted themselves (for he wrote controversial treatises and hymns), and
his taste also, for among his numerous buildings the churches are those
on which he spent most thought and money. Considering that his legal
reforms are those by which his name is mainly known to posterity, it is
curious that we should have hardly any information as to his legal
knowledge, or the share which he took in those reforms. In person he was
somewhat above the middle height, well-shaped, with plenty of fresh
colour in his cheeks, and an extraordinary power of doing without food
and sleep. He spent most of the night in reading or writing, and would
sometimes go for a day with no food but a few green herbs. Two mosaic
figures of him exist at Ravenna, one in the apse of the church of S.
Vitale, the other in the church of S. Apollinare in Urbe; but of course
one cannot be sure how far in such a material the portrait fairly
represents the original. He had no children by his marriage with
Theodora, and did not marry after her decease. On his death, which took
place on the 14th of November 565, the crown passed to his nephew Justin
II.

AUTHORITIES.--For the life of Justinian the chief authorities are
Procopius (_Historiae, De aedificiis, Anecdota_) and (from 552 A.D.)
the _History_ of Agathias; the Chronicle of Johannes Malalas is also
of value. Occasional reference must be made to the writings of
Jordanes and Marcellinus, and even to the late compilations of
Cedrenus and Zonaras. The _Vita Justiniani_ of Ludewig or Ludwig
(Halle, 1731), a work of patient research, is frequently referred to
by Gibbon in his important chapters relating to the reign of
Justinian, in the _Decline and Fall_ (see Bury's edition, 1900). There
is a _Vie de Justinien_ by Isambert (2 vols., Paris, 1856). See also
Hutton's _Church of the Sixth Century_ (1897); J. B. Bury's _Later
Roman Empire_ (1889); Hodgkin's _Italy and her Invaders_ (1880).
(J. Br.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] It is commonly identified with the modern Küstendil, but Usküb
(the ancient Skupi) has also been suggested. See Tozer, _Highlands of
European Turkey_, ii. 370.

[2] The name Uprauda is said to be derived from the word _prauda_,
which in Old Slavic means _jus_, _justitia_, the prefix being simply
a breathing frequently attached to Slavonic names.

[3] See, for an account of the instructions given to the commission,
the constitution _Haec quae_, prefixed to the revised _Codex_ in the
_Corpus juris civilis_.

[4] See the constitution _Deo auctore_ (_Cod._ i. 17, 1).

[5] In the middle ages people used to cite passages by the initial
words; and the Germans do so still, giving, however, the number of
the paragraph in the extract (if there are more paragraphs than one),
and appending the number of the book and title. We in Britain and
America usually cite by the numbers of the book, the title and the
paragraph, without referring to the initial words.

[6] See Bluhme, "Die Ordnung der Fragmente in den Pandektentiteln,"
in Savigny's _Zeitschr. f. gesch. Rechtswissenschaft_, vol. iv.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 15, Slice 5 - "Joints" to "Justinian I."" ***

Home