Chapter XVII: Part 17

It is clear from his account that the lines of fortifications included
both the eastern and western hills. North of the Temple enclosure
there was a gate, known as the Sheep Gate, which must have opened into
the third valley mentioned above, and stood somewhere near what is now
the north side of the Haram enclosure, but considerably south of the
present north wall of the latter. To the west of the Sheep Gate there
were two important towers in the wall, called respectively Meah and
Hananeel. The tower Hananeel is specially worthy of notice as it stood
N.W. of the Temple and probably formed the basis of the citadel built
by Simon Maccabaeus, which again was succeeded by the fortress of
Antonia, constructed by Herod the Great, and one of the most important
positions at the time of the siege by Titus. At or near the tower
Hananeel the wall turned south along the east side of the Tyropoeon
valley, and then again westward, crossing the valley at a point
probably near the remarkable construction known as Wilson's arch. A
gate in the valley, known as the Fish Gate, opened on a road which,
leading from the north, went down the Tyropoeon valley to the southern
part of the city. Westward of this gate the wall followed the south
side of the valley which joined the Tyropoeon from the west as far as
the north-western corner of the city at the site of the present Jaffa
Gate and the so-called tower of David. In this part of the wall there
were apparently two gates facing north, i.e. the Old Gate and the Gate
of Ephraim, 400 cubits from the corner.[2] At the corner stood the
residence of the Babylonian governor, near the site upon which King
Herod afterwards built his magnificent palace. From the corner at the
governor's house, the wall went in a southerly direction and turned
south-east to the Valley Gate, remains of which were discovered by F.
J. Bliss and fully described in his _Excavations in Jerusalem in
1894-1897_. From the Valley Gate the wall took an easterly course for
a distance of 1000 cubits to the Dung Gate, near which on the east was
the Fountain Gate, not far from the lower pool of Siloam. Here was the
most southerly point of Jerusalem, and the wall turning hence to the
north followed the west side of the valley of the Kidron, enclosing
the city of David and the Temple enclosure, and finally turning west
at some point near the site of the Golden Gate joined the wall,
already described, at the Sheep Gate. Nehemiah mentions a number of
places on the eastern hill, including the tomb of David, the positions
of which cannot with our present knowledge be fixed with any
certainty.

After the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem by Nehemiah, a considerable number of Jews returned to the city, but we know practically nothing of its history for more than a century until, in 332 B.C., Alexander the Great conquered Syria. The gates of Jerusalem were opened to him and he left the Jews in peaceful occupation. But his successors did not act with similar leniency; when the city was captured by Ptolemy I., king of Egypt, twelve years later, the fortifications were partially demolished and apparently not again restored until the period of the high priest Simon II., who repaired the defences and also the Temple buildings. In 168 B.C. Antiochus Epiphanes captured Jerusalem, destroyed the walls, and devastated the Temple, reducing the city to a worse position than it had occupied since the time of the captivity. He built a citadel called the Acra to dominate the town and placed in it a strong garrison of Greeks. The position of the Acra is doubtful, but it appears most probable that it stood on the eastern hill between the Temple and the city of David, both of which it commanded. Some writers place it north of the Temple on the site afterwards occupied by the fortress of Antonia, but such a position is not in accord with the descriptions either in Josephus or in the books of the Maccabees, which are quite consistent with each other. Other writers again have placed the Acra on the eastern side of the hill upon which the church of the Holy Sepulchre now stands, but as this point was probably quite outside the city at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and is at too great a distance from the Temple, it can hardly be accepted. But the site which has been already indicated at the N.E. corner of the present Mosque el Aksa meets the accounts of the ancient authorities better than any other. At this point in the Haram enclosure there is an enormous underground cistern, known as the Great Sea, and this may possibly have been the source of water supply for the Greek garrison. The oppression of Antiochus led to a revolt of the Jews under the leadership of the Maccabees, and Judas Maccabaeus succeeded in capturing Jerusalem after severe fighting, but could not get possession of the Acra, which caused much trouble to the Jews, who erected a wall between it and the Temple, and another wall to cut it off from the city. The Greeks held out for a considerable time, but had finally to surrender, probably from want of food, to Simon Maccabaeus, who demolished the Acra and cut down the hill upon which it stood so that it might no longer be higher than the Temple, and that there should be no separation between the latter and the city. Simon then constructed a new citadel, north of the Temple, to take the place of the Acra, and established in Judaea the Asmonean dynasty, which lasted for nearly a century, when the Roman republic began to make its influence felt in Syria. In 65 B.C. Jerusalem was captured by Pompey after a difficult siege. The Asmonean dynasty lasted a few years longer, but finally came to an end when Herod the Great, with the aid of the Romans, took possession of Jerusalem and became the first king of the Idumaean dynasty. Herod again raised the city to the position of an important capital, restoring the fortifications, and rebuilding the Temple from its foundations. He also built the great fortress of Antonia, N.W. of the Temple, on the site of the citadel of the Asmoneans, and constructed a magnificent palace for himself on the western hill, defended by three great towers, which he named Mariamne, Hippicus and Phasaelus. At some period between the time of the Maccabees and of Herod, a second or outer wall had been built outside and north of the first wall, but it is not possible to fix an accurate date to this line of defence, as the references to it in Josephus are obscure. Herod adorned the town with other buildings and constructed a theatre and gymnasium. He doubled the area of the enclosure round the Temple, and there can be little doubt that a great part of the walls of the Haram area date from the time of Herod, while probably the tower of David, which still exists near the Jaffa Gate, is on the same foundation as one of the towers adjoining his palace. Archelaus, Herod's successor, had far less authority than Herod, and the real power of government at Jerusalem was assumed by the Roman procurators, in the time of one of whom, Pontius Pilate, Jesus Christ was condemned to death and crucified outside Jerusalem. The places of his execution and burial are not certainly known (see SEPULCHRE, HOLY).

Herod Agrippa, who succeeded to the kingdom, built a third or outer wall on the north side of Jerusalem in order to enclose and defend the buildings which had gradually been constructed outside the old fortifications. The exact line of this third wall is not known with certainty, but it probably followed approximately the same line as the existing north wall of Jerusalem. Some writers have considered that it extended a considerable distance farther to the north, but of this there is no proof, and no remains have as yet been found which would support the opinion. The wall of Herod Agrippa was planned on a grand scale, but its execution was stopped by the Romans, so that it was not completed at the time of the siege of Jerusalem by Titus. The writings of Josephus give a good idea of the fortifications and buildings of Jerusalem at the time of the siege, and his accurate personal knowledge makes his account worthy of the most careful perusal. He explains clearly how Titus, beginning his attack from the north, captured the third or outer wall, then the second wall, and finally the fortress of Antonia, the Temple, and the upper city. After the capture, Titus ordered the Temple to be demolished and the fortifications to be levelled, with the exception of the three great towers at Herod's palace. It is, however, uncertain how far the order was carried out, and it is probable that the outer walls of the Temple enclosure were left partially standing and that the defences on the west and south of the city were not completely levelled. When Titus and his army withdrew from Jerusalem, the 10th legion was left as a permanent Roman garrison, and a fortified camp for their occupation was established on the western hill. We have no account of the size or position of this camp, but a consideration of the site, and a comparison with other Roman camps in various parts of Europe, make it probable that it occupied an area of about 50 acres, extending over what is now known as the Armenian quarter of the town, and that it was bounded on the north by the old or first wall, on the west also by the old wall, on the south by a line of defence somewhat in the same position as the present south wall where it passes the Zion Gate, and on the east by an entrenchment running north and south parallel to the existing thoroughfare known as David Street. For sixty years the Roman garrison were left in undisturbed occupation, but in 132 the Jews rose in revolt under the leadership of Bar-Cochebas or Barcochba, and took possession of Jerusalem. After a severe struggle, the revolt was suppressed by the Roman general, Julius Severus, and Jerusalem was recaptured and again destroyed. According to some writers, this devastation was even more complete than after the siege by Titus. About 130 the emperor Hadrian decided to rebuild Jerusalem, and make it a Roman colony. The new city was called Aelia Capitolina. The exact size of the city is not known, but it probably extended as far as the present north wall of Jerusalem and included the northern part of the western hill. A temple dedicated to Jupiter Capitolinus was erected on the site of the Temple, and other buildings were constructed, known as the Theatre, the Demosia, the Tetranymphon, the Dodecapylon and the Codra. The Jews were forbidden to reside in the city, but Christians were freely admitted. The history of Jerusalem during the period between the foundation of the city of Aelia by the emperor Hadrian and the accession of Constantine the Great in 306 is obscure, but no important change appears to have been made in the size or fortifications of the city, which continued as a Roman colony. In 326 Constantine, after his conversion to Christianity, issued orders to the bishop Macarius to recover the site of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and the tomb in which his body was laid (see SEPULCHRE, HOLY). After the holy sites had been determined, Constantine gave orders for the construction of two magnificent churches, the one over the tomb and the other over the place where the cross was discovered. The present church of the Holy Sepulchre stands on the site upon which one of the churches of Constantine was built, but the second church, the Basilica of the Cross, has completely disappeared. The next important epoch in building construction at Jerusalem was about 460, when the empress Eudocia visited Palestine and expended large sums oh the improvement of the city. The walls were repaired by her orders, and the line of fortifications appears to have been extended on the south so as to include the pool of Siloam. A church was built above the pool, probably at the same time, and, after having completely disappeared for many centuries, it was recovered by F. J. Bliss when making his exploration of Jerusalem. The empress also erected a large church in honour of St Stephen north of the Damascus Gate, and is believed to have been buried therein. The site of this church was discovered in 1874, and it has since been rebuilt. In the 6th century the emperor Justinian erected a magnificent basilica at Jerusalem, in honour of the Virgin Mary, and attached to it two hospitals, one for the reception of pilgrims and one for the accommodation of the sick poor. The description given by Procopius does not indicate clearly where this church was situated. A theory frequently put forward is that it stood within the Haram area near the Mosque of el Aksa, but it is more probable that it was on Zion, near the traditional place of the Coenaculum or last supper, where the Mahommedan building known as the tomb of David now stands. In 614 Chosroes II., the king of Persia, captured Jerusalem, devastated many of the buildings, and massacred a great number of the inhabitants. The churches at the Holy Sepulchre were much damaged, but were partially restored by the monk Modestus, who devoted himself with great energy to the work. After a severe struggle the Persians were defeated by the emperor Heraclius, who entered Jerusalem in triumph in 629 bringing with him the holy cross, which had been carried off by Chosroes. At this period the religion of Mahomet was spreading over the east, and in 637 the caliph Omar marched on Jerusalem, which capitulated after a siege of four months. Omar behaved with great moderation, restraining his troops from pillage and leaving the Christians in possession of their churches. A wooden mosque was erected near the site of the Temple, which was replaced by the Mosque of Aksa, built by the amir Abdalmalik (Abd el Malek), who also constructed the Dome of the Rock, known as the Mosque of Omar, in 688. The Mahommedans held Jerusalem until 1099, when it was captured by the crusaders under Godfrey of Bouillon, and became the capital of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (see CRUSADES, vol. viii. p. 401) until 1187, when Saladin reconquered it, and rebuilt the walls. Since that time, except from 1229 to 1239, and from 1243 to 1244, the city has been held by the Mahommedans. It was occupied by the Egyptian sultans until 1517, when the Turks under Selim I. occupied Syria. Selim's successor, Suleiman the Magnificent, restored the fortifications, which since that time have been little altered.

_Modern Jerusalem._--Jerusalem is the chief town of a sanjak, governed
by a _mutessarif_, who reports directly to the Porte. It has the usual
executive and town councils, upon which the recognized religious
communities, or _millets_, have representatives; and it is garrisoned
by infantry of the V. army corps. The city is connected with its port,
Jaffa, by a carriage road, 41 m., and by a metre-gauge railway, 54 m.,
which was completed in 1892, and is worked by a French company. There
are also carriage roads to Bethlehem, Hebron and Jericho, and a road
to Nablus was in course of construction in 1909. Prior to 1858, when
the modern building period commenced, Jerusalem lay wholly within its
16th-century walls, and even as late as 1875 there were few private
residences beyond their limits. At present Jerusalem without the walls
covers a larger area than that within them. The growth has been
chiefly towards the north and north-west; but there are large suburbs
on the west, and on the south-west near the railway station on the
plain of Rephaim. The village of Siloam has also increased in size,
and the western slopes of Olivet are being covered with churches,
monasteries and houses. Amongst the most marked features of the change
that has taken place since 1875 are the growth of religious and
philanthropic establishments; the settlement of Jewish colonies from
Bokhara, Yemen and Europe; the migration of Europeans, old Moslem
families, and Jews from the city to the suburbs; the increased
vegetation, due to the numerous gardens and improved methods of
cultivation; the substitution of timber and red tiles for the vaulted
stone roofs which were so characteristic of the old city; the striking
want of beauty, grandeur, and harmony with their environment exhibited
by most of the new buildings; and the introduction of wheeled
transport, which, cutting into the soft limestone, has produced mud
and dust to an extent previously unknown. To facilitate communication
between the city and its suburbs, the Bab ez-Zahire, or Herod's Gate,
and a new gate, near the north-west angle of the walls, have been
opened; and a portion of the wall, adjoining the Jaffa Gate, has been
thrown down, to allow free access for carriages. Within the city the
principal streets have been roughly paved, and iron bars placed across
the narrow alleys to prevent the passage of camels. Without the walls
carriage roads have been made to the mount of Olives, the railway
station, and various parts of the suburbs, but they are kept in bad
repair. Little effort has been made to meet the increased sanitary
requirements of the larger population and wider inhabited area. There
is no municipal water-supply, and the main drain of the city
discharges into the lower pool of Siloam, which has become an open
cesspit. In several places the débris within the walls is saturated
with sewage, and the water of the Fountain of the Virgin, and of many
of the old cisterns, is unfit for drinking. Amongst the more important
buildings for ecclesiastical and philanthropic purposes erected to the
north of the city since 1860 are the Russian cathedral, hospice and
hospital; the French hospital of St Louis, and hospice and church of
St Augustine; the German schools, orphanages and hospitals; the new
hospital and industrial school of the London mission to the Jews; the
Abyssinian church; the church and schools of the Church missionary
society; the Anglican church, college and bishop's house; the
Dominican monastery, seminary and church of St Stephen; the Rothschild
hospital and girls' school; and the industrial school and workshops of
the Alliance Israélite. On the mount of Olives are the Russian church,
tower and hospice, near the chapel of the Ascension; the French
Paternoster church; the Carmelite nunnery; and the Russian church of
St Mary Magdalene, near Gethsemane. South of the city are the Armenian
monastery of Mount Zion and Bishop Gobat's school. On the west side
are the institution of the sisters of St Vincent; the Ratisbon school;
the Montefiore hospice; the British ophthalmic hospital of the knights
of St John; the convent and church of the Clarisses; and the Moravian
leper hospital. Within the city walls are the Latin Patriarchal church
and residence; the school of the Frères de la Doctrine Chrétienne; the
schools and printing house of the Franciscans; the Coptic monastery;
the German church of the Redeemer, and hospice; the United Armenian
church of the Spasm; the convent and school of the Soeurs de Zion; the
Austrian hospice; the Turkish school and museum; the monastery and
seminary of the Frères de la Mission Algérienne, with the restored
church of St Anne, the church, schools and hospital of the London
mission to the Jews; the Armenian seminary and Patriarchal buildings;
the Rothschild hospital; and Jewish hospices and synagogues. The
climate is naturally good, but continued neglect of sanitary
precautions has made the city unhealthy. During the summer months the
heat is tempered by a fresh sea-breeze, and there is usually a sharp
fall of temperature at night; but in spring and autumn the east and
south-east winds, which blow across the heated depression of the Ghor,
are enervating and oppressive. A dry season, which lasts from May to
October, is followed by a rainy season, divided into the early winter
and latter rains. Snow falls two years out of three, but soon melts.
The mean annual temperature is 62.8° F., the maximum 112°, and the
minimum 25°. The mean monthly temperature is lowest (47.2°) in
February, and highest (76.3°) in August. The mean annual rainfall
(1861 to 1899) is 26.06 in. The most unhealthy period is from 1st May
to 31st October, when there are, from time to time, outbreaks of
typhoid, small-pox, diphtheria and other epidemics. The unhealthiness
of the city is chiefly due to want of proper drainage, impure
drinking-water, miasma from the disturbed rubbish heaps, and
contaminated dust from the uncleansed roads and streets. The only
industry is the manufacture of olive-wood and mother-of-pearl goods
for sale to pilgrims and for export. The imports (see Joppa) are
chiefly food, clothing and building material. The population in 1905
was about 60,000 (Moslems 7000, Christians 13,000, Jews 40,000).
During the pilgrimage season it is increased by about 15,000
travellers and pilgrims.

AUTHORITIES.--Pal. Exp. Fund Publications--Sir C. Warren, _Jerusalem,
Memoir_ (1884); Clermont-Ganneau, _Archaeol. Researches_ (vol. i.,
1899); Bliss, _Excavns. at Jerusalem_ (1898); Conder, _Latin Kingdom
of Jerusalem_ (1897), and _The City of Jerusalem_ (1909), an
historical survey over 4000 years; Le Strange, _Pal. under the
Moslems_ (1890); Fergusson, _Temples of the Jews_ (1878); Hayter
Lewis, _Holy Places of Jerusalem_(1888); _Churches of Constantine at
Jerusalem_ (1891); Guthe, "Ausgrabungen in Jer.," in _Zeitschrift d.
D. Pal. Vereins_ (vol. v.); Tobler, _Topographie von Jerusalem_
(Berlin, 1854); Dritte Wanderung (1859); Sepp, _Jerusalem und das
heilige Land_ (1873); Röhricht, _Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani;
Bibliotheca Geographica Palaestinae_ (1890); De Vogüé, _Le Temple de
Jérusalem_ (1864); Sir C. W. Wilson, _Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre_
(1906); publications of the Pal. Pilgrims' Text Society and of the
_Société de l'Orient latin_; papers in _Quarterly Statements_ of the
P. E. Fund, the _Zeitschrift d. D. Pal. Vereins_, Clermont-Ganneau's
_Recueil d'archéologie orientale and Études d'arch. orientale_, and
the _Revue Biblique_; Baedeker's _Handbook to Palestine and Syria_
(1906); Mommert, _Die hl. Grabeskirche zu Jerusalem_ (1898); _Golgotha
und das hl. Grab zu Jerusalem_ (1900); Couret, _La Prise de Jérusm.
par les Perses, 614_. (Orléans, 1896--Plans, Ordnance Survey, revised
ed.; Ordnance Survey revised by Dr Schick in _Z.D.P.V._ xviii., 1895).
(C. W. W.; C. M. W.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The sites shown on the plan are tentative, and cannot be regarded
as certain; see Nehemiah ii. 12-15, iii. 1-32, xii. 37-39.

[2] See 2 Kings xiv. 13.

JERUSALEM, SYNOD OF (1672). By far the most important of the many synods held at Jerusalem (see Wetzer and Welte, _Kirchenlexikon_, 2nd ed., vi. 1357 sqq.) is that of 1672; and its confession is the most vital statement of faith made in the Greek Church during the past thousand years. It refutes article by article the confession of Cyril Lucaris, which appeared in Latin at Geneva in 1629, and in Greek, with the addition of four "questions," in 1633. Lucaris, who died in 1638 as patriarch of Constantinople, had corresponded with Western scholars and had imbibed Calvinistic views. The great opposition which arose during his lifetime continued after his death, and found classic expression in the highly venerated confession of Petrus Mogilas, metropolitan of Kiev (1643). Though this was intended as a barrier against Calvinistic influences, certain Reformed writers, as well as Roman Catholics, persisted in claiming the support of the Greek Church for sundry of their own positions. Against the Calvinists the synod of 1672 therefore aimed its rejection of unconditional predestination and of justification by faith alone, also its advocacy of what are substantially the Roman doctrines of transubstantiation and of purgatory; the Oriental hostility to Calvinism had been fanned by the Jesuits. Against the Church of Rome, however, there was directed the affirmation that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and not from both Father and Son; this rejection of the _filioque_ was not unwelcome to the Turks. Curiously enough, the synod refused to believe that the heretical confession it refuted was actually by a former patriarch of Constantinople; yet the proofs of its genuineness seem to most scholars overwhelming. In negotiations between Anglican and Russian churchmen the confession of Dositheus[1] usually comes to the front.

TEXTS.--The confession of Dositheus, or the eighteen decrees of the
Synod of Jerusalem, appeared in 1676 at Paris as _Synodus
Bethlehemitica_; a revised text in 1678 as _Synodus Jerosolymitana_;
Hardouin, _Acta conciliorum_, vol. xi.; Kimmel, _Monumenta fidei
ecclesiae orientalis_ (Jena, 1850; critical edition); P. Schaff, _The
Creeds of Christendom_, vol. ii. (text after Hardouin and Kimmel, with
Latin translation); _The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem
translated from the Greek, with notes_, by J. N. W. B. Robertson
(London, 1899); J. Michalcescu, _Die Bekenntnisse und die wichtigsten
Glaubenszeugnisse der griechisch-orientalischen Kirche_ (Leipzig,
1904; Kimmel's text with introductions). LITERATURE.--_The Doctrine of
the Russian Church ..._ translated by R. W. Blackmore (Aberdeen,
1845), p. xxv. sqq.; Schaff, i. § 17; Wetzer and Welte,
_Kirchenlexikon_ (2nd ed.) vi. 1359 seq.; Herzog-Hauck,
_Realencyklopädie_ (3rd ed.), viii. 703-705; Michalcescu, 123 sqq.
(See COUNCILS.) (W. W. R.*)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] Patriarch of Jerusalem (1669-1707), who presided over the synod.

JESI (anc. _Aesis_), a town and episcopal see of the Marches, Italy, in the province of Ancona, from which it is 17 m. W. by S. by rail, 318 ft. above sea-level. Pop. (1901), 23,285. The place took its ancient name from the river Aesis (mod. Esino), upon the left bank of which it lies. It still retains its picturesque medieval town walls. The Palazzo del Comune is a fine, simple, early Renaissance building (1487-1503) by Francesco di Giorgio Martini; the walls are of brick and the window and door-frames of stone, with severely restrained ornamentation. The courtyard with its loggie was built by Andrea Sansovino in 1519. The library contains some good pictures by Lorenzo Lotto. The castle was built by Baccio Pontelli (1488), designer of the castle at Ostia (1483-1486). Jesi was the birthplace of the emperor Frederic II. (1194), and also of the musical composer, Giovanni Battista Pergolesi (1710-1736). The river Aesis formed the boundary of Italy proper from about 250 B.C. to the time of Sulla (c. 82 B.C.); and, in Augustus' division of Italy, that between Umbria (the 6th region) and Picenum (the 5th). The town itself was a colony, of little importance, except, apparently, as a recruiting ground for the Roman army.

JESSE, in the Bible, the father of David (q.v.), and as such often regarded as the first in the genealogy of Jesus Christ (cf. Isa. xi. 1, 10). Hence the phrase "tree of Jesse" is applied to a design representing the descent of Jesus from the royal line of David, formerly a favourite ecclesiastical ornament. From a recumbent figure of Jesse springs a tree bearing in its branches the chief figures in the line of descent, and terminating in the figure of Jesus, or of the Virgin and Child. There are remains of such a tree in the church of St Mary at Abergavenny, carved in wood, and supposed to have once stood behind the high altar. Jesse candelabra were also made. At Laon and Amiens there are sculptured Jesses over the central west doorways of the cathedrals. The design was chiefly used in windows. The great east window at Wells and the window at the west end of the nave at Chartres are fine examples. There is a 16th-century Jesse window from Mechlin in St George's, Hanover Square, London. The Jesse window in the choir of Dorchester Abbey, Oxfordshire, is remarkable in that the tree forms the central mullion, and many of the figures are represented as statuettes on the branches of the upper tracery; other figures are in the stained glass; the whole gives a beautiful example of the combination of glass and carved stonework in one design.

JESSE, EDWARD (1780-1868), English writer on natural history, was born on the 14th of January 1780, at Hutton Cranswick, Yorkshire, where his father was vicar of the parish. He became clerk in a government office in 1798, and for a time was secretary to Lord Dartmouth, when president of the Board of Control. In 1812 he was appointed commissioner of hackney coaches, and later he became deputy surveyor-general of the royal parks and palaces. On the abolition of this office he retired on a pension, and he died at Brighton on the 28th of March 1868.

The result of his interest in the habits and characteristics of
animals was a series of pleasant and popular books on natural history,
the principal of which are _Gleanings in Natural History_ (1832-1835);
_An Angler's Rambles_ (1836); _Anecdotes of Dogs_ (1846); and
_Lectures on Natural History_ (1863). He also edited Izaak Walton's
_Compleat Angler_, Gilbert White's _Selborne_, and L. Ritchie's
_Windsor Castle_, and wrote a number of handbooks to places of
interest, including Windsor and Hampton Court.

JESSE, JOHN HENEAGE (1815-1874), English historian, son of Edward Jesse, was educated at Eton, and afterwards became a clerk in the secretary's department of the admiralty. He died in London on the 7th of July 1874. His poem on Mary Queen of Scots was published about 1831, and was followed by a collection of poems entitled _Tales of the Dead_. He also wrote a drama, _Richard III._, and a fragmentary poem entitled _London_. None of these ventures achieved any success, but his numerous historical works are written with vivacity and interest, and, in their own style, are an important contribution to the history of England. They include _Memoirs of the Court of England during the Reign of the Stuarts_ (1840), _Memoirs of the Court of England from the Revolution of 1688 to the Death of George II._ (1843), _George Selwyn and his Contemporaries_ (1843, new ed. 1882), _Memoirs of the Pretenders and their Adherents_ (1845), _Memoirs of Richard the Third and his Contemporaries_ (1861), and _Memoirs of the Life and Reign of King George the Third_ (1867). The titles of these works are sufficiently indicative of their character. They are sketches of the principal personages and of the social details of various periods in the history of England rather than complete and comprehensive historical narratives. In addition to these works Jesse wrote _Literary and Historical Memorials of London_ (1847), _London and its Celebrities_ (1850), and a new edition of this work as _London: its Celebrated Characters and Remarkable Places_ (1871). His _Memoirs of Celebrated Etonians_ appeared in 1875.

A collected edition containing most of his works in thirty volumes was
published in London in 1901.

JESSEL, SIR GEORGE (1824-1883), English judge, was born in London on the 13th of February 1824. He was the son of Zadok Aaron Jessel, a Jewish coral merchant. George Jessel was educated at a school for Jews at Kew, and being prevented by then existing religious disabilities from proceeding to Oxford or Cambridge, went to University College, London. He entered as a student at Lincoln's Inn in 1842, and a year later took his B.A. degree at the university of London, becoming M.A. and gold medallist in mathematics and natural philosophy in 1844. In 1846 he became a fellow of University College, and in 1847 he was called to the bar at Lincoln's Inn. His earnings during his first three years at the bar were 52, 346, and 795 guineas, from which it will be seen that his rise to a tolerably large practice was rapid. His work, however, was mainly conveyancing, and for long his income remained almost stationary. By degrees, however, he got more work, and was called within the bar in 1865, becoming a bencher of his Inn in the same year and practising in the Rolls Court. Jessel entered parliament as Liberal member for Dover in 1868, and although neither his intellect nor his oratory was of a class likely to commend itself to his fellow-members, he attracted Gladstone's attention by two learned speeches on the Bankruptcy Bill which was before the house in 1869, with the result that in 1871 he was appointed solicitor-general. His reputation at this time stood high in the chancery courts; on the common law side he was unknown, and on the first occasion upon which he came into the court of Queen's bench to move on behalf of the Crown, there was very nearly a collision between him and the bench. His forceful and direct method of bringing his arguments home to the bench was not modified in his subsequent practice before it. His great powers were fully recognized; his business in addition to that on behalf of the Crown became very large, and his income for three years before he was raised to the bench amounted to nearly £25,000 per annum. In 1873 Jessel succeeded Lord Romilly as master of the rolls. From 1873 to 1881 Jessel sat as a judge of first instance in the rolls court, being also a member of the court of appeal. In November 1874 the first Judicature Act came into effect, and in 1881 the Judicature Act of that year made the master of the rolls the ordinary president of the first court of appeal, relieving him of his duties as a judge of first instance. In the court of appeal Jessel presided almost to the day of his death. For some time before 1883 he suffered from diabetes with chronic disorder of the heart and liver, but struggled against it; on the 16th of March 1883 he sat in court for the last time, and on the 21st of March he died at his residence in London, the immediate cause of death being cardiac syncope.

As a judge of first instance Jessel was a revelation to those accustomed to the proverbial slowness of the chancery courts and of the master of the rolls who preceded him. He disposed of the business before him with rapidity combined with correctness of judgment, and he not only had no arrears himself, but was frequently able to help other judges to clear their lists. His knowledge of law and equity was wide and accurate, and his memory for cases and command of the principles laid down in them extraordinary. In the rolls court he never reserved a judgment, not even in the Epping Forest case (_Commissioners of Sewers_ v. _Glasse_, L.R. 19 Eq.; _The Times_, 11th November 1874), in which the evidence and arguments lasted twenty-two days (150 witnesses being examined in court, while the documents went back to the days of King John), and in the court of appeal he did so only twice, and then in deference to the wishes of his colleagues. The second of these two occasions was the case of _Robarts_ v. _The Corporation of London_ (49 _Law Times_ 455; _The Times_, 10th March 1883), and those who may read Jessel's judgment should remember that, reviewing as it does the law and custom on the subject, and the records of the city with regard to the appointment of a remembrancer from the 16th century, together with the facts of the case before the court, it occupied nearly an hour to deliver, but was nevertheless delivered without notes--this, too, on the 9th of March 1883, when the judge who uttered it was within a fortnight of his death. Never during the 19th century was the business of any court performed so rapidly, punctually, and satisfactorily as it was when Jessel presided. He was master of the rolls at a momentous period of legal history. The Judicature Acts, completing the fusion of law and equity, were passed while he was judge of first instance, and were still new to the courts when he died. His knowledge and power of assimilating knowledge of all subjects, his mastery of every branch of law with which he had to concern himself, as well as of equity, together with his willingness to give effect to the new system, caused it to be said when he died that the success of the Judicature Acts would have been impossible without him. His faults as a judge lay in his disposition to be intolerant of those who, not able to follow the rapidity of his judgment, endeavoured to persist in argument after he had made up his mind; but though he was peremptory with the most eminent counsel, young men had no cause to complain of his treatment of them.

Jessel sat on the royal commission for the amendment of the Medical Acts, taking an active part in the preparation of its report. He actively interested himself in the management of London University, of which he was a fellow from 1861, and of which he was elected vice-chancellor in 1880. He was one of the commissioners of patents, and trustee of the British Museum. He was also chairman of the committee of judges which drafted the new rules rendered necessary by the Judicature Acts. He was treasurer of Lincoln's Inn in 1883, and vice-president of the council of legal education. He was also a fellow of the Royal Society. Jessel's career marks an epoch on the bench, owing to the active part taken by him in rendering the Judicature Acts effective, and also because he was the last judge capable of sitting in the House of Commons, a privilege of which he did not avail himself. He was the first Jew who, as solicitor-general, took a share in the executive government of his country, the first Jew who was sworn a regular member of the privy council, and the first Jew who took a seat on the judicial bench of Great Britain; he was also, for many years after being called to the bar, so situated that any one might have driven him from it, because, being a Jew, he was not qualified to be a member of the bar. In person Jessel was a stoutish, square-built man of middle height, with dark hair, somewhat heavy features, a fresh ruddy complexion, and a large mouth. He married in 1856 Amelia, daughter of Joseph Moses, who survived him together with three daughters and two sons, the elder of whom, Charles James (b. 1860), was made a baronet shortly after the death of his distinguished father and in recognition of his services.

See _The Times_, March 23, 1883; E. Manson, _Builders of our Law_
(1904).

JESSORE, a town and district of British India, in the Presidency division of Bengal. The town is on the Bhairab river, with a railway station 75 m. N.E. of Calcutta. Pop. (1901), 8054.

The DISTRICT OF JESSORE has an area of 2925 sq. m. Pop. (1901), 1,813,155, showing a decrease of 4% in the decade. The district forms the central portion of the delta between the Hugli and the united Ganges and Brahmaputra. It is a vast alluvial plain intersected by rivers and watercourses, which in the southern portion spread out into large marshes. The northern part is verdant, with extensive groves of date-palms; villages are numerous and large; and the people are prosperous. In the central portion the population is sparse, the only part suitable for dwellings being the high land on the banks of rivers. The principal rivers are the Madhumati or Haringhata (which forms the eastern boundary of the district), with its tributaries the Nabaganga, Chitra, and Bhairab; the Kumar, Kabadak, Katki, Harihar, Bhadra and Atharabanka. Within the last century the rivers in the interior of Jessore have ceased to be true deltaic rivers; and, whereas the northern portion of the district formerly lay under water for several months every year, it is now reached only by unusual inundations. The tide reaches as far north as the latitude of Jessore town. Jessore is the centre of sugar manufacture from date palms. The exports are sugar, rice, pulse, timber, honey, shells, &c.; the imports are salt, English goods, and cloth. The district is crossed by the Eastern Bengal railway, but the chief means of communication are waterways.

British administration was completely established in the district in 1781, when the governor-general ordered the opening of a court at Murali near Jessore. Before that, however, the fiscal administration had been in the hands of the English, having been transferred to the East India company with that of the rest of Bengal in 1765. The changes in jurisdiction in Jessore have been very numerous. After many transfers and rectifications, the district was in 1863 finally constituted as it at present stands. The rajas of Jessore or Chanchra trace their origin to Bhabeswar Rai, a soldier in the army of Khan-i-Azam, an imperial general, who deprived Raja Pratapaditya, the popular hero of the Sundarbans, of several fiscal divisions, and conferred them on Bhabeswar. But Manohar Rai (1649-1705) is regarded as the principal founder of the family. The estate when he inherited it was of moderate size, but he acquired one _pargana_ after another, until, at his death, the property was by far the largest in the neighbourhood.

JESTER, a provider of "jests" or amusements, a buffoon, especially a professional fool at a royal court or in a nobleman's household (see FOOL). The word "jest," from which "jester" is formed, is used from the 16th century for the earlier "gest," Lat. _gesta_, or _res gestae_, things done, from _gerere_, to do, hence deeds, exploits, especially as told in history, and so used of the metrical and prose romances and chronicles of the middle ages. The word became applied to satirical writings and to any long-winded empty tale, and thence to a joke or piece of fun, the current meaning of the word.

JESUATI, a religious order founded by Giovanni Colombini of Siena in 1360. Colombini had been a prosperous merchant and a senator in his native city, but, coming under ecstatic religious influences, abandoned secular affairs and his wife and daughter (after making provision for them), and with a friend of like temperament, Francesco Miani, gave himself to a life of apostolic poverty, penitential discipline, hospital service and public preaching. The name Jesuati was given to Colombini and his disciples from the habit of calling loudly on the name of Jesus at the beginning and end of their ecstatic sermons. The senate banished Colombini from Siena for imparting foolish ideas to the young men of the city, and he continued his mission in Arezzo and other places, only to be honourably recalled home on the outbreak of a devastating pestilence. He went out to meet Urban V. on his return from Avignon to Rome in 1367, and craved his sanction for the new order and a distinctive habit. Before this was granted Colombini had to clear the movement of a suspicion that it was connected with the heretical sect of Fraticelli, and he died on the 31st of July 1367, soon after the papal approval had been given. The guidance of the new order, whose members (all lay brothers) gave themselves entirely to works of mercy, devolved upon Miani. Their rule of life, originally a compound of Benedictine and Franciscan elements, was later modified on Augustinian lines, but traces of the early penitential idea persisted, e.g. the wearing of sandals and a daily flagellation. Paul V. in 1606 arranged for a small proportion of clerical members, and later in the 17th century the Jesuati became so secularized that the members were known as the Aquavitae Fathers, and the order was dissolved by Clement IX. in 1668. The female branch of the order, the Jesuati sisters, founded by Caterina Colombini (d. 1387) in Siena, and thence widely dispersed, more consistently maintained the primitive strictness of the society and survived the male branch by 200 years, existing until 1872 in small communities in Italy.

JESUITS, the name generally given to the members of the Society of Jesus, a religious order in the Roman Catholic Church, founded in 1539. This Society may be defined, in its original conception and well-avowed object, as a body of highly trained religious men of various degrees, bound by the three personal vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, together with, in some cases, a special vow to the pope's service, with the object of labouring for the spiritual good of themselves and their neighbours. They are declared to be mendicants and enjoy all the privileges of the other mendicant orders. They are governed and live by constitutions and rules, mostly drawn up by their founder, St Ignatius of Loyola, and approved by the popes. Their proper title is "Clerks Regulars of the Society of Jesus," the word _Societas_ being taken as synonymous with the original Spanish term, _Compañia_; perhaps the military term _Cohors_ might more fully have expressed the original idea of a band of spiritual soldiers living under martial law and discipline. The ordinary term "Jesuit" was given to the Society by its avowed opponents; it is first found in the writings of Calvin and in the registers of the Parlement of Paris as early as 1552.

_Constitution and Character._--The formation of the Society was a masterpiece of genius on the part of a man (see LOYOLA) who was quick to realize the necessity of the moment. Just before Ignatius was experiencing the call to conversion, Luther had begun his revolt against the Roman Church by burning the papal bull of excommunication on the 10th of December 1520. But while Luther's most formidable opponent was thus being prepared in Spain, the actual formation of the Society was not to take place for eighteen years. Its conception seems to have developed very slowly in the mind of Ignatius. It introduced a new idea into the Church. Hitherto all regulars made a point of the choral office in choir. But as Ignatius conceived the Church to be in a state of war, what was desirable in days of peace ceased when the life of the cloister had to be exchanged for the discipline of the camp; so in the sketch of the new society which he laid before Paul III., Ignatius laid down the principle that the obligation of the breviary should be fulfilled privately and separately and not in choir. The other orders, too, were bound by the idea of a constitutional monarchy based on the democratic spirit. Not so with the Society. The founder placed the general for life in an almost uncontrolled position of authority, giving him the faculty of dispensing individuals from the decrees of the highest legislative body, the general congregations. Thus the principle of military obedience was exalted to a degree higher than that existing in the older orders, which preserved to their members certain constitutional rights.

The soldier-mind of Ignatius can be seen throughout the constitutions.
Even in the spiritual labours which the Society shares with the other
orders, its own ways of dealing with persons and things result from
the system of training which succeeds in forming men to a type that is
considered desirable. But it must not be thought that in practice the
rule of the Society and the high degree of obedience demanded result
in mere mechanism. By a system of check and counter check devised in
the constitutions the power of local superiors is modified, so that in
practice the working is smooth. Ignatius knew that while a high ideal
was necessary for every society, his followers were flesh and blood,
not machines. He made it clear from the first that the Society was
everything and the individual nothing, except so far as he might prove
a useful instrument for carrying out the Society's objects. Ignatius
said to his secretary Polanco that "in those who offered themselves
he looked less to purely natural goodness than to firmness of
character and ability for business, for he was of opinion that those
who were not fit for public business were not adapted for filling
offices in the Society." He further declared that even exceptional
qualities and endowments in a candidate were valuable in his eyes only
on the condition of their being brought into play, or held in
abeyance, strictly at the command of a superior. Hence his teaching on
obedience. His letter on this subject, addressed to the Jesuits of
Coimbra in 1553, is still one of the standard formularies of the
Society, ranking with those other products of his pen, the _Spiritual
Exercises_ and the _Constitutions_. In this letter Ignatius clothes
the general with the powers of a commander-in-chief in time of war,
giving him the absolute disposal of all members of the Society in
every place and for every purpose. He pushes the claim even further,
requiring, besides entire outward submission to command, also the
complete identification of the inferior's will with that of the
superior. He lays down that the superior is to be obeyed simply as
such and as standing in the place of God, without reference to his
personal wisdom, piety or discretion; that any obedience which falls
short of making the superior's will one's own, in inward affection as
well as in outward effect, is lax and imperfect; that going beyond the
letter of command, even in things abstractly good and praiseworthy, is
disobedience, and that the "sacrifice of the intellect" is the third
and highest grade of obedience, well pleasing to God, when the
inferior not only wills what the superior wills, but thinks what he
thinks, submitting his judgment, so far as it is possible for the will
to influence and lead the judgment. This _Letter on Obedience_ was
written for the guidance and formation of Ignatius's own followers; it
was an entirely domestic affair. But when it became known beyond the
Society the teaching met with great opposition, especially from
members of other orders whose institutes represented the normal days
of peace rather than those of war. The letter was condemned by the
Inquisitions of Spain and Portugal; and it tasked all the skill and
learning of Bellarmine as its apologist, together with the whole
influence of the Society, to avert what seemed to be a probable
condemnation at Rome.

The teaching of the _Letter_ must be understood in the living spirit
of the Society. Ignatius himself lays down the rule that an inferior
is bound to make all necessary representations to his superior so as
to guide him in imposing a precept of obedience. When a superior knows
the views of his inferior and still commands, it is because he is
aware of other sides of the question which appear of greater
importance than those that the inferior has brought forward. Ignatius
distinctly excepts the case where obedience in itself would be sinful:
"In all things _except sin_ I ought to do the will of my superior and
not my own." There may be cases where an inferior judges that what is
commanded is sinful. What is to be done? Ignatius says: "When it seems
to me that I am commanded by my superior to do a thing against which
my conscience revolts as sinful and my superior judges otherwise, it
is my duty to yield my doubts to him unless I am otherwise constrained
by evident reasons. ... If submissions do not appease my conscience I
must impart my doubts to two or three persons of discretion and abide
by their decision." From this it is clear that only in _doubtful_
cases concerning sin should an inferior try to submit his judgment to
that of his superior, who _ex officio_ is held to be not only one who
would not order what is clearly sinful, but also a competent judge who
knows and understands, better than the inferior, the nature and aspect
of the command. As the Jesuit obedience is based on the law of God, it
is clearly impossible that he should be bound to obey in what is
directly opposed to the divine service. A Jesuit lives in obedience
all his life, though the yoke is not galling nor always felt. He can
accept no dignity or office which will make him independent of the
Society; and even if ordered by the pope to accept the cardinalate or
the episcopate, he is still bound, if not to obey, yet to listen to
the advice of those whom the general deputes to counsel him in
important matters.