VOLUME XV SLICE II Jacobites to Japan (part) (continued 3)

James appears to have been a brave and generous man, and a wise and energetic king. According to one account, he was possessed of considerable learning; during his reign the Scottish court attained some degree of refinement, and Scotland counted in European politics as she had never done before. Literature flourished under the royal patronage, education was encouraged, and the material condition of the country improved enormously. Prominent both as an administrator and as a lawgiver, the king by his vigorous rule did much to destroy the tendencies to independence which existed in the Highlands and Islands; but, on the other hand, his rash conduct at Flodden brought much misery upon his kingdom. He was specially interested in his navy. The tournaments which took place under his auspices were worthy of the best days of chivalry in France and England. James shared to the full in the superstitions of the age which was quickly passing away. He is said to have worn an iron belt as penance for his share in his father’s death; and by his frequent visits to shrines, and his benefactions to religious foundations, he won a reputation for piety.

JAMES V. (1512-1542), king of Scotland, son of James IV., was born at Linlithgow on the 10th of April 1512, and became king when his father was killed at Flodden in 1513. The regency was at first vested in his mother, but after Queen Margaret’s second marriage, with Archibald Douglas, 6th earl of Angus, in August 1514, it was transferred by the estates to John Stewart, duke of Albany. Henceforward the minority of James was disturbed by constant quarrels between a faction, generally favourable to England, under Angus, and the partisans of France under Albany; while the queen-mother and the nobles struggled to gain and to regain possession of the king’s person. The English had not followed up their victory at Flodden, although there were as usual forays on the borders, but Henry VIII. was watching affairs in Scotland with an observant eye, and other European sovereigns were not indifferent to the possibility of a Scotch alliance. In 1524, when Albany had retired to France, the parliament declared that James was fit to govern, but that he must be advised by his mother and a council. This “erection” of James as king was mainly due to the efforts of Henry VIII. In 1526 Angus obtained control of the king, and kept him in close confinement until 1528, when James, escaping from Edinburgh to Stirling, put vigorous measures in execution against the earl, and compelled him to flee to England. In 1529 and 1530 the king made a strong effort to suppress his turbulent vassals in the south of Scotland; and after several raids and counter-raids negotiations for peace with England were begun, and in May 1534 a treaty was signed. At this time, as on previous occasions, Henry VIII. wished James to marry his daughter Mary, while other ladies had been suggested by the emperor Charles V.; but the Scottish king, preferring a French bride, visited France, and in January 1537 was married at Paris to Madeleine, daughter of King Francis I. Madeleine died soon after her arrival in Scotland, and in 1538 James made a much more important marriage, being united to Mary (1515-1560), daughter of Claude, duke of Guise, and widow of Louis of Orleans, duke of Longueville. It was this connexion, probably, which finally induced James to forsake his vacillating foreign policy, and to range himself definitely among the enemies of England. In 1536 he had refused to meet Henry VIII. at York, and in the following year had received the gift of a cap and sword from Pope Paul III., thus renouncing the friendship of his uncle. Two plots to murder the king were now discovered, and James also foiled the attempts of Henry VIII. to kidnap him. Although in 1540 the English king made another attempt to win the support, or at least the neutrality, of James for his religious policy, the relations between the two countries became very unfriendly, and in 1542 Henry sent an army to invade Scotland. James was not slow to make reprisals, but his nobles were angry or indifferent, and on the 25th of November 1542 his forces were easily scattered at the rout of Solway Moss. This blow preyed upon the king’s mind, and on the 14th of December he died at Falkland, having just heard of the birth of his daughter. His two sons had died in infancy, and his successor was his only legitimate child, Mary. He left several bastards, among them James Stewart, earl of Murray (the regent Murray), Lord John Stewart (1531-1563) prior of Coldingham, and Lord Robert Stewart, earl of Orkney (d. 1592).

Although possessing a weak constitution, which was further impaired by his irregular manner of life, James showed great vigour and independence as a sovereign, both in withstanding the machinations of his uncle, Henry VIII., and in opposing the influence of the nobles. The persecutions to which heretics were exposed during this reign were due mainly to the excessive influence exercised by the ecclesiastics, especially by David Beaton, archbishop of St Andrews. The king’s habit of mingling with the peasantry secured for him a large amount of popularity, and probably led many to ascribe to him the authorship of poems describing scenes in peasant life, Christis Kirk on the Grene, The Gaberlunzie Man and The Jolly Beggar. There is no proof that he was the author of any of these poems, but from expressions in the poems of Sir David Lindsay, who was on terms of intimacy with him, it appears that occasionally he wrote verses.

JAMES I., the Conqueror (1208-1276), king of Aragon, son of Peter II., king of Aragon, and of Mary of Montpellier, whose mother was Eudoxia Comnena, daughter of the emperor Manuel, was born at Montpellier on the 2nd of February 1208. His father, a man of immoral life, was with difficulty persuaded to cohabit with his wife. He endeavoured to repudiate her, and she fled to Rome, where she died in April 1213. Peter, whose possessions in Provence entangled him in the wars between the Albigenses and Simon of Montfort, endeavoured to placate the northern crusaders by arranging a marriage between his son James and Simon’s daughter. In 1211 the boy was entrusted to Montfort’s care to be educated, but the aggressions of the crusaders on the princes of the south forced Peter to take up arms against them, and he was slain at Muret on the 12th of September 1213. Montfort would willingly have used James as a means of extending his own power. The Aragonese and Catalans, however, appealed to the pope, who forced Montfort to surrender him in May or June 1214. James was now entrusted to the care of Guillen de Monredon, the head of the Templars in Spain and Provence. The kingdom was given over to confusion till in 1216 the Templars and some of the more loyal nobles brought the young king to Saragossa. At the age of thirteen he was married to Leonora, daughter of Alphonso VIII. of Castile, whom he divorced later on the ground of consanguinity. A son born of the marriage, Alphonso, was recognized as legitimate, but died before his father, childless. It was only by slow steps that the royal authority was asserted, but the young king, who was of gigantic stature and immense strength, was also astute and patient. By 1228 he had so far brought his vassals to obedience, that he was able to undertake the conquest of the Balearic Islands, which he achieved within four years. At the same time he endeavoured to bring about a union of Aragon with Navarre, by a contract of mutual adoption between himself and the Navarrese king, Sancho, who was old enough to be his grandfather. The scheme broke down, and James abstained from a policy of conquest. He wisely turned to the more feasible course of extending his dominions at the expense of the decadent Mahommedan princes of Valencia. On the 28th of September 1238 the town of Valencia surrendered, and the whole territory was conquered in the ensuing years. Like all the princes of his house, James took part in the politics of southern France. He endeavoured to form a southern state on both sides of the Pyrenees, which should counterbalance the power of France north of the Loire. Here also his policy failed against physical, social and political obstacles. As in the case of Navarre, he was too wise to launch into perilous adventures. By the Treaty of Corbeil, with Louis IX., signed the 11th of May 1258, he frankly withdrew from conflict with the French king, and contented himself with the recognition of his position, and the surrender of antiquated French claims to the overlordship of Catalonia. During the remaining twenty years of his life, James was much concerned in warring with the Moors in Murcia, not on his own account, but on behalf of his son-in-law Alphonso the Wise of Castile. As a legislator and organizer he occupies a high place among the Spanish kings. He would probably have been more successful but for the confusion caused by the disputes in his own household. James, though orthodox and pious, had an ample share of moral laxity. After repudiating Leonora of Castile he married Yolande (in Spanish Violante) daughter of Andrew II. of Hungary, who had a considerable influence over him. But she could not prevent him from continuing a long series of intrigues. The favour he showed his bastards led to protest from the nobles, and to conflicts between his sons legitimate and illegitimate. When one of the latter, Fernan Sanchez, who had behaved with gross ingratitude and treason to his father, was slain by the legitimate son Pedro, the old king recorded his grim satisfaction. At the close of his life King James divided his states between his sons by Yolande of Hungary, Pedro and James, leaving the Spanish possessions on the mainland to the first, the Balearic Islands and the lordship of Montpellier to the second—a division which inevitably produced fratricidal conflicts. The king fell very ill at Alcira, and resigned his crown, intending to retire to the monastery of Poblet, but died at Valencia on the 27th of July 1276.

King James was the author of a chronicle of his own life, written or dictated apparently at different times, which is a very fine example of autobiographical literature. A translation into English by J. Forster, with notes by Don Pascual de Gayangos, was published in London in 1883. See also James I. of Aragon, by F. Darwin Swift (Clarendon Press, 1894), in which are many references to authorities.

JAMES II. (c. 1260-1327), king of Aragon, grandson of James I., and son of Peter III. by his marriage with Constance, daughter of Manfred of Beneventum, was left in 1285 as king of Sicily by his father. In 1291, on the death of his elder brother, Alphonso, to whom Aragon had fallen, he resigned Sicily and endeavoured to arrange the quarrel between his own family and the Angevine House, by marriage with Blanca, daughter of Charles of Anjou, king of Naples.

JAMES II. (1243-1311), king of Majorca, inherited the Balearic Islands from his father James I. of Aragon. He was engaged in constant conflict with his brother Pedro III. of Aragon, and in alliance with the French king against his own kin.

JAMES III. (1315-1349), king of Majorca, grandson of James II., was driven out of his little state and finally murdered by his cousin Pedro IV. of Aragon, who definitely reannexed the Balearic Islands to the crown.

JAMES (James Francis Edward Stuart) (1688-1766), prince of Wales, known to the Jacobites as James III. and to the Hanoverian party as the Old Pretender, the son and heir of James II. of England, was born in St James’s Palace, London, on the 10th of June 1688. The scandalous story that he was a supposititious child, started and spread abroad by interested politicians at the time of his birth, has been completely disproved, and most contemporary writers allude to his striking family likeness to the Royal Stuarts. Shortly before the flight of the king to Sheerness, the infant prince together with his mother was sent to France, and afterwards he continued to reside with his father at the court of St Germain. On the death of his father, on the 16th of September 1701, he was immediately proclaimed king by Louis XIV. of France, but a fantastic attempt to perform a similar ceremony in London so roused the anger of the populace that the mock pursuivants barely escaped with their lives. A bill of attainder against him received the royal assent a few days before the death of William III. in 1702, and the Princess Anne, half-sister of the Pretender, succeeded William on the throne. An influential party still, however, continued to adhere to the Jacobite cause; but an expedition from Dunkirk planned in favour of James in the spring of 1708 failed of success, although the French ships under the comte de Fourbin, with James himself on board, reached the Firth of Forth in safety. At the Peace of Utrecht James withdrew from French territory to Bar-le-Duc in Lorraine. A rebellion in the Highlands of Scotland was inaugurated in September 1715 by the raising of the standard on the braes of Mar, and by the solemn proclamation of James Stuart, “the chevalier of St George,” in the midst of the assembled clans, but its progress was arrested in November by the indecisive battle of Sheriffmuir and by the surrender at Preston. Unaware of the gloomy nature of his prospects, the chevalier landed in December 1715 at Peterhead, and advanced as far south as Scone, accompanied by a small force under the earl of Mar; but on learning of the approach of the duke of Argyll, he retreated to Montrose, where the Highlanders dispersed to the mountains, and he embarked again for France. A Spanish expedition sent out in his behalf in 1719, under the direction of Alberoni, was scattered by a tempest, only two frigates reaching the appointed rendezvous in the island of Lewis.

In 1718 James had become affianced to the young princess Maria Clementina Sobieski, grand-daughter of the warrior king of Poland, John Sobieski. The intended marriage was forbidden by the emperor, who in consequence kept the princess and her mother in honourable confinement at Innsbruck in Tirol. An attempt to abduct the princess by means of a ruse contrived by a zealous Jacobite gentleman, Charles Wogan, proved successful; Clementina reached Italy in safety, and she and James were ultimately married at Montefiascone on the 1st of September 1719. James and Clementina were now invited to reside in Rome at the special request of Pope Clement XI., who openly acknowledged their titles of British King and Queen, gave them a papal guard of troops, presented them with a villa at Albano and a palace (the Palazzo Muti in the Piazza dei Santi Apostoli) in the city, and also made them an annual allowance of 12,000 crowns out of the papal treasury. At the Palazzo Muti, which remained the chief centre of Jacobite intriguing, were born James’s two sons, Charles Edward (the Young Pretender) and Henry Benedict Stuart. James’s married life proved turbulent and unhappy, a circumstance that was principally due to the hot temper and jealous nature of Clementina, who soon after Henry’s birth in 1725 left her husband and spent over two years in a Roman convent. At length a reconciliation was effected, which Clementina did not long survive, for she died at the early age of 32 in February 1735. Full regal honours were paid to the Stuart queen at her funeral, and the splendid but tasteless monument by Pietro Bracchi (1700-1773) in St Peter’s was erected to her memory by order of Pope Benedict XIV.

His wife’s death seems to have affected James’s health and spirits greatly, and he now began to grow feeble and indifferent, so that the political adherents of the Stuarts were gradually led to fix their hopes upon the two young princes rather than upon their father. Travellers to Rome at this period note that James appeared seldom in public, and that much of his time was given up to religious exercises; he was dévot à l’excès, so Charles de Brosses, an unprejudiced Frenchman, informs us. It was with great reluctance that James allowed his elder son to leave Italy for France in 1744; nevertheless in the following year, he permitted Henry to follow his brother’s example, but with the news of Culloden he evidently came to regard his cause as definitely lost. The estrangement from his elder and favourite son, which arose over Henry’s adoption of an ecclesiastical career, so embittered his last years that he sank into a moping invalid and rarely left his chamber. With the crushing failure of the “Forty-five” and his quarrel with his heir, the once-dreaded James soon became a mere cipher in British politics, and his death at Rome on the 2nd of January 1766 passed almost unnoticed in London. He was buried with regal pomp in St Peter’s, where Canova’s famous monument, erected by Pius VII. in 1819, commemorates him and his two sons. As to James’s personal character, there is abundant evidence to show that he was grave, high-principled, industrious, abstemious and dignified, and that the unflattering portrait drawn of him by Thackeray in Esmond is utterly at variance with historical facts. Although a fervent Roman Catholic, he was far more reasonable and liberal in his religious views than his father, as many extant letters testify.

See Earl Stanhope, History of England and Decline of the Last Stuarts (1853); Calendar of the Stuart Papers at Windsor Castle; J. H. Jesse, Memories of the Pretenders and their Adherents (1845); Dr John Doran, ”Mann” and Manners at the Court of Florence (1876); Relazione della morte di Giacomo III., Rè d’Inghilterra; and Charles de Brosses, Lettres sur l’Italie (1885).

(H. M. V.)

JAMES, DAVID (1839-1893), English actor, was born in London, his real name being Belasco. He began his stage career at an early age, and after 1863 gradually made his way in humorous parts. His creation, in 1875, of the part of Perkyn Middlewick in Our Boys made him famous as a comedian, the performance obtaining for the piece a then unprecedented run from the 16th of January 1875 till the 18th of April 1879. In 1885 he had another notable success as Blueskin in Little Jack Sheppard at the Gaiety Theatre, his principal associates being Fred Leslie and Nellie Farren. His song in this burlesque, “Botany Bay,” became widely popular. In the part of John Dory in Wild Oats he again made a great hit at the Criterion Theatre in 1886; and among his other most successful impersonations were Simon Ingot in David Garrick, Tweedie in Tweedie’s Rights, Macclesfield in The Guv’nor, and Eccles in Caste. His unctuous humour and unfailing spirits made him a great favourite with the public. He died on the 2nd of October 1893.

JAMES, GEORGE PAYNE RAINSFORD (1799-1860), English novelist, son of Pinkstan James, physician, was born in George Street, Hanover Square, London, on the 9th of August 1799. He was educated at a private school at Putney, and afterwards in France. He began to write early, and had, according to his own account, composed the stories afterwards published as A String of Pearls before he was seventeen. As a contributor to newspapers and magazines, he came under the notice of Washington Irving, who encouraged him to produce his Life of Edward the Black Prince (1822). Richelieu was finished in 1825, and was well thought of by Sir Walter Scott (who apparently saw it in manuscript), but was not brought out till 1829. Perhaps Irving and Scott, from their natural amiability, were rather dangerous advisers for a writer so inclined by nature to abundant production as James. But he took up historical romance writing at a lucky moment. Scott had firmly established the popularity of the style, and James in England, like Dumas in France, reaped the reward of their master’s labours as well as of their own. For thirty years the author of Richelieu continued to pour out novels of the same kind though of varying merit. His works in prose fiction, verse narrative, and history of an easy kind are said to number over a hundred, most of them being three-volume novels of the usual length. Sixty-seven are catalogued in the British Museum. The best examples of his style are perhaps Richelieu (1829); Philip Augustus (1831); Henry Masterton, probably the best of all (1832); Mary of Burgundy (1833); Darnley (1839); Corse de Léon (1841); The Smuggler (1845). His poetry does not require special mention, nor does his history, though for a short time during the reign of William IV. he held the office of historiographer royal. After writing copiously for about twenty years, James in 1850 went to America as British Consul for Massachusetts. He was consul at Richmond, Virginia, from 1852 to 1856, when he was appointed to a similar post at Venice, where he died on the 9th of June 1860.

James has been compared to Dumas, and the comparison holds good in respect of kind, though by no means in respect of merit. Both had a certain gift of separating from the picturesque parts of history what could without much difficulty be worked up into picturesque fiction, and both were possessed of a ready pen. Here, however, the likeness ends. Of purely literary talent James had little. His plots are poor, his descriptions weak, his dialogue often below even a fair average, and he was deplorably prone to repeat himself. The “two cavaliers” who in one form or another open most of his books have passed into a proverb, and Thackeray’s good-natured but fatal parody of Barbazure is likely to outlast Richelieu and Darnley by many a year. Nevertheless, though James cannot be allowed any very high rank among novelists, he had a genuine narrative gift, and, though his very best books fall far below Les trois mousquetaires and La reine Margot, there is a certain even level of interest to be found in all of them. James never resorted to illegitimate methods to attract readers, and deserves such credit as may be due to a purveyor of amusement who never caters for the less creditable tastes of his guests.

His best novels were published in a revised form in 21 volumes (1844-1849).

JAMES, HENRY (1843- ), American author, was born in New York on the 15th of April 1843. His father was Henry James (1811-1882), a theological writer of great originality, from whom both he and his brother Professor William James derived their psychological subtlety and their idiomatic, picturesque English. Most of Henry’s boyhood was spent in Europe, where he studied under tutors in England, France and Switzerland. In 1860 he returned to America, and began reading law at Harvard, only to find speedily that literature, not law, was what he most cared for. His earliest short tale, “The Story of a Year,” appeared in 1865, in the Atlantic Monthly, and frequent stories and sketches followed. In 1869 he again went to Europe, where he subsequently made his home, for the most part living in London, or at Rye in Sussex. Among his specially noteworthy works are the following: Watch and Ward (1871); Roderick Hudson (1875); The American (1877); Daisy Miller (1878); French Poets and Novelists (1878); A Life of Hawthorne (1879); The Portrait of a Lady (1881); Portraits of Places (1884); The Bostonians (1886); Partial Portraits (1888); The Tragic Muse (1890); Essays in London (1893); The Two Magics (1898); The Awkward Age (1898); The Wings of the Dove (1902); The Ambassadors (1903); The Golden Bowl (1904); English Hours (1905); The American Scene (1907); The High Bid (1909); Italian Hours (1909).

As a novelist, Henry James is a modern of the moderns both in subject matter and in method. He is entirely loyal to contemporary life and reverentially exact in his transcription of the phase. His characters are for the most part people of the world who conceive of life as a fine art and have the leisure to carry out their theories. Rarely are they at close quarters with any ugly practical task. They are subtle and complex with the subtlety and the complexity that come from conscious preoccupation with themselves. They are specialists in conduct and past masters in casuistry, and are full of variations and shadows of turning. Moreover, they are finely expressive of milieu; each belongs unmistakably to his class and his race; each is true to inherited moral traditions and delicately illustrative of some social code. To reveal the power and the tragedy of life through so many minutely limiting and apparently artificial conditions, and by means of characters who are somewhat self-conscious and are apt to make of life only a pleasant pastime, might well seem an impossible task. Yet it is precisely in this that Henry James is pre-eminently successful. The essentially human is what he really cares for, however much he may at times seem preoccupied with the technique of his art or with the mask of conventions through which he makes the essentially human reveal itself. Nor has “the vista of the spiritual been denied him.” No more poignant spiritual tragedy has been recounted in recent fiction than the story of Isabel Archer in The Portrait of a Lady. His method, too, is as modern as his subject matter. He early fell in love with the “point of view,” and the good and the bad qualities of his work all follow from this literary passion. He is a very sensitive impressionist, with a technique that can fix the most elusive phase of character and render the most baffling surface. The skill is unending with which he places his characters in such relations and under such lights that they flash out in due succession their continuously varying facets. At times he may seem to forget that a character is something incalculably more than the sum of all its phases; and then his characters tend to have their existence, as Positivists expect to have their immortality, simply and solely in the minds of other people. But when his method is at its best, the delicate phases of character that he transcribes coalesce perfectly into clearly defined and suggestive images of living, acting men and women. Doubtless, there is a certain initiation necessary for the enjoyment of Mr James. He presupposes a cosmopolitan outlook, a certain interest in art and in social artifice, and no little abstract curiosity about the workings of the human mechanism. But for speculative readers, for readers who care for art in life as well as for life in art, and for readers above all who want to encounter and comprehend a great variety of very modern and finely modulated characters, Mr James holds a place of his own, unrivalled as an interpreter of the world of to-day.

For a list of the short stories of Mr Henry James, collections of them in volume form, and other works, see bibliographies by F. A. King, in The Novels of Henry James, by Elisabeth L. Cary (New York and London, 1905), and by Le Roy Phillips, A Bibliography of the Writings of Henry James (Boston, Mass., 1906). In 1909 an édition de luxe of Henry James’s novels was published in 24 volumes.

JAMES, JOHN ANGELL (1785-1859), English Nonconformist divine, was born at Blandford, Dorsetshire, on the 6th of June 1785. At the close of his seven years’ apprenticeship to a linen-draper at Poole he decided to become a preacher, and in 1802 he went to David Bogue’s training institution at Gosport. A year and a half later, on a visit to Birmingham, his preaching was so highly esteemed by the congregation of Carr’s Lane Independent chapel that they invited him to exercise his ministry amongst them; he settled there in 1805, and was ordained in May 1806. For several years his success as a preacher was comparatively small; but he jumped into popularity about 1814, and began to attract large crowds wherever he officiated. At the same time his religious writings, the best known of which are The Anxious Inquirer and An Earnest Ministry, acquired a wide circulation. James was a typical Congregational preacher of the early 19th century, massive and elaborate rather than original. His preaching displayed little or nothing of Calvinism, the earlier severity of which had been modified in Birmingham by Edward Williams, one of his predecessors. He was one of the founders of the Evangelical Alliance and of the Congregational Union of England and Wales. Municipal interests appealed strongly to him, and he was also for many years chairman of Spring Hill (afterwards Mansfield) College. He died at Birmingham on the 1st of October 1859.

A collected edition of James’s works appeared in 1860-1864. See A Review of the Life and Character of J. Angell James (1860), by J. Campbell, and Life and Letters of J. A. James (1861), edited by his successor, R. W. Dale, who also contributed a sketch of his predecessor to Pulpit Memorials (1878).

JAMES, THOMAS (c. 1573-1629), English librarian, was born at Newport, Isle of Wight. He was educated at Winchester and New College, Oxford, and became a fellow of New College in 1593. His wide knowledge of books, together with his skill in deciphering manuscripts and detecting literary forgeries, secured him in 1602 the post of librarian to the library founded in that year by Sir Thomas Bodley at Oxford. At the same time he was made rector of St Aldate’s, Oxford. In 1605 he compiled a classified catalogue of the books in the Bodleian Library, but in 1620 substituted for it an alphabetical catalogue. The arrangement in 1610, whereby the Stationers’ Company undertook to supply the Bodleian Library with every book published, was James’s suggestion. Ill health compelled him to resign his post in 1620, and he died at Oxford in August 1629.

JAMES, WILLIAM (d. 1827), English naval historian, author of the Naval History of Great Britain from the Declaration of War by France in 1793 to the Accession of George IV., practised as a proctor in the admiralty court of Jamaica between 1801 and 1813. He was in the United States when the war of 1812 broke out, and was detained as a prisoner, but escaped to Halifax. His literary career began by letters to the Naval Chronicle over the signature of “Boxer.” In 1816 he published An Inquiry into the Merits of the Principal Naval Actions between Great Britain and the United States. In this pamphlet, which James reprinted in 1817, enlarged and with a new title, his object was to prove that the American frigates were stronger than their British opponents nominally of the same class. In 1819 he began his Naval History, which appeared in five volumes (1822-1824), and was reprinted in six volumes (1826). It is a monument of painstaking accuracy in all such matters as dates, names, tonnage, armament and movements of ships, though no attempt is ever made to show the connexion between the various movements. James died on the 28th of May 1827 in London, leaving a widow who received a civil list pension of £100.

An edition of the Naval History in six volumes, with additions and notes by Capt. F. Chamier, was published in 1837, and a further one in 1886. An edition epitomized by R. O’Byrne appeared in 1888, and an Index by C. G. Toogood was issued by the Navy Records Society in 1895.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1842-1910), American philosopher, son of the Swedenborgian theologian Henry James, and brother of the novelist Henry James, was born on the 11th of January 1842 at New York City. He graduated M.D. at Harvard in 1870. Two years after he was appointed a lecturer at Harvard in anatomy and physiology, and later in psychology and philosophy. Subsequently he became assistant professor of philosophy (1880-1885), professor (1885-1889), professor of psychology (1889-1897) and professor of philosophy (1897-1907). In 1899-1901 he delivered the Gifford lectures on natural religion at the university of Edinburgh, and in 1908 the Hibbert lectures at Manchester College, Oxford. With the appearance of his Principles of Psychology (2 vols., 1890), James at once stepped into the front rank of psychologists as a leader of the physical school, a position which he maintained not only by the brilliance of his analogies but also by the freshness and unconventionality of his style. In metaphysics he upheld the idealist position from the empirical standpoint. Beside the Principles of Psychology, which appeared in a shorter form in 1892 (Psychology), his chief works are: The Will to Believe (1897); Human Immortality (Boston, 1898); Talks to Teachers (1899); The Varieties of Religious Experience (New York, 1902); Pragmatism—a New Name for some Old Ways of Thinking (1907); A Pluralistic Universe (1909; Hibbert lectures), in which, though he still attacked the hypothesis of absolutism, he admitted it as a legitimate alternative. He received honorary degrees from Padua (1893), Princeton (1896), Edinburgh (1902), Harvard (1905). He died on the 27th of August 1910.

JAMES OF HEREFORD, HENRY JAMES, 1st Baron (1828- ), English lawyer and statesman, son of P. T. James, surgeon, was born at Hereford on the 30th of October 1828, and educated at Cheltenham College. A prizeman of the Inner Temple, he was called to the bar in 1852 and joined the Oxford circuit, where he soon came into prominence. In 1867 he was made “postman” of the court of exchequer, and in 1869 became a Q.C. At the general election of 1868 he obtained a seat in parliament for Taunton as a Liberal, by the unseating of Mr Serjeant Cox on a scrutiny in March 1869, and he kept the seat till 1885, when he was returned for Bury. He attracted attention in parliament by his speeches in 1872 in the debates on the Judicature Act. In 1873 (September) he was made solicitor-general, and in November attorney-general, and knighted; and when Gladstone returned to power in 1880 he resumed his office. He was responsible for carrying the Corrupt Practices Act of 1883. On Gladstone’s conversion to Home Rule, Sir Henry James parted from him and became one of the most influential of the Liberal Unionists: Gladstone had offered him the lord chancellorship in 1886, but he declined it; and the knowledge of the sacrifice he had made in refusing to follow his old chief in his new departure lent great weight to his advocacy of the Unionist cause in the country. He was one of the leading counsel for The Times before the Parnell Commission, and from 1892 to 1895 was attorney-general to the prince of Wales. From 1895 to 1902 he was a member of the Unionist ministry as chancellor for the duchy of Lancaster, and in 1895 he was made a peer as Baron James of Hereford. In later years he was a prominent opponent of the Tariff Reform movement, adhering to the section of Free Trade Unionists.

JAMES, EPISTLE OF, a book of the New Testament. The superscription (Jas. i. 1) ascribes it to that pre-eminent “pillar” (Gal. ii. 9) of the original mother church who later came to be regarded in certain quarters as the “bishop of bishops” (Epist. of James to Clement, ap. Clem. Hom. Superscription). As such he appears in a position to address an encyclical to “the twelve tribes of the dispersion”; for the context (i. 18, v. 7 seq.) and literary relation (cf. 1 Pet. i. 1, 3, 23-25) prove this to be a figure for the entire new people of God, without the distinction of carnal birth, as Paul had described “the Israel of God” (Gal. vi. 16), spiritually begotten, like Isaac, by the word received in faith (Gal. iii. 28 seq., iv. 28; Rom. ix. 6-9, iv. 16-18). This idea of the spiritually begotten Israel becomes current after 1 Pet., as appears in John i. 11-13, iii. 3-8; Barn. iv. 6, xiii. 13; 2 Clem. ii. 2, &c.

The interpretation which takes the expression “the twelve tribes” literally, and conceives the brother of the Lord as sending an epistle written in the Greek language throughout the Christian world, but as addressing Jewish Christians only (so e.g. Sieffert, s.v. “Jacobus im N.T.” in Hauck, Realencykl. ed. 1900, vol. viii.), assumes not only such divisive interference as Paul might justly resent (cf. Gal. ii. 1-10), but involves a strange idea of conditions. Were worldliness, tongue religion, moral indifference, the distinctive marks of the Jewish element? Surely the rebukes of James apply to conditions of the whole Church and not sporadic Jewish-Christian conventicles in the Greek-speaking world, if any such existed.

It is at least an open question whether the superscription (connected with that of Jude) be not a later conjecture prefixed by some compiler of the catholic epistles, but of the late date implied in our interpretation of ver. 1 there should be small dispute. Whatever the currency in classical circles of the epistle as a literary form, it is irrational to put first in the development of Christian literature a general epistle, couched in fluent, even rhetorical, Greek, and afterwards the Pauline letters, which both as to origin and subsequent circulation were a product of urgent conditions. The order consonant with history is (1) Paul’s “letters” to “the churches of” a province (Gal. i. 2; 2 Cor. i. 1); (2) the address to “the elect of the dispersion” in a group of the Pauline provinces (1 Pet. i. 1); (3) the address to “the twelve tribes of the dispersion” everywhere (Jas. i. 1; cf. Rev. vii. 2-4). James, like 1 John, is a homily, even more lacking than 1 John in every epistolary feature, not even supplied with the customary epistolary farewell. The superscription, if original, compels us to treat the whole writing as not only late but pseudonymous. If prefixed by conjecture, to secure recognition and authority for the book, even this was at first a failure. The earliest trace of any recognition of it is in Origen (A.D. 230) who refers to it as “said to be from James” (φερομέγη ἡ Ἰακώβου Ἐπιστολή), seeming thus to regard ver. 1 as superscription rather than part of the text. Eusebius (A.D. 325) classifies it among the disputed books, declaring that it is regarded as spurious, and that not many of the ancients have mentioned it. Even Jerome (A.D. 390), though personally he accepted it, admits that it was “said to have been published by another in the name of James.” The Syrian canon of the Peshitta was the first to admit it.

Modern criticism naturally made the superscription its starting-point, endeavouring first to explain the contents of the writing on this theory of authorship, but generally reaching the conclusion that the two do not agree. Conservatives as a rule avoid the implication of a direct polemic against Paul in ii. 14-26, which would lay open the author to the bitter accusations launched against the interlopers of 2 Cor. x.-xiii., by dating before the Judaistic controversy. Other critics regard the very language alone as fatal to such a theory of date, authorship and circle addressed. The contents, ignoring the conflict of Jew and Gentile, complaining of worldiness and tongue-religion (cf. 1 John iii. 17 seq. with James ii. 14-16) suggest a much later date than the death of James (A.D. 62-66). They also require a different character in the author, if not also a different circle of readers from those addressed in i. 1.

The prevalent conditions seem to be those of the Greek church of the post-apostolic period, characterized by worldiness of life, profession without practice, and a contentious garrulity of teaching (1 John iii. 3-10, 18; 1 Tim. i. 6 seq., vi. 3-10; 2 Tim. iii. 1-5, iv. 3 seq.). The author meets these with the weapons commanded for the purpose in 1 Tim. vi. 3, but quite in the spirit of one of the “wise men” of the Hebrew wisdom literature. His gospel is completely denationalized, humanitarian; but, while equally universalistic, is quite unsympathetic towards the doctrine and the mysticism of Paul. He has nothing whatever to say of the incarnation, life, example, suffering or resurrection of Jesus, and does not interest himself in the doctrines of Christ’s person, which were hotly debated up to this time. The absence of all mention of Christ (with the single exception of ii. 1, where there is reason to think the words ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ interpolated) has even led to the theory, ably but unconvincingly maintained by Spitta, that the writing is a mere recast of a Jewish moralistic writing like the Two Ways. The thoughts are loosely strung together: yet the following seems to be the general framework on which the New Testament preacher has collected his material.

1. The problem of evil (i. 1-19a). Outward trials are for our development through aid of divinely given “wisdom” (2-11). Inward (moral) trials are not to be imputed to God, the author of all good, whose purpose is the moral good of his creation (12-19a; cf. 1 John i. 5).

2. The righteousness God intends is defined in the eternal moral law. It is a product of deeds, not words (i. 19b-27).

3. The “royal law” of love is violated by discrimination against the poor (ii. 1-13); and by professions of faith barren of good works (14-26).

4. The true spirit of wisdom appears not in aspiring to teach, but in goodness and meekness of life (ch. iii.). Strife and self-exaltation are fruits of a different spirit, to be resisted and overcome by humble prayer for more grace (iv. 1-10).

5. God’s judgment is at hand. The thought condemns censoriousness (iv. 11 et seq.), presumptuous treatment of life (13-17), and the tyranny of the rich (v. 1-6). It encourages the believer to patient endurance to the end without murmuring or imprecations (7-12). It impels the church to diligence in its work of worship, care and prayer (13-18), and in the reclamation of the erring (19-20).

The use made by James of earlier material is as important for determining the terminus a quo of its own date as the use of it by later writers for the terminus ad quem. Acquaintance with the evangelic tradition is apparent. It is conceived, however, more in the Matthaean sense of “commandments to be observed” (Matt. xxviii. 20) than the Pauline, Markan and Johannine of the drama of the incarnation and redemption. There is no traceable literary contact with the synoptic gospels. Acquaintance, however, with some of the Pauline epistles “must be regarded as incontestably established” (O. Cone, Ency. Bibl. ii. 2323). Besides scattered reminiscences of Romans, 1 Corinthians and Galatians, enumerated in the article referred to, the section devoted to a refutation of the doctrine of “justification by faith apart from works” undeniably presupposes the Pauline terminology. Had the author been consciously opposing the great apostle to the Gentiles he would probably have treated the subject less superficially. What he really opposes is the same ultra-Pauline moral laxity which Paul himself had found occasion to rebuke among would-be adherents in Corinth (1 Cor. vi. 12; viii. 1-3, 11, 12; x. 23 seq., 32 seq.) and which appears still more marked in the pastoral epistles and 1 John. In rebuking it James unconsciously retracts the misapplied Pauline principle itself. To suppose that the technical terminology of Paul, including even his classic example of the faith of Abraham, could be employed here independently of Rom. ii. 21-23, iii. 28, iv. 1; Gal. ii. 16, iii. 6, is to pass a judgment which in every other field of literary criticism would be at once repudiated. To imagine it current in pre-Pauline Judaism is to misconceive the spirit of the synagogue.1 To make James the coiner and Paul the borrower not only throws back James to a date incompatible with the other phenomena, but implies a literary polemic tactlessly waged by Paul against the head of the Jerusalem church. Acquaintance with Hebrews is only slightly less probable, for James ii. 25 adds an explication of the case of Rahab also, cited in Heb. xi. 31 along with Abraham as an example of justification by faith only, to his correction of the Pauline scriptural argument. The question whether James is dependent on 1 Peter or conversely is still actively disputed. As regards the superscription the relation has been defined above. Dependence on Revelation (A.D. 95) is probable (cf. i. 12 and ii. 5 with Rev. ii. 9, 10 and v. 9 with Rev. iii. 20), but the contacts with Clement of Rome (A.D. 95-120) indicate the reverse relation. James iv. 6 and v. 20 = 1 Clem. xlix. 5 and xxx. 2; but as both passages are also found in 1 Peter (iv. 8, v. 5), the latter may be the common source. Clement’s further development of the cases of Abraham and Rahab, however, adding as it does to the demonstration of James from Scripture of their justification “by works and not by faith only,” that the particular good work which “wrought with the faith” of Abraham and Rahab to their justification was “hospitality” (1 Clem, x.-xii.) seems plainly to presuppose James. Priority is more difficult to establish in the case of Hermas (A.D. 120-140), where the contacts are undisputed (cf. James iv. 7, 12 with Mand. xii, 5, 6; Sim. ix. 23).2

The date (A.D. 95-120) implied by the literary contacts of James of course precludes authorship by the Lord’s brother, though this does not necessarily prove the superscription later still. The question whether the writing as a whole is pseudonymous, or only the superscription a mistaken conjecture by the scribe of Jude 1 is of secondary importance. A date about 100-120 for the substance of the writing is accepted by the majority of modern scholars and throws real light upon the author’s endeavour. Pfleiderer in pointing out the similarities of James and the Shepherd of Hermas declares it to be “certain that both writings presuppose like historical circumstances, and, from a similar point of view, direct their admonitions to their contemporaries, among whom a lax worldly-mindedness and unfruitful theological wrangling threatened to destroy the religious life.”3 Holtzmann has characterized this as “the right visual angle” for the judgment of the book. Questions as to the obligation of Mosaism and the relations of Jew and Gentile have utterly disappeared below the horizon. Neither the attachment to the religious forms of Judaism, which we are informed was characteristic of James, nor that personal relation to the Lord which gave him his supreme distinction are indicated by so much as a single word. Instead of being written in Aramaic, as it would almost necessarily be if antecedent to the Pauline epistles, or even in the Semitic style characteristic of the older and more Palestinian elements of the New Testament we have a Greek even more fluent than Paul’s and metaphors and allusions (i. 17, iii. 1-12) of a type more like Greek rhetoric than anything else in the New Testament. Were we to judge by the contacts with Hebrews, Clement of Rome and Hermas and the similarity of situation evidenced in the last-named, Rome would seem the most natural place of origin. The history of the epistle’s reception into the canon is not opposed to this; for, once it was attributed to James, Syria would be more likely to take it up, while the West, more sceptical, if not better informed as to its origin, held back; just as happened in the case of Hebrews.

It is the author’s conception of the nature of the gospel which mainly gives us pause in following this pretty general disposition of modern scholarship. With all the phenomena of vocabulary and style which seem to justify such conceptions as von Soden’s that c. iii. and iv. 11-v. 6 represent excerpts respectively from the essay of an Alexandrian scribe, and a triple fragment of Jewish apocalypse, the analysis above given will be found the exponent of a real logical sequence. We might almost admit a resemblance in form to the general literary type which Spitta adduces. The term “wisdom” in particular is used in the special and technical sense of the “wise men” of Hebrew literature (Matt. xxiii. 34), the sense of “the wisdom of the just” of Luke i. 17. True, the mystical sense given to the term in one of the sources of Luke, by Paul and some of the Church fathers, is not present. While the gospel is pre-eminently the divine gift of “wisdom,” “wisdom” is not personified, but conceived primarily as a system of humanitarian ethics, i. 21-25, and only secondarily as a spiritual effluence, imparting the regenerate disposition, the “mind that was in Christ Jesus,” iii. 13-18. And yet for James as well as for Paul Christ is “the wisdom of God.” The difference in conception of the term is similar to that between Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon. Our author, like Paul, expects the hearers of the word to be “a kind of first-fruits to God of his creation.” (i. 18 cf. 1 Pet. i. 23), and bids them depend upon the gift of grace (i. 5, iv. 5 seq.), but for the evils of the world he has no remedy but the patient endurance of the Christian philosopher (i. 2-18). For the faithlessness (διψυχία i. 6-8; cf. Didache and Hermas), worldliness (ii. 1-13) and hollow profession (ii. 14-26) of the church life of his time, with its “theological wrangling” (iii. 1-12), his remedy is again the God-given, peaceable spirit of the Christian philosopher (iii. 13-18), which is the antithesis of the spirit of self-seeking and censoriousness (iv. 1-12), and which appreciates the pettiness of earthly life with its sordid gains and its unjust distribution of wealth (iv. 13-v. 6). This attitude of the Christian stoic will maintain the individual in his patient waiting for the expected “coming of the Lord” (v. 7-11); while the church sustains its official functions of healing and prayer, and reclamation of the erring (v. 13-20).4 For this conception of the gospel and of the officially organized church, our nearest analogy is in Matthew, or rather in the blocks of precepts of the Lord which after subtraction of the Markan narrative framework are found to underlie our first gospel. It may be mere coincidence that the material in Matthew as well as in the Didache seems to be arranged in five divisions, beginning with a commendation of the right way, and ending with warnings of the judgment, while the logical analysis of James yields something similar; but of the affinity of spirit there can be no doubt.

The type of ethical thought exemplified in James has been called Ebionite (Hilgenfeld). It is clearly manifest in the humanitarianism of Luke also. But with the possible exception of the prohibition of oaths there is nothing which ought to suggest the epithet. The strong sense of social wrongs, the impatience with tongue-religion, the utter ignoring of ceremonialism, the reflection on the value and significance of “life,” are distinctive simply of the “wisdom” writers. Like these our author holds himself so far aloof from current debate of ceremonial or doctrine as to escape our principal standards of measurement regarding place and time. Certain general considerations, however, are fairly decisive. The prolonged effort, mainly of English scholarship, to vindicate the superscription, even on the condition of assuming priority to the Pauline epistles, grows only increasingly hopeless with increasing knowledge of conditions, linguistic and other, in that early period. The moralistic conception of the gospel as a “law of liberty,” the very phrase recalling the expression of Barn. ii., “the new law of Christ, which is without the yoke of constraint,” the conception of the church as primarily an ethical society, its functions already officially distributed, suggest the period of the Didache, Barnabas and Clement of Rome. Independently of the literary contacts we should judge the period to be about A.D. 100-120. The connexions with the Pauline epistles are conclusive for a date later than the death of James; those with Clement and Hermas are perhaps sufficient to date it as prior to the former, and suggest Rome as the place of origin. The connexions with wisdom-literature favour somewhat the Hellenistic culture of Syria, as represented for example at Antioch.

The most important commentaries on the epistle are those of Matt. Schneckenburger (1832), K. G. W. Theile (1833), J. Kern (1838), G. H. Ewald (1870), C. F. D. Erdmann (1881), H. v. Soden (1898), J. B. Mayor (1892) and W. Patrick (1906). The pre-Pauline date is championed by B. Weiss (Introd.), W. Beyschlag (Meyer’s Commentary), Th. Zahn (Introd.), J. B. Mayor and W. Patrick. J. V. Bartlet (Ap. Age, pp. 217-250) pleads for it, and the view is still common among English interpreters. F. K. Zimmer (Z. w. Th., 1893) showed the priority of Paul, with many others. A. Hilgenfeld (Einl.) and A. C. McGiffert (Ap. Age) place it in the period of Domitian; Baur (Ch. History), Schwegler (Nachap. Zeitalt.), Zeller, Volkmar (Z. w. Th.), Hausrath (Ap. Age), H. J. Holtzmann (Einl.), Jülicher (Einl.), Usteri (St. u. Kr., 1889), W. Brückner (Chron.), H. v. Soden (Handcomm.) and A. Harnack (Chron.) under Hadrian. A convenient synopsis of results will be found in J. Moffat, Historical New Test.2 (pp. 576-581), and in the articles s.v. “James” in Encycl. Bibl. and the Bible Dictionaries.

(B. W. B.)

1 Nothing adduced by Lightfoot (Comm. on Gal. Exc. “The faith of Abraham”) justifies the unsupported and improbable assertion that the quotation James ii. 21 seq. “was probably in common use among the Jews to prove that orthodoxy of doctrine sufficed for salvation” (Mayor, s.v. “James, Epistle of” in Hasting’s Dict. Bible, p. 546).

2 On the contacts in general see Moffat, Hist. N.T.2 p. 578, on relation to Clem. R. see Bacon, “Doctrine of Faith in Hebrews, James and Clement of Rome,” in Jour. of Bib. Lit., 1900, pp. 12-21.

3 Das Urchristenthum, 868, quoted by Cone, loc. cit.

4 The logical relation of v. 12 to the context is problematical. Perhaps it may be accounted for by the order of the compend of Christian ethics the writer was following. Cf. Matt. v. 34-37 in relation to Matt. v. 12 (cf. ver. 10) and vi. 19 sqq. (cf. ver. 2, and iv. 13 seq.). The non-charismatic conception of healing, no longer the “gift” of some layman in the community (1 Cor. xii. 9 seq.) but a function of “the elders” (1 Tim. iv. 14), is another indication of comparatively late date.

JAMESON, ANNA BROWNELL (1794-1860), British writer, was born in Dublin on the 17th of May 1794. Her father, Denis Brownell Murphy (d. 1842), a miniature and enamel painter, removed to England in 1798 with his family, and eventually settled at Hanwell, near London. At sixteen years of age Anna became governess in the family of the marquis of Winchester. In 1821 she was engaged to Robert Jameson. The engagement was broken off, and Anna Murphy accompanied a young pupil to Italy, writing in a fictitious character a narrative of what she saw and did. This diary she gave to a bookseller on condition of receiving a guitar if he secured any profits. Colburn ultimately published it as The Diary of an Ennuyée (1826), which attracted much attention. The author was governess to the children of Mr Littleton, afterwards Lord Hatherton, from 1821 to 1825, when she married Robert Jameson. The marriage proved unhappy; when, in 1829, Jameson was appointed puisne judge in the island of Dominica the couple separated without regret, and Mrs Jameson visited the Continent again with her father.

The first work which displayed her powers of original thought was her Characteristics of Women (1832). These analyses of Shakespeare’s heroines are remarkable for delicacy of critical insight and fineness of literary touch. They are the result of a penetrating but essentially feminine mind, applied to the study of individuals of its own sex, detecting characteristics and defining differences not perceived by the ordinary critic and entirely overlooked by the general reader. German literature and art had aroused much interest in England, and Mrs Jameson paid her first visit to Germany in 1833. The conglomerations of hard lines, cold colours and pedantic subjects which decorated Munich under the patronage of King Louis of Bavaria, were new to the world, and Mrs Jameson’s enthusiasm first gave them an English reputation.

In 1836 Mrs Jameson was summoned to Canada by her husband, who had been appointed chancellor of the province of Toronto. He failed to meet her at New York, and she was left to make her way alone at the worst season of the year to Toronto. After six months’ experiment she felt it useless to prolong a life far from all ties of family happiness and opportunities of usefulness. Before leaving, she undertook a journey to the depths of the Indian settlements in Canada; she explored Lake Huron, and saw much of emigrant and Indian life unknown to travellers, which she afterwards embodied in her Winter Studies and Summer Rambles. She returned to England in 1838. At this period Mrs Jameson began making careful notes of the chief private art collections in and near London. The result appeared in her Companion to the Private Galleries (1842), followed in the same year by the Handbook to the Public Galleries. She edited the Memoirs of the Early Italian Painters in 1845. In the same year she visited her friend Ottilie von Goethe. Her friendship with Lady Byron dates from about this time and lasted for some seven years; it was brought to an end apparently through Lady Byron’s unreasonable temper. A volume of essays published in 1846 contains one of Mrs Jameson’s best pieces of work, The House of Titian. In 1847 she went to Italy with her niece and subsequent biographer (Memoirs, 1878), Geraldine Bate (Mrs Macpherson), to collect materials for the work on which her reputation rests—her series of Sacred and Legendary Art. The time was ripe for such contributions to the traveller’s library. The Acta Sanctorum and the Book of the Golden Legend had had their readers, but no one had ever pointed out the connexion between these tales and the works of Christian art. The way to these studies had been pointed out in the preface to Kugler’s Handbook of Italian Painting by Sir Charles Eastlake, who had intended pursuing the subject himself. Eventually he made over to Mrs Jameson the materials and references he had collected. She recognized the extent of the ground before her as a mingled sphere of poetry, history, devotion and art. She infected her readers with her own enthusiastic admiration; and, in spite of her slight technical and historical equipment, Mrs. Jameson produced a book which thoroughly deserved its great success.

She also took a keen interest in questions affecting the education, occupations and maintenance of her own sex. Her early essay on The Relative Social Position of Mothers and Governesses was the work of one who knew both sides; and in no respect does she more clearly prove the falseness of the position she describes than in the certainty with which she predicts its eventual reform. To her we owe the first popular enunciation of the principle of male and female co-operation in works of mercy and education. In her later years she took up a succession of subjects all bearing on the same principles of active benevolence and the best ways of carrying them into practice. Sisters of charity, hospitals, penitentiaries, prisons and workhouses all claimed her interest—all more or less included under those definitions of “the communion of love and communion of labour” which are inseparably connected with her memory. To the clear and temperate forms in which she brought the results of her convictions before her friends in the shape of private lectures—published as Sisters of Charity (1855) and The Communion of Labour (1856)—may be traced the source whence later reformers and philanthropists took counsel and courage.

Mrs Jameson died on the 17th of March 1860. She left the last of her Sacred and Legendary Art series in preparation. It was completed, under the title of The History of Our Lord in Art, by Lady Eastlake.

JAMESON (or Jamesone), GEORGE (c. 1587-1644), Scottish portrait-painter, was born at Aberdeen, where his father was architect and a member of the guild. After studying painting under Rubens at Antwerp, with Vandyck as a fellow pupil, he returned in 1620 to Aberdeen, where he was married in 1624 and remained at least until 1630, after which he took up his residence in Edinburgh. He was employed by the magistrates of Edinburgh to copy several portraits of the Scottish kings for presentation to Charles I. on his first visit to Scotland in 1633, and the king rewarded him with a diamond ring from his own finger. This circumstance at once established Jameson’s fame, and he soon found constant employment in painting the portraits of the Scottish nobility and gentry. He also painted a portrait of Charles, which he declined to sell to the magistrates of Aberdeen for the price they offered. He died at Edinburgh in 1644.

JAMESON, LEANDER STARR (1853- ), British colonial statesman, son of R. W. Jameson, a writer to the signet in Edinburgh, was born at Edinburgh in 1853, and was educated for the medical profession at University College Hospital, London (M.R.C.S. 1875; M.D. 1877). After acting as house physician, house surgeon and demonstrator of anatomy, and showing promise of a successful professional career in London, his health broke down from overwork in 1878, and he went out to South Africa and settled down in practice at Kimberley. There he rapidly acquired a great reputation as a medical man, and, besides numbering President Kruger and the Matabele chief Lobengula among his patients, came much into contact with Cecil Rhodes. In 1888 his influence with Lobengula was successfully exerted to induce that chieftain to grant the concessions to the agents of Rhodes which led to the formation of the British South Africa Company; and when the company proceeded to open up Mashonaland, Jameson abandoned his medical practice and joined the pioneer expedition of 1890. From this time his fortunes were bound up with Rhodes’s schemes in the north. Immediately after the pioneer column had occupied Mashonaland, Jameson, with F. C. Selous and A. R. Colquhoun, went east to Manicaland and was instrumental in securing the greater part of that country, to which Portugal was laying claim, for the Chartered Company. In 1891 Jameson succeeded Colquhoun as administrator of Rhodesia. The events connected with his vigorous administration and the wars with the Matabele are narrated under Rhodesia. At the end of 1894 “Dr Jim” (as he was familiarly called) came to England and was fêted on all sides; he was made a C.B., and returned to Africa in the spring of 1895 with enhanced prestige. On the last day of that year the world was startled to learn that Jameson, with a force of 600 men, had made a raid into the Transvaal from Mafeking in support of a projected rising in Johannesburg, which had been connived at by Rhodes at the Cape (see Rhodes and Transvaal). Jameson’s force was compelled to surrender at Doornkop, receiving a guarantee that the lives of all would be spared; he and his officers were sent to Pretoria, and, after a short delay, during which time sections of the Boer populace clamoured for the execution of Jameson, President Kruger on the surrender of Johannesburg (January 7) handed them over to the British government for punishment. They were tried in London under the Foreign Enlistment Act in May 1896, and Dr Jameson was sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment at Holloway. He served a year in prison, and was then released on account of ill health. He still retained the affections of the white population of Rhodesia, and subsequently returned there in an unofficial capacity. He was the constant companion of Rhodes on his journeys up to the end of his life, and when Rhodes died in May 1902 Jameson was left one of the executors of his will. In 1903 Jameson came forward as the leader of the Progressive (British) party in Cape Colony; and that party being victorious at the general election in January-February 1904, Jameson formed an administration in which he took the post of prime minister. He had to face a serious economic crisis and strenuously promoted the development of the agricultural and pastoral resources of the colony. He also passed a much needed Redistribution Act, and in the session of 1906 passed an Amnesty Act restoring the rebel voters to the franchise. Jameson, as prime minister of Cape Colony, attended the Colonial conference held in London in 1907. In September of that year the Cape parliament was dissolved, and as the elections for the legislative council went in favour of the Bond, Jameson resigned office, 31st of January 1908 (see Cape Colony: History). In 1908 he was chosen one of the delegates from Cape Colony to the intercolonial convention for the closer union of the South African states, and he took a prominent part in settling the terms on which union was effected in 1909. It was at Jameson’s suggestion that the Orange River Colony was renamed Orange Free State Province.

JAMESON, ROBERT (1774-1854), Scottish naturalist and mineralogist, was born at Leith on the 11th of July 1774. He became assistant to a surgeon in his native town; but, having studied natural history under Dr John Walker in 1792 and 1793, he felt that his true province lay in that science. He went in 1800 to Freiberg to study for nearly two years under Werner, and spent two more in continental travel. In 1804 he succeeded Dr Walker as regius professor of natural history in Edinburgh university, and became perhaps the first eminent exponent in Great Britain of the Wernerian geological system; but when he found that theory untenable, he frankly announced his conversion to the views of Hutton. As a teacher, Jameson was remarkable for his power of imparting enthusiasm to his students, and from his class-room there radiated an influence which gave a marked impetus to the study of geology in Britain. His energy also, by means of government aid, private donation and personal outlay, amassed a great part of the splendid collection which now occupies the natural history department of the Royal Scottish Museum in Edinburgh. In 1819 Jameson, with Sir David Brewster, started the Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, which after the tenth volume remained under his sole conduct till his death, which took place in Edinburgh on the 19th of April 1854. His bust now stands in the hall of the Edinburgh University library.

Jameson was the author of Outline of the Mineralogy of the Shetland Islands and of the Island of Arran (1798), incorporated with Mineralogy of the Scottish Isles (1800); Mineralogical Description of Scotland, vol. i. pt. 1. (Dumfries, 1805); this was to have been the first of a series embracing all Scotland; System of Mineralogy (3 vols., 1804-1808; 3rd ed., 1820); Elements of Geognosy (1809); Mineralogical Travels through the Hebrides, Orkney and Shetland Islands (2 vols., 1813); and Manual of Mineralogy (1821); besides a number of occasional papers, of which a list will be found in the Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal for July 1854, along with a portrait and biographical sketch of the author.

JAMESTOWN, a city and the county-seat of Stutsman county, North Dakota, U.S.A., on the James River, about 93 m. W. of Fargo. Pop. (1900), 2853, of whom 587 were foreign-born; (1905) 5093; (1910) 4358. Jamestown is served by the Northern Pacific railway, of which it is a division headquarters. At Jamestown is St John’s Academy, a school for girls, conducted by the Sisters of St Joseph. The state hospital for the insane is just beyond the city limits. The city is the commercial centre of a prosperous farming and stock-raising region in the James River valley, and has grain-elevators and flour-mills. Jamestown was first settled in 1873, near Fort Seward, a U.S. military post established in 1872 and abandoned in 1877, and was chartered as a city in 1883.

JAMESTOWN, a city of Chautauqua county, New York, U.S.A., at the S. outlet of Chautauqua Lake, 68 m. S. by W. of Buffalo. Pop. (1900), 22,892, of whom 7270 were foreign-born, mostly Swedish; (1910 census) 31,297. It is served by the Erie and the Jamestown, Chautauqua & Lake Erie railways, by electric lines extending along Lake Chautauqua to Lake Erie on the N. and to Warren, Pennsylvania, on the S., and by summer steamboat lines on Lake Chautauqua. Jamestown is situated among the hills of Chautauqua county, and is a popular summer resort. There is a free public library. A supply of natural gas (from Pennsylvania) and a fine water-power combine to render Jamestown a manufacturing centre of considerable importance. In 1905 the value of its factory products was $10,349,752, an increase of 33.9% since 1900. The city owns and operates its electric-lighting plant and its water-supply system, the water, of exceptional purity, being obtained from artesian wells 4 m. distant. Jamestown was settled in 1810, was incorporated in 1827, and was chartered as a city in 1886. The city was named in honour of James Prendergast, an early settler.

JAMESTOWN, a former village in what is now James City county, Virginia, U.S.A., on Jamestown Island, in the James River, about 40 m. above Norfolk. It was here that the first permanent English settlement in America was founded on the 13th of May 1607, that representative government was inaugurated on the American Continent in 1619, and that negro servitude was introduced into the original thirteen colonies, also in 1619. In Jamestown was the first Anglican church built in America. The settlement was in a low marshy district which proved to be unhealthy; it was accidentally burned in January 1608, was almost completely destroyed by Nathaniel Bacon in September 1676, the state house and other buildings were again burned in 1698, and after the removal of the seat of government of Virginia from Jamestown to the Middle Plantations (now Williamsburg) in 1699 the village fell rapidly into decay. Its population had never been large: it was about 490 in 1609, and 183 in 1623; the mortality was always very heavy. By the middle of the 19th century the peninsula on which Jamestown had been situated had become an island, and by 1900 the James River had worn away the shore but had hardly touched the territory of the “New Towne” (1619), immediately E. of the first settlement; almost the only visible remains, however, were the tower of the brick church and a few gravestones. In 1900 the association for the preservation of Virginia antiquities, to which the site was deeded in 1893, induced the United States government to build a wall to prevent the further encroachment of the river; the foundations of several of the old buildings have since been uncovered, many interesting relics have been found, and in 1907 there were erected a brick church (which is as far as possible a reproduction of the fourth one built in 1639-1647), a marble shaft marking the site of the first settlement, another shaft commemorating the first house of burgesses, a bronze monument to the memory of Captain John Smith, and another monument to the memory of Pocahontas. At the head of Jamestown peninsula Cornwallis, in July 1781, attempted to trick the Americans under Lafayette and General Anthony Wayne by displaying a few men on the peninsula and concealing the principal part of his army on the mainland; but when Wayne discovered the trap he made first a vigorous charge, and then a retreat to Lafayette’s line. Early in the Civil War the Confederates regarded the site (then an island) as of such strategic importance that (near the brick church tower and probably near the site of the first fortifications by the original settlers) they erected heavy earthworks upon it for defence. (For additional details concerning the early history of Jamestown, see Virginia: History.)

The founding at Jamestown of the first permanent English-speaking settlement in America was celebrated in 1907 by the Jamestown tercentennial exposition, held on grounds at Sewell’s Point on the shore of Hampton Roads. About twenty foreign nations, the federal government, and most of the states of the union took part in the exposition.

See L. G. Tyler, The Cradle of the Republic: Jamestown and James River (Richmond, 2nd ed., 1906); Mrs R. A. Pryor, The Birth of the Nation: Jamestown, 1607 (New York, 1907); and particularly S. H. Yonge, The Site of Old “James Towne,” 1607-1698 (Richmond, 1904), embodying the results of the topographical investigations of the engineer in charge of the river-wall built in 1900-1901.

JĀMĪ (Nūr-ed-din ‘Abd-ur-raḥman Ibn Aḥmad) (1414-1492), Persian poet and mystic, was born at Jām in Khorasan, whence the name by which he is usually known. In his poems he mystically utilizes the connexion of the name with the same word meaning “wine-cup.” He was the last great classic poet of Persia, and a pronounced mystic of the Sūfic philosophy. His three diwans (1479-1401) contain his lyrical poems and odes; among his prose writings the chief is his Bahāristān (“Spring-garden”) (1487); and his collection of romantic poems, Haft Aurang (“Seven Thrones”), contains the Salāmān wa Absāl and his Yūsuf wa Zalīkha (Joseph and Potiphar’s wife).

On Jāmī’s life and works see V. von Rosenzweig, Biographische Notizen über Mewlana Abdurrahman Dschami (Vienna, 1840); Gore Ouseley, Biographical Notices of Persian Poets (1846); W. N. Lees, A Biographical Sketch of the Mystic Philosopher and Poet Jami (Calcutta, 1859); E. Beauvois s.v. Djami in Nouvelle Biographie générale; and H. Ethé in Geiger and Kuhn’s Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, ii. There are English translations of the Bahāristān by E. Rehatsek (Benares, 1887) and Sorabji Fardunji (Bombay, 1899); of Salāmān wa Absāl by Edward FitzGerald (1856, with a notice of Jāmī’s life); of Yūsuf wa Zalīkha by R. T. H. Griffith (1882) and A. Rogers (1892); also selections in English by F. Hadland Davis, The Persian Mystics: Jāmī (1908). (See also Persia: Literature.)

JAMIESON, JOHN (1759-1838), Scottish lexicographer, son of a minister, was born in Glasgow, on the 3rd of March 1759. He was educated at Glasgow University, and subsequently attended classes in Edinburgh. After six years’ theological study, Jamieson was licensed to preach in 1789 and became pastor of an Anti-burgher congregation in Forfar; and in 1797 he was called to the Anti-burgher church in Nicolson Street, Edinburgh. The union of the Burgher and Anti-burgher sections of the Secession Church in 1820 was largely due to his exertions. He retired from the ministry in 1830 and died in Edinburgh on the 12th of July 1838.

Jamieson’s name stands at the head of a tolerably long list of works in the Bibliotheca britannica; but by far his most important book is the laborious and erudite compilation, best described by its own title-page: An Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish Language; illustrating the words in their different significations by examples from Ancient and Modern Writers; shewing their Affinity to those of other Languages, and especially the Northern; explaining many terms which though now obsolete in England were formerly common to both countries; and elucidating National Rites, Customs and Institutions in their Analogy to those of other nations; to which is prefixed a Dissertation on the Origin of the Scottish Language. This appeared in 2 vols., 4to, at Edinburgh in 1808, followed in 1825 by a Supplement, in 2 vols., 4to, in which he was assisted by scholars in all parts of the country. A revised edition by Longmuir and Donaldson was issued in 1879-1887.

JAMIESON, ROBERT (c. 1780-1844), Scottish antiquary, was born in Morayshire. In 1806 he published a collection of Popular Ballads and Songs from Tradition, Manuscript and Scarce Editions. Two pleasing lyrics of his own were included. Scott, through whose assistance he received a government post at Edinburgh, held Jamieson in high esteem and pointed out his skill in discovering the connexion between Scandinavian and Scottish legends. Jamieson’s work preserved much oral tradition which might otherwise have been lost. He was associated with Henry Weber and Scott in Illustrations of Northern Antiquities (1814). He died on the 24th of September 1844.

JAMKHANDI, a native state of India, in the Deccan division of Bombay, ranking as one of the southern Mahratta Jagirs. Area, 524 sq. m. Pop. (1901), 105,357; estimated revenue, £37,000; tribute, £1300. The chief is a Brahman of the Patwardhan family. Cotton, wheat and millet are produced, and cotton and silk cloth are manufactured, though not exported. The town of Jamkhandi, the capital, is situated 68 m. E. of Kolhapur. Pop. (1901), 13,029.

JAMMU, or Jummoo, the capital of the state of Jammu and Kashmir in Northern India, on the river Tavi (Ta-wi), a tributary of the Chenab. Pop. (1901), 36,130. The town and palace stand upon the right bank of the river; the fort overhangs the left bank at an elevation of 150 ft. above the stream. The lofty whitened walls of the palace and citadel present a striking appearance from the surrounding country. Extensive pleasure grounds and ruins of great size attest the former prosperity of the city when it was the seat of a Rajput dynasty whose dominions extended into the plains and included the modern district of Sialkot. It was afterwards conquered by the Sikhs, and formed part of Ranjit Singh’s dominions. After his death it was acquired by Gulab Singh as the nucleus of his dominions, to which the British added Kashmir in 1846. It is connected with Sialkot in the Punjab by a railway 16 m. long. In 1898 the town was devastated by a fire, which destroyed most of the public offices.

The state of Jammu proper, as opposed to Kashmir, consists of a submontane tract, forming the upper basin of the Chenab. Pop. (1901), 1,521,307, showing an increase of 5% in the decade. A land settlement has recently been introduced under British supervision.

JAMNIA (Ἰαμνία or Ἰαμνεία), the Greek form of the Hebrew name Jabneel—i.e. “God causeth to build” (Josh. xv. 11)—or Jabneh (2 Chron. xxvi. 6), the modern Arabic Yebna, a town of Palestine, on the border between Dan and Judah, situated 13 m. S. of Jaffa, and 4 m. E. of the seashore. The modern village stands on an isolated sandy hillock, surrounded by gardens with olives to the north and sand-dunes to the west. It contains a small crusaders’ church, now a mosque. Jamnia belonged to the Philistines, and Uzziah of Judah is said to have taken it (2 Chron. xxvi. 6). In Maccabean times Joseph and Azarias attacked it unsuccessfully (1 Macc. v. 55-62; 2 Macc. xii. 8 seq. is untrustworthy). Alexander Jannaeus subdued it, and under Pompey it became Roman. It changed hands several times, is mentioned by Strabo (xvi. 2) as being once very populous, and in the Jewish war was taken by Vespasian. The population was mainly Jewish (Philo, Leg. ad Gaium, § 30), and the town is principally famous as having been the seat of the Sanhedrin and the religious centre of Judaism from A.D. 70 to 135. It sent a bishop to Nicaea in 325. In 1144 a crusaders’ fortress was built on the hill, which is often mentioned under the name Ibelin. There was also a Jabneel in Lower Galilee (Josh. xix. 33), called later Caphar Yama, the present village Yemma, 8 m. S. of Tiberias; and another fortress in Upper Galilee was named Jamnia (Josephus, Vita, 37). Attempts have been made to unify these two Galilean sites, but without success.

JAMRUD, a fort and cantonment in India, just beyond the border of Peshawar district, North-West Frontier Province, situated at the mouth of the Khyber Pass, 10½ m. W. of Peshawar city, with which it is connected by a branch railway. It was occupied by Hari Singh, Ranjit Singh’s commander in 1836; but in April 1837 Dost Mahommed sent a body of Afghans to attack it. The Sikhs gained a doubtful victory, with the loss of their general. During the military operations of 1878-79 Jamrud became a place of considerable importance as the frontier outpost on British territory towards Afghanistan, and it was also the base of operations for a portion of the Tirah campaign in 1897-1898. It is the headquarters of the Khyber Rifles, and the collecting station for the Khyber tolls. Pop. (1901), 1848.

JAMS AND JELLIES. In the article Food Preservation it is pointed out that concentrated sugar solution inhibits the growth of organisms and has, therefore, a preservative action. The preparation of jams and jellies is based upon that fact. All fresh and succulent fruit contains a large percentage of water, amounting to at least four-fifths of the whole, and a comparatively small proportion of sugar, not exceeding as a rule from 10 to 15%. Such fruit is naturally liable to decomposition unless the greater proportion of the water is removed or the percentage of sugar is greatly increased. The jams and jellies of commerce are fruit preserves containing so much added sugar that the total amount of sugar forms about two-thirds of the weight of the articles. All ordinary edible fruit can be and is made into jam. The fruit is sometimes pulped and stoned, sometimes used whole and unbroken; oranges are sliced or shredded. For the preparation of jellies only certain fruit is suitable, namely such as contains a peculiar material which on boiling becomes dissolved and on cooling solidifies with the formation of a gelatinous mass. This material, often called pectin, occurs mainly in comparatively acid fruit like gooseberries, currants and apples, and is almost absent from strawberries and raspberries. It is chemically a member of the group of carbohydrates, is closely allied with vegetable gums abundantly formed by certain sea-weeds and mosses (agar-agar and Iceland moss), and is probably a mixture of various pentoses. Pentoses are devoid of food-value, but, like animal gelatine, with which they are in no way related, can form vehicles for food material. Some degree of gelatinization is aimed at also in jams; hence to such fruits as have no gelatinizing power an addition of apple or gooseberry juice, or even of Iceland moss or agar-agar, is made. Animal gelatin is very rarely used.

The art of jam and jelly making was formerly domestic, but has become a very large branch of manufacture. For the production of a thoroughly satisfactory conserve the boiling-down must be carried out very rapidly, so that the natural colour of the fruit shall be little affected. Considerable experience is required to stop at the right point; too short boiling leaves an excess of water, leading to fermentation, while over-concentration promotes crystallization of the sugar. The manufactured product is on that account, as a rule, more uniform and bright than the domestic article. The finish of the boiling is mostly judged by rule of thumb, but in some scientifically conducted factories careful thermometric observation is employed. Formerly jams and jellies consisted of nothing but fruit and sugar; now starch-glucose is frequently used by manufacturers as an ingredient. This permits of the production of a slightly more aqueous and gelatinous product, alleged also to be devoid of crystallizing power, as compared with the homemade article. The addition of starch-glucose is not held to be an adulteration. Aniline colours are very frequently used by manufacturers to enhance the colour, and the effect of an excess of water is sought to be counteracted by the addition of some salicylic acid or other preservative. There has long been, and still exists to some extent, a popular prejudice in favour of sugar obtained from the sugar-cane as compared with that of the sugar-beet. This prejudice is absolutely baseless, and enormous quantities of beet-sugar are used in the boiling of jam. Adulteration in the gross sense, such as a substantial addition of coarse pulp, like that of turnips or mangolds, very rarely occurs; but the pulp of apple and other cheap fruit is often admixed without notice to the purchaser. The use of colouring matters and preservatives is discussed at length in the article Adulteration.

(O. H.*)

JANESVILLE, a city and the county-seat of Rock County, Wisconsin, U.S.A., situated on both sides of the Rock river, 70 m. S.W. of Milwaukee and 90 m. N.W. of Chicago. Pop. (1900), 13,185, of whom 2409 were foreign-born; (1910 census), 13,894. It is served by the Chicago & North-Western and the Chicago, Milwaukee & St Paul railways, and by electric lines connecting with Madison and Beloit, Wis., and Rockford, Illinois. The Rock river is not commercially navigable at this point, but furnishes valuable water-power for manufacturing purposes. The city is picturesquely situated on bluffs above the river. Janesville is the centre of the tobacco trade of the state, and has various manufactures. The total value of the city’s factory product in 1905 was $3,846,038, an increase of 20.8% since 1900. Its public buildings include a city hall, court house, post office, city hospital and a public library. It is the seat of a school for the blind, opened as a private institution in 1849 and taken over by the state in 1850, the first charitable institution controlled by the state, ranking as one of the most successful of its kind in the United States. The first settlement was made here about 1834. Janesville was named in honour of Henry F. Janes, an early settler, and was chartered as a city in 1853.

JANET, PAUL (1823-1899), French philosophical writer, was born in Paris on the 30th of April 1823. He was professor of moral philosophy at Bourges (1845-1848) and Strassburg (1848-1857), and of logic at the lycée Louis-le-Grand, Paris (1857-1864). In 1864 he was appointed to the chair of philosophy at the Sorbonne, and elected a member of the academy of the moral and political sciences. He wrote a large number of books and articles upon philosophy, politics and ethics, on idealistic lines: La Famille, Histoire de la philosophie dans l’antiquité et dans le temps moderne, Histoire de la science politique, Philosophie de la Révolution Française, &c. They are not characterized by much originality of thought. In philosophy he was a follower of Victor Cousin, and through him of Hegel. His principal work in this line, Théorie de la morale, is little more than a somewhat patronizing reproduction of Kant. He died in October 1899.

JANGIPUR, or Jahangirpur, a town of British India, in Murshidabad district, Bengal, situated on the Bhagirathi. Pop. (1901), 10,921. The town is said to have been founded by the Mogul emperor Jahangir. During the early years of British rule it was an important centre of the silk trade, and the site of one of the East India Company’s commercial residencies. Jangipur is now best known as the toll station for registering all the traffic on the Bhagirathi. The number of boats registered annually is about 10,000.

JANIN, JULES GABRIEL (1804-1874), French critic, was born at St Étienne (Loire) on the 16th of February 1804, and died near Paris on the 19th of June 1874. His father was a lawyer, and he was well educated, first at St Étienne, and then at the lycée Louis-le-Grand in Paris. He betook himself to journalism very early, and worked on the Figaro, the Quotidienne, &c., until in 1830 he became dramatic critic of the Journal des Débats. Long before this, however, he had made a considerable literary reputation, for which indeed his strange novel L’Âne mort et la femme guillotinée (1829) would have sufficed. La Confession (1830), which followed, was less remarkable in substance but even more so in style; and in Barnave (1831) he attacked the Orleans family. From the day, however, when Janin became the theatrical critic of the Débats, though he continued to write books indefatigably, he was to most Frenchmen a dramatic critic and nothing more. He was outrageously inconsistent, and judged things from no general point of view whatsoever, though his judgment was usually good-natured. Few journalists have ever been masters of a more attractive fashion of saying the first thing that came into their heads. After many years of feuilleton writing he collected some of his articles in the work called Histoire de la littérature dramatique en France (1853-1858), which by no means deserves its title. In 1865 he made his first attempt upon the Academy, but was not successful till five years later. Meanwhile he had not been content with his feuilletons, written persistently about all manner of things. No one was more in request with the Paris publishers for prefaces, letterpress to illustrated books and such trifles. He travelled (picking up in one of his journeys a curious windfall, a country house at Lucca, in a lottery), and wrote accounts of his travels; he wrote numerous tales and novels, and composed many other works, of which by far the best is the Fin d’un monde et du neveu de Rameau (1861), in which, under the guise of a sequel to Diderot’s masterpiece, he showed his great familiarity with the late 18th century. He married in 1841; his wife had money, and he was always in easy circumstances. In the early part of his career he had many quarrels, notably one with Félix Pyat (1810-1889), whom he prosecuted successfully for defamation of character. For the most part his work is mere improvisation, and has few elements of vitality except a light and vivid style. His Œuvres choisies (12 vols., 1875-1878) were edited by A. de la Fitzelière.

A study on Janin with a bibliography was published by A. Piédagnel in 1874. See also Sainte-Beuve, Causeries du lundi, ii. and v., and Gustave Planche, Portraits littéraires.

JANISSARIES (corrupted from Turkish yeni chéri, new troops), an organized military force constituting until 1826 the standing army of the Ottoman empire. At the outset of her history Turkey possessed no standing army. All Moslems capable of bearing arms served as a kind of volunteer yeomanry known as akinjis; they were summoned by public criers, or, if the occasion required it, by secret messengers. It was under Orkhan that a regular paid army was first organized: the soldiers were known as yaya or piyadé. The result was unsatisfactory, as the Turcomans, from whom these troops were recruited, were unaccustomed to fight on foot or to submit to military discipline. Accordingly in 1330, on the advice of Chendéréli Kara Khalil, the system known as devshurmé or forced levy, was adopted, whereby a certain number of Christian youths (at first 1000) were every year taken from their parents and, after undergoing a period of apprenticeship, were enrolled as yeni chéri or new troops. The venerable saint Haji Bektash, founder of the Bektashi dervishes, blessed the corps and promised them victory; he remained ever after the patron saint of the janissaries.

At first the corps was exclusively recruited by the forced levy of Christian children, for which purpose the officer known as tournaji-bashi, or head-keeper of the cranes, made periodical tours in the provinces. The fixed organization of the corps dates only from Mahommed II., and its regulations were subsequently modified by Suleiman I. In early days all Christians were enrolled indiscriminately; later those from Albania, Bosnia and Bulgaria were preferred. The recruits while serving their apprenticeship were instructed in the principles of the faith by khojas, but according to D’Ohsson (vii. 327) they were not obliged to become Moslems.

The entire corps, commanded by the aga of the janissaries, was known as the ojak (hearth); it was divided into ortas or units of varying numbers; the oda (room) was the name given to the barracks in which the janissaries were lodged. There were, after the reorganization of Suleiman I., 196 ortas of three classes, viz. the jemaat, comprising 101 ortas, the beuluk, 61 ortas, and the sekban, or seimen, 34 ortas; to these must be added 34 ortas of ajami or apprentices. The strength of the orta varied greatly, sometimes being as low as 100, sometimes rising considerably beyond its nominal war strength of 500. The distinction between the different classes seems to have been principally in name; in theory the jemaat, or yaya beiler, were specially charged with the duty of frontier-guards; the beuluks had the privilege of serving as the sultan’s guards and of keeping the sacred banner in their custody.

Until the accession of Murad III. (1574) the total effective of the janissaries, including the ajami or apprentices, did not exceed 20,000. In 1582 irregularities in the mode of admission to the ranks began. Soon parents themselves begged to have their children enrolled, so great were the privileges attaching to the corps; later the privilege of enlistment was restricted to the children or relatives of former janissaries; eventually the regulations were much relaxed, and any person was admitted, only negroes being excluded. In 1591 the ojak numbered 48,688 men. Under Ibrahim (1640-1648) it was reduced by Kara Mustafa to 17,000; but it soon rose again, and at the accession of Mahommed IV. (1648), the accession-bakshish was distributed to 50,000 janissaries. During the war of 1683-1698 the rules for admission were suspended, 30,000 recruits being received at one time, and the effective of the corps rising to 70,000; about 1805 it numbered more than 112,000; it went on increasing until the destruction of the janissaries, when it reached 135,000. It would perhaps be more correct to say that these are the numbers figuring on the pay-sheets, and that they doubtless largely exceed the total of the men actually serving in the ranks.

Promotion to the rank of warrant officer was obtained by long or distinguished service; it was by seniority up to the rank of odabashi, but odabashis were promoted to the rank of chorbaji (commander of an orta) solely by selection. Janissaries advanced in their own orta, which they left only to assume the command of another. Ortas remained permanently stationed in the fortress towns in which they were in garrison, being displaced in time of peace only when some violent animosity broke out between two companies. There were usually 12 in garrison at Belgrade, 14 at Khotin, 16 at Widdin, 20 at Bagdad, &c. The commander was frequently changed. A new chorbaji was usually appointed to the command of an orta stationed at a frontier post; he was then transferred elsewhere, so that in course of time he passed through different provinces.

In time of peace the janissary received no pay. At first his war pay was limited to one aspre per diem, but it was eventually raised to a minimum of three aspres, while veterans received as much as 29 aspres, and retired officers from 30 to 120. The aga received 24,000 piastres per annum; the ordinary pay of a commander was 120 aspres per diem. The aga and several of his subordinates received a percentage of the pay and allowance of the troops; they also inherited the property of deceased janissaries. Moreover, the officers profited largely by retaining the names of dead or fictitious janissaries on the pay-rolls. Rations of mutton, bread and candles were furnished by the government, the supply of rice, butter and vegetables being at the charge of the commandant. The rations would have been entirely inadequate if the janissaries had not been allowed, contrary to the regulations, to pursue different callings, such as those of baker, butcher, glazier, boatman, &c. At first the janissaries bore no other distinctive mark save the white felt cap. Soon the red cap with gold embroidery was substituted. Later a uniform was introduced, of which the distinctive mark was less the colour than the cut of the coat and the shape of the head-dress and turban. The only distinction in the costume of commanding officers was in the colour of their boots, those of the beuluks being red while the others were yellow; subordinate officers wore black boots.