or JEW'S TRUMP (Fr. Trompe). A small musical instrument, known for centuries all over Europe, and consisting of a metal frame with two branches, between which a slender tongue of steel, fastened at one end, and free at the other, is made to vibrate by twitching with the finger, while the frame is held between the teeth. The English name "Jew's trumpet" seems to be merely a corruption of the French words jew and trompe. Prefixed to the Rev. Patrick Macdonald's Collection of Highland Airs (1781) there is a Dissertation by the Rev. Walter Young, in which he states that the natives of the island of St Kilda "being great lovers of dancing, have a number of reels, which are either sung, or played on the Jew's harp, or trump, their only musical instrument" (p. 11). In the Himalaya journals, published a few years ago, one of the travellers mentions that he procured a Jew's harp from Tibet. At the commencement of the present century this instrument was improved, and several Jew's harps were combined. No. 30 of the Leipzig Musical Gazette (1816) contains an account of the compound Jew's harp, with pieces of music suited for it. The original little instrument has, in modern times, suggested a variety of large and important musical instruments in which the sonorous bodies are vibrating tongues of metal. See Harmonium, and article Music.

(J.F.O.)

JEYPOR, a considerable raj, or native state, of Rajpootana in Hindustan. This state, anciently called Amber, is about 150 miles in length, and 140 in breadth, having an area of 15,251 square miles. It is in general an extensive plain, though in the north and north-western parts are insulated peaks and clusters of hills here and there rising above the general level. The population is a collection of various races, of which the most numerous are the Minas, supposed to be the aboriginal possessors of the country. Next, and nearly equal in number, are the Jats, who are extensive holders of land, and the most industrious and skilful agriculturists. Brahmins are numerous, being in greater proportion to the rest of the population than in any other state of Rajpootana. Rajpoots, the ruling class, though inferior in number to the Minas and Jats, are conjectured to be still capable of mustering 30,000 men in arms. Of less important tribes the chief are the Banias, Dhakurs, and Gujurs. The aggregate population has been estimated at 1,494,598. The revenue of Jeypoor, independent of the possessions of feudal chiefs, is returned at L458,395. Under a treaty concluded in 1818 the country became tributary to the East India Company. In 1842 a large arrear of tribute had accumulated, the whole of which was remitted, and the annual tribute thenceforward reduced to L40,000 per annum. The corruption and intrigue introduced into the administration rendered it necessary, in 1835, to move a British force into Jeypoor, for the purpose of redressing the wrongs and correcting the abuses which had brought the country to a state exhibiting an empty treasury, desolate palaces, a ferocious populace, and a rabble army. The measures of the British government speedily introduced a better state of things. The prince having been poisoned by his prime minister, a regency was appointed during the minority of the infant successor; financial reforms were commenced, and an approximation made to something like the administration of justice. In 1851 the young chief completed his eighteenth year. He had been initiated into public business, and the British authorities, entertaining a favourable opinion of his general fitness for the duties of his station, he was allowed to assume the reins of government, and exhorted to continue the beneficent system of administration under which his dominions, during his minority, had attained so high a degree of prosperity. Jeypoor, the capital of the country, is distant 850 miles N.W. from Calcutta. Lat. 26° 56', Long. 75° 55'.

JEZIREH-EL-OMAR (the ancient Bazabda), a town of Asiatic Turkey, on a low sandy island in the Tigris, 120 miles E.S.E. of Diarbekr. The island is about 3 miles in circumference and is almost entirely occupied by the town, which is surrounded by a low stone wall, now very much fallen into decay.

JEZREEL, a town of Issachar, where the kings of Israel had a palace, but after the terrible end of Jezebel and the house of Ahab, the court seems to have fled from the place. In the days of Eusebius and Jerome it was still known by the names of Endrala and Stradela. After a lapse of seven centuries, it is mentioned in the history of the Crusades under the name of Pavina Gerimou, the Zerin of the Arabs. Zerin is situate on a rocky brow at the N.W. termination of Mount Gilboa, and consists only of twenty ruined huts.

JHALAWAN, a province of Beloochistan, lying between N. Lat. 26° and 29°, and E. Long. 65° and 67°. It is bounded on the N. by the provinces of Sarawan and Kelat, E. by Cutch-Gundava and Sinde, S. by Lus and Mekran, and W. by Mekran and Sarawan. It is 200 miles in length from N. to S., by 150 in breadth, and has an area of about 20,000 square miles. It is mountainous, barren, and very thinly peopled, the entire population being estimated at not more than 30,000.

JHANSI, a considerable town of Hindustan, in the province of Bundelcund. It has a strong citadel, situate on a hill which commands the town. It has a manufactory of bows, arrows, and spears, the principal weapons of the Boondela tribes. The town is situate amidst groves of fine trees, and is surrounded by a good wall. On a rock overlooking the town is a fortress or castellated residence of the rajah. The streets and bazaars are clean and orderly. The territory of which this place is the capital, was formerly part of the possessions of the Boondela rajah of Oorcha; subsequently it fell into the hands of the peishwa, and was assigned to the administration of one of his officers in the character of soubahdar. In 1804 a treaty of defensive alliance was concluded by the British with the then soubahdar as a tributary of the peishwa. In 1817, consequent on the cession to the East India Company of the peishwa's rights in Bundelcund, a second treaty was concluded by the British government with the soubahdar of Jhansi, by which he was acknowledged hereditary ruler of the territory. The revenue of the rajah amounted in 1848 to L61,196. The town of Jhansi is in N. Lat. 25° 28', E. Long. 78° 38'. (E.T.)

JHUJHUR, a petty native state in Hindustan, within the Delhi agency, and subject to the control of the lieutenant- governor of the N.W. provinces. It has an area of 1230 square miles, and a population of about 110,000. This principality was assigned by Lord Lake to Nijabut Ally Khan, of the Bhuraitch family, in consideration of his services against the Mahattas from whom it was taken; and in 1806 the grant was confirmed in perpetuity by the governor-general to Fyze Ally Khan; the present Nawab, and grandson of the original grantee, succeeded in 1835.

JHYLUM, JELUM, BEHUT, or VIDUSTA, the ancient Hydaspes, a large river of Hindustan, which has its rise in the S.E. corner of the valley of Cashmere, in the great Himalaya ridge of mountains. It is there called Vidusta, and passes through two lakes E. and W. of the town of Cashmere. It is joined, 10 miles below the town, by the Little Sinde, and receives many small rivulets in its course through the valley and hills, which it enters at Baranmoola; and, 4 miles below Mooszifferabad, it receives the Kishungunga from the N.; its course thus far being nearly W. From this it takes a great curve southwards to the town of Jhylum, where, in the middle of October, it was found to be 150 yards wide and from 12 to 16 feet deep. In its course through the hills this river is very rapid, and from 100 to 200 yards broad. It is not fordable at any season, though in many places nearly so, as men and horses cross with ease, having only 15 or 20 yards to swim. After a course of 450 miles, it joins the Chunab at Trimmoo Ghat, 18 miles below Jhung, and 45 above Moultan, in which it loses its name. These joint streams, called the Chunab or Chunha, receive the Ravee 48 miles lower down, near Falilshah and Ahmedpoor, from the eastward, and pass 4 miles N. of Moultan, retaining the name of Chunab to within 7 miles of Ooch, where they are joined at Sheeneebukree by the Gharra, or joint streams of the Beyah and Sutledji, 65 miles below Moultan, and 40 miles below Bulhawulpore. From this point to Mittenda Khot, where they fall into the Indus, about 76 miles, these five streams take the name of the Punjnad. The Indus and the Punjnad, or the five rivers, run parallel to each other for this distance, which is about 10½ miles. The whole of this space is one complete sheet of water during the rains and hot season, and appears as one river. The greatest breadth between the Jhylum and the Indus appears to be 114 miles from Attock to Jalalapore Ghat. The whole course of the Jhylum, including its windings, may be estimated to exceed 450 miles.

JIDDA, or DJIDDA, a seaport town of Arabia on the Red Sea, 64 miles W. from Mecca, of which it is the port; N. Lat. 21° 29', E. Long. 39° 15'. It stands on a gentle elevation, rising from the sea, while the surrounding country is a bare desert. Jidda, as respects cleanliness and regularity of plan, is superior to most eastern towns. The streets, though unpaved, are comparatively well laid out and wide. The houses are built of coralline stone, from the shores of the Red Sea, and from the perishing nature of this material, are not very durable. In the suburbs, the houses are mere huts constructed of reeds and bushwood. The principal street of the town runs parallel with the shore, and as it contains most of the public buildings, and is much frequented, it presents a very gay appearance. The public buildings comprise numerous khans and mosques, the governor's house, citadel, custom-house, and a rude stone structure, which every true Mohammedan believes to be the tomb of Eve. A wall encloses the town proper and protects it from the incursions of the warlike Bedouins who infest the neighbourhood. It has six gates, one each towards the N., E., and S., and three towards the sea. Of the latter, only the central one is public, the other two being used only on certain occasions. The Eastern, or Mecca gate is open only to Mohammedans, and through it bands of pilgrims pass daily for the Holy City. Jidda is said to be very unhealthy, arising, no doubt, in part at least, from the great scarcity of fresh water. There are only two good wells in the town and neighbourhood, and these being available only to the rich, the poorer classes are obliged to use the brackish water found some 15 feet below the surface, or the stagnant rain water collected in pools and cisterns constructed for that purpose.

Jidda has long been famous as the commercial emporium of Arabia, and indeed is solely dependent for its existence upon its trade. Situate about the middle of the E. coast of the Red Sea, only about 120 miles distant from the opposite shore of Nubia, and within two days' journey of Mecca, it is peculiarly fitted for the importation of foreign goods as well as for the exportation of home produce. The harbour, however, like most of the other ports on the Red Sea, is inconvenient, and the entrance rather intricate. On account of the shallowness of the harbour, large ships are obliged to discharge their cargoes in the offing about 2 miles from the shore. The imports from Egypt and Abyssinia comprise corn, rice, butter, sugar, clothing, oil, tobacco, musk, and incense; from India, muslins, shawls, spices, and coco-nuts; while the Malay Islands and the Mozambique coast send hither slaves. The imports are conveyed by ships to Suez, whence they find their way to the Mediterranean ports, or by caravans to Mecca and Medina, from which cities they are dispersed to Syria, Asia Minor, and Turkey. Dates, and the celebrated balm of Mecca, are brought from the interior for shipment. Next to grain, the most important article of trade is perhaps coffee, which is obtained in large quantities from Mocha. The number of vessels belonging to the port is estimated at about 250. The government of Jidda is in the hands of the Pasha of Egypt, and the town is garrisoned by Egyptian troops, amounting usually to about 400. The population is very fluctuating; the permanent population does not probably exceed 10,000, while, on the arrival of the merchant fleets, and during the feast of Ramadhan, there may be as many as 20,000 strangers within its walls.

JIONPOOR, or JOANPORE, a district of Hindustan, in the N.W. provinces, included principally between N. Lat. 26° and 27°. It is bounded on the N.W. by the territory of Oude; on the N.E. by Azimgur; on the E. by Ghazzeepoor, and on the S. by Benares and Allahabad, and embraces an area of 1,552 square miles, with a population of 798,503. It is well watered, and extremely fertile; and the soil is under good cultivation, and well covered with wood. The inhabitants are Mohammedans and Hindus; the latter preponderating in the proportion of 15 to 1. Of the Hindus there was one tribe amongst whom the practice of female infanticide greatly prevailed; but, by the humane influence of the British government, it has been altogether abolished. This district came into the possession of the British in 1775, as forming part of the Benares zemindary.

Jionpoor, the chief town in the above district, and formerly the capital of an independent principality. It is situate upon the banks of the Goontry. The fort, which is built of solid stone-work, was founded in 1370 by Sultan Feroze III. of Delhi, and named after his uncle and predecessor, whose name was Joana. He ordered a Hindu temple to be levelled, and erected the fort around the ruins of it. After his return to the capital, he collected numerous artificers, and persons of every description, and sent them to inhabit the new city, which was completed in twelve years. On the subversion of the empire of Delhi by Timour or Tamerlane, Khushje Jehan, a governor of the eastern districts, assumed the royal dignity, and he made Jionpoor his capital. He was succeeded in 1399 by his son Moharrak Shah, whose successor was Sultan Ibrahim. During his prosperous reign of forty years he spared no expense to strengthen and improve the fortress and city, and Jionpoor became one of the most celebrated cities of Hindustan, famed for religion and learning. Jionpoor was again annexed to the empire of Delhi in the year 1478, when the reigning prince was overthrown. Many of the mosques, and some of the caravanserais and colleges built at that period, are still in existence. The fortress is built upon a high bank of the River Gomtay, so named from its meandering course. It is built of solid stone, and rises considerably above the level of the surrounding country. It was frequently taken in the contests between the Afghans and Moguls, and much dilapidated; but about the year 1570 it was thoroughly repaired by a nobleman from the court of Akbar, who was governor of Bengal. It was also during his time that the celebrated bridge of Jionpoor was built, which has now stood 280 years, and still remains a monument of ancient magnificence and of architectural skill. In 1773, when this bridge was submerged during the rainy season, a brigade of British troops sailed over it. Such is the strength and solid construction of this bridge, that it suffered no damage from the violence of the current. The town surrounds the fort on three sides, and contains a good bazaar and a number of brick houses. The surrounding country for several miles is covered with the ruins of tombs and mosques. Of the latter there are several in a good state of repair, namely, the Jamai Musjid, which is very handsome, and is built of stone. The travelling distance from Benares is 42 miles, and from Lucknow, 147 miles.

E. Long. 82. 44., N. Lat. 25. 46.

(JITOMIR, or SHITOMIR, a town of West Russia, capital of the government of Volhynia, on the River Teterew, a tributary of the Dnieper, 370 miles S.E. of Warsaw, in N. Lat. 50. 15. and E. Long. 28. 40. The buildings of the town are the governor's house, a Carmelite convent, and several Greek and Roman Catholic churches. The manufactures are confined to hat-making and tanning, but there is also a considerable trade carried on in woollen, linen, and silk goods, as well as in Hungarian and Wallachian wines, tallow, and salt. Four annual fairs are held here. The population of the town is composed of Poles, Jews, Russians, and a few Wallachians. It is the see of both a Greek and Roman Catholic bishop. Pop. (1850) 17,131.

JOAN, POP, a person, supposed to have been of the female sex, who was for many centuries believed to have occupied the Papal throne between the years 855 and 857. The fable of Pope Joan long held its ground in the annals of the Roman Church as a piece of authentic history. It is only within recent times that it has been finally condemned to take its rank with many other once popular myths in the chronique scandaleuse. The common version of the story is as follows:—A young Englishwoman of extraordinary beauty went to reside with her parents at Fulda in Saxony. She was loved by a monk belonging to a convent of that city. To enjoy each other's society undisturbed, it was planned between them that she should assume male attire, and apply for admission into the convent as a neophyte. As she possessed a very extraordinary share both of learning and talent, she easily imposed upon the unsuspecting abbot, and was admitted. Time wore on, and the lovers, tired of their convent life, concerted a plan of flight. They escaped in lay costumes to England, where they remained for a time. From England they passed into France, from France into Italy, and from Italy to Greece. In the course of these wanderings they visited the chief seats of learning in Europe, and became profusely versed in all the sciences of their age. Having mastered the Greek tongue in Athens, they were preparing to turn their faces northwards when the lover monk was suddenly taken ill and died. Joan, still in male attire, set out for Italy, and, fixing her abode at Rome, opened a school of philosophy there. Her reputation for eloquence, learning, and piety, attracted crowds of students, and even the most celebrated professors were seen on the benches. Meanwhile the pope, Leo IV., died, and Joan, unanimously chosen in his room, ascended the throne with the title of John VIII. She lived discreetly for a time, and was held in high esteem for her piety and the purity of her life. But at length she fell as she had fallen before; and one day, while walking in solemn procession from the Vatican to the Lateran, she was seized in labour, and, to the horror and scandal of the multitude, gave birth to a child. The circumstances of such an accouchement soon proved fatal both to the mother and her offspring.

The first writer who mentions this piece of ecclesiastical scandal was Mariannus Scotus, a Scottish monk, who settled at Fulda in 1058, wrote a Universal Chronicle, which comes down to 1083, and died at Mayence in 1086. In his chronicle he states the simple facts, "Leo the pope died on the 1st of August. To him succeeded John, who, as is asserted, was a woman, and sat for two years, five months, and four days." The MS. of this work fell in, 1559, into the hands of John Herold a Calvinist, who, in consigning it to press, omitted, either through carelessness or dishonesty, the words ut assertior, and thus changed his author's hearsay into a direct and positive assertion. As time wore on, the simple phrase of Mariannus began to grow into a perfect romance. An anonymous chronicle in the library of St Paul at Leipzig, which comes down to 1261, mentions the fact of a female pope of learning and beauty, who during her papacy gave birth to a child; and states that the name and date of this pope are both unknown. A few years later Martinus Polacius, archbishop of Cosenza, and author of a Chronicle of Popes and Emperors, coming down to the year 1277, gave an enlarged version of the story, which, however, it was reserved for our countryman, John Bayley of Suffolk, in his Scriptores Majoris Britanniae, to adorn with all those minute details which were long received as the proofs of its authenticity. All these chroniclers, and a great many more whom we have not named, who borrowed the story from them, were quite without motive in telling the story according to their respective versions of it. These versions differ from each other solely in so far as one chronicler is more credulous or more conscientious than another, more literal or fanciful and inventive in his turn of mind. But the outbreak of the Reformation introduced a new element. The Protestants brought forward the tale to prove the fallibility of the self-styled infallible church. Consequently it was their interest to uphold its authenticity. The Catholics were now, for the first time, alive to the necessity of disproving it. Many a fierce controversy now took place between the champions of the respective churches, and every big tome on the one side called forth a still bigger one on the other. The truth was beginning gradually to clear itself from the mass of error in which it was involved, and the coup-de-grace was at length given to the whole dispute by a French protestant minister, David Blondel. With a clearness of logic, and a just appreciation of the real nature of historical evidence, which seem to have been greatly wanting to his predecessors, he demonstrates the absence of all good foundation for the story, the utter weakness of its early years, the suspicions which stand around its cradle; and, instead of discussing how far Pope Joan was believed, or generally recognized in this or that century, shows that by her own contemporaries she was never heard of at all. Blondel's book called forth a host of answers from eminent men of his own church, and he was himself persecuted and abused in many ways for preferring truth to the interests of party. Bayle soon after appeared, and strengthened the position of Blondel with impregnable defences. Leibnitz and Eckhardt followed on the same side. With them the controversy may be said to have come to a close, and Pope Joan to be finally convicted of being an impostor, or rather a nonentity. The grounds on which this conclusion is arrived at may be briefly stated. In the first place, 200 years elapsed between the era of the supposed pope and the date at which her name is first mentioned by any historian. In the next place there were at Rome, during the time assigned to her Papacy four persons, who each in succession sat on the papal throne, and left behind them many and various writings. Had they ever heard of the story, it is impossible to believe that they should each and all have passed it over in silence as they have done. In the third place, all the contemporary writers, without a single exception, attest that, immediately on the death of Leo IV., the papal chair was offered and accepted by Benedict III. At the same time, though the story of Pope Joan is given up by all historians alike as a fable, it is impossible that it should have found believers and upholders for so many centuries had there been nothing in the annals of the church to give a sort of colour to it. Many conjectures have been advanced upon the subject, of which by far the most plausible is that of Bianchi-Giovini, who proves clearly enough that the papal chair was often virtually occupied by a woman. Pope John X., elected in 914, owed his elevation entirely to his mistress Theodora, whose beauty, talents, and intrigues had made her mistress of Rome about the beginning of the tenth century. At a late period Theodore's daughter, Marozia, wielded a similar influence over Sergius III., and finally raised her son by that pope to the pontifical throne, with the title of John XI. At a still later period, John XII. was so completely governed by one of his concubines, Raineria by name, that he entrusted to her much of the administration of the holy see. These, and other instances of the same kind that might be adduced, account satisfactorily enough for the origin of the fable of Pope Jean. (See Panvinio's edition of Platina; Bianchi-Giovini's Esame Critico degli atti e Documenti relativi alla storia della Papessa Giovanna, Milano, 1845; North British Review, vol. xii.)

JOAN OF ARC. See ARC, Joan of.

JOANNES OR MARAJO, a large and fertile island on the N. coast of Brazil, province of Para, situated between the estuaries of the Amazon and Para rivers. It is about 120 miles in length from E. to W., and 90 from N. to S. Pop. about 20,000.

JOB, BOOK OF, so called from the name of the patriarch whose inner history and outward fate it depicts. Various questions have been agitated in regard to it, and, from its almost isolated position in the Scriptures, these have afforded ground for much ingenious and plausible conjecture. The points of principal interest are—the reality or fiction of the history, the age of the author, and the nature of the piety and ethics which the book is designed to inculcate. All these questions are very much interwoven with each other; and so clearly do the various answers reflect the mind and foregone conclusions of the critic, that the treatment of the book may be regarded as a testing-point, not only in criticism, but in religion. In regard to the nature of the book, as historical or dramatic, Spanheim has expressed the extreme on one side, when he said, that "unless it contained a true history, the author was guilty of deception" (ni historia sit, fraud scrip- toris). Luther has expressed the golden mean of opinion, when he said, "that he counted Job to be a true history; but that everything happened and was said just as it is represented, he did not believe; but, on the contrary, he held that some able, pious, and learned man had reduced it to its present order." Numerous later critics, however, recoiling from its exhibition of the supernatural, even under circumstances of pain and desertion which render God and invisible agency a necessity of the human mind, have resolved the narrative into a pure poetic fiction. The same anti-supernatural spell which dissolves the superhuman agencies into mists of the brain, constrains them at the same time to witch away Job (the assailed) and his assembled comforters out of the world of history. The first of these views involves us in too many unnatural suppositions; but the last—irreconcilable as it is with the spirit of ancient times, in which every myth had at least its nucleus in a man—is totally irreconcilable with the personal allusions to the patriarch in other portions of Scripture, where he is classed with Noah and Daniel,—they victorious over the destructive forces of nature, he a conqueror in the alchemy of spiritual powers. That much has been done by the author in the grouping of the materials of the old tradition, and in moulding the conversation of the speakers into their present dramatic form, so that each shall typify a distinct mode of human thought, and that their opinions shall stand out in clear contrast with the address of Elihu and of God, need not be denied. This leads directly to the question of the author, his age and country. There are four groups of hypotheses on this subject which claim to be considered. By some the author is supposed to have lived in patriarchal times, before the establishment of the Mosaic economy; by others he is regarded as contemporary with Solomon; while a third school fixes his floruit in the time of the exile; and a fourth professes to detect indications of modes of thinking prevalent in an age still later. The first of these, viz., the critics who assign the composition to anti-Mosaic times, err in too rashly confounding the author with his hero. They found their argument chiefly on the spirit and life of patriarchal times which animate the book, on the peculiar aspect which the religious teaching exhibits, and especially the absence of all reference to sacrifice or the Mosaic ritual. What may be called the Arabism of the language has also been adduced in support of this view; and, from the occurrence of quaint old phrases, the book has been thought to recede back to the early times when the separation of the dialects had only begun, but was far from being complete. To this latter argument, however, it is enough to answer that those antique phrases were ever the cream and sparkle of Hebrew poetry, if anything can be called antique in languages which exhibit so little of progress or of decay. To the former argument it seems sufficient to urge the possibility of an author, with the fixed habits of the nomad Arabs before his eyes, thoroughly to catch and appreciate the distinctive features of patriarchal life, if not also of patriarchal religion. In strange contrast with this opinion stands the estimate of those who hold the author to have been some prophet of the exile, or one flourishing after the restoration. Of course, to maintain such a theory the reference to Job in Ezekiel must be rejected as spurious; but it is not so easy to destroy the marks of imitation in passages copied from this book into the pages of Jeremiah, and even found in a number of the early psalms. On philological grounds, this theory is singularly inappropriate. If written in the exile, its composition is unique in the history of ancient literature, being pure in an age of Chaldæism, and vigorously masculine in an age of sinking nationality and of poetry still plaintive and touching, but essentially artistic and feeble. The main defence of such a notion rests in the supposed Persian origin of the doctrine given in Job in regard to Satan and the angels. It has, however, been abundantly shown that the representation there given is not necessarily Persian; but, on the contrary, so thoroughly consistent with the whole teaching of Hebrew Scripture, that it is scarcely possible to tell who are most in the wrong—those who, assuming Job to have been written in the days of Solomon or the exile, detect points at variance with the world's earlier beliefs; or those who, with Herder, Eichhorn, and Ewald, grant the antiquity of the book, but challenge the orthodoxy of its Satanology on the ground of later revelations. In favour of the only remaining opinion, which assigns the composition of the book to the days of Solomon, very much may be adduced, although there is little in the evidence that comes home to the mind with anything like resistless force. The spirit and power of its poetry marks a time of general vigour, and the age of David and Solomon was the golden age of Hebrew nationality and song. In the Psalms of David, too, there is a kindred strain of thought and expression (Psalms cii., civ., cvii., cxlviii.); and passages are imitated in all the boldness of their original passion—not feebly borrowed or extracted, as in the psalms of the exile and by the later prophets. In the Book of Proverbs, however, we find still closer affinities. The same features in the portrait of Wisdom, and in the representations of the abode of the dead, are to be found prominent and peculiar in both, while a host of common words and phrases point very expressively to a nearly contemporary age. Some weight is also due to the existence in Job of geographical allusions and descriptions of natural history with which the age of Solomon was at least the first to be familiar since the elder and simpler days of the patriarchs. We have thus the materials for fixing within certain wide limits the date of the book. The home and person of the poet are questions that admit of various and almost endless conjecture, since we are not constrained to identify his native country with the scenes which he familiarly depicts. Some have supposed him a foreigner—an Arab, perhaps, who may have wandered into the country, but who still thought and wrote somewhat aside from the ordinary ceremonial life of the Hebrews; and others think it more probable that he was an Israelite who had wandered forth from his native land to settle in Edomara or Egypt. Why it could not have been written by a Hebrew who remained at home,—marked, as it is, by the peculiar Hebrew ideas in regard to God and the unseen world, and displaying very little knowledge which the keen spirit of a prophet might not easily acquire under the guidance of that God, who not only inspires his servants by his breath but tutors them for their inspiration by his providence,—it is somewhat difficult to see. Several recent critics imagine it to have been written by a philosopher at the court of Solomon. With regard to the ethics of the book, and its relation to the great central doctrines of the cross and immortality, various theories are held according as the solution of the problem discussed is found in the remarks of one or other of the speakers. In consideration, however, of the successful rebuke which Job administers to his friends, and his own deep repentance in the presence of God for the rash words which he had spoken, it is scarcely credible that we should look for anything but broken fragments of truth in the passionate outbursts of folly which too frequently mar the speeches of either party. The knot is first untied in the remarks of Elihu, who, as the forerunner and vindicator of God, stands alone unrebuted. The Divine address adds only majesty and power to his appeal. All agree that the object of the book is the solution of the question how the afflictions of the righteous can be consistent with God's justice, and some regard the knot as not unloosed but merely cut. In cutting it, too, they think the whole doctrine of sacrifice and atonement is snapped in two. Stoic philosophy, according to Ewald, is all that is inculcated, and blind resignation to the will of fate. With the prologue and epilogue before us, in which the veil of God's designs is lifted, it is impossible to acquiesce in such a view. Nor did Job seek or obtain a Stoic's reward. Still it must be confessed that in the disposal of that solemn question of God's government, the Book of Job does not furnish a theodicee for the sufferers of all time. Whatever weight be given to the passage (six, chaps. 23-29) where Job appeals to his Redeemer acquittal, the burden of the doctrine of retribution is throughout more entirely thrown on the present life with its social changes than would be thought of now, when the judgment hereafter has been fully revealed. Nor is it difficult to see how this should happen. The ethics of the future life were then deeply veiled, and the existence of the soul after death was known in too shadowy a form to throw much weight into the balance when high moral problems were to be solved. Hence the mind of the poet is recalled from wandering into the region of the future in search of a solution; and in the present moral government of God, joined to his eternal existence, the ever-immortal soul finds an equally sure basis on which to rest its hopes. If the existence of God and of the soul after death be granted, then, although Job's language may not disclose a belief in a bodily resurrection, he loses nothing by fixing his faith on the instances, sometimes clouded, but often clear, of God's present retribution. Faith in a moral government hereafter is firmest when the two existences are viewed not in their contrast, but in their similarity. Many commentators, however, and with greater justice, regard this passage as showing Job's confidence in a bodily resurrection. (See article Hiob, by Delitzsch, in Herzog's Cyclopaedia; and for a list of commentators on the book, see Kitto's Biblical Cyclopaedia.)

JOEL, one of the twelve minor prophets, the son of Pethuel. Of his birth-place nothing is known with certainty; the pseudo-Epiphanius affirms that he was a native of Betha, in the tribe of Reuben. From the local allusions in his prophecy, we may infer that he discharged his office in the kingdom of Judah. Various opinions have been held respecting the period in which he lived. It appears most probable that he was contemporary with Amos and Isaiah, and delivered his predictions in the reign of Joash, between 877 and 847 B.C. This is the opinion of Credner, Winer, Movers, Ewald, Delitzsch, and others.

The style of Joel, it has been remarked, unites the strength of Micah with the tenderness of Jeremiah. In vividness of description he rivals Nahum; and in sublimity and majesty is scarcely inferior to Isaiah and Habakkuk. The canonicity of the book has never been called in question. Consult A Paraphrase and Critical Commentary on the Prophecy of Joel, by Samuel Chandler, 4to, London, 1745; Die Weissagung des Propheten Joel, übersetzt und erklart, von F. A. Holzhausen, Gottingen, 1829; Charakteristik der Bibel, von Dr A. H. Niemeyer, Halle, 1831, vol. v., pp. 295-302; Dr Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament, &c., transl. by Dr R. Keith, Washington, 1839, vol. iii., pp. 100-141.

JOGHIS, a sect of religious persons in the East Indies, who never marry, nor hold any private property, but live on alms, and practise strange severities or mortifications. They are subject to a general, who sends them from one country to another to preach. They are, properly, a kind of penitent pilgrims, and supposed to be a remnant of the ancient Gymnosophists. They principally frequent such places as are consecrated by the devotion of the people, and pretend to live several days together without either eating or drinking. After having gone through a course of discipline for a certain time, they look upon themselves as impeccable, and privileged to do any thing; in consequence of which they give a loose rein to their passions, and run into all manner of debauchery.

JOGUES, or YUGS, certain ages, eras, or periods of extraordinary length in the fabulous chronology of the Hindus. They are (see Halhed's Preface to the Code of Gentoo Laws, p. xxxvi.) four in number, viz.:

1. The Suttee Yug, or age of purity, which is said to have lasted three millions two hundred thousand years; and they hold that the life of man was extended in that age to one hundred thousand years, and that his stature was twenty-one cubits.

2. The Tirtah Yug, in which one-third of mankind was corrupted, they suppose to have consisted of two millions four hundred thousand years, during which men lived to the age of ten thousand years.

3. The Dwapar Yug, in which half of the human race became depraved, endured one million six hundred thousand years, during which the life of man was reduced to a thousand years. 4. The Collee Yug, in which all mankind were corrupted, or rather lessened (for that is the true meaning of the word Collee), is the present era, which they suppose ordained to subsist four hundred thousand years, and of which nearly five thousand are already past. The life of man in this period is limited to one hundred years.

Some account has already been given of the Indian chronology (see articles Chronology and Hindustan), and it is therefore unnecessary to recur to the subject in this place. But we may nevertheless subjoin Dr Robertson's observations on the above periods, from the Notes to his Historical Disquisition concerning India. "If," says he, "we suppose the computation of time in the Indian chronology to be made by solar or even by lunar years, nothing can be more extravagant in itself, or more repugnant to our mode of calculating the duration of the world, founded on sacred and infallible authority. From one circumstance, however, which merits attention, we may conclude that the information which we have hitherto received concerning the chronology of the Hindus is very incorrect. We have, as far as I know, only five original accounts of the different Joguees or eras of the Hindus. The first is given by M. Rogers, who received it from the Brahmins on the Coromandel coast. According to it, the Suttee Joguee is a period of one million seven hundred and twenty-eight thousand years; the Tirtah Joguee is one million two hundred and ninety-six thousand years; the Dwapar Joguee is eight hundred and sixty-four thousand. The duration of the Collee Joguee he does not specify (Porte Ouverte, p. 179). The next is that of M. Bernier, who received it from the Brahmins of Benares. According to it, the duration of the Suttee Joguee was two millions five hundred thousand years; that of the Tirtah Joguee, one million two hundred thousand years, that of the Dwapar Joguee is eight hundred and sixty-four thousand years. Concerning the period of the Collee Joguee he is likewise silent (Voyages, tom. ii., p. 160). The third is that of Colonel Dow; according to which the Suttee Joguee is a period of fourteen millions of years, the Tirtah Joguee one million and eighty thousand, the Dwapar Joguee seventy-two thousand, and the Collee Joguee thirty-six thousand years (Hist. of Hindostan, vol. i., p. 2). The fourth account is that of M. Legentil, who received it from the Brahmins of the Coromandel coast; and as his information was acquired in the same part of India, and derived from the same source with that of M. Rogers, it agrees with his in every particular (Mem. de l'Academie des Sciences pour 1772, tom. ii., part i., p. 176). The fifth is the account of Mr Halliday, which has been already given. From this discrepancy, not only of the total numbers, but of many of the articles in the different accounts, it is manifest that our information concerning Indian chronology is hitherto as uncertain as the whole system of it is wild and fabulous. To me it appears highly probable, that when we understand more thoroughly the principles upon which the fictitious eras or joguees of the Hindus have been formed, that we may be more able to reconcile their chronology to the true mode of computing time, founded on the authority of the Old Testament; and may likewise find reason to conclude that the account given by their astronomers of the situation of the heavenly bodies at the beginning of the Collee Joguee, is not established by actual observation, but the result of a retrospective calculation."

JOHANNA, HINZUAN, or ANZUAN, one of the Comoro islands, situate in the Mozambique Channel, between Africa and Madagascar. It is of an irregular triangular form, 24 miles in length by 18 in breadth, and is highly picturesque. Its highest peak, in S. Lat. 12. 15° E. Long. 44. 29°, rises about 6000 feet above the sea-level. The soil is fertile and well watered, producing cocoanuts, limes, oranges, yams, rice, millet, &c. Pop. about 20,000.

JOHANNISBERG, a village of Germany, duchy of Nassau, near the E. bank of the Rhine, 12 miles W. of Mentz. Its vineyards produce the finest of the Rhenish wines.

JOHN THE BAPTIST, the forerunner of the Lord, was the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, the latter "a cousin of Mary," the mother of Jesus, whose senior John was by a period of six months. The exact spot where he was born is not determined. The rabbins fix on Hebron, in the hill-country of Judaea; Paulus, Knipoeel, and Meyer, after Re-land, are in favour of Jutta, "a city of Judah." His father, while engaged in burning incense, was visited by the angel Gabriel, who informed him that in compliance with his prayers his wife should bear a son, whose name he should call John, and who should, by his pure life and fervid preaching, prepare the way for the long-expected Messiah. Zacharias unbelieving receives a sign, which acts also as a punishment—his tongue is sealed till the prediction is fulfilled by the event. Six months after Elizabeth had conceived she received a visit from Mary, the future mother of Jesus. On being saluted by her relation, Elizabeth felt her babe leap in her womb, and, being filled with the Holy Spirit, she broke forth into a poetical congratulation to Mary, as the destined mother of her Lord. At length Elizabeth brought forth a son, whom the relatives were disposed to name Zacharias, after his father—but Elizabeth was led to wish that he should be called John. The matter was referred to the father, who signified in writing that his name was to be John. This agreement with Elizabeth caused all to marvel. Zacharias now had his tongue loosed, and he first employed his restored power in praising God.

As a consequence of the lofty parental influences under which he was nurtured, the child waxed strong in spirit. The sacred writer adds, that "he was in the deserts till the day of his showing unto Israel." The apocryphal Protev. Jac., chap. xxiii., states that his mother, to rescue her son from the murder of the children at Bethlehem, fled with him into the desert. She found no place of refuge; the mountain opened at her request, and gave the needed shelter in its bosom. Zacharias refusing to disclose their retreat was slain by Herod. At a later period Elizabeth died, when angels took the youth under their care. In the fifteenth year of the Emperor Tiberius, John made his public appearance in the wild mountainous tract of Judaea, exhibiting the austerity, the costume, and the manner of life of the ancient Jewish prophets (Luke iii.; Matt. iii.).

The burden of John's preaching bore no slight resemblance to the old prophetic exhortations, whose last echo had now died away for centuries. He called upon the Jewish people to repent, to change their dispositions and affections, and thus prepared the way for the great doctrine promulgated by his Lord, of the necessity of a spiritual regeneration. The reason assigned by him for entering on his perilous office was that the kingdom of God was at hand, and the high moral tone of his teaching shows, that in the true prophetic ardour no blot of sensuous expectation defaced the meaning of the expression.

The more than prophetic fame of the Baptist reached the ears of Jesus in his Nazarene dwelling, far distant from the locality of John (Matt. ii. 22-23). The nature of the report—namely, that his divinely-predicted forerunner had appeared in Judaea—showed our Lord that the time was now come for his being made manifest to Israel. Accordingly he comes to the place where John was then baptizing, in order that thus he might fulfill all that was required under the dispensation which was about to disappear. John's sense of inferiority inclines him to ask rather than to give baptism in the case of Jesus, who, however, wills to have it so, and is accordingly baptized of John. Immediately on the termination of this symbolical act, a divine attestation is given from the opened vault of heaven, declaring Jesus to be in truth the long looked-for Messiah. The relation which subsisted between John and Jesus after the emphatic testimony above recorded had been borne, we have not the materials to describe with full certainty. It seems but natural to think that John would forthwith lay down his office of harbinger, which, now that the Sun of Righteousness himself had appeared, was entirely fulfilled and terminated. Such a step he does not appear to have taken. On the contrary, the language of Scripture seems to imply that the Baptist church continued side by side with the Messianic, and remained long after John's execution. Indeed, a sect which bears the name of "John's disciples," exists to the present day in the East, whose sacred books are said to be pervaded by a Gnostic leaven. They are hostile alike to Judaism and Christianity, and their John and Jesus are altogether different from the characters bearing these names in our evangelists. Though it has been generally assumed that John did not lay down his office, other explanations may be given of the facts. John may have ceased to execute his own peculiar work, as the forerunner, but may justifiably have continued to bear his most important testimony to the Messiahship of Christ; or he may even have altogether given up the duties of active life some time, at least, before his death; and yet his disciples, both before and after that event, may have maintained their individuality as a religious communion. Nor is it improbable that some misconception may have had weight in preventing the Baptist church from dissolving, and that with a view to remove some error of this kind that John afterwards sent the embassy of his disciples to Jesus. The manner of John's death is too well known to require to be detailed. He reproved a tyrant for a heinous crime, and received his reward in decapitation. Josephus, however, assigns a purely political cause for his execution, but there is no contrariety between his account and that given in the New Testament. Both may be true: John was condemned in the mind of Herod on political grounds, as endangering his position, and executed on private and ostensible grounds, in order to gratify a malicious but powerful woman.

The castle of Machærus, where John was imprisoned and beheaded, was a fortress lying on the southern extremity of Peræa, at the top of the Lake Asphaltites, between the dominions of Herod and Aretas, king of Arabia Petraea, and at the time of our history appears to have belonged to the former (Lardner, vi. 483). At the time of the tragedy, Herod was on his route towards the territories of Aretas, with whom he was at war. Bishop Marsh (Lecture xxvi.) remarks, that the soldiers, who are said to have come to John while baptizing in the Jordan, are designated by a term which denotes persons actually engaged in war, not merely soldiers. In the same way, the officer sent to bring John's head bears a military title. These minute indications afford a very strong evidence of the credibility of the sacred narratives. We also see a reason why Herodias was present on this occasion, since she was Herod's paramour, and had, "like another Helen," led to the war.

John, St., the Apostle, was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman, and of Salome. It is probable that he was born at Bethsaida, on the Lake of Galilee. His parents appear to have been in easy circumstances; at least, we find that Zebedee employed hired servants, and that Salome was among the number of those women who contributed to the maintenance of Jesus. We also find that John received Mary into his house after the death of Jesus. Since this house seems to have been situated at Jerusalem, it would appear that he was the owner of two houses. John's acquaintance, also, with the high-priest seems to indicate that he lived at Jerusalem, and belonged to the wealthier class. On the banks of the Jordan the Baptist directed John to Jesus, and he immediately became the Lord's disciple, and accompanied him on his return to Galilee. Having arrived there, he at first resumed his trade, but was afterwards called to remain permanently with the Re-Gospel of deemer. Jesus was particularly attached to John, who St. John was one of the three who were distinguished above the other apostles. After the ascension, John abode at Jerusalem, where Paul met him on his third journey, about the year 52. Since he had undertaken the care of the mother of Jesus we cannot well suppose that he left Jerusalem before Mary's death; and, indeed, we find that about the year 58, when Paul was at Ephesus, John was not yet living there. If we consider the great importance of Ephesus among the various churches of Asia Minor, and the dangers arising from false teachers, who were prevalent there as early as the days of Paul (Acts xx. 29), it will appear likely that John was sent to Ephesus after Paul had left that scene, about the year 65. During the time of his activity in Asia Minor he was exiled by the Roman emperor to Patmos, one of the Sporadic isles in the Ægean Sea, where, according to Revelations i. 9, he wrote the Apocalypse. Irenæus (Adv. Haer. v. 30), and, following him, Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 18), state that John beheld the visions of the Apocalypse about the close of the reign of Domitian. If this statement can be depended upon, the exile to Patmos also took place under Domitian, who died A.D. 96. Terullian relates that in the reign of Domitian, John was forcibly conveyed to Rome, where he was thrown into a cask of oil; that he was miraculously released, and then brought to Patmos. But since no other of the ancient writers relates this circumstance, and since this mode of capital punishment was unheard of at Rome, we ought not to lay much stress upon it. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, writing about A.D. 200, calls him martyr, but it is probable that he alludes only to his exile. According to Eusebius, he returned from exile during the reign of Nerva. The three epistles of John, as also the affecting account concerning his fidelity as a spiritual pastor, given by Clemens Alexandrinus, testify that he was the pastor of a large diocese. John died at Ephesus past the age of ninety, in the reign of the Emperor Trajan. According to Jerome, he was a hundred years old, and according to Suidas, a hundred and twenty.

John, St., Gospel of. During the eighteenth century and the first ten years of the nineteenth, the Gospel of John was attacked, but with feeble arguments, by some English Deists, and by four German theologians. A similar attack has lately been made by Strauss, whose arguments, however, have met with little sympathy even in Germany. It may suffice to observe, that till the end of the eighteenth century, no one ever expressed a doubt respecting the genuineness of John's Gospel, except one small sect, whose skepticism was not based upon historical, but merely upon dogmatical grounds.

John's Gospel differs very much in substance from the first three Gospels. The most striking difference, more apparent, however, in form than in substance, is that of the speeches. The difference of the contents may be accounted for by supposing that John intended to confine himself to such communications as were wanting in the others, particularly with regard to the speeches of Jesus. The peculiarities of his Gospel more especially consist in the four following doctrines:—1. That of the mystical relation of the Son to the Father. 2. That of the mystical relation of the Redeemer to believers. 3. The announcement of the Holy Ghost as the comforter. 4. The peculiar importance ascribed to love.

Although there can be shown in the writings of the other evangelists some isolated dicta of the Lord, which seem to bear the impress of John, it can also be shown that they contain thoughts not originating with that disciple, but with the Lord himself. Matthew (xi. 27) speaks of the relation of the Son to the Father so entirely in the style of John, that persons not sufficiently versed in Holy Writ are apt to search for this passage in the Gospel of John. The mysti- cal union of the Son with believers is expressed in Matt. xxviii. 20. The promise of the effusion of the Holy Ghost, in order to perfect the disciples, is found in Luke xix. 49.

The doctrine of Paul with respect to love, in 1 Cor. xiii., entirely resembles what, according to John, Christ taught on the same subject. Paul here deserves our particular attention. In the writings of Paul are found Christian truths which have their points of coalescence only in John, viz., that Christ is the image of the invisible God, by whom all things are created (Col. i. 15, 16). Paul considers the Spirit of God in the Church, the spiritual Christ, as Jesus himself does (John xiv. 16).

That the speeches of Christ have been faithfully reported, may be seen by a comparison of the speeches of the Baptist in the Gospel of John. The Baptist's speeches bear an entirely Old Testament character; they are full of allusions to the Old Testament, and abound in sententious expressions (John iii. 27-30; i. 26-36).

Most of the earlier critics considered the Gospel of John to have had a polemico-dogmatical purport. According to Irenaeus, John wrote with the intention of combating the errors of Cerinthus the Gnostic. Others suppose that his writings were directed against the disciples of John the Baptist. It is not improbable that the evangelist had in view, both in his introduction, and also in chap. xix. 34, 35, some heretical opinions of those times; but it cannot be maintained that this is the case throughout the whole of the Gospel. He himself states (xx. 31) that his work had a more general object.

One of the peculiarities of John is, that in speaking of the adversaries of Jesus, he always calls them the Jews. This observation has, in modern times, given rise to a peculiar opinion concerning the plan of John's Gospel, namely, that the Evangelist has, from the very beginning of the Gospel, the following theme before his eyes—The eternal combat between Divine light and the corruption of mankind, exemplified by the mutual opposition subsisting between the hostile Jewish party and the manifestation of the Son of God, which combat terminates in the victory of light.

The introduction of the Gospel of John expresses this theme in speaking of the opposition of the world to the incarnate Logos. This theme is here expressed in the same manner as the leading idea of a musical composition is expressed in the overture. The Gospel is divided into two principal sections. The first extends to chap. xii. It comprehends the public functions of Jesus, and terminates with a brief summary (verses 44-50). The second section contains the history of the Passion and of the Resurrection.

The Fathers supposed that the Gospel of John was written at Ephesus, and there is some internal evidence in favour of the statement. One writer affirms that John wrote the Gospel which bears his name in Patmos, but that it was edited by the same Gaius whom Paul in the Epistle to the Romans calls mine host. One might be inclined to explain by this circumstance the postscript contained in John xxii. 24, 25.

JOHN, St, the Epistles of. For the authenticity of the First Epistle very ancient testimony may be adduced. Papias, the disciple of John, quotes some passages from it. Polycarp, also, another disciple of John, quotes a passage from this Epistle. So also Irenaeus.

The author of the First Epistle describes himself, at its commencement, as an eye-witness of the life of our Lord. The style and language manifestly harmonize with those of the author of the Gospel of John. The polemics, also, which, in chap. ii. 18-26, are directed against the Docetic Gnostics, in chap. iv. 1-3 agree with the sphere of action in Asia Minor in which the Evangelist John was placed. We may, therefore, suppose that the Epistle was written to Christian congregations in Asia Minor, which were placed under the spiritual care of the apostle. It is generally admitted that chap. i. 2 refers to the Gospel. If this is correct, the apostle wrote this Epistle at a very advanced age, after he had written his Gospel. The Epistle breathes love and devotion, but also zeal for moral strictness (chap. iii. 6-8; v. 16). There is a remarkable absence of logical connection in the form of separate expressions, and in the transitions from one thought to another. Some writers have been inclined to find a reason for this in the advanced age of the writer. Old age may, perhaps, have contributed to this characteristic, but it is chiefly attributable to the mental peculiarity of the apostle. There has been no subject connected with biblical literature which has attracted more attention than this Epistle, in consequence of the controversies which have existed since the commencement of the sixteenth century, respecting the celebrated passage in I John v. 7, 8. We cannot enter here into the history of that controversy, which has continued with more or less of asperity to our own day. We shall merely remark that the disputed passage is found in no Greek manuscript, save only in two, both belonging to the fifteenth century; and that it has not once been quoted by any of the Greek, Latin, or Oriental fathers. It is now, therefore, generally omitted in all critical editions of the New Testament.

The Second and Third Epistles of John were originally wanting in the ancient Syriac translation. From their nature, it may easily be explained how it happened that they were less generally known in ancient Christian congregations, and that the fathers do not quote them so often as other parts of Scripture, since they are very short, and treat of private affairs. The private nature of their contents removes also the suspicion that they could have been forged, since it would be difficult to discover any purpose which could have led to such a forgery.

The Second Epistle is addressed to a lady, called Kuria, which name frequently occurs in ancient writers as that of a woman.

The Third Epistle is addressed to Gaius, a person otherwise unknown. It is remarkable that the writer of this Epistle calls himself "the presbyter" or "elder." Some writers have been inclined to ascribe these letters to the presbyter John, who is sometimes spoken of in the ancient church, and to whom even the Apocalypse has been attributed; but if the presbyter John wrote these Epistles, John's Gospel also must be ascribed to the same person, of whom otherwise so little is known. This, however, is inadmissible. We may suppose that the term "presbyter" or "elder" expressed in the Epistles of John a degree of friendliness, and was chosen on account of the advanced age of the writer. The apostle Paul, also, in his friendly letter to Philemon, abstains from the title apostle. The circumstances and events in the church, to which the Second Epistle alludes, coincide with those which are otherwise known to have happened in John's congregation. Here, also, are allusions to the dangers arising from the Gnostic heresy. The admonition, in verse 10, not to receive such heretics as Christian brethren, agrees with the ancient tradition, that John made haste to quit a public bath after Cerinthus the Gnostic entered it, declaring he was afraid the building would fall down.

JOHN.—Twenty-three popes of this name have occupied the chair of St Peter. The subjoined table gives the dates of the accession and death of each.

| Year of Accession | Died | |------------------|------| | John I | 532 | | John II | 532 | | John III | 550 | | John IV | 640 | | John V | 686 | | John VI | 702 | | John VII | 705 | | John VIII | 872 |

| Succeeded | Year of Accession | |------------------|-------------------| | Hormisdas | 532 | | Boniface II | 532 | | Pelagius I | 550 | | Severinus | 640 | | Benedict II | 686 | | Sergius I | 702 | | John VI | 705 | | Adrian II | 872 | The history of the Papacy about the end of the tenth, and beginning of the eleventh centuries, is even still very obscure, and the chronology is extremely confused. It is not exactly known whether the Johns XV., and XVI. were different persons, or the same pope twice included in the enumeration. John XVII., again, is by some denied to have ever been lawfully installed in the pontifical chair; but he is generally included in the list. For John IX., see Pope John.

John, King of England, was the son of Henry II., and the younger brother of Richard Cœur de Lion, on whose death, in 1199, he succeeded to the throne of England. He died in 1216. See England, and Britain.

John, King of France, surnamed "The Good," was born in 1319, and succeeded his father, Philippe de Valois (Philip V.) in 1350. He was defeated at Poitiers in 1356 by the Black Prince, and died in London in 1364. French historians generally style him John II., to distinguish him from John I., the title of a posthumous son of Louis X., who died in 1316 at the age of a few months. See France.

John I., King of Castile and Leon, was born in 1358, came to the throne in 1379, and died in 1390. John II., born in 1405, and died in 1454. See Spain.

John I., King of Portugal, born in 1357, usurped the throne in 1384, and died in 1433. John II., surnamed "the Perfect," son of Alphonso and Isabella, was born in 1455, and succeeded his father in 1481. After a brilliant but stormy reign of fourteen years, he died in 1495. John III., son of Emmanuel the Great and Mary of Castile, was born in 1502, mounted the throne in 1521, and died in 1557. John IV., son of Theodore, seventh Duke of Braganza, and head of that house, was born in 1604. His native country had at this time become an appanage of Spain. He headed the Portuguese in throwing off the Spanish yoke, was elected king in 1640, and died in 1656. John V., son of Peter II. and Elizabeth of Bavaria, was born in 1689, and mounted the throne in 1705. After a forty-five years' reign of almost unbroken peace, he died in 1750. John VI., born in 1767, began at the age of twenty-six to reign in the name of his imbecile mother. Spending his life alternately in Portugal and Brazil, he settled in Portugal in 1821, and died in 1826. See Portugal.

John I., King of Sweden, was the son of Sverker the Younger, and was thence called Sverkeron. He reigned from 1216 to 1222. John II., of Sweden and I. of Denmark, was the son of Christian I., of the House of Oldenburg, and was born in 1455. He was proclaimed King of Norway and Denmark in 1483, and finally of Sweden in 1497. Expelled from the latter kingdom in 1512, he retired to Denmark, where he died in the following year. John III., of Sweden, son of Gustavus Vasa, was born in 1537, usurped the throne in 1568, and died in 1591. See Sweden, and Denmark.

John of Salisbury, a learned English ecclesiastic, and the biographer of the two archbishops of Canterbury, Anselm and Thomas à Beckett. Comparatively little is known of his personal history. He was born about the beginning of the twelfth century, and seems at an early age to have passed over to France, where Abelard, though nearing the close of his public career, was still teaching with as splendid success as in the prime of manhood. "I drank in with incredible avidity," wrote his young English admirer, "every word that fell from his lips, but he soon, to my infinite regret, retired." John then turned to other studies, and lost himself for two years in the subtleties of the scholastic logic. Grammar and rhetoric next engaged his thoughts for three years; and at the end of that period he began a seven years' course of the classics, mathematics, and theology. After a flying visit to England, John returned to France, whence he directed his steps southwards to Italy. At Rome he was kindly received by the Pope Eugene III., and afterwards by his successor Adrian IV. With the latter of these pontiffs he was an especial favourite. "Though Adrian had a mother and a brother," he wrote in his Metalogicus, "I fear not to say that he preferred me to them. He declared in public and in private that I was of all men whom he loved most tenderly. His exalted position did not prevent him from admitting me to his table. He insisted that we should drink out of the same glass, and eat off the same plate." In the intervals of teaching and travelling, John had written his Metalogicus, an attack on the absurdity and danger of wasting so much time as it was the fashion of that age to do, in the sheerest quibbles of the wrangling art. With unsparing ridicule and invective he laughs the scholastic doctors to scorn for gravely debating such questions as "How many angels can dance at a time on the point of a needle?" or, "Whether, when a hog is carried to market by a man with a rope tied round its neck, the hog is really carried to market by the man or the rope?" So keen, indeed, is he in his onslaught on scholastic philosophy as fatal to the grace and refinement of poetry and polite literature in general, that he shits his eyes against its real merits and uses, and sees only the ridiculous extravagances of its fanatical devotees. This work was dedicated to Thomas à Becket, then engaged with Henry II. at the siege of Toulouse; and so pleased was he with the compliment that when he was promoted to the see of Canterbury, he made its author his secretary. In this capacity, John became, as is recorded by a contemporary, the eye and hand of the bishop. In his disgrace he accompanied him to France, and, after an exile of seven years, returned with him to England, and was with him at the moment when he was put to death. He remained attached to the cathedral of Canterbury till 1176, when he was elected Bishop of Chartres. He spent the rest of his life in his diocese, and died October 25, in 1182. His greatest work was Polygraphicus, sive de nugis Curialium et Vestigiis Philosophorum libri octo, characterized by Warton as "an extremely pleasant miscellany, replete with erudition and a judgment of men and things, which properly belongs to a more sensible and reflecting period." The work is intended to expose the frivolities of the great, and of such as spend their lives at courts; and is marked by a vein of caustic satire, sometimes verging on the extreme limits of good taste. But the general accomplishments and literary faculty displayed in it are such as one looks for in vain in almost any other book of that period. Its author's character had always stood high as a refined scholar, an elegant Latin poet, and an impressive orator. The researches of modern scholars have merely gone to confirm the idea that John was the most learned and accomplished man of his age. (Leland; Craik's Hist. Eng. Lit.; Biog. Univ.; Hist. Lit. de la France, &c., &c.)

John or Jan, St., one of the Virgin Islands in the West Indies, belonging to Denmark, and lying 4 miles E. off St Thomas, in N. Lat. 18. 18., W. Long. 64. 49. It is about 9 miles long and 4 in breadth, rising to a considerable height in the centre, and having generally a very uneven surface. Exports trifling. Pop. (1850) 2228.