VOLUME XV SLICE V Joints to Justinian I. (continued 6)

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

(S. A. C.)

1 See especially Wellhausen, De gentibus et familiis Judaeorum (Göttingen, 1869), the articles on the relative proper names in the Ency. Bib., and E. Meyer, Die Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme, pp. 299-471 (much valuable matter).

2 For the principle of the Levirate illustrated in Gen. xxxviii., see Ruth. Lagarde (Orientalia, ii.) ingeniously conjectured that the chapter typified the suppression of Phoenician (viz. Tamar, the date-palm) and the old Canaanite elements (Zerah = indigena) by the younger Israelite invaders (Perez = “branch”). For other discussions, apart from commentaries on Genesis, see B. Luther in Meyer, op. cit., pp. 200 sqq.

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

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

For the history of its genesis and its diffusion the reader may consult D’Ancona, La leggenda di Vergogna e la leggenda di Giuda (1869), and papers by W. Creizenach in Paul and Braune’s Beitr. zur Gesch. der deutschen Sprache und Litteratur, vol. ii. (1875), and Victor Diederich in Russiche Revue (1880). Cholevius, in his Geschichte der deutschen Poesie nach ihren antiken Elementen (1854), pointed out the connexion of the legend with the Oedipus story. According to Daub (Judas Ischariot, oder Betrachtungen über das Böse im Verhältniss zum Guten, 1816, 1818) Judas was “an incarnation of the devil,” to whom “mercy and blessedness are alike impossible.”

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

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

(G. Mi.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Introd. to the New Test. by Holtzmann, Jülicher, Weiss, Zahn, Davidson, Salmon, Bacon and the standard Commentaries of Meyer and Holtzmann, the International (Bigg) and other series, contain discussions of authorship and date. The articles s.v. in Hastings’s Dict. Bible (Chase) and the Ency. Bib. (Cone) are full and scholarly. In addition the Histories of the Apostolic Age, by Hausrath, Weizsäcker, McGiffert, Bartlet, Ropes and others, and the kindred works of Baur, Schwegler and Pfleiderer should be consulted. Moffat’s Historical New Testament, 2nd ed., p. 589, contains a convenient summary of the evidence with copious bibliography. One of the most thorough of conservative treatments is the Commentary on Jude and Second Peter by J. B. Mayor (1907).

(B. W. B.)

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

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

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

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

See also Lord High Chancellor; Lord Chief Justice; Master of the Rolls, &c., &c., and the accounts of judicial systems under country headings.

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

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

See further Military Law, and consult C. M. Clode, Administration of Justice under Military and Martial Law (1872); Military Forces of the Crown (2 vols., 1869).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature.—Biblical scholars are in agreement regarding the preliminary literary questions of the book, but there is divergence of opinion on points of detail, and on the precise growth of the book (e.g. the twofold Deuteronomic redaction). See further W. R. Smith, Ency. Brit. 9th ed. (upon which the present article is based); G. F. Moore, International Critical Comm. (1895); Ency. Bib., art. “Judges”; K. Budde, Kurzer Handcommentar (1897); Lagrange, Livres des juges (1903); G. W. Thatcher (Century Bible); also S. R. Driver, Lit. of Old Testament (1909); Moore, in the Sacred Books of Old Testament (1898); C. F. Kent, The Student’s Old Testament, vol. i. (1904).

(S. A. C.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUDICATURE ACTS, an important series of English statutes having for their object the simplification of the system of judicature in its higher branches. They are the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66) and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 77), with various amending acts, the twelfth of these being in 1899. By the act of 1873 the court of chancery, the court of queen’s (king’s) bench, the court of common pleas, the court of exchequer, the high court of admiralty, the court of probate and the court of divorce and matrimonial causes were consolidated into one Supreme1 Court of Judicature (sec. 3), divided into two permanent divisions, called “the high court,” with (speaking broadly) original jurisdiction, and “the court of appeal” (sec. 4). The objects of the act were threefold—first, to reduce the historically independent courts of common law and equity into one supreme court; secondly, to establish for all divisions of the court a uniform system of pleading and procedure; and thirdly, to provide for the enforcement of the same rule of law in those cases where chancery and common law recognized different rules. It can be seen at once how bold and revolutionary was this new enactment. By one section the august king’s bench, the common pleas, in which serjeants only had formerly the right of audience, and the exchequer, which had its origin in the reign of Henry I., and all their jurisdiction, criminal, legal and equitable, were vested in the new court. It must be understood, however, that law and equity were not fused in the sense in which that phrase has generally been employed. The chancery division still remains distinct from the common law division, having a certain range of legal questions under its exclusive control, and possessing to a certain extent a peculiar machinery of its own for carrying its decrees into execution. But all actions may now be brought in the high court of justice, and, subject to such special assignments of business as that alluded to, may be tried in any division thereof.

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

For a more detailed account of the composition of the various courts, see Chancery; King’s Bench; and Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greek Version.—This is found in three recensions: (1) in A B, א; (2) in codices 19, 108 (Lucian’s text); (3) in codex 58, the source of the old Latin and Syriac.

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

Later Hebrew Midrashim.—These are printed in Jellinek’s Bet ha-Midrasch, i. 130-131; ii. 12-22; and by Gaster in Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology (1894), pp. 156-163.

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

Recent Literature.—Ball, Speaker’s Apocrypha (1888), an excellent piece of work; Scholz, Das Buch Judith (1896); Löhr, Apok. und Pseud. (1900), ii. 147-164; Porter in Hastings’s Dict. Bible, ii. 822-824; Gaster, Ency. Bib., ii. 2642-2646. See Ball, pp. 260-261, and Schürer in loc., for a full bibliography.

(R. H. C.)

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

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

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

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

See Carl Frederik Bricka, Dansk biografisk lex., art. “Juel” (1887, &c.); Adolf Ditlev Jörgensen, P. Schumacher Griffenfeldt (1893-1894).

(R. N. B.)

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

See Garde, Niels Juel (1842), and Den dansk. norske Sömagts Historie, 1535-1700 (1861).

(R. N. B.)

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

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

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

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

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

See P. M. Perret, Boffille de Juge, comte de Castres, et la république de Venise (1891); F. Pasquier, Inventaire des documents concernant Boffille de Juge (1905).

(M. P.*)

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

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