[1] On the homogeneity of the population, see further, W. R. Smith,
_Religion of the Semites_ (2nd ed., chaps, i.-iii.); T. Nöldeke,
_Sketches from Eastern History_, pp. 1-20 (on "Some Characteristics
of the Semitic Race"); and especially E. Meyer, _Gesch. d. Altertums_
(2nd ed., i. §§ 330, sqq.). For the relation between the geographical
characteristics and the political history, see G. A. Smith,
_Historical Geography of the Holy Land_.
[2] For fuller information on this section see PALESTINE: _History_,
and the related portions of BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA, EGYPT, HITTITES,
SYRIA.
[3] Or _land_ Israel, W. Spiegelberg, _Orient. Lit. Zeit._ xi.
(1908), cols. 403-405.
[4] It is useful to compare the critical study of the Koran (q.v.),
where, however, the investigation of its various "revelations" is
simpler than that of the biblical "prophecies" on account of the
greater wealth of independent historical tradition. See also G. B.
Gray, _Contemporary Review_ (July 1907); A. A. Bevan, _Cambridge
Biblical Essays_ (ed. Swete, 1909), pp. 1-19.
[5] See primarily BIBLE: _Old Testament_; the articles on the
contents and literary structure of the several books; the various
biographical, topographical and ethnical articles, and the separate
treatment of the more important subjects (e.g. LEVITES, PROPHET,
SACRIFICE).
[6] On the bearing of external evidence upon the internal biblical
records, see especially S. R. Driver's essay in Hogarth's _Authority
and Archaeology_; cf. also A. A. Bevan, _Critical Review_ (1897, p.
406 sqq., 1898, pp. 131 sqq.); G. B. Gray, _Expositor_, May 1898; W.
G. Jordan, _Bib. Crit. and Modern Thought_ (1909), pp. 42 sqq.
[7] For the sections which follow the present writer may be permitted
to refer to his introductory contributions in the _Expositor_ (June,
1906; "The Criticism of the O.T."); the _Jewish Quarterly Review_
(July 1905-January 1907 = _Critical Notes on O.T. History_,
especially sections vii.-ix.); July and October 1907, April 1908;
_Amer. Journ. Theol._ (July 1909, "Simeon and Levi: the Problem of
the Old Testament"); and Swete's _Cambridge Bib. Essays_, pp. 54-89
("The Present Stage of O.T. Research").
[8] On the name see JEHOVAH, TETRAGRAMMATON.
[9] The story of Joseph has distinctive internal features of its own,
and appears to be from an independent cycle, which has been used to
form a connecting link between the Settlement and the Exodus; see
also Ed. Meyer, _Die Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme_ (1906), pp.
228, 433; B. Luther, ibid. pp. 108 seq., 142 sqq. Neither of the
poems in Deut. xxxii. seq. alludes to an escape from Egypt; Israel is
merely a desert tribe inspired to settle in Palestine. Apparently
even the older accounts of the exodus are not of very great
antiquity; according to Jeremiah ii. 2, 7 (cf. Hos. ii. 15) some
traditions of the wilderness must have represented Israel in a very
favourable light; for the "canonical" view, see Ezekiel xvi., xx.,
xxiii.
[10] The capture of central Palestine itself is not recorded;
according to its own traditions the district had been seized by Jacob
(Gen. xlviii. 22; cf. the late form of the tradition in Jubilees
xxxiv.). This conception of a conquering hero is entirely distinct
from the narratives of the descent of Jacob into Egypt, &c. (see
Meyer and Luther, _op. cit._ pp. 110, 227 seq., 415, 433).
[11] This is especially true of the various ingenious attempts to
combine the invasion of the Israelites with the movements of the
Habiru in the Amarna period (§ 3).
[12] Cf. Winckler, _Keil. u. das Alte Test._ p. 212 seq.; also his
"Der alte Orient und die Geschichtsforschung" in _Mitteilungen der
Vorderasiat. Gesellschaft_ (Berlin, 1906) and
_Religionsgeschichtlicher u. gesch. Orient_ (Leipzig, 1906); A.
Jeremias, _Alte Test._ (p. 464 seq.); B. Baentsch, _Altorient. u.
Israel. Monotheismus_ (pp. 53, 79, 105, &c.); also _Theolog. Lit.
Blatt_ (1907) No. 19. On the reconstructions of the tribal history,
see especially T. K. Cheyne, _Ency. Bib._ art. "Tribes." The most
suggestive study of the pre-monarchical narratives is that of E.
Meyer and B. Luther (above; see the former's criticisms on the
reconstructions, pp. 50, 251 sqq., 422, n. 1 and _passim_).
[13] 2 Chron. xii. 8, which is independent of the chronicler's
artificial treatment of his material, apparently points to some
tradition of Egyptian suzerainty.
[14] See for chronology, BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA, §§ v. and viii.
[15] See _Jew. Quart. Rev._ (1908), pp. 597-630. The independent
Israelite traditions which here become more numerous have points of
contact with those of Saul in 1 Samuel, and the relation is highly
suggestive for the study of their growth, as also for the perspective
of the various writers.
[16] See W. R. Smith (after Kuenen), _Ency. Bib._, col. 2670; also W.
E. Addis, ib., 1276, the commentaries of Benzinger (p. 130) and
Kittel (pp. 153 seq.) on Kings; J. S. Strachan, Hastings's _Dict.
Bible_, i. 694; G. A. Smith, _Hist. Geog. of Holy Land_, p. 582;
König and Hirsch, _Jew. Ency._ v. 137 seq. ("legend ... as
indifferent to accuracy in dates as it is to definiteness of places
and names"); W. R. Harper, _Amos and Hosea_, p. xli. seq. ("the lack
of chronological order ... the result is to create a wrong impression
of Elisha's career"). The bearing of this displacement upon the
literary and historical criticism of the narratives has never been
worked out.
[17] Careful examination shows that no a priori distinction can be
drawn between "trustworthy" books of Kings and "untrustworthy books"
of Chronicles. Although the latter have special late and unreliable
features, they agree with the former in presenting the same general
trend of past history. The "canonical" history in Kings is further
embellished in Chronicles, but the gulf between them is not so
profound as that between the former and the underlying and
half-suppressed historical traditions which can still be recognized.
(See also PALESTINE: _History_.)
[18] For the former (2 Kings xii. 17 seq.) cf. Hezekiah and
Sennacherib (xviii. 13-15), and for the latter, cf. Asa and Baasha (1
Kings xv. 18-20; above).
[19] It is possible that Hadad-nirari's inscription refers to
conditions in the latter part of his reign (812-783 B.C.), when Judah
apparently was no longer independent and when Jeroboam II. was king
of Israel. The accession of the latter has been placed between 785
and 782. It is now known, also, that Ben-hadad and a small coalition
were defeated by the king of Hamath; but the bearing of this upon
Israelite history is uncertain.
[20] Cf. generally, 1 Sam. iv., xxxi.; 2 Sam. ii. 8; 1 Kings xx.,
xxii.; 2 Kings vi. 8-vii. 20; also Judges v. (see DEBORAH).
[21] Special mention is made of Jonah, a prophet of Zebulun in
(north) Israel (2 Kings xiv. 25). Nothing is known of him, unless the
very late prophetical writing with the account of his visit to
Nineveh rests upon some old tradition, which, however, can scarcely
be recovered (see JONAH).
[22] This is philosophically handled by the Arabian historian Ibn
Khaldun, whose Prolegomena is well worthy of attention; see De Slane,
_Not. et extraits_, vols. xix.-xxi., with Von Kremer's criticisms in
the _Sitz. d. Kais. Akad._ of Vienna (vol. xciii., 1879); cf. also R.
Flint, _History of the Philosophy of History_, i. 157 sqq.
[23] Cf. J. G. Frazer, _Adonis, Attis, Osiris_ (1907), p. 67:
"Prophecy of the Hebrew type has not been limited to Israel; it is
indeed a phenomenon of almost world-wide occurrence; in many lands
and in many ages the wild, whirling words of frenzied men and women
have been accepted as the utterances of an in-dwelling deity. What
does distinguish Hebrew prophecy from all others is that the genius
of a few members of the profession wrested this vulgar but powerful
instrument from baser uses, and by wielding it in the interest of a
high morality rendered a service of incalculable value to humanity.
That is indeed the glory of Israel...."
[24] The use which was made in Apocalyptic literature of the
traditions of Moses, Isaiah and others finds its analogy within the
Old Testament itself; cf. the relation between the present late
prophecies of Jonah and the unknown prophet of the time of Jeroboam
II. (see § 13, note 5). To condemn re-shaping or adaptation of this
nature from a modern Western standpoint is to misunderstand entirely
the Oriental mind and Oriental usage.
[25] The condemnation passed upon the impetuous and fiery zeal of the
adherents of the new movement (cf. Hos. i. 4), like the remarkable
vicissitudes in the traditions of Moses, Aaron and the Levites
(qq.v.), represents changing situations of real significance, whose
true place in the history can with difficulty be recovered.
[26] Formerly thought to be the third of the name.
[27] Perhaps Judah had come to an understanding with Tiglath-pileser
(H. M. Haydn, _Journ. Bib. Lit._, xxviii. 1909, pp. 182-199); see
UZZIAH.
[28] The fact that these lists are of the kings of the "land Hatti"
would suggest that the term "Hittite" had been extended to Palestine.
[29] So K. Budde, _Rel. of Israel to Exile_, pp. 165-167. For an
attempt to recover the character of the cults, see W. Erbt, _Hebräer_
(Leipzig, 1906), pp. 150 sqq.
[30] See G. Maspero, _Gesch. d. morgenländ. Völker_ (1877), p. 446;
E. Naville, _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Archaeol._ (1907), pp. 232 sqq., and T.
K. Cheyne, _Decline and Fall of Judah_ (1908), p. 13, with
references. [The genuineness of such discoveries is naturally a
matter for historical criticism to decide. Thus the discovery of
Numa's laws in Rome (Livy xl. 29), upon which undue weight has
sometimes been laid (see Klostermann, _Der Pentateuch_ (1906), pp.
155 sqq., was not accepted as genuine by the senate (who had the laws
destroyed), and probably not by Pliny himself. Only the later
antiquaries clung to the belief in their
trustworthiness.--(_Communicated._)]
[31] Both kings came to the throne after a conspiracy aimed at
existing abuses, and other parallels can be found (see KINGS).
[32] But see N. Schmidt, _Ency. Bib._, "Scythians," § 1.
[33] So also one can now compare the estimate taken of the Jews in
Egypt in Jer. xliv. with the actual religious conditions which are
known to have prevailed later at Elephantine, where a small Jewish
colony worshipped Yahu (Yahweh) at their own temple (see E. Sachau,
"Drei aram. Papyrusurkunde," in the _Abhandlungen_ of the Prussian
Academy, Berlin, 1907).
[34] Sargon had removed Babylonians into the land of Hatti (Syria and
Palestine), and in 715 B.C. among the colonists were tribes
apparently of desert origin (Tamud, Hayapa, &c.); other settlements
are ascribed to Esar-haddon and perhaps Assur-bani-pal (Ezra iv. 2,
10). See for the evidence, A. E. Cowley, _Ency. Bib._, col. 4257; J.
A. Montgomery, _The Samaritans_, pp. 46-57 (Philadelphia, 1907).
[35] The growing recognition that the land was not depopulated after
586 is of fundamental significance for the criticism of "exilic" and
"post-exilic" history. G. A. Smith thus sums up a discussion of the
extent of the deportations: "... A large majority of the Jewish
people remained on the land. This conclusion may startle us with our
generally received notions of the whole nation as exiled. But there
are facts which support it" (_Jerusalem_, ii. 268).
[36] On the place of Palestine in Persian history see PERSIA:
_History, ancient_, especially § 5 ii.; also ARTAXERXES; CAMBYSES;
CYRUS; DARIUS, &c.
[37] The evidence for Artaxerxes III., accepted by Ewald and others
(see W. R. Smith, _Old Testament in Jewish Church_, p. 438 seq.; W.
Judeich, _Kleinasiat. Stud._, p. 170; T. K. Cheyne, _Ency. Bib._,
col. 2202; F. C. Kent, _Hist._ [1899], pp. 230 sqq.) has however been
questioned by Willrich, _Judaica_, 35-39 (see Cheyne, _Ency. Bib._,
col. 3941). The account of Josephus (above) raises several
difficulties, especially the identity of Bagoses. It has been
supposed that he has placed the record too late, and that this
Bagoses is the Judaean governor who flourished about 408 B.C. (See p.
286, n. 3.)
[38] Thus a decree of Darius I. takes the part of his subjects
against the excessive zeal of the official Gadatas, and grants
freedom of taxation and exemption from forced labour to those
connected with a temple of Apollo in Asia Minor (_Bulletin de
correspondance hellénique_, xiii. 529; E. Meyer, _Entstehung des
Judenthums_, p. 19 seq.; cf. id. _Forschungen_, ii. 497).
[39] In addition to this, the Egyptian story of the priest Uza-hor at
the court of Cambyses and Darius reflects a policy of religious
tolerance which illustrates the biblical account of Ezra and Nehemiah
(Brugsch, _Gesch. Aeg._ pp. 784 sqq.; see Cheyne, _Jew. Relig. Life
after the Exile_, pp. 40-43).
[40] From Têma in north Arabia, also, there is monumental evidence of
the 5th century B.C. for Babylonian and Assyrian influence upon the
language, cult and art. For Nippur, see _Bab. Exped. of Univ. of
Pennsylvania_, series A., vol. ix. (1898), by H. V. Hilprecht; for
Elephantine, the Mond papyri, A. H. Sayce and A. E. Cowley, _Aramaic
Papyri Discovered at Assuan_ (1906), and those cited above (p. 282,
n. 1). For the Jewish colonies in general, see H. Guthe, _Ency.
Bib._, art. "Dispersion" (with references); also below, § 25 sqq.
[41] See EZRA AND NEHEMIAH with bibliographical references, also T.
K. Cheyne, _Introd. to Isaiah_ (1895); _Jew. Religious Life after the
Exile_ (1898); E. Sellin, _Stud. z. Entstehungsgesch. d. jüd.
Gemeinde_ (1901); R. H. Kennett in Swete's _Cambridge Biblical
Essays_ (pp. 92 sqq.); G. Jahn, _Die Bücher Esra u. Nehemja_ (1909);
and C. C. Torrey, _Ezra Studies_ (1910).
[42] There is an obvious effort to preserve the continuity of
tradition (a) in Ezra ii. which gives a list of families who returned
from exile each to its own city, and (b) in the return of the holy
vessels in the time of Cyrus (contrast 1 Esdras iv. 43 seq.), a view
which, in spite of Dan. i. 2, v. 2 seq., conflicts with 2 Kings xxiv.
13 and xxv. 13 (see, however, v. 14). That attempts have been made to
adjust contradictory representations is suggested by the prophecy
ascribed to Jeremiah (xxvii. 16 sqq.) where the restoration of the
holy vessels finds no place in the shorter text of the Septuagint
(see W. R. Smith, _Old Test. and Jew. Church_, pp. 104 sqq.).
[43] The view that Deuteronomy is later than the 7th century has been
suggested by M. Vernes, _Nouvelle hypothèse sur la comp. et l'origine
du Deut._ (1887); Havet, _Christian. et ses origines_ (1878); Horst,
in _Rev. de l'hist. des relig._, 1888; and more recently by E. Day,
_Journ. Bib. Lit._ (1902), pp. 202 sqq.; and R. H. Kennett, _Journ.
Theol. Stud._ (1906), pp. 486 sqq. The strongest counter-arguments
(see W. E. Addis, _Doc. of Hexat._ ii. 2-9) rely upon the historical
trustworthiness of 2 Kings xxii. seq. Weighty reasons are brought
also by conservative writers against the theory that Deuteronomy
dates from or about the age of Josiah, and their objections to the
"discovery" of a new law-roll apply equally to the "re-discovery" and
promulgation of an old and authentic code.
[44] See, for Cheyne's view, his _Decline and Fall of Judah.
Introduction_ (1908). The former tendency has many supporters; see,
among recent writers, N. Schmidt, _Hibbert Journal_ (1908), pp. 322
sqq.; C. F. Burney, _Journ. Theol. Stud._ (1908), pp. 321 sqq.; O. A.
Toffteen, _The Historic Exodus_ (1909), pp. 120 sqq.; especially
Meyer and Luther, _Die Israeliten_, pp. 442-440, &c. For the early
recognition of the evidence in question, see J. Wellhausen, _De
gentibus et familiis Judaeis_ (Göttingen, 1870); _Prolegomena_ (Eng.
trans.), pp. 216 sqq., 342 sqq., and 441-443 (from art. "Israel," §
2, _Ency. Brit._ 9th ed.); also A. Kuenen, _Relig. of Israel_ (i. 135
seq., 176-182); W. R. Smith, _Prophets of Israel_, pp. 28 seq., 379.
[45] For the prominence of the "southern" element in Judah see E.
Meyer, _Entstehung d. Judenthums_ (1896), pp. 119, 147, 167, 177, 183
n. 1; _Israeliten_, pp. 352 n. 5, 402, 429 seq.
[46] See § 23 end, and LEVITES. When Edom is renowned for wisdom and
a small Judaean family boasts of sages whose names have south
Palestinian affinity (1 Chron. ii. 6), and when such names as Korah,
Heman, Ethan and Obed-edom, are associated with psalmody, there is no
inherent improbability in the conjecture that the "southern" families
settled around Jerusalem may have left their mark in other parts of
the Old Testament. It is another question whether such literature can
be identified (for Cheyne's views, see _Ency. Bib._ "Prophetic
Literature," "Psalms," and his recent studies).
[47] One may recall, in this connexion, Caxton's very interesting
prologue to Malory's _Morte d'Arthur_ and his remarks on the
permanent value of the "histories" of this British hero. [Cf. also
Horace, _Ep._ 1. ii. and R. Browning, "Development."]
[48] It is noteworthy that Josephus, who has his own representation
of the post-exilic age, allows two years and four months for the work
(_Ant._ xi. 5, 8).
[49] The papyri from Elephantine (p. 282, n. 1, above) mention as
contemporaries the Jerusalem priest Johanan (cf. the son of Joiada
and father of Jaddua, Neh. xii. 22), Bagohi (Bagoas), governor of
Judah, and Delaiah and Shelemiah sons of Sanballat (408-407 B.C.)
They ignore any strained relations between Samaria and Judah, and
Delaiah and Bagohi unite in granting permission to the Jewish colony
to rebuild their place of worship. If this fixes the date of
Sanballat and Nehemiah in the time of the first Artaxerxes, the
probability of confusion in the later written sources is enhanced by
the recurrence of identical names of kings, priests, &c., in the
history.
[50] The Samaritans, for their part, claimed the traditions of their
land and called themselves the posterity of Joseph, Ephraim and
Manasseh. But they were ready to deny their kinship with the Jews
when the latter were in adversity, and could have replied to the
tradition that they were foreigners with a _tu quoque_ (Josephus,
_Ant._ ix. 14, 3; xi. 8, 6; xii. 5, 5) (see SAMARITANS).
[51] The statement that the king desired to avoid the divine wrath
may possibly have some deeper meaning (e.g. some recent revolt, Ezra
vii. 23).
[52] It must suffice to refer to the opinions of Bertholet, Buhl,
Cheyne, Guthe, Van Hoonacker, Jahn, Kennett, Kent, Kosters, Marquart,
Torrey, and Wildeboer.
[53] C. F. Kent, _Israel's Hist. and Biog. Narratives_ (1905), p. 358
seq. The objections against this very probable view undervalue Ezra
iv. 7-23 and overlook the serious intricacies in the book of
Nehemiah.
[54] There are three inquiries: (a) the critical value of 1 Esdras,
(b) the character of the different representations of post-exilic
internal and external history, and (c) the recovery of the historical
facts. To start with the last before considering (a) and (b) would be
futile.
[55] For example, to the sufferings under Artaxerxes III. (§ 19) have
been ascribed such passages as Isa. lxiii. 7-lxiv. 12; Ps. xliv.,
lxxiv., lxxix., lxxx., lxxxiii. (see also LAMENTATIONS). In their
present form they are not of the beginning of the 6th century and, if
the evidence for Artaxerxes III. proves too doubtful, they may belong
to the history preceding Nehemiah's return, provided the internal
features do not stand in the way (e.g. prior or posterior to the
formation of the exclusive Judaean community, &c.). Since the book of
Baruch (named after Jeremiah's scribe) is now recognized to be
considerably later (probably after the destruction of Jerusalem A.D.
70), it will be seen that the recurrence of similar causes leads to a
similarity in the contemporary literary productions (with a reshaping
of earlier tradition), the precise date of which depends upon
delicate points of detail and not upon the apparently obvious
historical elements.
[56] See H. Winckler, _Keil. u. Alte Test._, 295, and Kennett,
_Journ. Theol. Stud._ (1906), p. 487; _Camb. Bib. Essays_, p. 117.
The Chaldeans alone destroyed Jerusalem (2 Kings xxv.); Edom was
friendly or at least neutral (Jer. xxvii. 3, xl. 11 seq.). The
proposal to read "Edomites" for "Syrians" in the list of bands which
troubled Jehoiakim (2 Kings xxiv. 2) is not supported by the
contemporary reference, Jer. xxxv. 11.
[57] It is at least a coincidence that the prophet who took the part
of Tobiah and Sanballat against Nehemiah (vi. 10 seq.) bears the same
name as the one who advised Rehoboam to acquiesce in the disruption
(1 Kings xii. 21-24), or announced the divine selection of Jeroboam
(ib. v. 24, Septuagint only).
[58] See HEBREW RELIGION, § 8 seq., and the relevant portions of the
histories of Israel.
[59] J. Wellhausen, art. "Israel," _Ency. Brit._ 9th ed., vol. xiii.
p. 419; or his _Prolegomena_, pp. 497 seq.
[60] An instructive account of Judaism in the early post-exilic age
on critical lines (from the Jewish standpoint) is given by C. G.
Montefiore, _Hibbert Lectures_ (1892), pp. 355 sqq.; cf. also the
sketch by I. Abrahams, _Judaism_ (1907).
[61] Cf. the story of Phinehas, Num. xxv. 6 sqq.; on Gen. xxxiv., see
SIMEON. Apropos of hostility towards Samaria, it is singular that the
term of reproach, "Cutheans," applied to the Samaritans is derived
from Cutha, the famous seat of the god Nergal, only some 25 m. N.E.
of Babylon itself (see above, p. 286, n. 4).
[62] The various tendencies which can be observed in the later
pseudepigraphical and apocalyptical writings are of considerable
value in any consideration of the development of thought illustrated
in the Old Testament itself.
[63] Reference may be made to H. Winckler, _Gesch. Israels_, ii.
(1900); W. Erbt, _Die Hebräer_ (1906); and T. K. Cheyne, _Traditions
and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_ (1907).
[64] On the writers mentioned below see articles s.v.
[65] For the importance of the Portuguese Jews, see PORTUGAL:
_History_.
JEWSBURY, GERALDINE ENDSOR (1812-1880), English writer, daughter of
Thomas Jewsbury, a Manchester merchant, was born in 1812 at Measham,
Derbyshire. Her first novel, _Zoe: the History of Two Lives_, was
published in 1845, and was followed by _The Half Sisters_ (1848),
_Marian Withers_ (1851), _Constance Herbert_ (1855), _The Sorrows of
Gentility_ (1856), _Right or Wrong_ (1859). In 1850 she was invited by
Charles Dickens to write for _Household Words_; for many years she was a
frequent contributor to the _Athenaeum_ and other journals and
magazines. It is, however, mainly on account of her friendship with
Thomas Carlyle and his wife that her name is remembered. Carlyle
described her, after their first meeting in 1841, as "one of the most
interesting young women I have seen for years; clear delicate sense and
courage looking out of her small sylph-like figure." From this time till
Mrs Carlyle's death in 1866, Geraldine Jewsbury was the most intimate of
her friends. The selections from Geraldine Jewsbury's letters to Jane
Welsh Carlyle (1892, ed. Mrs Alexander Ireland) prove how confidential
were the relations between the two women for a quarter of a century. In
1854 Miss Jewsbury removed from Manchester to London to be near her
friend. To her Carlyle turned for sympathy when his wife died; and at
his request she wrote down some "biographical anecdotes" of Mrs
Carlyle's childhood and early married life. Carlyle's comment was that
"few or none of these narratives are correct in details, but there is a
certain mythical truth in all or most of them;" and he added, "the
Geraldine accounts of her (Mrs Carlyle's) childhood are substantially
correct." He accepted them as the groundwork for his own essay on "Jane
Welsh Carlyle," with which they were therefore incorporated by Froude
when editing Carlyle's _Reminiscences_. Miss Jewsbury was consulted by
Froude when he was preparing Carlyle's biography, and her recollection
of her friend's confidences confirmed the suspicion that Carlyle had on
one occasion used physical violence towards his wife. Miss Jewsbury
further informed Froude that the secret of the domestic troubles of the
Carlyles lay in the fact that Carlyle had been "one of those persons who
ought never to have married," and that Mrs Carlyle had at one time
contemplated having her marriage legally annulled (see _My Relations
with Carlyle_, by James Anthony Froude, 1903). The endeavour has been
made to discredit Miss Jewsbury in relation to this matter, but there
seems to be no sufficient ground for doubting that she accurately
repeated what she had learnt from Mrs Carlyle's own lips. Miss Jewsbury
died in London on the 23rd of September 1880.
JEW'S EARS, the popular name of a fungus, known botanically as _Hirneola
auricula-judae_, so called from its shape, which somewhat resembles a
human ear. It is very thin, flexible, flesh-coloured to dark brown, and
one to three inches broad. It is common on branches of elder, which it
often kills, and is also found on elm, willow, oak and other trees. It
was formerly prescribed as a remedy for dropsy.
JEW'S HARP, or JEW'S TRUMP (Fr. _guimbarde_, O. Fr. _trompe_, _gronde_;
Ger. _Mundharmonica_, _Maultrommel_, _Brummeisen_; Ital.
_scaccia-pensieri_ or _spassa-pensiero_), a small musical instrument of
percussion, known for centuries all over Europe. "Jew's trump" is the
older name, and "trump" is still used in parts of Great Britain.
Attempts have been made to derive "Jew's" from "jaws" or Fr. _jeu_, but,
though there is no apparent reason for associating the instrument with
the Jews, it is certain that "Jew's" is the original form (see the _New
English Dictionary_ and C. B. Mount in _Notes and Queries_ (Oct. 23,
1897, p. 322). The instrument consists of a slender tongue of steel
riveted at one end to the base of a pear-shaped steel loop; the other
end of the tongue, left free and passing out between the two branches of
the frame, terminates in a sharp bend at right angles, to enable the
player to depress it by an elastic blow and thus set it vibrating while
firmly pressing the branches of the frame against his teeth. The
vibrations of the steel tongue produce a compound sound composed of a
fundamental and its harmonics. By using the cavity of the mouth as a
resonator, each harmonic in succession can be isolated and reinforced,
giving the instrument the compass shown. The lower harmonics of the
series cannot be obtained, owing to the limited capacity of the
resonating cavity. The black notes on the stave show the scale which may
be produced by using two harps, one tuned a fourth above the other. The
player on the Jew's harp, in order to isolate the harmonics, frames his
mouth as though intending to pronounce the various vowels. At the
beginning of the 19th century, when much energy and ingenuity were being
expended in all countries upon the invention of new musical instruments,
the _Maultrommel_, re-christened _Mundharmonica_ (the most rational of
all its names), attracted attention in Germany. Heinrich Scheibler
devised an ingenious holder with a handle, to contain five Jew's harps,
all tuned to different notes; by holding one in each hand, a large
compass, with duplicate notes, became available; he called this complex
Jew's harp _Aura_[1] and with it played themes with variations, marches,
Scotch reels, &c. Other virtuosi, such as Eulenstein, a native of
Würtemberg, achieved the same result by placing the variously tuned
Jew's harps upon the table in front of him, taking them up and setting
them down as required. Eulenstein created a sensation in London in 1827
by playing on no fewer than sixteen Jew's harps. In 1828 Sir Charles
Wheatstone published an essay on the technique of the instrument in the
_Quarterly Journal of Science_. (K. S.)
[Illustration]