JAMES, JOHN ANGELL(1785-1859), English Nonconformist divine, was born at Blandford, Dorsetshire, on the 6th of June 1785. At the close of his seven years’ apprenticeship to a linen-draper at Poole he decided to become a preacher, and in 1802 he went to David Bogue’s training institution at Gosport. A year and a half later, on a visit to Birmingham, his preaching was so highly esteemed by the congregation of Carr’s Lane Independent chapel that they invited him to exercise his ministry amongst them; he settled there in 1805, and was ordained in May 1806. For several years his success as a preacher was comparatively small; but he jumped into popularity about 1814, and began to attract large crowds wherever he officiated. At the same time his religious writings, the best known of which areThe Anxious InquirerandAn Earnest Ministry, acquired a wide circulation. James was a typical Congregational preacher of the early 19th century, massive and elaborate rather than original. His preaching displayed little or nothing of Calvinism, the earlier severity of which had been modified in Birmingham by Edward Williams, one of his predecessors. He was one of the founders of the Evangelical Alliance and of the Congregational Union of England and Wales. Municipal interests appealed strongly to him, and he was also for many years chairman of Spring Hill (afterwards Mansfield) College. He died at Birmingham on the 1st of October 1859.
A collected edition of James’s works appeared in 1860-1864. SeeA Review of the Life and Character of J. Angell James(1860), by J. Campbell, andLife and Letters of J. A. James(1861), edited by his successor, R. W. Dale, who also contributed a sketch of his predecessor toPulpit Memorials(1878).
A collected edition of James’s works appeared in 1860-1864. SeeA Review of the Life and Character of J. Angell James(1860), by J. Campbell, andLife and Letters of J. A. James(1861), edited by his successor, R. W. Dale, who also contributed a sketch of his predecessor toPulpit Memorials(1878).
JAMES, THOMAS(c.1573-1629), English librarian, was born at Newport, Isle of Wight. He was educated at Winchester and New College, Oxford, and became a fellow of New College in 1593. His wide knowledge of books, together with his skill in deciphering manuscripts and detecting literary forgeries, secured him in 1602 the post of librarian to the library founded in that year by Sir Thomas Bodley at Oxford. At the same time he was made rector of St Aldate’s, Oxford. In 1605 he compiled a classified catalogue of the books in the Bodleian Library, but in 1620 substituted for it an alphabetical catalogue. The arrangement in 1610, whereby the Stationers’ Company undertook to supply the Bodleian Library with every book published, was James’s suggestion. Ill health compelled him to resign his post in 1620, and he died at Oxford in August 1629.
JAMES, WILLIAM(d. 1827), English naval historian, author of theNaval History of Great Britain from the Declaration of War by France in 1793 to the Accession of George IV., practised as a proctor in the admiralty court of Jamaica between 1801 and 1813. He was in the United States when the war of 1812 broke out, and was detained as a prisoner, but escaped to Halifax. His literary career began by letters to theNaval Chronicleover the signature of “Boxer.” In 1816 he publishedAn Inquiry into the Merits of the Principal Naval Actions between Great Britain and the United States. In this pamphlet, which James reprinted in 1817, enlarged and with a new title, his object was to prove that the American frigates were stronger than their British opponents nominally of the same class. In 1819 he began hisNaval History, which appeared in five volumes (1822-1824), and was reprinted in six volumes (1826). It is a monument of painstaking accuracy in all such matters as dates, names, tonnage, armament and movements of ships, though no attempt is ever made to show the connexion between the various movements. James died on the 28th of May 1827 in London, leaving a widow who received a civil list pension of £100.
An edition of theNaval Historyin six volumes, with additions and notes by Capt. F. Chamier, was published in 1837, and a further one in 1886. An edition epitomized by R. O’Byrne appeared in 1888, and anIndexby C. G. Toogood was issued by the Navy Records Society in 1895.
An edition of theNaval Historyin six volumes, with additions and notes by Capt. F. Chamier, was published in 1837, and a further one in 1886. An edition epitomized by R. O’Byrne appeared in 1888, and anIndexby C. G. Toogood was issued by the Navy Records Society in 1895.
JAMES, WILLIAM(1842-1910), American philosopher, son of the Swedenborgian theologian Henry James, and brother of the novelist Henry James, was born on the 11th of January 1842 at New York City. He graduated M.D. at Harvard in 1870. Two years after he was appointed a lecturer at Harvard in anatomy and physiology, and later in psychology and philosophy. Subsequently he became assistant professor of philosophy (1880-1885), professor (1885-1889), professor of psychology (1889-1897) and professor of philosophy (1897-1907). In 1899-1901 he delivered the Gifford lectures on natural religion at the university of Edinburgh, and in 1908 the Hibbert lectures at Manchester College, Oxford. With the appearance of hisPrinciples of Psychology(2 vols., 1890), James at once stepped into the front rank of psychologists as a leader of the physical school, a position which he maintained not only by the brilliance of his analogies but also by the freshness and unconventionality of his style. In metaphysics he upheld the idealist position from the empirical standpoint. Beside thePrinciples of Psychology, which appeared in a shorter form in 1892 (Psychology), his chief works are:The Will to Believe(1897);Human Immortality(Boston, 1898);Talks to Teachers(1899);The Varieties of Religious Experience(New York, 1902);Pragmatism—a New Name for some Old Ways of Thinking(1907);A Pluralistic Universe(1909; Hibbert lectures), in which, though he still attacked the hypothesis of absolutism, he admitted it as a legitimate alternative. He received honorary degrees from Padua (1893), Princeton (1896), Edinburgh (1902), Harvard (1905). He died on the 27th of August 1910.
JAMES OF HEREFORD, HENRY JAMES,1st Baron(1828- ), English lawyer and statesman, son of P. T. James, surgeon, was born at Hereford on the 30th of October 1828, and educated at Cheltenham College. A prizeman of the Inner Temple, he was called to the bar in 1852 and joined the Oxford circuit, where he soon came into prominence. In 1867 he was made “postman” of the court of exchequer, and in 1869 became a Q.C. At the general election of 1868 he obtained a seat in parliament for Taunton as a Liberal, by the unseating of Mr Serjeant Cox on a scrutiny in March 1869, and he kept the seat till 1885, when he was returned for Bury. He attracted attention in parliament by his speeches in 1872 in the debates on the Judicature Act. In 1873 (September) he was made solicitor-general, and in November attorney-general, and knighted; and when Gladstone returned to power in 1880 he resumed his office. He was responsible for carrying the Corrupt Practices Act of 1883. On Gladstone’s conversion to Home Rule, Sir Henry James parted from him and became one of the most influential of the Liberal Unionists: Gladstone had offered him the lord chancellorship in 1886, but he declined it; and the knowledgeof the sacrifice he had made in refusing to follow his old chief in his new departure lent great weight to his advocacy of the Unionist cause in the country. He was one of the leading counsel forThe Timesbefore the Parnell Commission, and from 1892 to 1895 was attorney-general to the prince of Wales. From 1895 to 1902 he was a member of the Unionist ministry as chancellor for the duchy of Lancaster, and in 1895 he was made a peer as Baron James of Hereford. In later years he was a prominent opponent of the Tariff Reform movement, adhering to the section of Free Trade Unionists.
JAMES, EPISTLE OF,a book of the New Testament. The superscription (Jas. i. 1) ascribes it to that pre-eminent “pillar” (Gal. ii. 9) of the original mother church who later came to be regarded in certain quarters as the “bishop of bishops” (Epist. of James to Clement,ap. Clem. Hom.Superscription). As such he appears in a position to address an encyclical to “the twelve tribes of the dispersion”; for the context (i. 18, v. 7 seq.) and literary relation (cf. 1 Pet. i. 1, 3, 23-25) prove this to be a figure for the entire new people of God, without the distinction of carnal birth, as Paul had described “the Israel of God” (Gal. vi. 16), spiritually begotten, like Isaac, by the word received in faith (Gal. iii. 28 seq., iv. 28; Rom. ix. 6-9, iv. 16-18). This idea of the spiritually begotten Israel becomes current after 1 Pet., as appears in John i. 11-13, iii. 3-8; Barn. iv. 6, xiii. 13; 2 Clem. ii. 2, &c.
The interpretation which takes the expression “the twelve tribes” literally, and conceives the brother of the Lord as sending an epistle written in the Greek language throughout the Christian world, but as addressing Jewish Christians only (soe.g.Sieffert, s.v. “Jacobus im N.T.” in Hauck,Realencykl.ed. 1900, vol. viii.), assumes not only such divisive interference as Paul might justly resent (cf. Gal. ii. 1-10), but involves a strange idea of conditions. Were worldliness, tongue religion, moral indifference, the distinctive marks of the Jewish element? Surely the rebukes of James apply to conditions of the whole Church and not sporadic Jewish-Christian conventicles in the Greek-speaking world, if any such existed.
It is at least an open question whether the superscription (connected with that of Jude) be not a later conjecture prefixed by some compiler of the catholic epistles, but of the late date implied in our interpretation of ver. 1 there should be small dispute. Whatever the currency in classical circles of the epistle as a literary form, it is irrational to put first in the development of Christian literature a general epistle, couched in fluent, even rhetorical, Greek, and afterwards the Pauline letters, which both as to origin and subsequent circulation were a product of urgent conditions. The order consonant with history is (1) Paul’s “letters” to “the churches of” a province (Gal. i. 2; 2 Cor. i. 1); (2) the address to “the elect of the dispersion” in a group of the Pauline provinces (1 Pet. i. 1); (3) the address to “the twelve tribes of the dispersion” everywhere (Jas. i. 1; cf. Rev. vii. 2-4). James, like 1 John, is a homily, even more lacking than 1 John in every epistolary feature, not even supplied with the customary epistolary farewell. The superscription, if original, compels us to treat the whole writing as not only late but pseudonymous. If prefixed by conjecture, to secure recognition and authority for the book, even this was at first a failure. The earliest trace of any recognition of it is in Origen (A.D.230) who refers to it as “said to be from James” (φερομέγη ἡ Ἰακώβου Ἐπιστολή), seeming thus to regard ver. 1 as superscription rather than part of the text. Eusebius (A.D.325) classifies it among the disputed books, declaring that it is regarded as spurious, and that not many of the ancients have mentioned it. Even Jerome (A.D.390), though personally he accepted it, admits that it was “said to have been published by another in the name of James.” The Syrian canon of the Peshitta was the first to admit it.
Modern criticism naturally made the superscription its starting-point, endeavouring first to explain the contents of the writing on this theory of authorship, but generally reaching the conclusion that the two do not agree. Conservatives as a rule avoid the implication of a direct polemic against Paul in ii. 14-26, which would lay open the author to the bitter accusations launched against the interlopers of 2 Cor. x.-xiii., by dating before the Judaistic controversy. Other critics regard the very language alone as fatal to such a theory of date, authorship and circle addressed. The contents, ignoring the conflict of Jew and Gentile, complaining of worldiness and tongue-religion (cf. 1 John iii. 17 seq. with James ii. 14-16) suggest a much later date than the death of James (A.D.62-66). They also require a different character in the author, if not also a different circle of readers from those addressed in i. 1.The prevalent conditions seem to be those of the Greek church of the post-apostolic period, characterized by worldiness of life, profession without practice, and a contentious garrulity of teaching (1 John iii. 3-10, 18; 1 Tim. i. 6 seq., vi. 3-10; 2 Tim. iii. 1-5, iv. 3 seq.). The author meets these with the weapons commanded for the purpose in 1 Tim. vi. 3, but quite in the spirit of one of the “wise men” of the Hebrew wisdom literature. His gospel is completely denationalized, humanitarian; but, while equally universalistic, is quite unsympathetic towards the doctrine and the mysticism of Paul. He has nothing whatever to say of the incarnation, life, example, suffering or resurrection of Jesus, and does not interest himself in the doctrines of Christ’s person, which were hotly debated up to this time. The absence of all mention of Christ (with the single exception of ii. 1, where there is reason to think the wordsἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦinterpolated) has even led to the theory, ably but unconvincingly maintained by Spitta, that the writing is a mere recast of a Jewish moralistic writing like theTwo Ways. The thoughts are loosely strung together: yet the following seems to be the general framework on which the New Testament preacher has collected his material.1. The problem of evil (i. 1-19a). Outward trials are for our development through aid of divinely given “wisdom” (2-11). Inward (moral) trials are not to be imputed to God, the author of all good, whose purpose is the moral good of his creation (12-19a; cf. 1 John i. 5).2. The righteousness God intends is defined in the eternal moral law. It is a product of deeds, not words (i. 19b-27).3. The “royal law” of love is violated by discrimination against the poor (ii. 1-13); and by professions of faith barren of good works (14-26).4. The true spirit of wisdom appears not in aspiring to teach, but in goodness and meekness of life (ch. iii.). Strife and self-exaltation are fruits of a different spirit, to be resisted and overcome by humble prayer for more grace (iv. 1-10).5. God’s judgment is at hand. The thought condemns censoriousness (iv. 11 et seq.), presumptuous treatment of life (13-17), and the tyranny of the rich (v. 1-6). It encourages the believer to patient endurance to the end without murmuring or imprecations (7-12). It impels the church to diligence in its work of worship, care and prayer (13-18), and in the reclamation of the erring (19-20).The use made by James of earlier material is as important for determining theterminus a quoof its own date as the use of it by later writers for theterminus ad quem. Acquaintance with the evangelic tradition is apparent. It is conceived, however, more in the Matthaean sense of “commandments to be observed” (Matt. xxviii. 20) than the Pauline, Markan and Johannine of the drama of the incarnation and redemption. There is no traceable literary contact with the synoptic gospels. Acquaintance, however, with some of the Pauline epistles “must be regarded as incontestably established” (O. Cone,Ency. Bibl.ii. 2323). Besides scattered reminiscences of Romans, 1 Corinthians and Galatians, enumerated in the article referred to, the section devoted to a refutation of the doctrine of “justification by faith apart from works” undeniably presupposes the Pauline terminology. Had the author been consciously opposing the great apostle to the Gentiles he would probably have treated the subject less superficially. What he really opposes is the same ultra-Pauline moral laxity which Paul himself had found occasion to rebuke among would-be adherents in Corinth (1 Cor. vi. 12; viii. 1-3, 11, 12; x. 23 seq., 32 seq.) and which appears still more marked in the pastoral epistles and 1 John. In rebuking it James unconsciously retracts the misapplied Pauline principle itself. To suppose that the technical terminology of Paul, including even his classic example of the faith of Abraham, could be employed here independently of Rom. ii. 21-23, iii. 28, iv. 1; Gal. ii. 16, iii. 6, is to pass a judgment which in every other field of literary criticism would be at once repudiated. To imagine it current in pre-Pauline Judaism is to misconceive the spirit of the synagogue.1To make James the coiner and Paul the borrower not only throws back James to a date incompatible with the other phenomena, but implies a literary polemic tactlessly waged by Paul against the head of the Jerusalem church. Acquaintance with Hebrews is only slightly less probable, for James ii. 25 adds an explication of the case of Rahab also, cited in Heb. xi. 31 along with Abraham as an example of justification by faith only, to his correction of the Pauline scriptural argument. The question whether James is dependent on 1 Peter or conversely is still actively disputed. As regards the superscriptionthe relation has been defined above. Dependence on Revelation (A.D.95) is probable (cf. i. 12 and ii. 5 with Rev. ii. 9, 10 and v. 9 with Rev. iii. 20), but the contacts with Clement of Rome (A.D.95-120) indicate the reverse relation. James iv. 6 and v. 20 = 1 Clem. xlix. 5 and xxx. 2; but as both passages are also found in 1 Peter (iv. 8, v. 5), the latter may be the common source. Clement’s further development of the cases of Abraham and Rahab, however, adding as it does to the demonstration of James from Scripture of their justification “by works and not by faith only,” that the particular good work which “wrought with the faith” of Abraham and Rahab to their justification was “hospitality” (1 Clem, x.-xii.) seems plainly to presuppose James. Priority is more difficult to establish in the case of Hermas (A.D.120-140), where the contacts are undisputed (cf. James iv. 7, 12 with Mand. xii, 5, 6; Sim. ix. 23).2
Modern criticism naturally made the superscription its starting-point, endeavouring first to explain the contents of the writing on this theory of authorship, but generally reaching the conclusion that the two do not agree. Conservatives as a rule avoid the implication of a direct polemic against Paul in ii. 14-26, which would lay open the author to the bitter accusations launched against the interlopers of 2 Cor. x.-xiii., by dating before the Judaistic controversy. Other critics regard the very language alone as fatal to such a theory of date, authorship and circle addressed. The contents, ignoring the conflict of Jew and Gentile, complaining of worldiness and tongue-religion (cf. 1 John iii. 17 seq. with James ii. 14-16) suggest a much later date than the death of James (A.D.62-66). They also require a different character in the author, if not also a different circle of readers from those addressed in i. 1.
The prevalent conditions seem to be those of the Greek church of the post-apostolic period, characterized by worldiness of life, profession without practice, and a contentious garrulity of teaching (1 John iii. 3-10, 18; 1 Tim. i. 6 seq., vi. 3-10; 2 Tim. iii. 1-5, iv. 3 seq.). The author meets these with the weapons commanded for the purpose in 1 Tim. vi. 3, but quite in the spirit of one of the “wise men” of the Hebrew wisdom literature. His gospel is completely denationalized, humanitarian; but, while equally universalistic, is quite unsympathetic towards the doctrine and the mysticism of Paul. He has nothing whatever to say of the incarnation, life, example, suffering or resurrection of Jesus, and does not interest himself in the doctrines of Christ’s person, which were hotly debated up to this time. The absence of all mention of Christ (with the single exception of ii. 1, where there is reason to think the wordsἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦinterpolated) has even led to the theory, ably but unconvincingly maintained by Spitta, that the writing is a mere recast of a Jewish moralistic writing like theTwo Ways. The thoughts are loosely strung together: yet the following seems to be the general framework on which the New Testament preacher has collected his material.
1. The problem of evil (i. 1-19a). Outward trials are for our development through aid of divinely given “wisdom” (2-11). Inward (moral) trials are not to be imputed to God, the author of all good, whose purpose is the moral good of his creation (12-19a; cf. 1 John i. 5).
2. The righteousness God intends is defined in the eternal moral law. It is a product of deeds, not words (i. 19b-27).
3. The “royal law” of love is violated by discrimination against the poor (ii. 1-13); and by professions of faith barren of good works (14-26).
4. The true spirit of wisdom appears not in aspiring to teach, but in goodness and meekness of life (ch. iii.). Strife and self-exaltation are fruits of a different spirit, to be resisted and overcome by humble prayer for more grace (iv. 1-10).
5. God’s judgment is at hand. The thought condemns censoriousness (iv. 11 et seq.), presumptuous treatment of life (13-17), and the tyranny of the rich (v. 1-6). It encourages the believer to patient endurance to the end without murmuring or imprecations (7-12). It impels the church to diligence in its work of worship, care and prayer (13-18), and in the reclamation of the erring (19-20).
The use made by James of earlier material is as important for determining theterminus a quoof its own date as the use of it by later writers for theterminus ad quem. Acquaintance with the evangelic tradition is apparent. It is conceived, however, more in the Matthaean sense of “commandments to be observed” (Matt. xxviii. 20) than the Pauline, Markan and Johannine of the drama of the incarnation and redemption. There is no traceable literary contact with the synoptic gospels. Acquaintance, however, with some of the Pauline epistles “must be regarded as incontestably established” (O. Cone,Ency. Bibl.ii. 2323). Besides scattered reminiscences of Romans, 1 Corinthians and Galatians, enumerated in the article referred to, the section devoted to a refutation of the doctrine of “justification by faith apart from works” undeniably presupposes the Pauline terminology. Had the author been consciously opposing the great apostle to the Gentiles he would probably have treated the subject less superficially. What he really opposes is the same ultra-Pauline moral laxity which Paul himself had found occasion to rebuke among would-be adherents in Corinth (1 Cor. vi. 12; viii. 1-3, 11, 12; x. 23 seq., 32 seq.) and which appears still more marked in the pastoral epistles and 1 John. In rebuking it James unconsciously retracts the misapplied Pauline principle itself. To suppose that the technical terminology of Paul, including even his classic example of the faith of Abraham, could be employed here independently of Rom. ii. 21-23, iii. 28, iv. 1; Gal. ii. 16, iii. 6, is to pass a judgment which in every other field of literary criticism would be at once repudiated. To imagine it current in pre-Pauline Judaism is to misconceive the spirit of the synagogue.1To make James the coiner and Paul the borrower not only throws back James to a date incompatible with the other phenomena, but implies a literary polemic tactlessly waged by Paul against the head of the Jerusalem church. Acquaintance with Hebrews is only slightly less probable, for James ii. 25 adds an explication of the case of Rahab also, cited in Heb. xi. 31 along with Abraham as an example of justification by faith only, to his correction of the Pauline scriptural argument. The question whether James is dependent on 1 Peter or conversely is still actively disputed. As regards the superscriptionthe relation has been defined above. Dependence on Revelation (A.D.95) is probable (cf. i. 12 and ii. 5 with Rev. ii. 9, 10 and v. 9 with Rev. iii. 20), but the contacts with Clement of Rome (A.D.95-120) indicate the reverse relation. James iv. 6 and v. 20 = 1 Clem. xlix. 5 and xxx. 2; but as both passages are also found in 1 Peter (iv. 8, v. 5), the latter may be the common source. Clement’s further development of the cases of Abraham and Rahab, however, adding as it does to the demonstration of James from Scripture of their justification “by works and not by faith only,” that the particular good work which “wrought with the faith” of Abraham and Rahab to their justification was “hospitality” (1 Clem, x.-xii.) seems plainly to presuppose James. Priority is more difficult to establish in the case of Hermas (A.D.120-140), where the contacts are undisputed (cf. James iv. 7, 12 with Mand. xii, 5, 6; Sim. ix. 23).2
The date (A.D.95-120) implied by the literary contacts of James of course precludes authorship by the Lord’s brother, though this does not necessarily prove the superscription later still. The question whether the writing as a whole is pseudonymous, or only the superscription a mistaken conjecture by the scribe of Jude 1 is of secondary importance. A date about 100-120 for the substance of the writing is accepted by the majority of modern scholars and throws real light upon the author’s endeavour. Pfleiderer in pointing out the similarities of James and theShepherdof Hermas declares it to be “certain that both writings presuppose like historical circumstances, and, from a similar point of view, direct their admonitions to their contemporaries, among whom a lax worldly-mindedness and unfruitful theological wrangling threatened to destroy the religious life.”3Holtzmann has characterized this as “the right visual angle” for the judgment of the book. Questions as to the obligation of Mosaism and the relations of Jew and Gentile have utterly disappeared below the horizon. Neither the attachment to the religious forms of Judaism, which we are informed was characteristic of James, nor that personal relation to the Lord which gave him his supreme distinction are indicated by so much as a single word. Instead of being written in Aramaic, as it would almost necessarily be if antecedent to the Pauline epistles, or even in the Semitic style characteristic of the older and more Palestinian elements of the New Testament we have a Greek even more fluent than Paul’s and metaphors and allusions (i. 17, iii. 1-12) of a type more like Greek rhetoric than anything else in the New Testament. Were we to judge by the contacts with Hebrews, Clement of Rome and Hermas and the similarity of situation evidenced in the last-named, Rome would seem the most natural place of origin. The history of the epistle’s reception into the canon is not opposed to this; for, once it was attributed to James, Syria would be more likely to take it up, while the West, more sceptical, if not better informed as to its origin, held back; just as happened in the case of Hebrews.
It is the author’s conception of the nature of the gospel which mainly gives us pause in following this pretty general disposition of modern scholarship. With all the phenomena of vocabulary and style which seem to justify such conceptions as von Soden’s that c. iii. and iv. 11-v. 6 represent excerpts respectively from the essay of an Alexandrian scribe, and a triple fragment of Jewish apocalypse, the analysis above given will be found the exponent of a real logical sequence. We might almost admit a resemblance in form to the general literary type which Spitta adduces. The term “wisdom” in particular is used in the special and technical sense of the “wise men” of Hebrew literature (Matt. xxiii. 34), the sense of “the wisdom of the just” of Luke i. 17. True, the mystical sense given to the term in one of the sources of Luke, by Paul and some of the Church fathers, is not present. While the gospel is pre-eminently the divine gift of “wisdom,” “wisdom” is not personified, but conceived primarily as a system of humanitarian ethics, i. 21-25, and only secondarily as a spiritual effluence, imparting the regenerate disposition, the “mind that was in Christ Jesus,” iii. 13-18. And yet for James as well as for Paul Christ is “the wisdom of God.” The difference in conception of the term is similar to that between Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon. Our author, like Paul, expects the hearers of the word to be “a kind of first-fruits to God of his creation.” (i. 18 cf. 1 Pet. i. 23), and bids them depend upon the gift of grace (i. 5, iv. 5 seq.), but for the evils of the world he has no remedy but the patient endurance of the Christian philosopher (i. 2-18). For the faithlessness (διψυχίαi. 6-8; cf.Didacheand Hermas), worldliness (ii. 1-13) and hollow profession (ii. 14-26) of the church life of his time, with its “theological wrangling” (iii. 1-12), his remedy is again the God-given, peaceable spirit of the Christian philosopher (iii. 13-18), which is the antithesis of the spirit of self-seeking and censoriousness (iv. 1-12), and which appreciates the pettiness of earthly life with its sordid gains and its unjust distribution of wealth (iv. 13-v. 6). This attitude of the Christian stoic will maintain the individual in his patient waiting for the expected “coming of the Lord” (v. 7-11); while the church sustains its official functions of healing and prayer, and reclamation of the erring (v. 13-20).4For this conception of the gospel and of the officially organized church, our nearest analogy is in Matthew, or rather in the blocks of precepts of the Lord which after subtraction of the Markan narrative framework are found to underlie our first gospel. It may be mere coincidence that the material in Matthew as well as in theDidacheseems to be arranged in five divisions, beginning with a commendation of the right way, and ending with warnings of the judgment, while the logical analysis of James yields something similar; but of the affinity of spirit there can be no doubt.
The type of ethical thought exemplified in James has been called Ebionite (Hilgenfeld). It is clearly manifest in the humanitarianism of Luke also. But with the possible exception of the prohibition of oaths there is nothing which ought to suggest the epithet. The strong sense of social wrongs, the impatience with tongue-religion, the utter ignoring of ceremonialism, the reflection on the value and significance of “life,” are distinctive simply of the “wisdom” writers. Like these our author holds himself so far aloof from current debate of ceremonial or doctrine as to escape our principal standards of measurement regarding place and time. Certain general considerations, however, are fairly decisive. The prolonged effort, mainly of English scholarship, to vindicate the superscription, even on the condition of assuming priority to the Pauline epistles, grows only increasingly hopeless with increasing knowledge of conditions, linguistic and other, in that early period. The moralistic conception of the gospel as a “law of liberty,” the very phrase recalling the expression of Barn. ii., “the new law of Christ, which is without the yoke of constraint,” the conception of the church as primarily an ethical society, its functions already officially distributed, suggest the period of theDidache, Barnabas and Clement of Rome. Independently of the literary contacts we should judge the period to be aboutA.D.100-120. The connexions with the Pauline epistles are conclusive for a date later than the death of James; those with Clement and Hermas are perhaps sufficient to date it as prior to the former, and suggest Rome as the place of origin. The connexions with wisdom-literature favour somewhat the Hellenistic culture of Syria, as represented for example at Antioch.
The most important commentaries on the epistle are those of Matt. Schneckenburger (1832), K. G. W. Theile (1833), J. Kern (1838), G. H. Ewald (1870), C. F. D. Erdmann (1881), H. v. Soden (1898), J. B. Mayor (1892) and W. Patrick (1906). The pre-Pauline date is championed by B. Weiss (Introd.), W. Beyschlag (Meyer’sCommentary), Th. Zahn (Introd.), J. B. Mayor and W. Patrick. J. V. Bartlet (Ap. Age, pp. 217-250) pleads for it, and the view is still common among English interpreters. F. K. Zimmer (Z. w. Th., 1893) showed the priority of Paul, with many others. A. Hilgenfeld (Einl.)and A. C. McGiffert (Ap. Age) place it in the period of Domitian; Baur (Ch. History), Schwegler (Nachap. Zeitalt.), Zeller, Volkmar (Z. w. Th.), Hausrath (Ap. Age), H. J. Holtzmann (Einl.), Jülicher (Einl.), Usteri (St.u. Kr., 1889), W. Brückner (Chron.), H. v. Soden (Handcomm.) and A. Harnack (Chron.) under Hadrian. A convenient synopsis of results will be found in J. Moffat,Historical New Test.2(pp. 576-581), and in the articless.v.“James” inEncycl. Bibl.and the Bible Dictionaries.
The most important commentaries on the epistle are those of Matt. Schneckenburger (1832), K. G. W. Theile (1833), J. Kern (1838), G. H. Ewald (1870), C. F. D. Erdmann (1881), H. v. Soden (1898), J. B. Mayor (1892) and W. Patrick (1906). The pre-Pauline date is championed by B. Weiss (Introd.), W. Beyschlag (Meyer’sCommentary), Th. Zahn (Introd.), J. B. Mayor and W. Patrick. J. V. Bartlet (Ap. Age, pp. 217-250) pleads for it, and the view is still common among English interpreters. F. K. Zimmer (Z. w. Th., 1893) showed the priority of Paul, with many others. A. Hilgenfeld (Einl.)and A. C. McGiffert (Ap. Age) place it in the period of Domitian; Baur (Ch. History), Schwegler (Nachap. Zeitalt.), Zeller, Volkmar (Z. w. Th.), Hausrath (Ap. Age), H. J. Holtzmann (Einl.), Jülicher (Einl.), Usteri (St.u. Kr., 1889), W. Brückner (Chron.), H. v. Soden (Handcomm.) and A. Harnack (Chron.) under Hadrian. A convenient synopsis of results will be found in J. Moffat,Historical New Test.2(pp. 576-581), and in the articless.v.“James” inEncycl. Bibl.and the Bible Dictionaries.
(B. W. B.)
1Nothing adduced by Lightfoot (Comm. on Gal.Exc. “The faith of Abraham”) justifies the unsupported and improbable assertion that the quotation James ii. 21 seq. “was probably in common use among the Jews to prove that orthodoxy of doctrine sufficed for salvation” (Mayor, s.v. “James, Epistle of” in Hasting’sDict. Bible, p. 546).2On the contacts in general see Moffat,Hist. N.T.2p. 578, on relation to Clem. R. see Bacon, “Doctrine of Faith in Hebrews, James and Clement of Rome,” inJour. of Bib. Lit., 1900, pp. 12-21.3Das Urchristenthum, 868, quoted by Cone,loc. cit.4The logical relation of v. 12 to the context is problematical. Perhaps it may be accounted for by the order of the compend of Christian ethics the writer was following. Cf. Matt. v. 34-37 in relation to Matt. v. 12 (cf. ver. 10) and vi. 19 sqq. (cf. ver. 2, and iv. 13 seq.). The non-charismatic conception of healing, no longer the “gift” of some layman in the community (1 Cor. xii. 9 seq.) but a function of “the elders” (1 Tim. iv. 14), is another indication of comparatively late date.
1Nothing adduced by Lightfoot (Comm. on Gal.Exc. “The faith of Abraham”) justifies the unsupported and improbable assertion that the quotation James ii. 21 seq. “was probably in common use among the Jews to prove that orthodoxy of doctrine sufficed for salvation” (Mayor, s.v. “James, Epistle of” in Hasting’sDict. Bible, p. 546).
2On the contacts in general see Moffat,Hist. N.T.2p. 578, on relation to Clem. R. see Bacon, “Doctrine of Faith in Hebrews, James and Clement of Rome,” inJour. of Bib. Lit., 1900, pp. 12-21.
3Das Urchristenthum, 868, quoted by Cone,loc. cit.
4The logical relation of v. 12 to the context is problematical. Perhaps it may be accounted for by the order of the compend of Christian ethics the writer was following. Cf. Matt. v. 34-37 in relation to Matt. v. 12 (cf. ver. 10) and vi. 19 sqq. (cf. ver. 2, and iv. 13 seq.). The non-charismatic conception of healing, no longer the “gift” of some layman in the community (1 Cor. xii. 9 seq.) but a function of “the elders” (1 Tim. iv. 14), is another indication of comparatively late date.
JAMESON, ANNA BROWNELL(1794-1860), British writer, was born in Dublin on the 17th of May 1794. Her father, Denis Brownell Murphy (d. 1842), a miniature and enamel painter, removed to England in 1798 with his family, and eventually settled at Hanwell, near London. At sixteen years of age Anna became governess in the family of the marquis of Winchester. In 1821 she was engaged to Robert Jameson. The engagement was broken off, and Anna Murphy accompanied a young pupil to Italy, writing in a fictitious character a narrative of what she saw and did. This diary she gave to a bookseller on condition of receiving a guitar if he secured any profits. Colburn ultimately published it asThe Diary of an Ennuyée(1826), which attracted much attention. The author was governess to the children of Mr Littleton, afterwards Lord Hatherton, from 1821 to 1825, when she married Robert Jameson. The marriage proved unhappy; when, in 1829, Jameson was appointed puisne judge in the island of Dominica the couple separated without regret, and Mrs Jameson visited the Continent again with her father.
The first work which displayed her powers of original thought was herCharacteristics of Women(1832). These analyses of Shakespeare’s heroines are remarkable for delicacy of critical insight and fineness of literary touch. They are the result of a penetrating but essentially feminine mind, applied to the study of individuals of its own sex, detecting characteristics and defining differences not perceived by the ordinary critic and entirely overlooked by the general reader. German literature and art had aroused much interest in England, and Mrs Jameson paid her first visit to Germany in 1833. The conglomerations of hard lines, cold colours and pedantic subjects which decorated Munich under the patronage of King Louis of Bavaria, were new to the world, and Mrs Jameson’s enthusiasm first gave them an English reputation.
In 1836 Mrs Jameson was summoned to Canada by her husband, who had been appointed chancellor of the province of Toronto. He failed to meet her at New York, and she was left to make her way alone at the worst season of the year to Toronto. After six months’ experiment she felt it useless to prolong a life far from all ties of family happiness and opportunities of usefulness. Before leaving, she undertook a journey to the depths of the Indian settlements in Canada; she explored Lake Huron, and saw much of emigrant and Indian life unknown to travellers, which she afterwards embodied in herWinter Studies and Summer Rambles. She returned to England in 1838. At this period Mrs Jameson began making careful notes of the chief private art collections in and near London. The result appeared in herCompanion to the Private Galleries(1842), followed in the same year by theHandbook to the Public Galleries. She edited theMemoirs of the Early Italian Paintersin 1845. In the same year she visited her friend Ottilie von Goethe. Her friendship with Lady Byron dates from about this time and lasted for some seven years; it was brought to an end apparently through Lady Byron’s unreasonable temper. A volume of essays published in 1846 contains one of Mrs Jameson’s best pieces of work,The House of Titian. In 1847 she went to Italy with her niece and subsequent biographer (Memoirs, 1878), Geraldine Bate (Mrs Macpherson), to collect materials for the work on which her reputation rests—her series ofSacred and Legendary Art. The time was ripe for such contributions to the traveller’s library. TheActa Sanctorumand theBook of the Golden Legendhad had their readers, but no one had ever pointed out the connexion between these tales and the works of Christian art. The way to these studies had been pointed out in the preface to Kugler’sHandbook of Italian Paintingby Sir Charles Eastlake, who had intended pursuing the subject himself. Eventually he made over to Mrs Jameson the materials and references he had collected. She recognized the extent of the ground before her as a mingled sphere of poetry, history, devotion and art. She infected her readers with her own enthusiastic admiration; and, in spite of her slight technical and historical equipment, Mrs. Jameson produced a book which thoroughly deserved its great success.
She also took a keen interest in questions affecting the education, occupations and maintenance of her own sex. Her early essay onThe Relative Social Position of Mothers and Governesseswas the work of one who knew both sides; and in no respect does she more clearly prove the falseness of the position she describes than in the certainty with which she predicts its eventual reform. To her we owe the first popular enunciation of the principle of male and female co-operation in works of mercy and education. In her later years she took up a succession of subjects all bearing on the same principles of active benevolence and the best ways of carrying them into practice. Sisters of charity, hospitals, penitentiaries, prisons and workhouses all claimed her interest—all more or less included under those definitions of “the communion of love and communion of labour” which are inseparably connected with her memory. To the clear and temperate forms in which she brought the results of her convictions before her friends in the shape of private lectures—published asSisters of Charity(1855) andThe Communion of Labour(1856)—may be traced the source whence later reformers and philanthropists took counsel and courage.
Mrs Jameson died on the 17th of March 1860. She left the last of herSacred and Legendary Artseries in preparation. It was completed, under the title ofThe History of Our Lord in Art, by Lady Eastlake.
JAMESON(orJamesone),GEORGE(c.1587-1644), Scottish portrait-painter, was born at Aberdeen, where his father was architect and a member of the guild. After studying painting under Rubens at Antwerp, with Vandyck as a fellow pupil, he returned in 1620 to Aberdeen, where he was married in 1624 and remained at least until 1630, after which he took up his residence in Edinburgh. He was employed by the magistrates of Edinburgh to copy several portraits of the Scottish kings for presentation to Charles I. on his first visit to Scotland in 1633, and the king rewarded him with a diamond ring from his own finger. This circumstance at once established Jameson’s fame, and he soon found constant employment in painting the portraits of the Scottish nobility and gentry. He also painted a portrait of Charles, which he declined to sell to the magistrates of Aberdeen for the price they offered. He died at Edinburgh in 1644.
JAMESON, LEANDER STARR(1853- ), British colonial statesman, son of R. W. Jameson, a writer to the signet in Edinburgh, was born at Edinburgh in 1853, and was educated for the medical profession at University College Hospital, London (M.R.C.S. 1875; M.D. 1877). After acting as house physician, house surgeon and demonstrator of anatomy, and showing promise of a successful professional career in London, his health broke down from overwork in 1878, and he went out to South Africa and settled down in practice at Kimberley. There he rapidly acquired a great reputation as a medical man, and, besides numbering President Kruger and the Matabele chief Lobengula among his patients, came much into contact with Cecil Rhodes. In 1888 his influence with Lobengula was successfully exerted to induce that chieftain to grant the concessions to the agents of Rhodes which led to the formation of the British South Africa Company; and when the company proceeded to open up Mashonaland, Jameson abandoned his medical practice and joined the pioneer expedition of 1890. From this time his fortunes were bound up with Rhodes’s schemes in the north. Immediately after the pioneer column had occupied Mashonaland, Jameson, with F. C. Selous and A. R. Colquhoun, went east to Manicaland and was instrumental in securing the greater part of that country, to which Portugal was laying claim, for the Chartered Company. In 1891 Jameson succeeded Colquhoun as administrator of Rhodesia. The events connected with hisvigorous administration and the wars with the Matabele are narrated underRhodesia. At the end of 1894 “Dr Jim” (as he was familiarly called) came to England and was fêted on all sides; he was made a C.B., and returned to Africa in the spring of 1895 with enhanced prestige. On the last day of that year the world was startled to learn that Jameson, with a force of 600 men, had made a raid into the Transvaal from Mafeking in support of a projected rising in Johannesburg, which had been connived at by Rhodes at the Cape (seeRhodesandTransvaal). Jameson’s force was compelled to surrender at Doornkop, receiving a guarantee that the lives of all would be spared; he and his officers were sent to Pretoria, and, after a short delay, during which time sections of the Boer populace clamoured for the execution of Jameson, President Kruger on the surrender of Johannesburg (January 7) handed them over to the British government for punishment. They were tried in London under the Foreign Enlistment Act in May 1896, and Dr Jameson was sentenced to fifteen months’imprisonmentat Holloway. He served a year in prison, and was then released on account of ill health. He still retained the affections of the white population of Rhodesia, and subsequently returned there in an unofficial capacity. He was the constant companion of Rhodes on his journeys up to the end of his life, and when Rhodes died in May 1902 Jameson was left one of the executors of his will. In 1903 Jameson came forward as the leader of the Progressive (British) party in Cape Colony; and that party being victorious at the general election in January-February 1904, Jameson formed an administration in which he took the post of prime minister. He had to face a serious economic crisis and strenuously promoted the development of the agricultural and pastoral resources of the colony. He also passed a much needed Redistribution Act, and in the session of 1906 passed an Amnesty Act restoring the rebel voters to the franchise. Jameson, as prime minister of Cape Colony, attended the Colonial conference held in London in 1907. In September of that year the Cape parliament was dissolved, and as the elections for the legislative council went in favour of the Bond, Jameson resigned office, 31st of January 1908 (seeCape Colony:History). In 1908 he was chosen one of the delegates from Cape Colony to the intercolonial convention for the closer union of the South African states, and he took a prominent part in settling the terms on which union was effected in 1909. It was at Jameson’s suggestion that the Orange River Colony was renamed Orange Free State Province.
JAMESON, ROBERT(1774-1854), Scottish naturalist and mineralogist, was born at Leith on the 11th of July 1774. He became assistant to a surgeon in his native town; but, having studied natural history under Dr John Walker in 1792 and 1793, he felt that his true province lay in that science. He went in 1800 to Freiberg to study for nearly two years under Werner, and spent two more in continental travel. In 1804 he succeeded Dr Walker as regius professor of natural history in Edinburgh university, and became perhaps the first eminent exponent in Great Britain of the Wernerian geological system; but when he found that theory untenable, he frankly announced his conversion to the views of Hutton. As a teacher, Jameson was remarkable for his power of imparting enthusiasm to his students, and from his class-room there radiated an influence which gave a marked impetus to the study of geology in Britain. His energy also, by means of government aid, private donation and personal outlay, amassed a great part of the splendid collection which now occupies the natural history department of the Royal Scottish Museum in Edinburgh. In 1819 Jameson, with Sir David Brewster, started theEdinburgh Philosophical Journal, which after the tenth volume remained under his sole conduct till his death, which took place in Edinburgh on the 19th of April 1854. His bust now stands in the hall of the Edinburgh University library.
Jameson was the author ofOutline of the Mineralogy of the Shetland Islands and of the Island of Arran(1798), incorporated withMineralogy of the Scottish Isles(1800);Mineralogical Description of Scotland, vol. i. pt. 1. (Dumfries, 1805); this was to have been the first of a series embracing all Scotland;System of Mineralogy(3 vols., 1804-1808; 3rd ed., 1820);Elements of Geognosy(1809);Mineralogical Travels through the Hebrides, Orkney and Shetland Islands(2 vols., 1813); andManual of Mineralogy(1821); besides a number of occasional papers, of which a list will be found in theEdinburgh New Philosophical Journalfor July 1854, along with a portrait and biographical sketch of the author.
Jameson was the author ofOutline of the Mineralogy of the Shetland Islands and of the Island of Arran(1798), incorporated withMineralogy of the Scottish Isles(1800);Mineralogical Description of Scotland, vol. i. pt. 1. (Dumfries, 1805); this was to have been the first of a series embracing all Scotland;System of Mineralogy(3 vols., 1804-1808; 3rd ed., 1820);Elements of Geognosy(1809);Mineralogical Travels through the Hebrides, Orkney and Shetland Islands(2 vols., 1813); andManual of Mineralogy(1821); besides a number of occasional papers, of which a list will be found in theEdinburgh New Philosophical Journalfor July 1854, along with a portrait and biographical sketch of the author.
JAMESTOWN,a city and the county-seat of Stutsman county, North Dakota, U.S.A., on the James River, about 93 m. W. of Fargo. Pop. (1900), 2853, of whom 587 were foreign-born; (1905) 5093; (1910) 4358. Jamestown is served by the Northern Pacific railway, of which it is a division headquarters. At Jamestown is St John’s Academy, a school for girls, conducted by the Sisters of St Joseph. The state hospital for the insane is just beyond the city limits. The city is the commercial centre of a prosperous farming and stock-raising region in the James River valley, and has grain-elevators and flour-mills. Jamestown was first settled in 1873, near Fort Seward, a U.S. military post established in 1872 and abandoned in 1877, and was chartered as a city in 1883.
JAMESTOWN,a city of Chautauqua county, New York, U.S.A., at the S. outlet of Chautauqua Lake, 68 m. S. by W. of Buffalo. Pop. (1900), 22,892, of whom 7270 were foreign-born, mostly Swedish; (1910 census) 31,297. It is served by the Erie and the Jamestown, Chautauqua & Lake Erie railways, by electric lines extending along Lake Chautauqua to Lake Erie on the N. and to Warren, Pennsylvania, on the S., and by summer steamboat lines on Lake Chautauqua. Jamestown is situated among the hills of Chautauqua county, and is a popular summer resort. There is a free public library. A supply of natural gas (from Pennsylvania) and a fine water-power combine to render Jamestown a manufacturing centre of considerable importance. In 1905 the value of its factory products was $10,349,752, an increase of 33.9% since 1900. The city owns and operates its electric-lighting plant and its water-supply system, the water, of exceptional purity, being obtained from artesian wells 4 m. distant. Jamestown was settled in 1810, was incorporated in 1827, and was chartered as a city in 1886. The city was named in honour of James Prendergast, an early settler.
JAMESTOWN,a former village in what is now James City county, Virginia, U.S.A., on Jamestown Island, in the James River, about 40 m. above Norfolk. It was here that the first permanent English settlement in America was founded on the 13th of May 1607, that representative government was inaugurated on the American Continent in 1619, and that negro servitude was introduced into the original thirteen colonies, also in 1619. In Jamestown was the first Anglican church built in America. The settlement was in a low marshy district which proved to be unhealthy; it was accidentally burned in January 1608, was almost completely destroyed by Nathaniel Bacon in September 1676, the state house and other buildings were again burned in 1698, and after the removal of the seat of government of Virginia from Jamestown to the Middle Plantations (now Williamsburg) in 1699 the village fell rapidly into decay. Its population had never been large: it was about 490 in 1609, and 183 in 1623; the mortality was always very heavy. By the middle of the 19th century the peninsula on which Jamestown had been situated had become an island, and by 1900 the James River had worn away the shore but had hardly touched the territory of the “New Towne” (1619), immediately E. of the first settlement; almost the only visible remains, however, were the tower of the brick church and a few gravestones. In 1900 the association for the preservation of Virginia antiquities, to which the site was deeded in 1893, induced the United States government to build a wall to prevent the further encroachment of the river; the foundations of several of the old buildings have since been uncovered, many interesting relics have been found, and in 1907 there were erected a brick church (which is as far as possible a reproduction of the fourth one built in 1639-1647), a marble shaft marking the site of the first settlement, another shaft commemorating the first house of burgesses, a bronze monument to the memory of Captain John Smith, and another monument to the memory of Pocahontas. At the head ofJamestown peninsula Cornwallis, in July 1781, attempted to trick the Americans under Lafayette and General Anthony Wayne by displaying a few men on the peninsula and concealing the principal part of his army on the mainland; but when Wayne discovered the trap he made first a vigorous charge, and then a retreat to Lafayette’s line. Early in the Civil War the Confederates regarded the site (then an island) as of such strategic importance that (near the brick church tower and probably near the site of the first fortifications by the original settlers) they erected heavy earthworks upon it for defence. (For additional details concerning the early history of Jamestown, seeVirginia:History.)
The founding at Jamestown of the first permanent English-speaking settlement in America was celebrated in 1907 by the Jamestown tercentennial exposition, held on grounds at Sewell’s Point on the shore of Hampton Roads. About twenty foreign nations, the federal government, and most of the states of the union took part in the exposition.