FOOTNOTE:

[1] In June 1908 the subway lines of the interborough system of New

York City were extended to the Flatbush (Brooklyn) station of the Long

Island railroad, thus bringing Jamaica into direct connexion with

Manhattan borough by way of the East river tunnel, completed in the

same year.

JAMB (from Fr. _jambe_, leg), in architecture, the side-post or lining

of a doorway or other aperture. The jambs of a window outside the frame

are called "reveals." Small shafts to doors and windows with caps and

bases are known as "jamb-shafts"; when in the inside arris of the jamb

of a window they are sometimes called "scoinsons."

JAMES (a variant of the name Jacob, Heb. [Hebrew: Yaacov], one who holds

by the heel, outwitter, through O. Fr. _James_, another form of

_Jacques_, _Jaques_, from Low Lat. _Jacobus_; cf. Ital. _Jacopo_

[Jacob], _Giacomo_ [James], Prov. _Jacme_, Cat. _Jaume_, Cast.

_Jaime_), a masculine proper name popular in Christian countries as

having been that of two of Christ's apostles. It has been borne by many

sovereigns and other princes, the most important of whom are noticed

below, after the heading devoted to the characters in the New Testament,

in the following order: (1) kings of England and Scotland, (2) other

kings in the alphabetical order of their countries, (3) the "Old

Pretender." The article on the Epistle of James in the New Testament

follows after the remaining biographical articles in which James is a

surname.

JAMES (Gr. [Greek: Iakôbos], the Heb. _Ya'akob_ or Jacob), the name of

several persons mentioned in the New Testament.

1. JAMES, the son of Zebedee. He was among the first who were called to

be Christ's immediate followers (Mark i. 19 seq.; Matt. iv. 21 seq., and

perhaps Luke v. 10), and afterwards obtained an honoured place in the

apostolic band, his name twice occupying the second place after Peter's

in the lists (Mark iii. 17; Acts i. 13), while on at least three notable

occasions he was, along with Peter and his brother John, specially

chosen by Jesus to be with him (Mark v. 37; Matt. xvii. i, xxvi. 37).

This same prominence may have contributed partly to the title

"Boanerges" or "sons of thunder" which, according to Mark iii. 17, Jesus

himself gave to the two brothers. But its most natural interpretation is

to be found in the impetuous disposition which would have called down

fire from heaven on the offending Samaritan villagers (Luke ix. 54), and

afterwards found expression, though in a different way, in the ambitious

request to occupy the places of honour in Christ's kingdom (Mark x. 35

seq.). James is included among those who after the ascension waited at

Jerusalem (Acts i. 13) for the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of

Pentecost. And though on this occasion only his name is mentioned, he

must have been a zealous and prominent member of the Christian

community, to judge from the fact that when a victim had to be chosen

from among the apostles, who should be sacrificed to the animosity of

the Jews, it was on James that the blow fell first. The brief notice is

given in Acts xii. 1, 2. Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._ ii. 9) has preserved

for us from Clement of Alexandria the additional information that the

accuser of the apostle "beholding his confession and moved thereby,

confessed that he too was a Christian. So they were both led away to

execution together; and on the road the accuser asked James for

forgiveness. Gazing on him for a little while, he said, 'Peace be with

thee,' and kissed him. And then both were beheaded together."

The later, and wholly untrustworthy, legends which tell of the

apostle's preaching in Spain, and of the translation of his body to

Santiago de Compostela, are to be found in the _Acta Sanctorum_ (July

25), vi. 1-124; see also Mrs Jameson's _Sacred and Legendary Art_, i.

230-241.

2. JAMES, the son of Alphaeus. He also was one of the apostles, and is

mentioned in all the four lists (Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 15;

Acts i. 13) by this name. We know nothing further regarding him, unless

we believe him to be the same as James "the little."

3. JAMES, the little. He is described as the son of a Mary (Matt, xxvii.

56; Mark xv. 40), who was in all probability the wife of Clopas (John

xix. 25). And on the ground that Clopas is another form of the name

Alphaeus, this James has been thought by some to be the same as 2. But

the evidence of the Syriac versions, which render Alphaeus by

_Chalphai_, while Clopas is simply transliterated _Kleopha_, makes it

extremely improbable that the two names are to be identified. And as we

have no better ground for finding in Clopas the Cleopas of Luke xxiv.

18, we must be content to admit that James the little is again an almost

wholly unknown personality, and has no connexion with any of the other

Jameses mentioned in the New Testament.

4. JAMES, the father of Judas. There can be no doubt that in the mention

of "Judas of James" in Luke vi. 16 the ellipsis should be supplied by

"the son" and not as in the A.V. by "the brother" (cf. Luke iii. 1, vi.

14; Acts xii. 2, where the word [Greek: adelphos] is inserted). This

Judas, known as Thaddaeus by Matthew and Mark, afterwards became one of

the apostles, and is expressly distinguished by St John from the traitor

as "not Iscariot" (John xiv. 22).

5. JAMES, the Lord's brother. In Matt. xiii. 55 and Mark vi. 3 we read

of a certain James as, along with Joses and Judas and Simon, a "brother"

of the Lord. The exact nature of the relationship there implied has been

the subject of much discussion. Jerome's view (_de vir. ill._ 2), that

the "brothers" were in reality cousins, "sons of Mary the sister of the

Lord's mother," rests on too many unproved assumptions to be entitled to

much weight, and may be said to have been finally disposed of by Bishop

Lightfoot in his essay on "The Brothers of the Lord" (_Galatians_, pp.

252 sqq., _Dissertations on the Apostolic Age_, pp. 1 sqq.). Even

however if we understand the word "brethren" in its natural sense, it

may be applied either to the sons of Joseph by a former wife, in which

case they would be the step-brothers of Jesus, or to sons born to Joseph

and Mary after the birth of Jesus. The former of these views, generally

known as the _Epiphanian_ view from its most zealous advocate in the 4th

century, can claim for its support the preponderating voice of tradition

(see the catena of references given by Lightfoot, _loc. cit._, who

himself inclines to this view). On the other hand the _Helvidian_ theory

as propounded by Helvidius, and apparently accepted by Tertullian (cf.

_adv. Marc._ iv. 29), which makes James a brother of the Lord, as truly

as Mary was his mother, undoubtedly seems more in keeping with the

direct statements of the Gospels, and also with the after history of the

brothers in the Church (see W. Patrick, _James the Brother of the Lord_,

1906, p. 5). In any case, whatever the exact nature of James's

antecedents, there can be no question as to the important place which he

occupied in the early Church. Converted to a full belief in the living

Lord, perhaps through the special revelation that was granted to him (1

Cor. xv. 7), he became the recognized head of the Church at Jerusalem

(Acts xii. 17, xv. 13, xxi. 18), and is called by St Paul (Gal. ii. 9),

along with Peter and John, a "pillar" of the Christian community. He was

traditionally the author of the epistle in the New Testament which bears

his name (see JAMES, EPISTLE OF). From the New Testament we learn no

more of the history of James the Lord's brother, but Eusebius (_Hist.

Eccl._ ii. 23) has preserved for us from Hegesippus the earliest

ecclesiastical traditions concerning him. By that authority he is

described as having been a Nazarite, and on account of his eminent

righteousness called "Just" and "Oblias." So great was his influence

with the people that he was appealed to by the scribes and Pharisees for

a true and (as they hoped) unfavourable judgment about the Messiahship

of Christ. Placed, to give the greater publicity to his words, on a

pinnacle of the temple, he, when solemnly appealed to, made confession

of his faith, and was at once thrown down and murdered. This happened

immediately before the siege. Josephus (_Antiq._ xx. 9, 1) tells that it

was by order of Ananus the high priest, in the interval between the

death of Festus and the arrival of his successor Albinus, that James was

put to death; and his narrative gives the idea of some sort of judicial

examination, for he says that along with some others James was brought

before an assembly of judges, by whom they were condemned and delivered

to be stoned. Josephus is also cited by Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._ ii. 23)

to the effect that the miseries of the siege were due to divine

vengeance for the murder of James. Later writers describe James as an

[Greek: episkopos] (Clem. Al. _apud_ Eus. _Hist. Ecc._ ii. 1) and even

as an [Greek: episkopos episkopôn] (Clem. _Hom., ad init._). According

to Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._ vii. 19) his episcopal chair was still shown

at Jerusalem at the time when Eusebius wrote.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--In addition to the relevant literature cited above, see

the articles under the heading "James" in Hastings's _Dictionary of

the Bible_ (Mayor) and _Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels_

(Fulford), and in the _Encycl. Biblica_ (O. Cone); also the

introductions to the Commentaries on the Epistle of James by Mayor and

Knowling. Zahn has an elaborate essay on _Brüder und Vettern Jesu_

("The Brothers and Cousins of Jesus") in the _Forschungen zur

Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons_, vi. 2 (Leipzig, 1900).

(G. Mi.)

JAMES I. (1566-1625), king of Great Britain and Ireland, formerly king

of Scotland as James VI., was the only child of Mary Queen of Scots, and

her second husband, Henry Stewart Lord Darnley. He was born in the

castle of Edinburgh on the 19th of June 1566, and was proclaimed king of

Scotland on the 24th of July 1567, upon the forced abdication of his

mother. Until 1578 he was treated as being incapable of taking any real

part in public affairs, and was kept in the castle of Stirling for

safety's sake amid the confused fighting of the early years of his

minority.

The young king was a very weakly boy. It is said that he could not stand

without support until he was seven, and although he lived until he was

nearly sixty, he was never a strong man. In after life he was a constant

and even a reckless rider, but the weakness in his legs was never quite

cured. During a great part of his life he found it necessary to be tied

to the saddle. When on one occasion in 1621 his horse threw him into the

New River near his palace of Theobalds in the neighbourhood of London,

he had a very narrow escape of being drowned; yet he continued to ride

as before. At all times he preferred to lean on the shoulder of an

attendant when walking. This feebleness of body, which had no doubt a

large share in causing certain corresponding deficiencies of character,

was attributed to the agitations and the violent efforts forced on his

mother by the murder of her secretary Rizzio when she was in the sixth

month of her pregnancy. The fact that James was a bold rider, in spite

of this serious disqualification for athletic exercise, should be borne

in mind when he is accused of having been a coward.

The circumstances surrounding him in boyhood were not favourable to the

development of his character. His immediate guardian or foster-father,

the earl of Mar, was indeed an honourable man, and the countess, who had

charge of the nursing of the king, discharged her duty so as to win his

lasting confidence. James afterwards entrusted her with the care of his

eldest son, Henry. When the earl died in 1572 his place was well filled

by his brother, Sir Alexander Erskine. The king's education was placed

under the care of George Buchanan, assisted by Peter Young, and two

other tutors. Buchanan, who did not spare the rod, and the other

teachers, who had more reverence for the royal person, gave the boy a

sound training in languages. The English envoy, Sir Henry Killigrew, who

saw him in 1574, testified to his proficiency in translating from and

into Latin and French. As it was very desirable that he should be

trained a Protestant king, he was well instructed in theology. The

exceptionally scholastic quality of his education helped to give him a

taste for learning, but also tended to make him a pedant.

James was only twelve when the earl of Morton was driven from the

regency, and for some time after he can have been no more than a puppet

in the hands of intriguers and party leaders. When, for instance, in

1582 he was seized by the faction of nobles who carried out the

so-called raid of Ruthven, which was in fact a kidnapping enterprise

carried out in the interest of the Protestant party, he cried like a

child. One of the conspirators, the master of Glamis, Sir Thomas Lyon,

told him that it was better "bairns should greet [children should cry]

than bearded men." It was not indeed till 1583, when he broke away from

his captors, that James began to govern in reality.

For the history of his reign reference may be made to the articles on

the histories of England and Scotland. James's work as a ruler can be

divided, without violating any sound rule of criticism, into black and

white--into the part which was a failure and a preparation for future

disaster, and the part which was solid achievement, honourable to

himself and profitable to his people. His native kingdom of Scotland had

the benefit of the second. Between 1583 and 1603 he reduced the

anarchical baronage of Scotland to obedience, and replaced the

subdivision of sovereignty and consequent confusion, which had been the

very essence of feudalism, by a strong centralized royal authority. In

fact he did in Scotland the work which had been done by the Tudors in

England, by Louis XI. in France, and by Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain.

It was the work of all the strong rulers of the Renaissance. But James

not only brought his disobedient and intriguing barons to order--that

was a comparatively easy achievement and might well have been performed

by more than one of his predecessors, had their lives been prolonged--he

also quelled the attempts of the Protestants to found what Hallam has

well defined as a "Presbyterian Hildebrandism." He enforced the

superiority of the state over the church. Both before his accession to

the throne of England (1603) and afterwards he took an intelligent

interest in the prosperity of his Scottish kingdom, and did much for the

pacification of the Hebrides, for the enforcement of order on the

Borders, and for the development of industry. That he did so much

although the crown was poor (largely it must be confessed because he

made profuse gifts of the secularized church lands), and although the

armed force at his disposal was so small that to the very end he was

exposed to the attacks of would-be kidnappers (as in the case of the

Gowrie conspiracy of 1600), is proof positive that he was neither the

mere poltroon nor the mere learned fool he has often been called.

James's methods of achieving ends in themselves honourable and

profitable were indeed of a kind which has made posterity unjust to his

real merits. The circumstances in which he passed his youth developed in

him a natural tendency to craft. He boasted indeed of his "king-craft"

and probably believed that he owed it to his studies. But it was in

reality the resource of the weak, the art of playing off one possible

enemy against another by trickery, and so deceiving all. The marquis de

Fontenay, the French ambassador, who saw him in the early part of his

reign, speaks of him as cowed by the violence about him. It is certain

that James was most unscrupulous in making promises which he never meant

to keep, and the terror in which he passed his youth sufficiently

explains his preference for guile. He would make promises to everybody,

as when he wrote to the pope in 1584 more than hinting that he would be

a good Roman Catholic if helped in his need. His very natural desire to

escape from the poverty and insecurity of Scotland to the opulent

English throne not only kept him busy in intrigues to placate the Roman

Catholics or anybody else who could help or hinder him, but led him to

behave basely in regard to the execution of his mother in 1587. He

blustered to give himself an air of courage, but took good care to do

nothing to offend Elizabeth. When the time came for fulfilling his

promises and half-promises, he was not able, even if he had been

willing, to keep his word to everybody. The methods which had helped him

to success in Scotland did him harm in England, where his reign prepared

the way for the great civil war. In his southern kingdom his failure was

in fact complete. Although England accepted him as the alternative to

civil war, and although he was received and surrounded with fulsome

flattery, he did not win the respect of his English subjects. His

undignified personal appearance was against him, and so were his

garrulity, his Scottish accent, his slovenliness and his toleration of

disorders in his court, but, above all, his favour for handsome male

favourites, whom he loaded with gifts and caressed with demonstrations

of affection which laid him open to vile suspicions. In ecclesiastical

matters he offended many, who contrasted his severity and rudeness to

the Puritan divines at the Hampton Court conference (1604) with his

politeness to the Roman Catholics, whom he, however, worried by fits and

starts. In a country where the authority of the state had been firmly

established and the problem was how to keep it from degenerating into

the mere instrument of a king's passions, his insistence on the doctrine

of divine right aroused distrust and hostility. In itself, and in its

origin, the doctrine was nothing more than a necessary assertion of the

independence of the state in face of the "Hildebrandism" of Rome and

Geneva alike. But when Englishmen were told that the king alone had

indefeasible rights, and that all the privileges of subjects were

revocable gifts, they were roused to hostility. His weaknesses cast

suspicion on his best-meant schemes. His favour for his countrymen

helped to defeat his wise wish to bring about a full union between

England and Scotland. His profusion, which had been bad in the poverty

of Scotland and was boundless amid the wealth of England, kept him

necessitous, and drove him to shifts. Posterity can give him credit for

his desire to forward religious peace in Europe, but his Protestant

subjects were simply frightened when he sought a matrimonial alliance

with Spain. Sagacious men among his contemporaries could not see the

consistency of a king who married his daughter Elizabeth to the elector

palatine, a leader of the German Protestants, and also sought to marry

his son to an infanta of Spain. The king's subservience to Spain was

indeed almost besotted. He could not see her real weakness, and he

allowed himself to be befooled by the ministers of Philip III. and

Philip IV. The end of his scheming was that he was dragged into a

needless war with Spain by his son Charles and his favourite George

Villiers, duke of Buckingham, just before his death on the 5th of March

1625 at his favourite residence, Theobalds.

James married in 1589 Anne, second daughter of Frederick II., king of

Denmark. His voyage to meet his bride, whose ship had been driven into a

Norwegian port by bad weather, is the only episode of a romantic

character in the life of this very prosaic member of a poetic family. By

this wife James had three children who survived infancy: Henry

Frederick, prince of Wales, who died in 1612; Charles, the future king;

and Elizabeth, wife of the elector palatine, Frederick V.

Not the least of James's many ambitions was the desire to excel as an

author. He left a body of writings which, though of mediocre quality as

literature, entitle him to a unique place among English kings since

Alfred for width of intellectual interest and literary faculty. His

efforts were inspired by his preceptor George Buchanan, whose memory he

cherished in later years. His first work was in verse, _Essayes of a

Prentise in the Divine Art of Poesie_ (Edin. Vautrollier, 1584),

containing fifteen sonnets, "Ane Metaphoricall invention of a tragedie

called Phoenix," a short poem "Of Time," translations from Du Bartas,

Lucan and the Book of Psalms ("out of Tremellius"), and a prose tract

entitled "Ane short treatise, containing some Reulis and Cautelis to be

observit and eschewit in Scottis Poesie." The volume is introduced by

commendatory sonnets, including one by Alexander Montgomerie. The chief

interest of the book lies in the "Treatise" and the prefatory sonnets

"To the Reader" and "Sonnet decifring the perfyte poete." There is

little originality in this youthful production. It has been surmised

that it was compiled from the exercises written when the author was

Buchanan's pupil at Stirling, and that it was directly suggested by his

preceptor's _De Prosodia_ and his annotations on Vives. On the other

hand, it shows intimate acquaintance with the critical reflections of

Ronsard and Du Bellay, and of Gascoigne in his _Notes of Instruction_

(1575). In 1591 James published _Poeticall Exercises at Vacant Houres_,

including a translation of the _Furies_ of Du Bartas, his own _Lepanto_,

and Du Bartas's version of it, _La Lepanthe_. His _Daemonologie_, a

prose treatise denouncing witchcraft and exhorting the civil power to

the strongest measures of suppression, appeared in 1599. In the same

year he printed the first edition (seven copies) of his _Basilikon

Doron_, strongly Protestant in tone. A French edition, specially

translated for presentation to the pope, has a disingenuous preface

explaining that certain phrases (e.g. "papistical doctrine") are

omitted, because of the difficulty of rendering them in a foreign

tongue. The original edition was, however, translated by order of the

suspicious pope, and was immediately placed on the Index. Shortly after

going to England James produced his famous _Counterblaste to Tobacco_

(London, 1604), in which he forsakes his Scots tongue for Southern

English. The volume was published anonymously. James's prose works

(including his speeches) were collected and edited (folio, 1616) by

James Montagu, bishop of Winchester, and were translated into Latin by

the same hand in a companion folio, in 1619 (also Frankfort, 1689). A

tract, entitled "The True Law of Free Monarchies," appeared in 1603; "An

Apology for the Oath of Allegiance" in 1607; and a "_Déclaration du Roy

Jacques I. ... pour le droit des Rois_" in 1615. In 1588 and 1589 James

issued two small volumes of _Meditations_ on some verses of (a)

Revelations and (b) 1 Chronicles. Other two "meditations" were printed

posthumously.

See T. F. Henderson, _James I. and VI._ (London, 1904); P. Hume Brown,

_History of Scotland_, vol. ii. (Edinburgh and Cambridge, 1902); and

Andrew Lang, _History of Scotland_, vol. ii. (Edinburgh, 1902) and

_James VI. and the Gowrie Mystery_ (London, 1902); _The Register of

the Privy Council of Scotland_ (Edinburgh, 1877, &c.), vols. ii. to

xiii.; S. R. Gardiner, _History of England 1603-1642_ (London,

1883-1884). A comprehensive bibliography will be found in the

_Cambridge Modern Hist._ iii. 847 (Cambridge, 1904).

For James's literary work, see Edward Arber's reprint of the _Essayes

and Counterblaste_ ("English Reprints," 1869, &c.); R. S. Rait's

_Lusus Regius_ (1900); G. Gregory Smith's _Elizabethan Critical

Essays_ (1904), vol. i., where the _Treatise_ is edited for the first

time; A. O. Meyer's "Clemens VIII. und Jacob I. von England" in

_Quellen und Forschungen_ (Preuss. Hist. Inst.), VII. ii., for an

account of the issues of the _Basilikon Doron_; P. Hume Brown's

_George Buchanan_ (1890), pp. 250-261, for a sketch of James's

association with Buchanan.

JAMES II. (1633-1701), king of Great Britain and Ireland, second

surviving son of Charles I. and Henrietta Maria, was born at St James's

on the 15th of October 1633, and created duke of York in January 1643.

During the Civil War James was taken prisoner by Fairfax (1646), but

contrived to escape to Holland in 1648. Subsequently he served in the

French army under Turenne, and in the Spanish under Condé, and was

applauded by both commanders for his brilliant personal courage.

Returning to England with Charles II. in 1660 he was appointed lord high

admiral and warden of the Cinque Ports. Pepys, who was secretary to the

navy, has recorded the patient industry and unflinching probity of his

naval administration. His victory over the Dutch in 1665, and his drawn

battle with De Ruyter in 1672, show that he was a good naval commander

as well as an excellent administrator. These achievements won him a

reputation for high courage, which, until the close of 1688, was amply

deserved. His private record was not as good as his public. In December

1660 he admitted to having contracted, under discreditable

circumstances, a secret marriage with Anne Hyde (1637-1671), daughter of

Lord Clarendon, in the previous September. Both before and after the

marriage he seems to have been a libertine as unblushing though not so

fastidious as Charles himself. In 1672 he made a public avowal of his

conversion to Roman Catholicism. Charles II. had opposed this project,

but in 1673 allowed him to marry the Catholic Mary of Modena as his

second wife. Both houses of parliament, who viewed this union with

abhorrence, now passed the Test Act, forbidding Catholics to hold

office. In consequence of this James was forced to resign his posts. It

was in vain that he married his daughter Mary to the Protestant prince

of Orange in 1677. Anti-Catholic feeling ran so high that, after the

discovery of the Popish Plot, he found it wiser to retire to Brussels

(1679), while Shaftesbury and the Whigs planned to exclude him from the

succession. He was lord high commissioner of Scotland (1680-1682), where

he occupied himself in a severe persecution of the Covenanters. In 1684

Charles, having triumphed over the Exclusionists, restored James to the

office of high admiral by use of his dispensing power.

James ascended the throne on the 16th of February 1685. The nation

showed its loyalty by its firm adherence to him during the rebellions of

Argyll in Scotland and Monmouth in England (1685). The savage reprisals

on their suppression, in especial the "Bloody Assizes" of Jeffreys,

produced a revulsion of public feeling. James had promised to defend the

existing Church and government, but the people now became suspicious.

James was not a mere tyrant and bigot, as the popular imagination

speedily assumed him to be. He was rather a mediocre but not altogether

obtuse man, who mistook tributary streams for the main currents of

national thought. Thus he greatly underrated the strength of the

Establishment, and preposterously exaggerated that of Dissent and

Catholicism. He perceived that opinion was seriously divided in the

Established Church, and thought that a vigorous policy would soon prove

effective. Hence he publicly celebrated Mass, prohibited preaching

against Catholicism, and showed exceptional favour to renegades from the

Establishment. By undue pressure he secured a decision of the judges, in

the test case of _Godden_ v. _Hale_ (1687), by which he was allowed to

dispense Catholics from the Test Act. Catholics were now admitted to the

chief offices in the army, and to some important posts in the state, in

virtue of the dispensing power of James. The judges had been intimidated

or corrupted, and the royal promise to protect the Establishment

violated. The army had been increased to 20,000 men and encamped at

Hounslow Heath to overawe the capital. Public alarm was speedily

manifested and suspicion to a high degree awakened. In 1687 James made a

bid for the support of the Dissenters by advocating a system of joint

toleration for Catholics and Dissenters. In April 1687 he published a

Declaration of Indulgence--exempting Catholics and Dissenters from penal

statutes. He followed up this measure by dissolving parliament and

attacking the universities. By an unscrupulous use of the dispensing

power he introduced Dissenters and Catholics into all departments of

state and into the municipal corporations, which were remodelled in

their interests. Then in April 1688 he took the suicidal step of issuing

a proclamation to force the clergy and bishops to read the Declaration

in their pulpits, and thus personally advocate a measure they detested.

Seven bishops refused, were indicted by James for libel, but acquitted

amid the indescribable enthusiasm of the populace. Protestant nobles of

England, enraged at the tolerant policy of James, had been in

negotiation with William of Orange since 1687. The trial of the seven

bishops, and the birth of a son to James, now induced them to send

William a definite invitation (June 30, 1688). James remained in a

fool's paradise till the last, and only awakened to his danger when

William landed at Torbay (November 5, 1688) and swept all before him.

James pretended to treat, and in the midst of the negotiations fled to

France. He was intercepted at Faversham and brought back, but the

politic prince of Orange allowed him to escape a second time (December

23, 1688).

At the end of 1688 James seemed to have lost his old courage. After his

defeat at the Boyne (July 1, 1690) he speedily departed from Ireland,

where he had so conducted himself that his English followers had been

ashamed of his incapacity, while French officers had derided him. His

proclamations and policy towards England during these years show

unmistakable traces of the same incompetence. On the 17th of May 1692 he

saw the French fleet destroyed before his very eyes off Cape La Hogue.

He was aware of, though not an open advocate of the "Assassination

Plot," which was directed against William. By its revelation and failure

(February 10, 1696) the third and last serious attempt of James for his

restoration failed. He refused in the same year to accept the French

influence in favour of his candidature to the Polish throne, on the

ground that it would exclude him from the English. Henceforward he

neglected politics, and Louis of France ceased to consider him as a

political factor. A mysterious conversion had been effected in him by an

austere Cistercian abbot. The world saw with astonishment this vicious,

rough, coarse-fibred man of the world transformed into an austere

penitent, who worked miracles of healing. Surrounded by this odour of

sanctity, which greatly edified the faithful, James lived at St Germain

until his death on the 17th of September 1701.

The political ineptitude of James is clear; he often showed firmness

when conciliation was needful, and weakness when resolution alone could

have saved the day. Moreover, though he mismanaged almost every

political problem with which he personally dealt, he was singularly

tactless and impatient of advice. But in general political morality he

was not below his age, and in his advocacy of toleration decidedly above

it. He was more honest and sincere than Charles II., more genuinely

patriotic in his foreign policy, and more consistent in his religious

attitude. That his brother retained the throne while James lost it is an

ironical demonstration that a more pitiless fate awaits the ruler whose

faults are of the intellect, than one whose faults are of the heart.

By Anne Hyde James had eight children, of whom two only, Mary and Anne,

both queens of England, survived their father. By Mary of Modena he had

seven children, among them being James Francis Edward (the Old

Pretender) and Louisa Maria Theresa, who died at St Germain in 1712. By

one mistress, Arabella Churchill (1648-1730), he had two sons, James,

duke of Berwick, and Henry (1673-1702), titular duke of Albemarle and

grand prior of France, and a daughter, Henrietta (1667-1730), who

married Sir Henry Waldegrave, afterwards Baron Waldegrave; and by

another, Catherine Sedley, countess of Dorchester (1657-1717), a

daughter, Catherine (d. 1743), who married James Annesley, 5th earl of

Anglesey, and afterwards John Sheffield, duke of Buckingham and

Normanby.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--_Original Authorities_: J. S. Clarke, _James II. Life_

(London, 1816); James Macpherson, _Original Papers_ (2 vols., London,

1775); Gilbert Burnet, _Supplement to History_, ed. H. C. Foxcroft

(Oxford, 1902); Earl of Clarendon and Earl of Rochester,

_Correspondence_, vol. ii. (London, 1828); John Evelyn, _Diary and

Correspondence and Life_, edited by Bray and Wheatley (London, 1906);

Sir John Reresby, _Memoirs_, ed. A. Ivatt (1904); _Somers Tracts_,

vols, ix.-xi. (London, 1823). _Modern Works_: Lord Acton, _Lectures on

Modern History_, pp. 195-276 (London, 1906); Moritz Brosch,

_Geschichte von England_, Bd. viii. (Gotha, 1903); Onno Klopp, _Der

Fall des Hauses Stuart_, Bde. i.-ix. (Vienna, 1875-1878); L. von

Ranke, _History of England_, vols, iv.-vi. (Oxford, 1875); and Allan

Fea, _James II. and his Wives_ (1908).

JAMES I. (1394-1437), king of Scotland and poet, the son of King Robert

III., was born at Dunfermline in July 1394. After the death of his

mother, Annabella Drummond of Stobhall, in 1402, he was placed under the

care of Henry Wardlaw (d. 1440), who became bishop of St Andrews in

1403, but soon his father resolved to send him to France. Robert

doubtless decided upon this course owing to the fact that in 1402 his

elder son, David, duke of Rothesay, had met his death in a mysterious

fashion, being probably murdered by his uncle, Robert, duke of Albany,

who, as the king was an invalid, was virtually the ruler of Scotland. On

the way to France, however, James fell into the hands of some English

sailors and was sent to Henry IV., who refused to admit him to ransom.

The chronicler Thomas Walsingham, says that James's imprisonment began

in 1406, while the future king himself places it in 1404; February 1406

is probably the correct date. On the death of Robert III. in April 1406

James became nominally king of Scotland, but he remained a captive in

England, the government being conducted by his uncle, Robert of Albany,

who showed no anxiety to procure his nephew's release. Dying in 1420,

Albany was succeeded as regent by his son, Murdoch. At first James was

confined in the Tower of London, but in June 1407 he was removed to the

castle at Nottingham, whence about a month later he was taken to

Evesham. His education was continued by capable tutors, and he not only

attained excellence in all manly sports, but became perhaps more

cultured than any other prince of his age. In person he was short and

stout, but well-proportioned and very strong. His agility was not less

remarkable than his strength; he excelled in all athletic feats which

demanded suppleness of limb and quickness of eye. As regards his

intellectual attainments he is reported to have been acquainted with

philosophy, and it is evident from his subsequent career that he had

studied jurisprudence; moreover, besides being proficient in vocal and

instrumental music, he cultivated the art of poetry with much success.

When Henry V. became king in March 1413, James was again imprisoned in

the Tower of London, but soon afterwards he was taken to Windsor and was

treated with great consideration by the English king. In 1420, with the

intention of detaching the Scottish auxiliaries from the French

standard, he was sent to take part in Henry's campaign in France; this

move failed in its immediate object and he returned to England after

Henry's death in 1422. About this time negotiations for the release of

James were begun in earnest, and in September 1423 a treaty was signed

at York, the Scottish nation undertaking to pay a ransom of 60,000 marks

"for his maintenance in England." By the terms of the treaty James was

to wed a noble English lady, and on the 12th of February 1424 he was

married at Southwark to Jane, daughter of John Beaufort, earl of

Somerset, a lady to whom he was faithful through life. Ten thousand

marks of his ransom were remitted as Jane's dowry, and in April 1424

James and his bride entered Scotland.

With the reign of James I., whose coronation took place at Scone on the

21st of May 1424, constitutional sovereignty may be said to begin in

Scotland. By the introduction of a system of statute law, modelled to

some extent on that of England, and by the additional importance

assigned to parliament, the leaven was prepared which was to work

towards the destruction of the indefinite authority of the king, and of

the unbridled licence of the nobles. During the parliament held at Perth

in March 1425 James arrested Murdoch, duke of Albany, and his son,

Alexander; together with Albany's eldest son, Walter, and Duncan, earl

of Lennox, who had been seized previously; they were sentenced to death,

and the four were executed at Stirling. In a parliament held at

Inverness in 1427 the king arrested many turbulent northern chiefs, and

his whole policy was directed towards crushing the power of the nobles.

In this he was very successful. Expeditions reduced the Highlands to

order; earldom after earldom was forfeited; but this vigour aroused the

desire for revenge, and at length cost James his life. Having been

warned that he would never again cross the Forth, the king went to

reside in Perth just before Christmas 1436. Among those whom he had

angered was Sir Robert Graham (d. 1437), who had been banished by his

orders. Instigated by the king's uncle, Walter Stewart, earl of Atholl

(d. 1437), and aided by the royal chamberlain, Sir Robert Stewart, and

by a band of Highlanders, Graham burst into the presence of James on the

night of the 20th of February 1437 and stabbed the king to death. Graham

and Atholl were afterwards tortured and executed. James had two sons:

Alexander, who died young, and James II., who succeeded to the throne;

and six daughters, among them being Margaret, the queen of Louis XI. of

France. His widow, Jane, married Sir James Stewart, the "black knight of

Lorne," and died on the 15th of July 1445.

During the latter part of James's reign difficulties arose between

Scotland and England and also between Scotland and the papacy. Part of

the king's ransom was still owing to England; other causes of discord

between the two nations existed, and in 1436 these culminated in a short

war. In ecclesiastical matters James showed himself merciless towards

heretics, but his desire to reform the Scottish Church and to make it

less dependent on Rome brought him into collision with Popes Martin V.

and Eugenius IV.

James was the author of two poems, the _Kingis Quair_ and _Good Counsel_

(a short piece of three stanzas). The _Song of Absence_, _Peblis to the

Play_ and _Christis Kirk on the Greene_ have been ascribed to him

without evidence. _The Kingis Quair_ (preserved in the Selden MS. B. 24

in the Bodleian) is an allegorical poem of the _cours d'amour_ type,

written in seven-lined Chaucerian stanzas and extending to 1379 lines.

It was composed during James's captivity in England and celebrates his

courtship of Lady Jane Beaufort. Though in many respects a Chaucerian

_pastiche_, it not rarely equals its model in verbal and metrical

felicity. Its language is an artificial blend of northern and southern

(Chaucerian) forms, of the type shown in _Lancelot of the Laik_ and the

_Quair of Jelusy_.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The contemporary authorities for the reign of James I.

are Andrew of Wyntoun, _The Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland_, edited by

D. Laing (Edinburgh, 1872-1879); and Walter Bower's continuation of

John of Fordun's _Scotichronicon_, edited by T. Hearne (Oxford, 1722).

See also J. Pinkerton, _History of Scotland_ (1797); A. Lang, _History

of Scotland_, vol. i. (1900); and G. Burnett, _Introduction to the

Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_ (Edinburgh, 1878-1901). _The Kingis

Quair_ was first printed in the _Poetical Remains of James the First_,

edited by William Tytler (1783). Later editions are Morison's reprint

(Perth, 1786); J. Sibbald's, in his _Chronicle of Scottish Poetry_

(1802, vol. i.); Thomson's in 1815 and 1824; G. Chalmers's, in his

_Poetic Remains of some of the Scottish Kings_ (1824); Rogers's

_Poetical Remains of King James the First_ (1873); Skeat's edition

published by the Scottish Text Society (1884). An attempt has been

made to dispute James's authorship of the poem, but the arguments

elaborated by J. T. T. Brown (_The Authorship of the Kingis Quair_,

Glasgow, 1896) have been convincingly answered by Jusserand in his

_Jacques I^{er} d'Écosse fut-il poète? Étude sur l'authenticité du

cahier du roi_ (Paris, 1897, reprinted from the _Revue historique_,

vol. lxiv.). See also the full correspondence in the _Athenaeum_

(July-Aug. 1896 and Dec. 1899); W. A. Neilson, _Origins and Sources of

the Court of Love_ (Boston, 1899) pp. 152 &c., 235 &c.; and Gregory

Smith, _Transition Period_ (1900), pp. 40, 41.

JAMES II. (1430-1460), king of Scotland, the only surviving son of James

I. and his wife, Jane, daughter of John Beaufort, earl of Somerset, was

born on the 16th of October 1430. Crowned king at Holyrood in March

1437, shortly after the murder of his father, he was at first under the

guardianship of his mother, while Archibald, 5th earl of Douglas, was

regent of the kingdom, and considerable power was possessed by Sir

Alexander Livingstone and Sir William Crichton (d. 1454). When about

1439 Queen Jane was married to Sir James Stewart, the knight of Lorne,

Livingstone obtained the custody of the young king, whose minority was

marked by fierce hostility between the Douglases and the Crichtons, with

Livingstone first on one side and then on the other. About 1443 the

royal cause was espoused by William, 8th earl of Douglas, who attacked

Crichton in the king's name, and civil war lasted until about 1446. In

July 1449 James was married to Mary (d. 1463), daughter of Arnold, duke

of Gelderland, and undertook the government himself; and almost

immediately Livingstone was arrested, but Douglas retained the royal

favour for a few months more. In 1452, however, this powerful earl was

invited to Stirling by the king, and, charged with treachery, was

stabbed by James and then killed by the attendants. Civil war broke out

at once between James and the Douglases, whose lands were ravaged; but

after the Scots parliament had exonerated the king, James, the new earl

of Douglas, made his submission. Early in 1455 this struggle was

renewed. Marching against the rebels James gained several victories,

after which Douglas was attainted and his lands forfeited. Fortified by

this success and assured of the support of the parliament and of the

great nobles, James, acting as an absolute king, could view without

alarm the war which had broken out with England. After two expeditions

across the borders, a truce was made in July 1457, and the king employed

the period of peace in strengthening his authority in the Highlands.

During the Wars of the Roses he showed his sympathy with the Lancastrian

party after the defeat of Henry VI. at Northampton by attacking the

English possessions to the south of Scotland. It was while conducting

the siege of Roxburgh Castle that James was killed, through the bursting

of a cannon, on the 3rd of August 1460. He left three sons, his

successor, James III., Alexander Stewart, duke of Albany, and John

Stewart, earl of Mar (d. 1479); and two daughters. James, who is

sometimes called "Fiery Face," was a vigorous and popular prince, and,

although not a scholar like his father, showed interest in education.

His reign is a period of some importance in the legislative history of

Scotland, as measures were passed with regard to the tenure of land, the

reformation of the coinage, and the protection of the poor, while the

organization for the administration of justice was greatly improved.

JAMES III. (1451-1488), king of Scotland, eldest son of James II., was

born on the 10th of July 1451. Becoming king in 1460 he was crowned at

Kelso. After the death of his mother in 1463, and of her principal

supporter, James Kennedy, bishop of St Andrews, two years later, the

person of the young king, and with it the chief authority in the

kingdom, were seized by Sir Alexander Boyd and his brother Lord Boyd,

while the latter's son, Thomas, was created earl of Arran and married to

the king's sister, Mary. In July 1469 James himself was married to

Margaret (d. 1486), daughter of Christian I., king of Denmark and

Norway, but before the wedding the Boyds had lost their power. Having

undertaken the government in person, the king received the submission of

the powerful earl of Ross, and strengthened his authority in other ways.

But his preference for a sedentary and not for an active life and his

increasing attachment to favourites of humble birth diminished his

popularity, and he had some differences with his parliament. About 1479,

probably with reason both suspicious and jealous, James arrested his

brothers, Alexander, duke of Albany, and John, earl of Mar; Mar met his

death in a mysterious fashion at Craigmillar, but Albany escaped to

France and then visited England, where in 1482 Edward IV. recognized him

as king of Scotland by the gift of the king of England. War broke out

with England, but James, made a prisoner by his nobles, was unable to

prevent Albany and his ally, Richard, duke of Gloucester (afterwards

Richard III.), from taking Berwick and marching to Edinburgh. Peace with

Albany followed, but soon afterwards the duke was again in

communication with Edward, and was condemned by the parliament after

the death of the English king in April 1483. Albany's death in France in

1485 did not end the king's troubles. His policy of living at peace with

England and of arranging marriages between the members of the royal

families of the two countries did not commend itself to the turbulent

section of his nobles; his artistic tastes and lavish expenditure added

to the discontent, and a rebellion broke out. Fleeing into the north of

his kingdom James collected an army and came to terms with his foes; but

the rebels, having seized the person of the king's eldest son,

afterwards James IV., renewed the struggle. The rival armies met at the

Sauchieburn near Bannockburn, and James soon fled. Reaching Beaton's

Mill he revealed his identity, and, according to the popular story, was

killed on the 11th of June 1488 by a soldier in the guise of a priest

who had been called in to shrive him. He left three sons--his successor,

James IV.; James Stewart, duke of Ross, afterwards archbishop of St

Andrews, and John Stewart, earl of Mar. James was a cultured prince with

a taste for music and architecture, but was a weak and incapable king.

His character is thus described by a chronicler: "He was ane man that

loved solitude, and desired nevir to hear of warre, bot delighted more

in musick and policie and building nor he did in the government of the

realme."

JAMES IV. (1473-1513), king of Scotland, eldest son of James III., was

born on the 17th of March 1473. He was nominally the leader of the

rebels who defeated the troops of James III. at the Sauchieburn in June

1488, and became king when his father was killed. As he adopted an

entirely different policy with the nobles from that of his father, and,

moreover, showed great affability towards the lower class of his

subjects, among whom he delighted to wander incognito, few if any of the

kings of Scotland have won such general popularity, or passed a reign so

untroubled by intestine strife. Crowned at Scone a few days after his

accession, James began at once to take an active part in the business of

government. A slight insurrection was easily suppressed, and a plot

formed by some nobles to hand him over to the English king, Henry VII.,

came to nothing. In spite of this proceeding Henry wished to live at

peace with his northern neighbour, and soon contemplated marrying his

daughter to James, but the Scottish king was not equally pacific. When,

in 1495, Perkin Warbeck, pretending to be the duke of York, Edward IV.'s

younger son, came to Scotland, James bestowed upon him both an income

and a bride, and prepared to invade England in his interests. For

various reasons the war was confined to a few border forays. After

Warbeck left Scotland in 1497, the Spanish ambassador negotiated a

peace, and in 1502 a marriage was definitely arranged between James and

Henry's daughter Margaret (1489-1541). The wedding took place at

Holyrood in August 1503, and it was this union which led to the

accession of the Stewart dynasty to the English throne.

About the same time James crushed a rebellion in the western isles, into

which he had previously led expeditions, and parliament took measures to

strengthen the royal authority therein. At this date too, or a little

earlier, the king of Scotland began to treat as an equal with the

powerful princes of Europe, Maximilian I., Louis XII. and others;

sending assistance to his uncle Hans, king of Denmark, and receiving

special marks of favour from Pope Julius II., anxious to obtain his

support. But his position was weakened when Henry VIII. followed Henry

VII. on the English throne in 1509. Causes of quarrel already existed,

and other causes, both public and private, soon arose between the two

kings; sea-fights took place between their ships, while war was brought

nearer by the treaty of alliance which James concluded with Louis XII.

in 1512. Henry made a vain effort to prevent, or to postpone, the

outbreak of hostilities; but urged on by his French ally and his queen,

James declared for war, in spite of the counsels of some of his

advisers, and (it is said) of the warning of an apparition. Gathering a

large and well-armed force, he took Norham and other castles in August

1513, spending some time at Ford Castle, where, according to report, he

was engaged in an amorous intrigue with the wife of its owner. Then he

moved out to fight the advancing English army under Thomas Howard, earl

of Surrey. The battle, which took place at Flodden, or more correctly,

at the foot of Brankston Hill, on Friday the 9th of September 1513, is

among the most famous and disastrous, if not among the most momentous,

in the history of Scotland. Having led his troops from their position of

vantage, the king himself was killed while fighting on foot, together

with nearly all his nobles; there was no foundation for the rumour that

he had escaped from the carnage. He left one legitimate child, his

successor James V., but as his gallantries were numerous he had many

illegitimate children, among them (by Marion Boyd) Alexander Stewart,

archbishop of St Andrews and chancellor of Scotland, who was killed at

Flodden, and (by Janet Kennedy) James Stewart, earl of Moray (d. 1544).

One of his other mistresses was Margaret Drummond (d. 1501).

James appears to have been a brave and generous man, and a wise and

energetic king. According to one account, he was possessed of

considerable learning; during his reign the Scottish court attained some

degree of refinement, and Scotland counted in European politics as she

had never done before. Literature flourished under the royal patronage,

education was encouraged, and the material condition of the country

improved enormously. Prominent both as an administrator and as a

lawgiver, the king by his vigorous rule did much to destroy the

tendencies to independence which existed in the Highlands and Islands;

but, on the other hand, his rash conduct at Flodden brought much misery

upon his kingdom. He was specially interested in his navy. The

tournaments which took place under his auspices were worthy of the best

days of chivalry in France and England. James shared to the full in the

superstitions of the age which was quickly passing away. He is said to

have worn an iron belt as penance for his share in his father's death;

and by his frequent visits to shrines, and his benefactions to religious

foundations, he won a reputation for piety.

JAMES V. (1512-1542), king of Scotland, son of James IV., was born at

Linlithgow on the 10th of April 1512, and became king when his father

was killed at Flodden in 1513. The regency was at first vested in his

mother, but after Queen Margaret's second marriage, with Archibald

Douglas, 6th earl of Angus, in August 1514, it was transferred by the

estates to John Stewart, duke of Albany. Henceforward the minority of

James was disturbed by constant quarrels between a faction, generally

favourable to England, under Angus, and the partisans of France under

Albany; while the queen-mother and the nobles struggled to gain and to

regain possession of the king's person. The English had not followed up

their victory at Flodden, although there were as usual forays on the

borders, but Henry VIII. was watching affairs in Scotland with an

observant eye, and other European sovereigns were not indifferent to the

possibility of a Scotch alliance. In 1524, when Albany had retired to

France, the parliament declared that James was fit to govern, but that

he must be advised by his mother and a council. This "erection" of James

as king was mainly due to the efforts of Henry VIII. In 1526 Angus

obtained control of the king, and kept him in close confinement until

1528, when James, escaping from Edinburgh to Stirling, put vigorous

measures in execution against the earl, and compelled him to flee to

England. In 1529 and 1530 the king made a strong effort to suppress his

turbulent vassals in the south of Scotland; and after several raids and

counter-raids negotiations for peace with England were begun, and in May

1534 a treaty was signed. At this time, as on previous occasions, Henry

VIII. wished James to marry his daughter Mary, while other ladies had

been suggested by the emperor Charles V.; but the Scottish king,

preferring a French bride, visited France, and in January 1537 was

married at Paris to Madeleine, daughter of King Francis I. Madeleine

died soon after her arrival in Scotland, and in 1538 James made a much

more important marriage, being united to Mary (1515-1560), daughter of

Claude, duke of Guise, and widow of Louis of Orleans, duke of

Longueville. It was this connexion, probably, which finally induced

James to forsake his vacillating foreign policy, and to range himself

definitely among the enemies of England. In 1536 he had refused to meet

Henry VIII. at York, and in the following year had received the gift of

a cap and sword from Pope Paul III., thus renouncing the friendship of

his uncle. Two plots to murder the king were now discovered, and James

also foiled the attempts of Henry VIII. to kidnap him. Although in 1540

the English king made another attempt to win the support, or at least

the neutrality, of James for his religious policy, the relations between

the two countries became very unfriendly, and in 1542 Henry sent an army

to invade Scotland. James was not slow to make reprisals, but his nobles

were angry or indifferent, and on the 25th of November 1542 his forces

were easily scattered at the rout of Solway Moss. This blow preyed upon

the king's mind, and on the 14th of December he died at Falkland, having

just heard of the birth of his daughter. His two sons had died in

infancy, and his successor was his only legitimate child, Mary. He left

several bastards, among them James Stewart, earl of Murray (the regent

Murray), Lord John Stewart (1531-1563) prior of Coldingham, and Lord

Robert Stewart, earl of Orkney (d. 1592).

Although possessing a weak constitution, which was further impaired by

his irregular manner of life, James showed great vigour and independence

as a sovereign, both in withstanding the machinations of his uncle,

Henry VIII., and in opposing the influence of the nobles. The

persecutions to which heretics were exposed during this reign were due

mainly to the excessive influence exercised by the ecclesiastics,

especially by David Beaton, archbishop of St Andrews. The king's habit

of mingling with the peasantry secured for him a large amount of

popularity, and probably led many to ascribe to him the authorship of

poems describing scenes in peasant life, _Christis Kirk on the Grene_,

_The Gaberlunzie Man_ and _The Jolly Beggar_. There is no proof that he

was the author of any of these poems, but from expressions in the poems

of Sir David Lindsay, who was on terms of intimacy with him, it appears

that occasionally he wrote verses.

JAMES I., the Conqueror (1208-1276), king of Aragon, son of Peter II.,

king of Aragon, and of Mary of Montpellier, whose mother was Eudoxia

Comnena, daughter of the emperor Manuel, was born at Montpellier on the

2nd of February 1208. His father, a man of immoral life, was with

difficulty persuaded to cohabit with his wife. He endeavoured to

repudiate her, and she fled to Rome, where she died in April 1213.

Peter, whose possessions in Provence entangled him in the wars between

the Albigenses and Simon of Montfort, endeavoured to placate the

northern crusaders by arranging a marriage between his son James and

Simon's daughter. In 1211 the boy was entrusted to Montfort's care to be

educated, but the aggressions of the crusaders on the princes of the

south forced Peter to take up arms against them, and he was slain at

Muret on the 12th of September 1213. Montfort would willingly have used

James as a means of extending his own power. The Aragonese and Catalans,

however, appealed to the pope, who forced Montfort to surrender him in

May or June 1214. James was now entrusted to the care of Guillen de

Monredon, the head of the Templars in Spain and Provence. The kingdom

was given over to confusion till in 1216 the Templars and some of the

more loyal nobles brought the young king to Saragossa. At the age of

thirteen he was married to Leonora, daughter of Alphonso VIII. of

Castile, whom he divorced later on the ground of consanguinity. A son

born of the marriage, Alphonso, was recognized as legitimate, but died

before his father, childless. It was only by slow steps that the royal

authority was asserted, but the young king, who was of gigantic stature

and immense strength, was also astute and patient. By 1228 he had so far

brought his vassals to obedience, that he was able to undertake the

conquest of the Balearic Islands, which he achieved within four years.

At the same time he endeavoured to bring about a union of Aragon with

Navarre, by a contract of mutual adoption between himself and the

Navarrese king, Sancho, who was old enough to be his grandfather. The

scheme broke down, and James abstained from a policy of conquest. He

wisely turned to the more feasible course of extending his dominions at

the expense of the decadent Mahommedan princes of Valencia. On the 28th

of September 1238 the town of Valencia surrendered, and the whole

territory was conquered in the ensuing years. Like all the princes of

his house, James took part in the politics of southern France. He

endeavoured to form a southern state on both sides of the Pyrenees,

which should counterbalance the power of France north of the Loire. Here

also his policy failed against physical, social and political obstacles.

As in the case of Navarre, he was too wise to launch into perilous

adventures. By the Treaty of Corbeil, with Louis IX., signed the 11th of

May 1258, he frankly withdrew from conflict with the French king, and

contented himself with the recognition of his position, and the

surrender of antiquated French claims to the overlordship of Catalonia.

During the remaining twenty years of his life, James was much concerned

in warring with the Moors in Murcia, not on his own account, but on

behalf of his son-in-law Alphonso the Wise of Castile. As a legislator

and organizer he occupies a high place among the Spanish kings. He would

probably have been more successful but for the confusion caused by the

disputes in his own household. James, though orthodox and pious, had an

ample share of moral laxity. After repudiating Leonora of Castile he

married Yolande (in Spanish Violante) daughter of Andrew II. of Hungary,

who had a considerable influence over him. But she could not prevent him

from continuing a long series of intrigues. The favour he showed his

bastards led to protest from the nobles, and to conflicts between his

sons legitimate and illegitimate. When one of the latter, Fernan

Sanchez, who had behaved with gross ingratitude and treason to his

father, was slain by the legitimate son Pedro, the old king recorded his

grim satisfaction. At the close of his life King James divided his

states between his sons by Yolande of Hungary, Pedro and James, leaving

the Spanish possessions on the mainland to the first, the Balearic

Islands and the lordship of Montpellier to the second--a division which

inevitably produced fratricidal conflicts. The king fell very ill at

Alcira, and resigned his crown, intending to retire to the monastery of

Poblet, but died at Valencia on the 27th of July 1276.

King James was the author of a chronicle of his own life, written or

dictated apparently at different times, which is a very fine example

of autobiographical literature. A translation into English by J.

Forster, with notes by Don Pascual de Gayangos, was published in

London in 1883. See also _James I. of Aragon_, by F. Darwin Swift

(Clarendon Press, 1894), in which are many references to authorities.

JAMES II. (c. 1260-1327), king of Aragon, grandson of James I., and son

of Peter III. by his marriage with Constance, daughter of Manfred of

Beneventum, was left in 1285 as king of Sicily by his father. In 1291,

on the death of his elder brother, Alphonso, to whom Aragon had fallen,

he resigned Sicily and endeavoured to arrange the quarrel between his

own family and the Angevine House, by marriage with Blanca, daughter of

Charles of Anjou, king of Naples.

JAMES II. (1243-1311), king of Majorca, inherited the Balearic Islands

from his father James I. of Aragon. He was engaged in constant conflict

with his brother Pedro III. of Aragon, and in alliance with the French

king against his own kin.

JAMES III. (1315-1349), king of Majorca, grandson of James II., was

driven out of his little state and finally murdered by his cousin Pedro

IV. of Aragon, who definitely reannexed the Balearic Islands to the

crown.

JAMES (JAMES FRANCIS EDWARD STUART) (1688-1766), prince of Wales, known

to the Jacobites as James III. and to the Hanoverian party as the Old

Pretender, the son and heir of James II. of England, was born in St

James's Palace, London, on the 10th of June 1688. The scandalous story

that he was a supposititious child, started and spread abroad by

interested politicians at the time of his birth, has been completely

disproved, and most contemporary writers allude to his striking family

likeness to the Royal Stuarts. Shortly before the flight of the king to

Sheerness, the infant prince together with his mother was sent to

France, and afterwards he continued to reside with his father at the

court of St Germain. On the death of his father, on the 16th of

September 1701, he was immediately proclaimed king by Louis XIV. of

France, but a fantastic attempt to perform a similar ceremony in London

so roused the anger of the populace that the mock pursuivants barely

escaped with their lives. A bill of attainder against him received the

royal assent a few days before the death of William III. in 1702, and

the Princess Anne, half-sister of the Pretender, succeeded William on

the throne. An influential party still, however, continued to adhere to

the Jacobite cause; but an expedition from Dunkirk planned in favour of

James in the spring of 1708 failed of success, although the French ships

under the comte de Fourbin, with James himself on board, reached the

Firth of Forth in safety. At the Peace of Utrecht James withdrew from

French territory to Bar-le-Duc in Lorraine. A rebellion in the Highlands

of Scotland was inaugurated in September 1715 by the raising of the

standard on the braes of Mar, and by the solemn proclamation of James

Stuart, "the chevalier of St George," in the midst of the assembled

clans, but its progress was arrested in November by the indecisive

battle of Sheriffmuir and by the surrender at Preston. Unaware of the

gloomy nature of his prospects, the chevalier landed in December 1715 at

Peterhead, and advanced as far south as Scone, accompanied by a small

force under the earl of Mar; but on learning of the approach of the duke

of Argyll, he retreated to Montrose, where the Highlanders dispersed to

the mountains, and he embarked again for France. A Spanish expedition

sent out in his behalf in 1719, under the direction of Alberoni, was

scattered by a tempest, only two frigates reaching the appointed

rendezvous in the island of Lewis.

In 1718 James had become affianced to the young princess Maria

Clementina Sobieski, grand-daughter of the warrior king of Poland, John

Sobieski. The intended marriage was forbidden by the emperor, who in

consequence kept the princess and her mother in honourable confinement

at Innsbruck in Tirol. An attempt to abduct the princess by means of a

ruse contrived by a zealous Jacobite gentleman, Charles Wogan, proved

successful; Clementina reached Italy in safety, and she and James were

ultimately married at Montefiascone on the 1st of September 1719. James

and Clementina were now invited to reside in Rome at the special request

of Pope Clement XI., who openly acknowledged their titles of British

King and Queen, gave them a papal guard of troops, presented them with a

villa at Albano and a palace (the Palazzo Muti in the Piazza dei Santi

Apostoli) in the city, and also made them an annual allowance of 12,000

crowns out of the papal treasury. At the Palazzo Muti, which remained

the chief centre of Jacobite intriguing, were born James's two sons,

Charles Edward (the Young Pretender) and Henry Benedict Stuart. James's

married life proved turbulent and unhappy, a circumstance that was

principally due to the hot temper and jealous nature of Clementina, who

soon after Henry's birth in 1725 left her husband and spent over two

years in a Roman convent. At length a reconciliation was effected, which

Clementina did not long survive, for she died at the early age of 32 in

February 1735. Full regal honours were paid to the Stuart queen at her

funeral, and the splendid but tasteless monument by Pietro Bracchi

(1700-1773) in St Peter's was erected to her memory by order of Pope

Benedict XIV.

His wife's death seems to have affected James's health and spirits

greatly, and he now began to grow feeble and indifferent, so that the

political adherents of the Stuarts were gradually led to fix their hopes

upon the two young princes rather than upon their father. Travellers to

Rome at this period note that James appeared seldom in public, and that

much of his time was given up to religious exercises; he was _dévot à

l'excès_, so Charles de Brosses, an unprejudiced Frenchman, informs us.

It was with great reluctance that James allowed his elder son to leave

Italy for France in 1744; nevertheless in the following year, he

permitted Henry to follow his brother's example, but with the news of

Culloden he evidently came to regard his cause as definitely lost. The

estrangement from his elder and favourite son, which arose over Henry's

adoption of an ecclesiastical career, so embittered his last years that

he sank into a moping invalid and rarely left his chamber. With the

crushing failure of the "Forty-five" and his quarrel with his heir, the

once-dreaded James soon became a mere cipher in British politics, and

his death at Rome on the 2nd of January 1766 passed almost unnoticed in

London. He was buried with regal pomp in St Peter's, where Canova's

famous monument, erected by Pius VII. in 1819, commemorates him and his

two sons. As to James's personal character, there is abundant evidence

to show that he was grave, high-principled, industrious, abstemious and

dignified, and that the unflattering portrait drawn of him by Thackeray

in _Esmond_ is utterly at variance with historical facts. Although a

fervent Roman Catholic, he was far more reasonable and liberal in his

religious views than his father, as many extant letters testify.

See Earl Stanhope, _History of England and Decline of the Last

Stuarts_ (1853); _Calendar of the Stuart Papers at Windsor Castle_; J.

H. Jesse, _Memories of the Pretenders and their Adherents_ (1845); Dr

John Doran, _"Mann" and Manners at the Court of Florence_ (1876);

_Relazione della morte di Giacomo III., Rè d'Inghilterra_; and Charles

de Brosses, _Lettres sur l'Italie_ (1885). (H. M. V.)

JAMES, DAVID (1839-1893), English actor, was born in London, his real

name being Belasco. He began his stage career at an early age, and after

1863 gradually made his way in humorous parts. His creation, in 1875, of

the part of Perkyn Middlewick in Our Boys made him famous as a comedian,

the performance obtaining for the piece a then unprecedented run from

the 16th of January 1875 till the 18th of April 1879. In 1885 he had

another notable success as Blueskin in _Little Jack Sheppard_ at the

Gaiety Theatre, his principal associates being Fred Leslie and Nellie

Farren. His song in this burlesque, "Botany Bay," became widely popular.

In the part of John Dory in _Wild Oats_ he again made a great hit at the

Criterion Theatre in 1886; and among his other most successful

impersonations were Simon Ingot in _David Garrick_, Tweedie in

_Tweedie's Rights_, Macclesfield in _The Guv'nor_, and Eccles in

_Caste_. His unctuous humour and unfailing spirits made him a great

favourite with the public. He died on the 2nd of October 1893.

JAMES, GEORGE PAYNE RAINSFORD (1799-1860), English novelist, son of

Pinkstan James, physician, was born in George Street, Hanover Square,

London, on the 9th of August 1799. He was educated at a private school

at Putney, and afterwards in France. He began to write early, and had,

according to his own account, composed the stories afterwards published

as _A String of Pearls_ before he was seventeen. As a contributor to

newspapers and magazines, he came under the notice of Washington Irving,

who encouraged him to produce his _Life of Edward the Black Prince_

(1822). _Richelieu_ was finished in 1825, and was well thought of by Sir

Walter Scott (who apparently saw it in manuscript), but was not brought

out till 1829. Perhaps Irving and Scott, from their natural amiability,

were rather dangerous advisers for a writer so inclined by nature to

abundant production as James. But he took up historical romance writing

at a lucky moment. Scott had firmly established the popularity of the

style, and James in England, like Dumas in France, reaped the reward of

their master's labours as well as of their own. For thirty years the

author of _Richelieu_ continued to pour out novels of the same kind

though of varying merit. His works in prose fiction, verse narrative,

and history of an easy kind are said to number over a hundred, most of

them being three-volume novels of the usual length. Sixty-seven are

catalogued in the British Museum. The best examples of his style are

perhaps _Richelieu_ (1829); _Philip Augustus_ (1831); _Henry Masterton_,

probably the best of all (1832); _Mary of Burgundy_ (1833); _Darnley_

(1839); _Corse de Léon_ (1841); _The Smuggler_ (1845). His poetry does

not require special mention, nor does his history, though for a short

time during the reign of William IV. he held the office of

historiographer royal. After writing copiously for about twenty years,

James in 1850 went to America as British Consul for Massachusetts. He

was consul at Richmond, Virginia, from 1852 to 1856, when he was

appointed to a similar post at Venice, where he died on the 9th of June

1860.

James has been compared to Dumas, and the comparison holds good in

respect of kind, though by no means in respect of merit. Both had a

certain gift of separating from the picturesque parts of history what

could without much difficulty be worked up into picturesque fiction, and

both were possessed of a ready pen. Here, however, the likeness ends. Of

purely literary talent James had little. His plots are poor, his

descriptions weak, his dialogue often below even a fair average, and he

was deplorably prone to repeat himself. The "two cavaliers" who in one

form or another open most of his books have passed into a proverb, and

Thackeray's good-natured but fatal parody of _Barbazure_ is likely to

outlast _Richelieu_ and _Darnley_ by many a year. Nevertheless, though

James cannot be allowed any very high rank among novelists, he had a

genuine narrative gift, and, though his very best books fall far below

_Les trois mousquetaires_ and _La reine Margot_, there is a certain even

level of interest to be found in all of them. James never resorted to

illegitimate methods to attract readers, and deserves such credit as may

be due to a purveyor of amusement who never caters for the less

creditable tastes of his guests.

His best novels were published in a revised form in 21 volumes

(1844-1849).

JAMES, HENRY (1843- ), American author, was born in New York on the

15th of April 1843. His father was Henry James (1811-1882), a

theological writer of great originality, from whom both he and his

brother Professor William James derived their psychological subtlety and

their idiomatic, picturesque English. Most of Henry's boyhood was spent

in Europe, where he studied under tutors in England, France and

Switzerland. In 1860 he returned to America, and began reading law at

Harvard, only to find speedily that literature, not law, was what he

most cared for. His earliest short tale, "The Story of a Year," appeared

in 1865, in the _Atlantic Monthly_, and frequent stories and sketches

followed. In 1869 he again went to Europe, where he subsequently made

his home, for the most part living in London, or at Rye in Sussex. Among

his specially noteworthy works are the following: _Watch and Ward_

(1871); _Roderick Hudson_ (1875); _The American_ (1877); _Daisy Miller_

(1878); _French Poets and Novelists_ (1878); _A Life of Hawthorne_

(1879); _The Portrait of a Lady_ (1881); _Portraits of Places_ (1884);

_The Bostonians_ (1886); _Partial Portraits_ (1888); _The Tragic Muse_

(1890); _Essays in London_ (1893); _The Two Magics_ (1898); _The Awkward

Age_ (1898); _The Wings of the Dove_ (1902); _The Ambassadors_ (1903);

_The Golden Bowl_ (1904); _English Hours_ (1905); _The American Scene_

(1907); _The High Bid_ (1909); _Italian Hours_ (1909).

As a novelist, Henry James is a modern of the moderns both in subject

matter and in method. He is entirely loyal to contemporary life and

reverentially exact in his transcription of the phase. His characters

are for the most part people of the world who conceive of life as a fine

art and have the leisure to carry out their theories. Rarely are they at

close quarters with any ugly practical task. They are subtle and complex

with the subtlety and the complexity that come from conscious

preoccupation with themselves. They are specialists in conduct and past

masters in casuistry, and are full of variations and shadows of turning.

Moreover, they are finely expressive of _milieu_; each belongs

unmistakably to his class and his race; each is true to inherited moral

traditions and delicately illustrative of some social code. To reveal

the power and the tragedy of life through so many minutely limiting and

apparently artificial conditions, and by means of characters who are

somewhat self-conscious and are apt to make of life only a pleasant

pastime, might well seem an impossible task. Yet it is precisely in this

that Henry James is pre-eminently successful. The essentially human is

what he really cares for, however much he may at times seem preoccupied

with the _technique_ of his art or with the mask of conventions through

which he makes the essentially human reveal itself. Nor has "the vista

of the spiritual been denied him." No more poignant spiritual tragedy

has been recounted in recent fiction than the story of Isabel Archer in

_The Portrait of a Lady_. His method, too, is as modern as his subject

matter. He early fell in love with the "point of view," and the good

and the bad qualities of his work all follow from this literary passion.

He is a very sensitive impressionist, with a technique that can fix the

most elusive phase of character and render the most baffling surface.

The skill is unending with which he places his characters in such

relations and under such lights that they flash out in due succession

their continuously varying facets. At times he may seem to forget that a

character is something incalculably more than the sum of all its phases;

and then his characters tend to have their existence, as Positivists

expect to have their immortality, simply and solely in the minds of

other people. But when his method is at its best, the delicate phases of

character that he transcribes coalesce perfectly into clearly defined

and suggestive images of living, acting men and women. Doubtless, there

is a certain initiation necessary for the enjoyment of Mr James. He

presupposes a cosmopolitan outlook, a certain interest in art and in

social artifice, and no little abstract curiosity about the workings of

the human mechanism. But for speculative readers, for readers who care

for art in life as well as for life in art, and for readers above all

who want to encounter and comprehend a great variety of very modern and

finely modulated characters, Mr James holds a place of his own,

unrivalled as an interpreter of the world of to-day.

For a list of the short stories of Mr Henry James, collections of them

in volume form, and other works, see bibliographies by F. A. King, in

_The Novels of Henry James_, by Elisabeth L. Cary (New York and

London, 1905), and by Le Roy Phillips, _A Bibliography of the Writings

of Henry James_ (Boston, Mass., 1906). In 1909 an _édition de luxe_ of

Henry James's novels was published in 24 volumes.

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 are _The Anxious Inquirer_ and _An

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. See _A

Review of the Life and Character of J. Angell James_ (1860), by J.

Campbell, and _Life and Letters of J. A. James_ (1861), edited by his

successor, R. W. Dale, who also contributed a sketch of his

predecessor to _Pulpit 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 the _Naval

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 the _Naval

Chronicle_ over the signature of "Boxer." In 1816 he published _An

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 his _Naval 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 the _Naval History_ in 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 an

_Index_ by 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 his _Principles 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 the _Principles 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 knowledge of 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 for _The Times_ before 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 (so e.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" ([Greek: pheromegê hê Iakôbou Epistolê]), 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 words [Greek: hêmôu Iêsou

Xristou] interpolated) 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 the _Two 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 the _terminus a quo_ of its own date as the use of it by

later writers for the _terminus 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.[1] To 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 superscription the 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 the

_Shepherd_ of 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."[3] Holtzmann 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 ([Greek: dipsychia] i. 6-8; cf. _Didache_ and

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).[4] For 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 the

_Didache_ seems 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 the _Didache_, Barnabas and Clement

of Rome. Independently of the literary contacts we should judge the

period to be about A.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's _Commentary_), 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 articles _s.v._ "James" in _Encycl.

Bibl._ and the Bible Dictionaries. (B. W. B.)