His brother and he were surnamed by our Lord (Mark iii. 17) “Boanerges,” a name derived from two Aramaic words signifying “Sons of thunder,” as it is interpreted by the evangelist. The name has been explained as having reference to the powers of their eloquence in preaching, or even from their being present when the voice like thunder spake to Jesus from the cloud (John xii. 29). It is more probable, especially as one meaning of the word translated “thunder” is “rage, anger,” that the name was given to them by the Lord because he perceived the fiery impetuosity of their nature. Two instances (Luke ix. 54; Mark x. 32-41) are recorded in the Gospels from which we can discern somewhat of this character of the sons of Zebedee.

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. This is one of the passages in which the name of James is placed before those of John and Andrew, and we may judge from the little that we are told of him subsequently that he was a most zealous and prominent member of the Christian community. For when a victim is to be chosen from among the apostles who should be sacrificed to the animosity of the Jews, it is on James that the blow falls first. The brief notice is given Acts xii. 1, 2: “Now about that time Herod [Agrippa I.] the king put forth his hands to afflict certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.”

Eusebius (∕∕. E., ii. 9) has preserved for us from •Clement of Alexandria the circumstance 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, i Peace be with thee,’ and kissed him. And then both were beheaded together.” Other legends which tell of the apostle’s preaching in Spain, and of the translation of his body to Compostella, are to be found in the Acta Sanctorum, July 25 (vol. vi. pp. 1-124),

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, but in no other place. It is, however, thought by some that he is the same with

3. James the Lords brother. In Matt. xiii. 55 and Mark vi. 3 the brethren of the Lord are named James, Joses, Judas, and Simon. It is also to be remarked that they are in both places spoken of as the children of the carpenter, that is, of Joseph the husband of the Virgin Mary. But it has been urged that they were called sons of Joseph and Mary because the children of two families,— of Mary the Virgin and Mary the wife of Clopas, her half sister,—were brought up together. Those who in this way make James the Lord’s brother to be a son of Alphaeus require to establish (a) that Clopas is the same name as Alphaeus, (δ) that Mary the wife of Clopas (John xix. 25) was the sister of the Virgin Mary, and (c) that this Mary, wife of Clopas, is the same who is called (Matt, xxvi. 56; Mark xv. 40) Mary the mother of James and Joses, and (Mark. xvi. 1; Luke xxiv. 10) simply the mother of James, in which four passages the same person is evidently intended. But the identity of the names Alphaeus and Clopas is by no means certain. Those who maintain it take Clopas as the Aramaic Chalpai, and Alphaeus to be a Graecized form thereof. But when we turn to what might be supposed the best source of evidence on this point, viz., the Peshito version of the New Testament, instead of finding the two names treated as the same word, we find in all cases Chalpai where the Greek has Alphaeus, and where Clopas or Cleopas occurs, it is simply transliterated Kleopha. The same is the case with the Jerusalem Syriac. The identity of these names is thus far from being established. Then in John xix. 25 the versions and best authorities are in favour of making four persons of those there mentioned: “his mother, and his mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” This is the Peshito rendering, and, even if the conjunction were not there, it is not uncommon in Scriptural enumeration to find names given in pairs without any conjunction, while to make Mary the wife of Clopas the Virgin’s sister would be to assume two Maries in the same family of sisters, which is not very probable. Whether Mary wife of Clopas was the mother of a James (called in one place “the little ”) and of Joses can neither be asserted nor denied from the evidence in the Gospels; but, when the other two assumptions have so little foundation to rest on, it seems impossible to consider the son of Alphaeus the same person with the “brother of the Lord.”

Further, James the Lord’s brother was bishop of Jerusalem (comp. Gal. i. 19 with Gal. ii. 9-12), and was president of the church in its earliest days (Acts xii. 17, xv. 13, xxi. 18). Such a position required him to be a resident in Jerusalem, while had he been an apostle (as the son of Alphaeus was) we should have expected him to take his share of the missionary labour of publishing the gospel in distant lands. But this bishop of Jerusalem was the author of the epistle of St James. He simply styles himself in the introduction thereto “a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” He who could thus write with the certainty of being identified must have been the most famous person of his name in the church, must have been what St Paul, in a passage (Gal. ii. 9) where he places James before both Peter and John, calls him, “a pillar” of the Christian society. And again Jude, when commencing his epistle, calls himself the brother of James, with no other mark of distinction. Here too the same James must be intended, and when we read St Jude’s epistle (17, 18) we find him distinguishing himself from the apostles, and as it were disclaiming the apostolic dignity. This is as it would be if James and Jude were both brethren of the Lord and were not apostles, but we should certainly expect one or other would have left some indication in their letters had they been of the number of the twelve, and most surely neither of them would have been likely to give us reason for believing that he was not an apostle.

Tlιe two passages (1 Cor. xv. 7; Gal. i. 19) from which it might be argued that James the brother of the Lord was an apostle cannot be relied on, for we find the same title given to Barnabas, and it is certain that the name “apostle” began to be more widely applied after the ascension than it is in the Gospels.

Once more, the brethren of the Lord are expressly said (John vii. 5) not to have believed on Jesus at a period much later in his ministry than the appointment of the twelve; while in the mention of them in Acts i. 14 there is given first a list of the eleven, who are said all to have “continued in prayer with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brethren.” Such a studied severance of the brethren of the Lord from the number of the apostles is very significant, while the position which they hold in the list may well be due to the fact that it was only at a late period that they had become disciples of Jesus. The change in their opinions has been thought by many to be sufficiently accounted for by the statement of St Paul (1 Cor. XV. 7) that after his resurrection Jesus “was seen of Janies.” Such a demonstration of the truth of what others had long believed and Jesus himself had taught could not fail to work conviction on a mind which, if we may accept the tradition of the “Gospel according to the Hebrews ' r (which also testifies to this appearance of Christ to James), was somewhat inclined to believe, even before the crucifixion.

It seems right therefore to conclude that James the son of Alphaeus, one of the apostles, was a different person from James the Lord’s brother and bishop of Jerusalem. Of the history of the former we are told nothing except that he was an apostle. The latter is spoken of by St Peter (Acts xii. 17) as if he were at that time the recognized head of the Christian community in Jerusalem. Again (Acts XV. 13), after the debate at Jerusalem about the circumcision of the Gentiles, it is he who sums up the arguments and declares the sentence of the council, as if he were the chief person among them. In Acts xxi. 18, on St Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem, he holds the same position, and receives the visit of St Paul in the presence of all the presbyters. In Gal. i. 19, ii. 9 he is placed foremost among “the pillars” of the church of Jerusalem.

From the New Testament we learn no more of the history of James the Lord’s brother, but Eusebius (H. E., 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.

Other less important bearers of this name are (4) James, of whom all we know is that he was the “son of Mary” (Matt, xxviii. 56; Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1; Luke xxiv. 10) and the brother of a certain Joses (comp. Mark xv. 40 with xvi. 1), and that he is called “the little,” ό μικρός (A. V. “the less,” wrongly); and (5) James, who was either the father or brother of Judas, one of the apostles. The Greek gives (Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13) “Judas of James.” The ellipsis may, as has been shown by Winer, be supplied either by the word “father” or “brother.” The A. V. supplies “brother.” But, as in both these lists within a line of the name of this Judas a similar form “James of Alphaeus” occurs, which is in both places rendered James the “son” of Alphaeus, as it is also in both the other lists of the apostles in St Matthew and St Mark, it seems natural to suppose that the evangelists intended the same noun to be supplied in both cases. If this be so, the James here mentioned would be a person otherwise unknown, but the father of the apostle Judas, who is distinguished as Lebbaeus and Thaddens, and also by St John (xiv. 22) as “Judas not Iscariot.”

JAMES, the General Epistle of. Of the author of this epistle enough has been said in the previous article (3); it only remains to add in connexion with the introductory words thereof that probably the same reason actuated both St James and St Jude to leave out any mention that they were “brethren of the Lord.” We need not enter into the question of what relationship is intended by those words, though, from the mention of Joseph on each occasion where the “brethren” are spoken of, it is probable that they were really his children by a former marriage. Thus Jesus would be younger than those who are called “his brethren,” and their behaviour in rejecting his teaching for so long a time may have been partly a result of their growing up with him and regarding him as a younger member of the same family, and from familiarity becoming less willing than strangers would be to acknowledge anything which looked like an assertion of superiority. But, whatever the reason for their former unbelief, it is easy to see that, when they had at length come to own Jesus as their Lord, humility would check the mention of the relationship in which they might claim to stand to Jesus, as would also a desire not to appear to place themselves in a position of close connexion with Christ, to which none others could lay claim.

The epistle is addressed “to the twelve tribes which are of the dispersion.” The word “dispersion” (διασττορά) was employed in the New Testament times to signify the Jewish population in every part of the then known world. Jews were to be found in Persia, Egypt, Asia Minor, and indeed in all the lands surrounding the Mediterranean Sea. When the writer addresses them as “the twelve tribes” he gives us the key to the character of his epistle. It was written to Christians who had been converts from Judaism, but to whom their ancient faith was still of the very highest importance, indeed, of somewhat more importance than it ought to have been. We can see therefore why the language of this epistle partakes so largely of the character of the preaching of John the Baptist (comp. Jas. i. 22, 27 with Matt. iii. 8; Jas. ii. 15,16 with Luke iii. 11; Jas. ii. 19, 20 with Matt. iii. 9; and Jas. v. 1-6 with Matt, iii. 10-12) and of that of our Lord’s earliest teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (c∕. especially Jas. i. 2, 4, 5, 9, 20; ii. 13, 14; iii. 17-18; iv. 4, 10, 11; v. 2, 10, 12, 15), and why it is so largely illustrated by the language of books like Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Wisdom, which were specially esteemed by the Jews of Alexandria and other Hellenistic centres of Judaism (see Jas. i. 1, 5, 8, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 23, 25; ii. 21; iii. 5, 6; iv. 14). We should judge from this that the bishop of Jerusalem, in the earlier days of the Christian church, availed himself of his central position to circulate among the scattered Judaeo-Christian populations, of whom representatives would constantly be within his reach, such a letter as was suited to stimulate the new converts to more truly Christian life, and to check errors into which, from their attachment to the older faith, they were prone to fall. The epistle contains many exhortations to accept a higher standard for the conduct of life, though a considerable section (i. 22—ii. 26) applies more specifically to the dangers that beset Jewish converts of trusting to a faith which produced no results in the form of Christian love.

But it was not only for those who were scattered into distant parts of the world that the epistle was written. It bears marks of its relation to a time of special trial and hardship, and has much to say of how trials and sufferings are to be borne. “Count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations” is the opening language; and the writer returns to the same theme at the close of his letter: “Be ye also patient,” “Stablish your hearts,” “Behold, we count them happy which endure.” Such words agree best with the dispersion of the first Christian brotherhood after the death of Stephen, and with that persecution by Herod Agrippa I. in which James the brother of John was put to death. It is an additional indication that the epistle was written about those times that in it there is no word of that contention which soon agitated the whole Christian church about the circumcision of the Gentiles, and about which James pronounced the sentence of the council of Jerusalem in 51 a.d. The persecution which ensued on the martyrdom of Stephen (33 a.d.) is too early a date after the ascension for us to think it probable that Christianity could have had enough representatives among the dispersion to make such an epistle as the present necessary. It seems better therefore to refer it to that larger persecution in which the one James suffered death, and after which the other James comes into special prominence in Christian church history. This would lead to the conclusion that the epistle, primarily addressed to the Jewish Christians throughout Palestine, but intended also for others who lived beyond the limits of the Holy Land, was written at Jerusalem, from which James the Just seems never to have departed, and that it should be dated some time after 44 A.D., the date of Herod’s persecution, and antecedent probably by several years (for the agitation which led to the council must have existed for some time) to the council at Jerusalem (51 a,d.).

The epistle contains nothing to indicate where it was written, but at the same time there is nothing in the imagery and illustrations employed by the writer which would be out of character with one writing in Palestine. It is therefore probable that, since tradition represents James as constantly resident in Jerusalem, the epistle was written there. He uses the Jewish name “synagogue” (ii. 2) for the place of assembly for worship, which would perhaps be longer preserved among the Christians in Jerusalem than elsewhere; but on the other hand he speaks (v. 14) of the “elders of the church” (lκκλη σ la) just as we find St Luke doing in the Acts of the Apostles. He mentions the “burning wind” (κavσωv) spoken of in the Gospels (Matt. xx. 12; Luke xii. 55), and his language (iii. 4) about ships and the storms by which they are driven is such as would be natural in one who knew by experience of the tempests that sometimes sweep suddenly over the Sea of Galilee, with which this James must have been familiar as well as the son of Zebedee.

The epistle appears to have been written with a view, in the first place, to comfort some who were undergoing severe trials. This is clear from the opening sentence, “Count it all joy when ye fall into divers trials.” But the words also seem to show that there was a spirit prevailing among those for whom the letter was first intended which did not tend to that perfect patience under sufferings that should characterize the faithful Christian. And so the writer passes on to notice a want of perfect trust in God, and a too great regard for temporal things, concerning which they are exhorted to foster such a mind as shall make changes in worldly affairs, when they are for the worse, yet still no cause for sorrow. For the only perfect gifts are of God’s own sending, and in His gifts as in Himself there is no change. The epistle next dwells on that which was the great danger with Jewish converts, the profession of a belief in God and Christ without a corresponding Christian life; they are further exhorted to avoid sins of the tongue and sins of presumption, while those to whom wealth had become the chief object in life are severely condemned. But before the close the writer turns once more to his first theme, the commendation of patience under sufferings, which he enforces by the examples of the prophets and of Job. Then with certain cautions about the use of oaths, some precepts for conduct under sorrow, joy, sickness, or the consciousness of sin, the epistle is brought to a close, and has not the apostolic benediction, a feature which also marks the letter as one of the earliest of the Christian writings. The time of trial alluded to suits well with the date which has been suggested, when Herod’s persecutions made it necessary for the Christians in Jerusalem to meet in secluded rooms, and to exercise the utmost precaution about all whom they admitted to their meetings. We know too, from the statements of Josephus, that it was from the wealthy Sadducees that the Christians in Jerusalem experienced most persecution, and that they especially were adverse to Christianity because of the preaching of the resurrection of Jesus. The followers of Jesus were, as we know, at this time just beginning to be called Christians, and this name soon became (if it was not at first given as) a name of reproach. These circumstances seem to be specially noticed in this epistle (ii. 6, 7). To the necessities of those days then the letter appears to be first directed, though it contains precepts eminently profitable for those who, having field firm to the belief in the unity of God (ii. 19), were disposed, even after the acceptance of the teaching of the gospel, to think that an intellectual assent to what was set forth was enough, without any effort to build up on the groundwork of faith the superstructure of Christ-like virtues.

In the time of Eusebius (325 a.d.) the epistle of St James was reckoned among the books not fully accepted by the church. He says (H. E., iii. 25) “among the controverted books, which are yet well known and recognized by most is the epistle circulated under the name of James.” But among the apostolic fathers we have quotations from it in the writings of Clement of Rome (1 Hp. ad Cor., cc. 10, 12) and perhaps of Hermas (Pastor, mand. xii. 5). Further, in the Syriac version of Melito’s apology there are some passages which bear a striking resemblance to the words of St James, and may have been quotations (see Cureton’s Spicil. Syr., pp. 42, 48); and the Peshito Syriac version contains the epistle. Origen in his commentary on John (TFbrZ·s, xix. 6) speaks of the epistle as in “circulation under the name of James,” and he quotes from it in another place (Works, xii. 129) as that of James, without any comment. Dionysius of Alexandria, who was at the head of the catechetical school there (245), quotes from the epistle. These are all the notices of the epistle on which dependence can be placed before the council of Laodicea (363), when it was included among the canonical books. But there seems no doubt that the words “well known and recognized by most,” used by Eusebius indicate that the epistle was by him regarded as a part of Scripture, for in other portions of his works he alludes to it as if he so esteemed it, and evidence of its recognition in the Syrian Church speaks strongly in favour of its authenticity. For that church was most likely to have the best knowledge concerning the origin and early circulation of the epistle. We can account for the slight extent to which it was known from the fact that it was addressed, by a bishop who never moved from his home, to one section only of the Christian church, and was not likely to gain such wide acceptance at first as the epistles of St Paul, whose missionary labours made his name and his writings well known in different countries. Moreover, the tone of the epistle is practical and not doctrinal, and for this reason also it would be less likely to be noticed in the writings of the Christian fathers. Indeed, this feature of the epistle led Luther, who thought there was in it some contradiction to St Paul’s teaching on the doctrine of justification by faith, to call it eine rechte stroherne Hfnstel (ed. of German N. T., 1522), “a veritable epistle of straw.” But language like this is due to the distorted way in which the great Reformer looked at the subject. His day called for prominence to be given to the Pauline view of justification. St James’s day had different needs. The character of those for whom this epistle was intended and their special dangers are sufficient to account for the way in which St James emphasizes what St Paul would as stoutly have maintained in a like case, that “faith without works is dead.”

The view given above, which dates the epistle before the rise of the Pauline controversy, has been ably maintained by many recent theologians, especially in Germany, in opposition to the Tübingen school. Seo Schneckenburger’s Annotatio, 1832; Huther’s Commentar, 1858, 3d ed. 1870; Neander, Pflanzung, 4th ed. 1847, p. 564 sag. ; Ritsclιl, Altkath. Kirche, 2d ed. 1857, p. 109 seq., and Rechtf. und Versöhn., 1874, ii. 277 seq. ; Weiss, Bib. Theol. des N. T., 1st ed. 1868, 2d ed. 1873; Beyschlag in Stτιd. und Krit., 1874, i.; Hofmann, Heilige Schrift, vii. 3, 1876. Other scholars, while defending the genuineness of the epistle, recognize in it distinct allusions to the Pauline theology, and so prefer a later date. So, for example, Ewald (Geschichte, vi. 591 seq.; Sendsch. ah d. Heb. u. Jakobos Rundsch., 1870), who takes the epistle as directed against mistaken inferences from Paul’s teaching. The Tübingen school, on the other hand, regards the epistle as directly anti-Pauline, and at the same time denies that it is genuine. So Baur, Paulus, 2d ed. 1867, Anh. 2; Schwegler, Nachap. Zeital., 1846, i. 413 seq.∙, Hilgenfeld, Einl., 1875, andin Z. f. w. T., 1877, p. 87 scq.; Blom, De Brief van Jacobus, Dort, 1869, and in Theol. Tijdsch., 1872, p. 241 seq. See also Holtzmann in SchenkeΓs Bibellex., s.v. ’ ‘ Jakobosbrief.” The argument turns mainly on the interpretation of the doctrine of faith and works in chap. ii. 24, which formally at least is in direct opposition to Rom. iii. 28. In other words, Luther’s difficulty is still the chief turning-point of the argument. Now it is certain that the antithesis between Paul and James is not really so sharp as it appears in the verses just cited, because the two do not attach the same meaning to the word “faith.” In fact, James’s faith without works is not Paul’s justifying faith, but the useless faith without love spoken of in 1 Cor. xiii. We have to deal with two types of doctrine using the same terms in different senses, so that it is not inconceivable that the two may really be capable of such reconciliation in the practical Christian life as to make their divergences unimportant. But, say Baur and his school, there is no proof and great internal improbability that any type of doctrine existed before Paul, maintaining justification by faith alone, precisely in Pauline terms, and using the very illustrations of Abraham and Rahab which occur in the Pauline theology and the kindred epistle to the Hebrews. Starting with this difficulty, and indicating in detail the proofs of the author’s familiarity with the peculiar terminology of the great Pauline epistles, the Tübingen school urge also that James ii. 5, i. 12 presuppose acquaintance with Rev. ii.

9, 10, and even that the allusion to Rahab (ii. 25) proves the author to have read Heb. xi. 31. Further, it is contended that the supposed marks of an early date, in the condition of the churches addressed, are capable of another interpretation, and that the persecution alluded to may be best understood of the time of Domitian. Finally, the language of the epistle is regarded as a proof that the date is not very early, and the author different from the thoroughly Hebrew figure of James as described by Hegesippus. The weight of these arguments is plainly very unequal, and the ultimate solution of the controversy must mainly be in the region of Biblical theology, where one side has often been tempted to minimize the difference between James and Paul, while the other has not done justice to the positive value of the teaching of our epistle, often speaking of it as a mere ineffective polemic against Paul by one who did not understand him. Compare further Alford, Gk. Test.; Wordsworth, Gk. Test. ; Bishop Lightfoot’s Essay on the Brethren of the Lord ; Davidson’s Introduction to the N. Test. ; Plumptre, St James ; Semler, Paraphrasis Bp. Jacobi, 1781; Monod, Introduction à l'ép. de S. Jacques, 1846; Wiesinger, “Der Brief des-Jakobus,” in Olshausen’s Bibelwerk, 1854; Boon, De Jacobi epistolae cum Siracidae libro convenientia, 1860; Reuss, L’ÉvUre dé Jacques, 1878.

JAMES, or, in full, James Frederick Edward Stuart (1688-1766), prince of Wales, called by his adherents James III. of England, but better known as the Pretender, was the son of James II. and Mary of Modena, and was born in St James’s Palace, London, June 10th 1688. The general opinion prevailing at the time of his birth that he was a supposititious child seemed to be confirmed by a variety of circumstances, but it has been completely overthrown by undoubted facts. Shortly before the flight of the king to Sheerness, the infant prince along 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 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; and an expedition planned in favour of James failed of success chiefly in all probability because his falling ill of measles, on the eve of its departure, enabled the English to assemble so powerful a fleet as rendered disembarkation inadvisable. A rebellion in the Highlands of Scotland was inaugurated in September 1715 by the raising of the standard “on the braes of Mar,” and 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 it was practically extinguished a few weeks afterwards by the surrender at Preston. Unaware of the gloomy nature of his prospects, the Chevalier landed in December 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 Argyle, 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 1718 under the direction of Alberoni was scattered by a tempest, only two frigates reaching the appointed rendezvous in the island of Lewis. In 1719 James was married at Avignon to the Princess Clementina of Poland, by whom he had two sons, Charles Edward, and Henry, afterwards Cardinal York. His licentious habits soon led to a separation from his wife, and his indolence and irresolution having completely unfitted him for the role of aspirant to the English throne, the hopes and affections of his adherents were gradually transferred to his son Charles Edward, of whose career an account is given in vol. v. p. 426-7. James spent the remainder of his years at Rome, where he was regarded with very little esteem both by the pope and the populace. The papal soldiers mounted guard at the Palazzo Muti, where he resided, and the pope issued an order that he should be styled king of England, but the Italians were in the habit of naming him the king here in contradistinc- ' tion to the king there, that is, in England. Latterly his regular income was 12,000 scudi from the pope, which’ only was supplemented by the donations, probably not very large, of the adherents of the cause in England. Horace Walpole, writing in 1752, thus describes him, “He is tall, meagre, and melancholy of aspect. Enthusiasm and disappointment have stamped a solemnity on his person which rather awakens pity than respect. He seems the phantom which good nature divested of reflexion conjures up when we think of the misfortunes without the demerits of Charles the First. Without the particular features of any Stuart, the Chevalier has the strong lines and fatality of air peculiar to them all.” For several of the last years of his life the Chevalier was so infirm in health that he was unable to leave his bed-chamber. He died at Rome, January 12, 1766, and was interred in the church of St Peter’s.

The Jacobite cause in Scotland has given rise to some of the finest specimens of national ballad literature. Two volumes of Jacobite Relics were published in 1819-1821, but the collection is very miscellaneous. An edition of Jacobite songs appeared at Glasgow in 1829, and a more complete collection was published in 1861, edited by Charles Mackay. See History of the Jacobite Club, London, 1712; Secret Memoirs of Bar-le·dnc, 1716; Macpherson’s Original Papers; The Decline of the Last Stuarts, printed for the Roxburghe Club, 1843; Chambers’s History of the Rebellion, 1824; Jesse, The Pretenders and their Adherents, 1858; Thackeray, Henry Esmond; Debrosse, L' Italie il y a Cent Ans, 18∙36; Lacroix de Mariés, Histoire du Chevalier de Sahηt-Gcorges et du Prince Charles Edouard, 1868 and 1876; Doran, Mann and Manners at the Court of Florence, 1875; Id., London in the Jacobite Times, 1877.

JAMES, George Payne Rainsford (1801-1860), English novelist, was born in George Street, Hanover Square, London, in 1801, and was educated at Greenwich 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. Contributing plentifully to newspapers and magazines, he came under the notice of Washington Irving, who is said to have encouraged him to produce (in 1822) his Life of Edward the Black Prince. His next attempt was Richelieu, which 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 and invariable habit of encouraging literary aspirants, were rather dangerous advisers for a writer so well inclined by nature to abundant production as James. But he took up the ball of 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 masters’ 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. The full list of his works in prose fiction, verse narrative, and history of an easy kind includes between seventy and eighty items, most of them being three-volume novels of the usual length. 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 in the reign of William IV. he held the office of historiographer royal. After writing vigorously in all these styles for about twenty years, James in 1850 went to America with his family. He was appointed consul at Richmond, Virginia, and held that post from 1852 to 1858. In September of the latter year he was appointed to a similar post at Venice, where he died May 9, 1860. -

James has been compared to Dumas, and the comparison holds good in respect of kind, though by no means in respect of degree 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. His “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 even among the second class of novelists, the generation that read him, and those chiefly youthful persons who read him now and will read him for some time to come so long as he is attainable on the bookstalls, are not wholly without excuse. He had a considerable portion of the 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, such as it is, 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 to the public who never caters for the less creditable tastes of his guests.

JAMES, John Angell (1785-1859), preacher and author, was born at Blandford, Dorsetshire, June 6, 1785. After obtaining at school a knowledge of reading, writing, ciphering, and a little Latin, he was at the age of thirteen bound to a seven years’ apprenticeship with a linendraper at Poole, with the view of assisting his father in his business at Blandford; but about the close of his term of apprenticeship he began to form the resolution of becoming a preacher, and in 1802 he went to prosecute his studies at the theological college of Gosport. After remaining there for a year and a half, he happened to pay a visit to Birmingham, where 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,” and accordingly, after finishing his short theological course, he was settled there in the beginning of September 1805, and ordained on the 8th May of the following year. For seven years his success as a preacher was comparatively small, but about 1814 his eloquence almost suddenly acquired for him a popularity which attracted large crowds wherever he officiated in England, and never faded during the long term of his subsequent ministry. At the same time his numerous religious writings, the best known of which are The Anxious Inquirer and An Earnest Ministry, acquired a wide circulation both in England and in America. He died at Birmingham October 2, 1859. The degree of D.D. was conferred on James by the college of Princeton, New Jersey, and also by the university of Glasgow.

A collected edition of James’s works appeared in 1860-64. See A Revieιv of the Life and Character of J. Angell James, by J. Campbell, 1860; True Greatness, a brief Memoir of J. A. James, 1860; and Life and Letters of J. A. James, edited by B. W. Dale.

THE LESS, surnamed the brother of our Lord, Gal. i, 19, was the son of Cleophas, otherwise called Alpheus, and Mary, sister to the blessed virgin; consequently, he was cousin-german to Jesus Christ. He was surnamed the Just, on account of the admirable holiness and purity of his life. He is said to have been a priest, and to have observed the laws of the Nazarites from his birth. Our Saviour appeared to James the less, eight days after his resurrection, 1 Cor. xv, 7. He was at Jerusalem, and was considered as a pillar of the church, when St. Paul first came thither after his conversion, Gal. i, 19, A. D. 37. In the council of Jerusalem, held in the year 51, St. James gave his vote last; and the result of the council was principally formed from what St. James said, who, though he observed the ceremonies of the law, and was careful that others should observe them, was of opinion, that such a yoke was not to be imposed on the faithful converted from among the Heathens, Acts xv, 13, &c. James the less was a person of great prudence and discretion, and was highly esteemed by the Apostles and other Christians. Such, indeed, was his general reputation for piety and virtue, that, as we learn, from Origen, Eusebius, and Jerom, Josephus thought, and declared it to be the common opinion, that the sufferings of the Jews, and the destruction of their city and temple, were owing to the anger of God, excited by the murder of James. This must be considered as a strong and remarkable testimony to the character of this Apostle, as it is given by a person who did not believe that Jesus was the Christ. The passages of Josephus, referred to by those fathers upon this subject, are not found in his works now extant.

GENERAL EPISTLE OF. Clement of Rome and Hermas allude to this epistle; and it is quoted by Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Jerom, Chrysostom, Augustine, and many other fathers. But though the antiquity of this epistle had been always undisputed, some few formerly doubted its right to be admitted into the canon. Eusebius says, that in his time it was generally, though not universally, received as canonical; and publicly read in most, but not in all, churches; and Estius affirms, that after the fourth century, no church or ecclesiastical writer is found who ever doubted its authenticity; but that, on the contrary, it is included in all subsequent catalogues of canonical Scripture, whether published by councils, churches, or individuals. It has, indeed, been the uniform tradition of the church, that this epistle was written by James the Just; but it was not universally admitted till after the fourth century, that James the Just was the same person as James the less, one of the twelve Apostles; that point being ascertained, the canonical authority of this epistle was no longer doubted. It is evident that this epistle could not have been written by James the elder, for he was beheaded by Herod Agrippa in the year 44, and the errors and vices reproved in this epistle show it to be of a much later date; and the destruction of Jerusalem is also here spoken of as being very near at hand, James v, 8, 9. It has always been considered as a circumstance very much in favour of this epistle, that it is found in the Syriac version, which was made as early as the end of the first century, and for the particular use of converted Jews,--the very description of persons to whom it was originally addressed. Hence we infer, that it was from the first acknowledged by those for whose instruction it was intended; and “I think,” says Dr. Doddridge, “it can hardly be doubted but they were better judges of the question of its authenticity than the Gentiles, to whom it was not written; among whom, therefore, it was not likely to be propagated so early; and who at first might be prejudiced against it, because it was inscribed to the Jews.” The immediate design of this epistle was to animate the Jewish Christians to support with fortitude and patience any sufferings to which they might be exposed, and to enforce the genuine doctrine and practice of the Gospel, in opposition to the errors and vices which then prevailed among them. St. James begins by showing the benefits of trials and afflictions, and by assuring the Jewish Christians that God would listen to their sincere prayers for assistance and support; he reminds them of their being the distinguished objects of divine favour, and exhorts them to practical religion; to a just and impartial regard for the poor, and to a uniform obedience to all the commands of God, without any distinction or exception; he shows the inefficacy of faith without works, that is, unless followed by moral duties; he inculcates the necessity of a strict government of the tongue, and cautions them against censoriousness, strife, malevolence, pride, indulgence of their sensual passions, and rash judgment; he denounces threats against those who make an improper use of riches; he intimates the approaching destruction of Jerusalem; and concludes with exhortations to patience, devotion, and a solicitous concern for the salvation of others. This epistle is written with great perspicuity and energy, and it contains an excellent summary of those practical duties and moral virtues which are required of Christians. Although the author wrote to the Jews dispersed throughout the world, yet the state of his native land passed more immediately before his eyes. Its final overthrow was approaching; and oppressions, factions, and violent scenes troubled all ranks, and involved some professing Christians in suffering, others in guilt.

With the reign of James L, whose coronation took place at Scone on the 21st May, may almost be said to begin the substitution in Scotland of constitutional sovereignty, regulated by definite principles and laws and modified by a regard to the opinions and interests of the subjects, for the indefinite authority of the king and the arbitrary rule of the nobles. It is true that after his death the lawless contests of the nobles broke out as fiercely as ever, but by his energetic repression of their violence during his lifetime, and more especially by the virtual creation of statute law modelled on that of England, and the additional importance assigned to parliament, the leaven was partly prepared which was to work towards the destruction of their unlicensed influence. During a session of the parliament held at Perth on the 12th March 1425, James suddenly arrested a large number of the nobles, including the duke of Albany and his two sons, whom along with the earl of Lennox he caused to be executed. With similar strategy he at a parliament held at Inverness in 1427 arrested Donald of the Isles and fifty of his chiefs. Donald, however, on making all due submission, received his liberty; but when, in violation of his oath he made an abortive attempt to assert his independence, the king, on his making unconditional surrender, confined him to Tantallon castle. As was natural, the energetic rule of the king, and especially his stringent coercion of the nobles, aroused a secret purpose of revenge; and, acting on the inspiration of the earl of Athole, uncle of the king, Sir Robert Graham and other accomplices, with a band of three hundred Highlanders, suddenly, on the evening of the 20th or morning of the 21st February 1437, entered the apartment of the king in the priory of the Dominicans at Perth, and stabbed him to death with their daggers.

Although the constitutional reforms introduced by James I., and the general tenor of his reign, showed that in him were united in a rare degree decision in action with far-sighted sagacity, his merits as a statesman have been cast in the shade by his achievements in literature. It is also worthy of mention that it was owing chiefly to his representations when in captivity that the pope was induced to grant a bull for the erection of a university at St Andrews. The Poetical Remains of James I. were first published in 1783, edited by William Tytler. The principal poems of which he is the reputed author are The King's fluair, Christis Kirk on the Grene, and Peblis to the Play, and he also wrote several minor pieces. A manuscript of the King's Q l uair formerly belonging to Selden is preserved in the Bodleian library at Oxford. The poem, which *is divided into seven cantos, and is written in the seven-lined stanzas of Chaucer, was composed during his captivity in England, to celebrate his love for the lady whom he afterwards married. It is allegorical in form and somewhat tedious in its minute description of details, but always preserves a smooth and harmonious versification, while it contains many finely imaginative passages inspired by true and tender feeling, and characterized by a charming simplicity and grace akin to those of his master Chaucer. One reason why many have doubted that James could be the author of Christis Kirk on the Grene is its entire dissimilarity in manner and style to the King's Quair. Pope’s line, “A Scot will fight for Christ’s Kirk o’ the Green” is sarcastic, but undoubtedly chronicles a fact. The poem is a humorous delineation of a phase of Scotch rustic life, and its spirit and graphic vigour are not unworthy of Burns, who indeed has received from it more than one suggestive hint, and in The Holy Fair and The Ordination has imitated its refrain. The oldest evidence for assigning it to James I. is that of the Bannatyne MS. collection made by George Bannatyne in 1568; and, if this evidence is not conclusive for James I., it is so against Janies V., the only other probable author. There is no printed edition earlier than 1663. Since then several separate editions have appeared, and it has also been printed along with The Gaberlunzie Man as the work of James V. That James I. was the author of the poem receives a certain amount of corroboration from its resemblance in subject and style to Peblis to the Play, the first words of which are quoted by John Major in describing a ballad which he attributes to James.

The contemporary authorities on the reign of James I. are principally Wyntoun’s Crοηykil, and Bower’s continuation of Fordun’s Scοtοchrοnicοn. To the succeeding century belong the histories of John Major, Hector Boece,, and Bishop Lesley. The modern histories of Pinkerton, Tytler, and Burton are of course well known. In regard to questions connected with his character as an author, see Sibbald’s Chronicles of Scottish Poetry, Walpole’s Royal and Noble Authors·, Chalmers’s Historic Remains of Scottish Kings·, Tytier’s Scottish Worthies·, Pinkerton’s Ancient Scottish Poems·, Ritson’s Historical Essay on Scottish Song·, Washington Irving’s Sketch Book·, Prescott’s Miscellanies·, and David Irving’s History of Scottish Poetry. An account of the murder of James I., professedly translated from the Latin of John Shirley in 1440, has been published in an Appendix toPinkerton’s History; in vol. ii. of Miscellanea Scotica, Glasgow, 1818; and in Gait’s novel, The Spaewife.

JAMES I. (1566-1625), king of England. This sovereign, James VI. of Scotland, in whom the crowns of Scotland and England were united, was the son of Mary Queen of Scots and of Henry, Lord Darnley, and was born in the castle of Edinburgh 19th June 1566. His mother while in captivity having been forced to abdicate the sovereignty, James was crowned king at Stirling July 29, 1567. The regency was vested in the earl of Murray, who by his masterly political skill and force of character held the various factions in complete restraint until his assassination at Linlithgow in February 1570. The absence of his authoritative will at once allowed free scope to the various elements of disorder latent in the kingdom, and during the regency of Lennox, who was mortally wounded in a fray at Stirling with the adherents of Mary, September 1571, and of the earl of Mar his successor, who died in October 1572, strife and confusion held almost rampant sway. The earl of Morton, the next regent, being possessed, however, of some of the high qualities of his predecessor Murray, succeeded with assistance from Elizabeth of England in quelling the last embers of insurrection, and afterwards held in check the interested ambition of the nobles, until in 1578 they succeeded in discrediting his influence by the scheme of placing the government nominally in the hands of the boy monarch. In June 1581 Morton suffered death for his connexion with the murder of Darnley. James, to whom were thus early entrusted the functions of sovereignty, had spent his infancy under the care of the earl of Mar, on whose death he was taken charge of by the earl’s brother, Alexander Erskine. For his principal tutor he had George Buchanan, who inspired him with a genuine interest in learning and a strong ambition to excel in poetical composition; he was also so far influenced by the Reformed type of religion as to have imbibed a love for theological argument, although he always cherished a strong distaste towards both Calvinistic doctrine and the Presbyterian form of government. His character was indeed formed amidst moral and intellectual surroundings strangely mingled and inharmonious, in addition to which the nature he inherited was rather a medley of isolated capacities than a definite and distinct idiosyncracy. From the first compelled to adopt an attitude hostile to his mother, and, at the same time that he could not but resent her imprisonment by Elizabeth, unable to trust in her intentions towards himself, he seems to have regarded her death both as a relief and as a calamity and disgrace. As he knew that each party in the state, the Catholics, the nobles, the Presbyterians, wished to make him their tool, he resolved to act towards them as suited his convenience; but, although he possessed a certain sharp shrewdness and foresight as well as no small knowledge of character, his inability to take a comprehensive view of affairs, or to form a truly courageous resolution, made his policy often rash and reckless in regard to matters seemingly small, and always shifting and irresolute in regard to affairs of the highest moment. The moral courage he possessed was not inconsistent with physical cowardice; indeed the chief element in it was an overweening self-conceit, to which the consciousness of superior intellectual attainments gave the consummating touch; and thus it was that the very difficulties of his position gradually nourished within him the conviction of the divine right inherent in his office, and caused all his conduct, wavering and uncertain as it was, to be inspired by the one purpose of building up his kingly prerogative.

Taking advantage of the weakness of the royal authority during the king’s minority, the General Assembly of the Scottish Church resolved in 1581 to substitute Presbyterianism for Episcopacy, and James, being shortly afterwards seized by the nobles at the raid of Ruthven, was unable to put his veto on their procedure, until after the overthrow of those implicated in the conspiracy, when in 1584 the estates passed an act denouncing their assumption of legislative power. In 1585 James was, however, besieged in Stirling by the exiled lords, and compelled to pardon them and dismiss his favourite, Arran. As their influence was moreover backed by Elizabeth, and as the hopes of James were even thus early directed towards succeeding her on the English throne, he discovered it to be advantageous to disguise his sentiments towards the Presbyterians. The destruction in 1588 that overtook the Armada of the Catholic Philip of Spain deprived James of all anxiety regarding the effects of his mother’s testamentary disposal of her crown to that monarch, but it naturally inclined him for a time to a more close alliance with the Protestants, the result of which was seen, not only in his marriage in 1589 to the Protestant princess Anne of Denmark, but in an Act of the estates in 1592, which sanctioned the formal abolition of Episcopacy. In 1594 he also found it necessary to reduce the Catholic lords of the north of Scotland, but in 1597 he deemed it prudent to balance the influence of the Presbyterians, and also to flatter the hopes of the Catholics of England by securing the revocation of the forfeiture of the estates of the banished nobles, and permitting them to return. Previous to this his action against the preacher of a sermon in which Elizabeth was attacked as an atheist led to a “No Popery” riot in Edinburgh. The breach between him and the Presbyterians was still further widened by the statute of 1599, appointing a certain number of ministers to a seat in parliament with the title of bishop, and by his publication in the same year of his Basilicon Doron i in which he promulgated his views in regard to the divine right of kings. With the exception, however, of his peculiar experiences in connexion with the mysterious Gowrie conspiracy at Perth (August 5, 1600), the remainder of his reign in Scotland until his succession to the English throne in 1603 was quiet and uneventful; and the only fact of notable importance connected with his subsequent government of that kingdom is his suspension of the meetings of the General Assembly, until by the banishment and imprisonment of Melville and its principal leaders he was able in 1610 to convene an Assembly which agreed to the organization of a modified Episcopacy. The peculiar union of talents and defects which constituted the character of James made him perhaps the most unfit successor of Elizabeth that could have been chosen. His strutting pomposity was rendered strangely ludicrous by a personal appearance the several defects of which were heightened by their contrast with each other, and it was also constantly interfered with by his want of a proper sense of decorum. If he displayed great cleverness in avoiding immediate political difficulties and in gaining for the moment his own ends, he was incapable of adapting himself mentally to his new position as sovereign of England, and his fussy self-importance made it almost inevitable that he should mortally offend the political temperament then in England so peculiarly sensitive. Indeed, the traditional policy which the circumstances of Scotland had rendered almost a second nature to the Stuarts was repugnant to the susceptibilities of England, and utterly alien to her political constitution, and in the case of James all the worst defects of this policy were exaggerated. Thus his seeming shrewdness in small matters, and his witty and terse political axioms, only secured him the reputation of being the “wisest fool in Christendom;” and, while his absurd personality cast ridicule on his kingly pretensions, the general character of his political procedure estranged from him every party in the state, and called into action influences which in the subsequent reign wrought the overthrow of the monarchy whose prestige he had almost hopelessly tarnished. Having narrowly escaped a plot of the Catholics to seize his person shortly after his arrival in London, Janies resolved to flatter their hopes by granting them toleration, but his proclamation in February 1604 against the Jesuits revealed the hollowness of his professions and led to the futile gunpowder conspiracy of November 1605. Its discovery dissipated for the time the alienation already begun between him and the Commons on account of his imprudent assertion of his prerogative against the Puritans at the Hampton Court conference, and the subsequent disagreements in regard to ecclesiastical reform and a union with Scotland. Against the goodwill of the Commons, which showed itself iu the readiness with which a subsidy was granted for his debts, he, however, trespassed almost immediately by abusing the royal custom of placing impositions on merchandise. All attempts at a compromise on the subject having failed, James in February 1611 dissolved the parliament, and a second parliament which he summoned in 1614 proving equally recalcitrant was also dissolved, the fact that it was not allowed the opportunity of transacting business earning for it from the courtiers the name of the “addled parliament.” To help in filling the vacuum in his treasury, James had recourse with small success to the odious practice of demanding benevolences, and, in addition to various other misuses of his prerogative, to the excessive increase of monopolies, and to the virtual sale of peerages and other high offices. The administration of the affairs of the kingdom was at the same time gradually withdrawn from the council, and the whole executive authority entrusted to favourites. As the breach between him and his subjects gradually widened he became more anxious—both in order to supply himself with money, and to obtain the support of an influential external authority— for an alliance with Spain, and in 1617 negotiations were entered into for a marriage between the young prince Charles and the Spanish infanta. But on the part of Spain those proposals were never seriously entertained. Their only result was to impart such irresolution to the policy of James in reference to the Bohemian insurrection as to afford Spain the opportunity of seizing the Palatinate; and by continuing to dangle the possibility of the marriage before the eyes of James the emperor succeeded in delaying his interference till the Palatinate was lost. Still intent on his purpose of the Spanish marriage, to which he had ruthlessly sacrificed the life of Sir Walter Raleigh, James despatched his favourite Buckingham along with Charles to Madrid, and the return of the baffled and disappointed wooer in 1624 dissipated the last lingering sentiment of respect which the English nation may have cherished towards the king. Buckingham and Charles now virtually overrode the royal prerogative, and at their instance not only was war declared against Spain, but on the condition of granting toleration to the Catholics of England, a treaty of marriage between Charles and Henrietta Maria of France was signed at the close of 1624. James died on March 25,1625.

James inaugurated his literary career in 1584 by the publication of the Essayes of a Prentice in the Divine Art of Poetry, and in 1591 he published Poetieall Exercises at Vacant Houres. His other compositions in verse include a paraphrase of the Revelation of St John and a version of the Psalms; As he deemed it necessary to give to the world his opinion on almost every subject of importance which then occupied public attention, his prose disquisitions are legion, but the best known are Demonologie, 1597; Basilicon Doron, 1599; and Counterblast to Tobacco, 1616. A collected edition of his prose writings was published in 1616, edited by the bishop of Winchester. Some of his poetical translations are not without merit, but both his prose and poetry, though displaying occasional wit and cleverness and some faculty of composition, are studded with absurdities, and but for the fact that their author was a monarch would scarcely deserve a reference.

The original authorities for the reign of James I. are the statepapers published in the series of the Master of the Rolls; the Register of the Privy Council of Scotland (vol. ii. 1569-78, by Burton, 1878; vol iii,, 1578-85, by Masson, 1880); the Letters and State-Papers during the reign of James the Sixth, published by the Abbotsford Club; the Letters of the children and other relations of James, published by the Maitland Club, in facsimile form, from the originals in the Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh; the letters published under the title of the Court and Times of James I., 1846; his correspondence with Cecil, published by the Camden Society; the correspondence in the Cabala·, Camden’s Annals·, Goodman’s Court of James I., edited by J. S. Brewer, 1839; Calderwood’s History of the Church of Scotland ; Melville’s Diary; Historie and Life of James the Sext, 1566-96, with a short continuation to 1617, published by the Bannatyne Club, Edinburgh, 1825; the secret histories by Osborne, Weldon, Heylin, and Reston, edited by Sir Walter Scott; Arthur Wilson’s Life and Times of James I., London, 1653. See also, in addition to the histories of Burton, Tytler, Gardiner, Ranke, and others, Harris’s Historical and Criticcd Account of the Writings of James I., 1573; Irving’s History of Scottish Poetry ; and Disraeli’s Literary and Political Character of James I.

JAMES II. (1633-1701), king of England, and as king of Scotland James VII., second surviving son of Charles I. and Henrietta Maria, was born at the palace of St James’s, October 15, 1633, and was created duke of York in January 1643. During the civil war he was taken prisoner by Fairfax at Oxford in 1646, but in 1648 he made his escape to Holland. After the second failure of the Stuart cause he served for some time in the French army under Turenne, but at the command of his brother he in 1656 accepted a military commission from Spain. At the Restoration in 1660 he was appointed lord high admiral and lord warden of the Cinque Ports. For the management of the civil administration of the navy he had the qualification of industry and careful regard to details; and if his victory over the Dutch in 1665 was principally a happy stroke of good luck, and his drawn battle with De Ruyter in 1672 was more to his antagonist’s credit than to his, still the fact that his career as an admiral was free from disaster shows that his seamanship must have been at least respectable. Outside, however, the sphere of practical routine, James was blind and insensate, and his whole political conduct—while it indicated that he could stoop to compromise and deception when he deemed these necessary—was marked by a heedlessness and perverse obstinacy possible only to a rigid and contracted understanding preoccupied with a single purpose. He possessed the vices of his race without its virtues and redeeming points, and in him the propensity to despotism developed itself in a form unmitigated by any mildness or amiable weakness of temper, unenlightened by any gift of foresight or practical wisdom, and unadorned by any personal accomplishment. Although at the Restoration his sympathies were so little Catholic that he supported the policy of Clarendon, whose daughter Anne he secretly married in September 1660, publicly acknowledging the union in the December following, he soon thereafter became a convert to Romanism, and in 1672, in opposition to the expostulations of his brother, openly avowed his change of faith. Anne Hyde having died in 1671, he also persuaded his brother to defy the wishes of both Houses of Parliament by permitting him in 1673 to marry the Catholic princess Mary of Modena. On account of the Test Act, passed in this year, he had been compelled to resign his office of admiral, and, although the marriage in 1677 of his daughter Mary to William, prince of Orange, somewhat allayed the distrust with which he was regarded, it was deemed advisable on the discovery of the Popish plot in 1679 that he should retire for a time to Brussels. Afterwards he was appointed lord high commissioner to Scotland, where his arbitrary bigotry found congenial employment in the persecution of the Covenanters; but in 1684 Charles ventured to dispense in his case with the Test Act, and restored him to his office of admiral.

The influence of the loyal enthusiasm which surrounded the last days of Charles in 1685 was felt in the calm acquiescence with which the nation witnessed James’s succession to the throne on February 6, and his coronation on April 23,1686. The trust awakened by his promise to preserve the Government both in church and state as by law established was indeed almost immediately rudely shaken by his public celebration of mass, by his prohibition of preaching against Catholicism, and by his appointment of Catholic officers to the army; but that the goodwill at least of the Commons was still strong was manifested by the grant of a revenue of two millions, and by the enactment of severer measures against treason. If the loyalty of the nation had begun to waver, it was also for the time strengthened by the premature and headstrong attempts at rebellion by Argyll in Scotland, and Monmouth in England. The renewal of the Covenanting persecutions had, however, branded the name of James with the hatred of the Scottish people, and the butchery of the Bloody Assizes, which in England followed the discomfiture of Monmouth, left behind it a widespread horror, the repression of which only wrought effects on the mind of the nation the deeper and more ineffaceable. But James was too intent on his one aim—the establishment of irresponsible despotism—to scrutinize or consider the indirect consequences of his acts. In that aim was necessarily involved the restoration of Popery, because James was a Papist, but happily the accidental prominence given to this secondary and subordinate aim made the other impossible of success. In his imprudent zeal to accomplish his purpose, James outran the wishes even of Rome, but that was because the purpose which to the one was secondary was to the other primary. James required both a large standing army and freedom from the control of parliament; but for these ends a foreign source of money supply was at first necessary, and this he could only obtain by an arrangement which, while it was unpalatable to himself and loathsome to the nation, was far from acceptable to the pope,—namely, by becoming the temporary vassal of Louis of France, whose ambitious designs, notwithstanding his intense and virulent Catholicism, had awakened the jealousy of Rome. Besides, many of the individual acts of James were prompted by the Jesuits, with whom the pope was then at feud. The progress of James’s ill-starred design was marked by clear and well-defined steps. While all England was shocked by the cruelties following the revocation by Louis of the edict of Nantes, James resolved to demand the repeal of the Test Act, and when this was refused by parliament he fabricated by means of corrupted judges a semblance of legal sanction for his disregard of its provisions, and not only encamped an army on Hounslow Heath, chiefly officered by Catholics, but manifested his determination that henceforth to be a Catholic should be a recommendation and not a bar to the highest offices of state, by creating Father Petre and five Catholic peers privy councillors. An appearance of liberality was indeed given to his policy by a declaration of indulgence to Protestant dissenters, but this only quickened suspicion as to his ultimate purpose. Moreover, while a commission was illegally appointed to restrain the discussion of political subjects by the clergy, the publication of Romanist sentiments was freely permitted, monasteries and Catholic schools were being rapidly augmented, and an attempt was made to swamp the Protestantism of the universities by conferring the principal dignities as they became vacant on Catholics. This final step, and a second declaration of indulgence of April 1688, which contained a provision for the prosecution of those clergymen who might refuse to read the declaration in their pulpits, dissipated the last atoms of veneration in the minds of the Tories for the divine right of the king; and after the birth of a son to James in May of the same year nearly every party in the state was prepared to support the invitation to William of Orange to aid in the restitution of the liberties of the country. The discussion of the motives which induced William to accept this invitation, and the results which followed his landing in England, belong properly to the article on William III. James, finding the bulwarks of despotism crumbling around him, after refusing the advice of a council of lay and temporal peers to open negotiations with William, made a pretence of yielding only to gain time to escape, and by his cowardly flight, which he persevered in even after being intercepted and brought back to London, rendered the coronation of Mary and William indispensable. All hope in England was for the time lost, and as by his action on the Test Act he had alienated the sycophantic estates of Scotland, the rising in the Highlands afforded no permanent benefit to his cause; but in Ireland it might be possible for him still to enjoy, though in diminished lustre, the glories of sovereignty until he should be restored to his wider dignities. If his policy towards Ireland had been dictated by the position in which he was now placed, it failed of its purpose, for even before the arrival of William he discovered that he had to fight his way to dominion, and finally, notwithstanding the aid of French troops, his craven irresolution in the face of danger lost him the battle of the Boyne, July 1, 1690, after which he made a hurried escape to France. An expedition to England in his favour was projected by Louis in 1692, but was frustrated by the defeat of the French fleet off Cape La Hogue on May 17, and another invasion planned to follow on the success of an assassination plot on February 10, 1696, was foiled by the discovery of the treachery. James died at St Germain, September 1701.

The principal contemporary authorities for the reign of James are the Dianes of Evelyn, Pepys, and Luttrell; Burnet’s History of His Own Times’, Sir William Temple’s Memoirs-, Life of James I I. , London, 1705; Bishop Kennet’s History of England; The Ellis Correspondence, London, 1829; and the Life of James II., collected out of Memoirs written by his own hand, by J. C. Clarke, 1816. See also the Life by C. J. Fox; C. T. Wilson, James II. and the Duke of Berwick, 1876; and the histories of Macaulay, Lingard, and Ranke.

At sixteen years of age she undertook the office of governess in the family of the marquis of Winchester, and later in that of Mr Littleton, afterwards Lord Hatherton. Between these two engagements she accompanied a young pupil, one of a party of travellers, to Italy, a tour which gave rise to a narrative of what she saw and did, written in an imaginary character. This, her first literary production, the merits of which she little appreciated, did not make its appearance until after her marriage with Mr Robert Jameson, a barrister, in 1825, when it was advertised by a friend under the title of a Ladfs Diary, and ultimately published by Mr Colburn as The Diary of an Ennuyée. Mrs Jameson’s marriage was not a happy one; but, if not more unfortunate than many of her sex in this form of trial, she set the example of a rare discretion under it. Her marriage troubles were made no excuse for appealing against the laws of the land or the usages of society. The Diary of an Ennuyée attracted much attention. Italy was no such beaten ground then, nor ∙a traveller with ardent feelings for art and nature so common, as both have become since. The authoress has been blamed for assuming the disguise of an invalid, who dies on her way back; but such a tinge of romance made no difference in the truth of her descriptions, while it procured them more readers.

In 1829 Mr Jameson was appointed puisne judge in the island of Dominica. It was decided to be impracticable for her to accompany him, and meanwhile Mrs Jameson visited the Continent again with her father. Traces of this journey appear in Visits and Sketches at Home and Abl·oad. Hitherto the subjects she had treated had been limited to impressions of outer scenes and passing things, or to abridgments of history, as in her good schoolbook Female Sovereigns. The first work in which her powers of original thought became embodied were her Characteristics of Shakespeare's Women, which appeared in 1832. These analyses of the great poet’s heroines are unsurpassed for delicacy of critical insight and fineness of literary touch. They are the result of a penetrating but essentially feminine mind, applied to the study of individuals of its own sex, detecting characteristics and defining differences not perceived by the ordinary critic, and entirely overlooked by the general reader.

In 1833 Mrs Jameson paid her first visit to Germany, the literature and art of which country may be said to have then first roused the curiosity of English minds. Dresden and Tieck and Retsch, Frankfort and Dannecker, Weimar and, if not Goethe, who had died the year before, yet the homage which more than restored him to life, successively occupied her. Nor was she proof to the spell of the modem German art which the late King Louis of Bavaria had evoked in his capital. Those conglomerations of hard lines, cold colours, and pedantic subjects which decorated Munich were new to the world, and Mrs Jameson’s enthusiasm first gave them the reputation which has long since faded away.

It was in 1836 that Mrs Jameson was summoned by her husband to join him in Canada. She started with many a regret for the life she was leaving, and was not long left in doubt as to the fruitlessness of the step. He failed to meet her, even by a letter, at New York, and she was left to make her way alone at the worst of seasons to Toronto. After six months’ experiment she felt it useless to prolong a life far from all ties of family happiness and Opportunities of usefulness. Before leaving, she undertook a journey to the depths of the Indian settlements in Canada; she explored Lake Huron, and saw much of emigrant and aborigines life unknown to travellers, which she afterwards embodied in her Winter Studies and Summer Rambles. She returned to England in 1838. It was at this period that Mrs Jameson first devoted her attention to the subject of art. She began by making careful notes of the chief private collections in and near London which had hitherto received no systematic description. This Companion to the Private Galleries was soon followed by the Handbook to the Public Galleries. These works were useful compilations, and had a certain circulation; but the authoress laid claim to no powers of real discrimination, and many of her verdicts, in which she only followed those that went before her, have been since superseded by exacter knowledge. These works, however, led on to those by which her literary career has been specially distinguished,—her series of Sacred and Legendary Art. The time was ripe for such contributions to the traveller’s library. The Acta Sanctorum and the Rook of the Golden Legend had had their readers, but no one had ever pointed out the connexion between these tales and the works of Christian art. The painters employed by convent or church had introduced the local or family saints according to contract, and the faithful had retained the tradition of their names; but foi' the modern Protestant traveller the whole was a terra incognita. The way to these studies had been pointed out in the preface to Kugler’s Handbook of Italian Painting by Sir Charles Eastlake, who had intended pursuing the subject himself. Eventually he made over to Mrs Jameson the materials and references he had collected. They could not have been placed in better hands. She recognized the extent of the ground before her as a mingled sphere of poetry, history, devotion, and art. She directed the taste of her readers with judgment and even enthusiasm; and, with the same penetration that had guided her in her literary tasks, she threw many a light on a master’s intentions which had escaped both artists and critics.

Another service Mrs Jameson rendered to the English public, and that the most valuable of all, has still to be noticed. She began her literary career by analysing books, she proceeded to analyse works of art, and she ended by analysing society. It was a natural supplement to a course of varied personal experience and no little struggle that her attention should be directed to the great moral questions of the day, and especially to those affecting the education, occupations, and maintenance of her own sex. Her early essay on The Relative Social Position of Mothers and Governesses is a masterpiece. She knew both sides; and in no respect does she more clearly prove the falseness of the position she describes than in the certainty with which she predicts its eventual reform.

To Mrs Jameson we owe the first popular enunciation of the principle of male and female cooperation in works of mercy and education. Her mind was peculiarly to be trusted with the advocacy of such tenets—it had become as clear and judicious by experience as it was ardent and vigorous by nature. In her later years she took up a succession of subjects all bearing on the same principles of active benevolence, and the best ways of carrying them into practice. Sisters of charity, hospitals, penitentiaries, prisons, and workhouses all claimed her interest—all more or less included under those definitions of “the communion of love and communion of labour” which are inseparably connected with her memory. To the clear and temperate forms in which she brought the results of her convictions before her friends in the shape of private lectures, subsequently printed, may be traced the source whence living reformers and philanthropists took counsel and courage.

Mrs Jameson died in March 1860. She left the last of her Sacred and Legendary Art series in preparation. It was completed, under the title of The History of our Lord in Art, by Lady Eastlake. (e. e.)

JAMESON, or Jamesone, George (c. 1587-1644), a Scotch portrait painter, was born, probably in 1587, at Aberdeen, where his father was architect and a member of the guild. After studying painting under Rubens at Antwerp, with Vandyck as a fellow pupil, he returned in 1620 to Aberdeen, where he was married in 1624 and remained at least until 1630, after which he took up his residence in Edinburgh. The department of painting which he chiefly practised was portraiture in oil, but he also painted a few historical subjects and landscapes. His portraits are generally less than life size. According to Walpole they are characterized by “delicacy and softness, with a clear and beautiful colouring”; but, although undoubtedly the instructions of Rubens had left their influence on his style, he has no claim to the title of the Vandyck of Scotland by which he is often known, and perhaps owed even his exceptional fame in Scotland as much to chance as to his own merits. Having been employed by the magistrates of Edinburgh to copy several portraits of the Scottish kings for presentation to Charles I. on his first visit to Scotland in 1633, the king rewarded him with a diamond ring from his own finger. This circumstance appears to have at once established his fame, and he soon found constant though not very remunerative employment in painting the portraits of the nobility and gentry of his native land. He also painted a portrait of Charles, which he declined to sell to the magistrates of Aberdeen for the price they offered. The largest collection of the works of Jameson is said to be that in Taymouth castle, and, besides those in the houses of several of the gentry of Scotland, there are a few in the colleges of Aberdeen. He died at Edinburgh in 1644.

JAMESON, Robert (1774-1854), regius professor of natural history in the university of Edinburgh, was born at Leith July 11, 1774. After an education at Leith grammar school and Edinburgh university, he became assistant to a surgeon in his native town; but, having studied natural history under Dr Walker in 1792 and 1793, he felt that his true province lay in that science, for which indeed he had had a predilection from boyhood. The course of his studies during the next few years is to be traced in his scientific papers and books. He went in 1800 to Freiberg to study for nearly two years under the learned Werner, and spent other two in Continental travel. On his return to Edinburgh in 1804, when he succeeded Dr Walker in the chair of natural history, he became, in lectures, writings, and controversy, perhaps the first great exponent in England of the Wernerian geological system; and it is to his credit that, when he found that theory untenable, he frankly and honestly announced his conversion to the views of Hutton. As a teacher, Professor Jameson was no less remarkable than Wernet for his power of imparting his own enthusiasm to his students, and from his classroom there radiated an influence which gave a marked impetus to the study of geology in Britain. It was his energy also that, by means of Government aid, private donation, and personal outlay, amassed the greater part of the splendid collection which now occupies the natural history department of the Edinburgh Museum of Science and Art. In 1808 Jameson founded the Wernerian Natural History Society, and in 1819, along with Sir David Brewster, he originated the Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, which after the tenth volume remained under his sole conduct till his death, which took place April 19, 1854. His bust, presented by the Wernerian Society to the museum some years before his death, now stands in the university library hall.

Professor Jameson was the author of Mineralogy of Arran and the Shetland Islands, 1798, incorporated with Mineralogy of the Scottish Isles, 2 vols. 4to, 1800; Mineralogical Description of Scotland, vol. i. pt. 1, “Dumfriesshire,” 1804 (this was to have been the first of a series embracing all Scotland); System of Mineralogy, 1804; Characters of Minerals, 1804; Elements of Geognosy, 1809; and Manned of Minerals and Mountain Rocks, 1821; besides a number of occasional papers, of which a list will be found in the Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal for April 1854, along with a biographical sketch of the author.