VOLUME XV SLICE V Joints to Justinian I. (continued 4)

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

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

See F. Krones von Marchland, Grundriss der Oesterreichischen Geschichte (1882); F. Wagner, Historia Josephi Caesaris (1746); J. C. Herchenhahn, Geschichte der Regierung Kaiser Josephs I. (1786-1789); C. van Noorden, Europäische Geschichte im 18. Jahrhundert (1870-1882).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See M. A. Le Normand, Mémoires historiques et secrets de Joséphine (2 vols., 1820); Lettres de Napoléon à Joséphine (1833); J. A. Aubenas, Hist. de l’impératrice Joséphine (2 vols., 1858-1859); J. Turquan, L’Impératrice Joséphine (2 vols., 1895-1896); F. Masson, Joséphine (3 vols., 1899-1902); Napoleon’s Letters to Josephine (1796-1812), translated and edited by H. F. Hall (1903). Also the Memoirs of Mme. de Rémusat and of Bausset, and P. W. Sergeant, The Empress Josephine (1908).

(J. Hl. R.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(J. H. A. H.)

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

JOSHUA, BOOK OF, the sixth book of the Old Testament, and the first of the group known as the “Former Prophets.” It takes its name from Joshua1 the son of Nūn, an Ephraimite who, on the death of Moses, assumed the leadership to which he had previously been designated by his chief (Deut. xxxi. 14 seq., 23), and proceeded to the conquest of the land of Canaan. The book differs from the Pentateuch or Torah in the absence of legal matter, and in its intimate connexion with the narrative in the books which follow. It is, however, the proper sequel to the origins of the people as related in Genesis, to the exodus of the Israelite tribes from Egypt, and their journeyings in the wilderness. On these and also on literary grounds it is often convenient to class the first six books of the Bible as a unit under the term “Hexateuch.” For an exhaustive detailed study has revealed many signs of diversity of authorship which combine to show that the book is due to the incorporation of older material in two main redactions; one deeply imbued with the language and thought of Deuteronomy itself (D), the other of the post-exilic priestly circle (P) which gave the Pentateuch its present form. That the older sources (which often prove to be composite) are actually identical with the Yahwist or Judaean (J) and the Elohist or Ephraimite (E) narratives (on which see Genesis) is not improbable, though, especially as regards the former, still very uncertain. In general the literary problems are exceedingly intricate, and no attempt can be made here to deal with them as fully as they deserve.

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

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

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

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

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

In regard to details, xiii. 2-6 (now D) expresses the view that the conquest was incomplete, and numbers districts chiefly in the south-west and in the Lebanon. Two sources deal with the inheritance of the east Jordan tribes in terms which are—(a) general (xiii. 8-12, D), and (b) precise (vv. 15-32, P). The latter stands between the duplicate passages xiii. 14 and 32 seq. (see the Sept.). With the interest taken in these tribes, cf. for (a) i. 12-18; Deut. iii. 12-22, and the sequel in Joshua xxii. 1-6; and for (b) xxii. 9 seq.; Num. xxxii. P’s account of the division opens with an introductory notice of the manner in which Eleazar the priest and Joshua (note the order) prepare to complete the work which Moses had begun (xiv. 1-5). It opens with Judah, its borders (xv. 1-12) and cities (vv. 20-62), and continues with the two Joseph tribes, Ephraim (xvi. 4-9, contrast details in vv. 1-3) and Manasseh (xvii. 1-10, cf. Num. xxvi. 30-32, xxvii. 1-11; P). There is now a break in the narrative (xviii. 2-10, source uncertain); seven tribes have not yet received an inheritance, and Joshua (alone) encourages them to send three men from each tribe to walk through the land—excluding the territory of Judah and Joseph—and to bring a description of it to him, after which he divides it among them by lot. P2 now resumes with an account of the borders and cities of Benjamin (xviii. 11-28), Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali and Dan (xix.; on v. 47, see below); and, after the subscription (xix. 51), concludes with the institution of the cities of refuge (xx., cf. Num. xxxv.), and of the Levitical cities (xxi., contrast the earlier brief notice, xiii. 14, 33). Chapter xx., belonging to the Predaction, has certain points of contact with Deut. xix. which, it is very important to observe, are wanting in the Septuagint; and xxi. 43-45 closes D’s account of the division, and in the Septuagint contains matter most of which is now given by P in xix. 49 seq. Two narratives describe the dismissal of the trans-Jordanic tribes after their co-operation in the conquest, viz. xxii. 1-6 (D), and xxii. 9 seq. (P); cf. above, on xiii. 8 seq. P, with the description of the erection of the altar (v. 34, Gilead?; cf. Gen. xxxi. 47 seq.), is apparently a late re-writing of some now obscure incident to emphasize the unity of worship. P’s account of the distribution of land among the nine and a half tribes by Eleazar and Joshua (from xiv. 1-5 to xix. 51) appears to have been on the lines laid down in Num. xxxiv. (P). The scene, according to xviii. 1, is Shiloh, and this verse, which does not belong to the context, should apparently precede P’s narrative in xiv. 1. But of the occupation of Shiloh, the famous Ephraimite sanctuary and the seat of the ark, we have no information. The older source, however, presupposes that Judah and the two Joseph tribes have acquired their territory; the remaining seven are blamed for their indifference (xviii. 2-10, see above), and receive their lot conjointly at the camp at Shiloh. But if the location is an attempt to harmonize with xviii. 1, Gilgal should probably be restored. The section xviii. 2-10 is followed by xxi. 43 seq. (above), and may have been preceded originally by xiii. 1, 7 (where read: inheritance for the seven tribes); in its present form it appears to be due to D. Another account of the exploits of Judah and Joseph can be traced here and there; e.g. in xiv. 6-15 (where Caleb receives Hebron as his inheritance and the “land had rest from war”), and xvii. 14-18 (where Joseph receives an additional lot); but where these traditions have not been worked into later narratives, they exist only in fragmentary form and are chiefly recognizable by their standpoint. They are characterized by the view that the conquest was only a partial one, and one which was neither the work of a single man nor at his instigation, but due entirely to individual or tribal achievements. This view can be traced in xiii. 13, xv. 63 (cf. the parallel Judges i. 21 in contrast to v. 8), xvi. 10 (Judges i. 29), xvii. 11-13 (Judges i. 27 seq.), and in the references to separate tribal or family exploits: xv. 13-19, xix. 47 (cf. Judges i. 34 seq., xviii.).

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography.—See the commentaries of Dillmann, Steuernagel Holzinger (German), or the concise edition by H. W. Robinson in the Century Bible; also articles on “Joshua” by G. A. Smith, Hastings’s D. B., and G. F. Moore, Ency. Bib.; Kittel in Hist. of the Hebrews, i. 262 sqq.; W. H. Bennett, in Haupt’s Sacred Books of the Old Testament; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Comp. of Hexateuch, ch. xvii; S. R. Driver, Lit. of the O. T. (8th ed., 1909). These give further bibliographical information, for which see also the articles on the books of the Pentateuch.

(S. A. C.)

1 Heb. Jĕhōshūa; later Jēshūa; Gr. Ἰησοῦς, whence “Jesus” in the A.V. of Heb. iv. 8; another form of the name is Hoshea (Num. xiii. 8, 16). The name may mean “Yah(weh) is wealth, or is (our) war-cry, or saves.” The only extra-biblical notice of Joshua is the inscription of more than doubtful genuineness given by Procopius (Vand. ii. 20), and mentioned also by Moses of Chorene (Hist. Arm. i. 18). It is said to have stood at Tingis in Mauretania, and to have borne that those who erected it had fled before Ἰησοῦς ὁ ληστής. For the medieval Samaritan Book of Joshua, see T. Juynboll, Chronicum Samaritanum (1846); J. A. Montgomery, The Samaritans (1907), pp. 301 sqq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(N. M.)

JOSIAH (Heb. yō’ shiyyāhū, perhaps “Yah[weh] supports”), in the Bible, the grandson of Manasseh, and king of Judah. He came to the throne at the age of eight, after the murder of his predecessor Amon. The circumstances of his minority are not recorded, nor is anything related of the Scythian inroads which occurred in the latter half of the 7th century B.C., although some passages in the books of Jeremiah and Zephaniah are supposed to refer to the events. The storm which shook the external states was favourable to the peace of Judah; the Assyrian power was practically broken, and that of the Chaldeans had scarcely developed into an aggressive form. Samaria thus lay within the grasp of Josiah, who may have entertained hopes of forming an independent power of his own. Otherwise, it is not clear why we find him opposing himself to the Egyptian king Necho, since the assumption that he fought as an Assyrian vassal scarcely agrees with the profound reforming policy ascribed to him. At all events, at the battle of Megiddo1 he lost both his kingdom and his life (608 B.C.), and for a few years Judah was in the hands of Egypt (2 Kings xxiii. 29 seq.). The chronicler gives a rather different account of the battle, and his allusion to the dirge uttered by Jeremiah over his death (2 Chron. xxxv. 20-25; 1 Esd. i. 32) represents the tradition which makes this prophet the author of the book of Lamentations.

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

(S. A. C.)

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

2 See Zeit. f. Alttest. Wissenschaft (1902), pp. 170 seq., 312 seq.; Journ Bib. Lit. (1903), p. 50.

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

See K. Moenich and S. Vutkovich, Magyar Irók Névtára (1876); M. Jókai, “Jósika Miklós Emlékezete,” A Kisfaludy-Társaság Evlapjai, Új folyam, vol. iii. (1869); G. W. Steinacker, Ungarische Lyriker (1874). Cf. also Jósika’s autobiography—Emlékirat, vol. iv. (1865).

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

(I. A.)

1 A prefect of Jerusalem of this name is mentioned by Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 20.

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

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

See Zirndorf, Isaak Markus Jost und seine Freunde (Cincinnati, 1886).

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

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

See Guilbert, Notice sur la vie de B. C. Joubert; Chevrier, Le Général Joubert d’après sa correspondance (2nd ed. 1884).

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

If Joubert’s readers in England are not numerous, he is well known at second hand through the sympathetic essay devoted to him in Matthew Arnold’s Essays in Criticism (1st series). See Sainte-Beuve, Causeries du lundi, vol. i.; Portraits littéraires, vol. ii.; and a notice by Paul de Raynal, prefixed to the edition of 1842.

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

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

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

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

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

See L. Lévy Bruhl, History of Modern Philos. in France (1899), pp. 349-357; C. J. Tissot, Th. Jouffroy: sa vie et ses écrits (1876); J. P. Damiron, Essai sur l’histoire de la philos. en France au xixe siècle (1846).

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

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

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

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

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