Chapter IX: Part 9

[1] On the homogeneity of the population, see further, W. R. Smith,
_Religion of the Semites_ (2nd ed., chaps, i.-iii.); T. Nöldeke,
_Sketches from Eastern History_, pp. 1-20 (on "Some Characteristics
of the Semitic Race"); and especially E. Meyer, _Gesch. d. Altertums_
(2nd ed., i. §§ 330, sqq.). For the relation between the geographical
characteristics and the political history, see G. A. Smith,
_Historical Geography of the Holy Land_.

[2] For fuller information on this section see PALESTINE: _History_,
and the related portions of BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA, EGYPT, HITTITES,
SYRIA.

[3] Or _land_ Israel, W. Spiegelberg, _Orient. Lit. Zeit._ xi.
(1908), cols. 403-405.

[4] It is useful to compare the critical study of the Koran (q.v.),
where, however, the investigation of its various "revelations" is
simpler than that of the biblical "prophecies" on account of the
greater wealth of independent historical tradition. See also G. B.
Gray, _Contemporary Review_ (July 1907); A. A. Bevan, _Cambridge
Biblical Essays_ (ed. Swete, 1909), pp. 1-19.

[5] See primarily BIBLE: _Old Testament_; the articles on the
contents and literary structure of the several books; the various
biographical, topographical and ethnical articles, and the separate
treatment of the more important subjects (e.g. LEVITES, PROPHET,
SACRIFICE).

[6] On the bearing of external evidence upon the internal biblical
records, see especially S. R. Driver's essay in Hogarth's _Authority
and Archaeology_; cf. also A. A. Bevan, _Critical Review_ (1897, p.
406 sqq., 1898, pp. 131 sqq.); G. B. Gray, _Expositor_, May 1898; W.
G. Jordan, _Bib. Crit. and Modern Thought_ (1909), pp. 42 sqq.

[7] For the sections which follow the present writer may be permitted
to refer to his introductory contributions in the _Expositor_ (June,
1906; "The Criticism of the O.T."); the _Jewish Quarterly Review_
(July 1905-January 1907 = _Critical Notes on O.T. History_,
especially sections vii.-ix.); July and October 1907, April 1908;
_Amer. Journ. Theol._ (July 1909, "Simeon and Levi: the Problem of
the Old Testament"); and Swete's _Cambridge Bib. Essays_, pp. 54-89
("The Present Stage of O.T. Research").

[8] On the name see JEHOVAH, TETRAGRAMMATON.

[9] The story of Joseph has distinctive internal features of its own,
and appears to be from an independent cycle, which has been used to
form a connecting link between the Settlement and the Exodus; see
also Ed. Meyer, _Die Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme_ (1906), pp.
228, 433; B. Luther, ibid. pp. 108 seq., 142 sqq. Neither of the
poems in Deut. xxxii. seq. alludes to an escape from Egypt; Israel is
merely a desert tribe inspired to settle in Palestine. Apparently
even the older accounts of the exodus are not of very great
antiquity; according to Jeremiah ii. 2, 7 (cf. Hos. ii. 15) some
traditions of the wilderness must have represented Israel in a very
favourable light; for the "canonical" view, see Ezekiel xvi., xx.,
xxiii.

[10] The capture of central Palestine itself is not recorded;
according to its own traditions the district had been seized by Jacob
(Gen. xlviii. 22; cf. the late form of the tradition in Jubilees
xxxiv.). This conception of a conquering hero is entirely distinct
from the narratives of the descent of Jacob into Egypt, &c. (see
Meyer and Luther, _op. cit._ pp. 110, 227 seq., 415, 433).

[11] This is especially true of the various ingenious attempts to
combine the invasion of the Israelites with the movements of the
Habiru in the Amarna period (§ 3).

[12] Cf. Winckler, _Keil. u. das Alte Test._ p. 212 seq.; also his
"Der alte Orient und die Geschichtsforschung" in _Mitteilungen der
Vorderasiat. Gesellschaft_ (Berlin, 1906) and
_Religionsgeschichtlicher u. gesch. Orient_ (Leipzig, 1906); A.
Jeremias, _Alte Test._ (p. 464 seq.); B. Baentsch, _Altorient. u.
Israel. Monotheismus_ (pp. 53, 79, 105, &c.); also _Theolog. Lit.
Blatt_ (1907) No. 19. On the reconstructions of the tribal history,
see especially T. K. Cheyne, _Ency. Bib._ art. "Tribes." The most
suggestive study of the pre-monarchical narratives is that of E.
Meyer and B. Luther (above; see the former's criticisms on the
reconstructions, pp. 50, 251 sqq., 422, n. 1 and _passim_).

[13] 2 Chron. xii. 8, which is independent of the chronicler's
artificial treatment of his material, apparently points to some
tradition of Egyptian suzerainty.

[14] See for chronology, BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA, §§ v. and viii.

[15] See _Jew. Quart. Rev._ (1908), pp. 597-630. The independent
Israelite traditions which here become more numerous have points of
contact with those of Saul in 1 Samuel, and the relation is highly
suggestive for the study of their growth, as also for the perspective
of the various writers.

[16] See W. R. Smith (after Kuenen), _Ency. Bib._, col. 2670; also W.
E. Addis, ib., 1276, the commentaries of Benzinger (p. 130) and
Kittel (pp. 153 seq.) on Kings; J. S. Strachan, Hastings's _Dict.
Bible_, i. 694; G. A. Smith, _Hist. Geog. of Holy Land_, p. 582;
König and Hirsch, _Jew. Ency._ v. 137 seq. ("legend ... as
indifferent to accuracy in dates as it is to definiteness of places
and names"); W. R. Harper, _Amos and Hosea_, p. xli. seq. ("the lack
of chronological order ... the result is to create a wrong impression
of Elisha's career"). The bearing of this displacement upon the
literary and historical criticism of the narratives has never been
worked out.

[17] Careful examination shows that no a priori distinction can be
drawn between "trustworthy" books of Kings and "untrustworthy books"
of Chronicles. Although the latter have special late and unreliable
features, they agree with the former in presenting the same general
trend of past history. The "canonical" history in Kings is further
embellished in Chronicles, but the gulf between them is not so
profound as that between the former and the underlying and
half-suppressed historical traditions which can still be recognized.
(See also PALESTINE: _History_.)

[18] For the former (2 Kings xii. 17 seq.) cf. Hezekiah and
Sennacherib (xviii. 13-15), and for the latter, cf. Asa and Baasha (1
Kings xv. 18-20; above).

[19] It is possible that Hadad-nirari's inscription refers to
conditions in the latter part of his reign (812-783 B.C.), when Judah
apparently was no longer independent and when Jeroboam II. was king
of Israel. The accession of the latter has been placed between 785
and 782. It is now known, also, that Ben-hadad and a small coalition
were defeated by the king of Hamath; but the bearing of this upon
Israelite history is uncertain.

[20] Cf. generally, 1 Sam. iv., xxxi.; 2 Sam. ii. 8; 1 Kings xx.,
xxii.; 2 Kings vi. 8-vii. 20; also Judges v. (see DEBORAH).

[21] Special mention is made of Jonah, a prophet of Zebulun in
(north) Israel (2 Kings xiv. 25). Nothing is known of him, unless the
very late prophetical writing with the account of his visit to
Nineveh rests upon some old tradition, which, however, can scarcely
be recovered (see JONAH).

[22] This is philosophically handled by the Arabian historian Ibn
Khaldun, whose Prolegomena is well worthy of attention; see De Slane,
_Not. et extraits_, vols. xix.-xxi., with Von Kremer's criticisms in
the _Sitz. d. Kais. Akad._ of Vienna (vol. xciii., 1879); cf. also R.
Flint, _History of the Philosophy of History_, i. 157 sqq.

[23] Cf. J. G. Frazer, _Adonis, Attis, Osiris_ (1907), p. 67:
"Prophecy of the Hebrew type has not been limited to Israel; it is
indeed a phenomenon of almost world-wide occurrence; in many lands
and in many ages the wild, whirling words of frenzied men and women
have been accepted as the utterances of an in-dwelling deity. What
does distinguish Hebrew prophecy from all others is that the genius
of a few members of the profession wrested this vulgar but powerful
instrument from baser uses, and by wielding it in the interest of a
high morality rendered a service of incalculable value to humanity.
That is indeed the glory of Israel...."

[24] The use which was made in Apocalyptic literature of the
traditions of Moses, Isaiah and others finds its analogy within the
Old Testament itself; cf. the relation between the present late
prophecies of Jonah and the unknown prophet of the time of Jeroboam
II. (see § 13, note 5). To condemn re-shaping or adaptation of this
nature from a modern Western standpoint is to misunderstand entirely
the Oriental mind and Oriental usage.

[25] The condemnation passed upon the impetuous and fiery zeal of the
adherents of the new movement (cf. Hos. i. 4), like the remarkable
vicissitudes in the traditions of Moses, Aaron and the Levites
(qq.v.), represents changing situations of real significance, whose
true place in the history can with difficulty be recovered.

[26] Formerly thought to be the third of the name.

[27] Perhaps Judah had come to an understanding with Tiglath-pileser
(H. M. Haydn, _Journ. Bib. Lit._, xxviii. 1909, pp. 182-199); see
UZZIAH.

[28] The fact that these lists are of the kings of the "land Hatti"
would suggest that the term "Hittite" had been extended to Palestine.

[29] So K. Budde, _Rel. of Israel to Exile_, pp. 165-167. For an
attempt to recover the character of the cults, see W. Erbt, _Hebräer_
(Leipzig, 1906), pp. 150 sqq.

[30] See G. Maspero, _Gesch. d. morgenländ. Völker_ (1877), p. 446;
E. Naville, _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Archaeol._ (1907), pp. 232 sqq., and T.
K. Cheyne, _Decline and Fall of Judah_ (1908), p. 13, with
references. [The genuineness of such discoveries is naturally a
matter for historical criticism to decide. Thus the discovery of
Numa's laws in Rome (Livy xl. 29), upon which undue weight has
sometimes been laid (see Klostermann, _Der Pentateuch_ (1906), pp.
155 sqq., was not accepted as genuine by the senate (who had the laws
destroyed), and probably not by Pliny himself. Only the later
antiquaries clung to the belief in their
trustworthiness.--(_Communicated._)]

[31] Both kings came to the throne after a conspiracy aimed at
existing abuses, and other parallels can be found (see KINGS).

[32] But see N. Schmidt, _Ency. Bib._, "Scythians," § 1.

[33] So also one can now compare the estimate taken of the Jews in
Egypt in Jer. xliv. with the actual religious conditions which are
known to have prevailed later at Elephantine, where a small Jewish
colony worshipped Yahu (Yahweh) at their own temple (see E. Sachau,
"Drei aram. Papyrusurkunde," in the _Abhandlungen_ of the Prussian
Academy, Berlin, 1907).

[34] Sargon had removed Babylonians into the land of Hatti (Syria and
Palestine), and in 715 B.C. among the colonists were tribes
apparently of desert origin (Tamud, Hayapa, &c.); other settlements
are ascribed to Esar-haddon and perhaps Assur-bani-pal (Ezra iv. 2,
10). See for the evidence, A. E. Cowley, _Ency. Bib._, col. 4257; J.
A. Montgomery, _The Samaritans_, pp. 46-57 (Philadelphia, 1907).

[35] The growing recognition that the land was not depopulated after
586 is of fundamental significance for the criticism of "exilic" and
"post-exilic" history. G. A. Smith thus sums up a discussion of the
extent of the deportations: "... A large majority of the Jewish
people remained on the land. This conclusion may startle us with our
generally received notions of the whole nation as exiled. But there
are facts which support it" (_Jerusalem_, ii. 268).

[36] On the place of Palestine in Persian history see PERSIA:
_History, ancient_, especially § 5 ii.; also ARTAXERXES; CAMBYSES;
CYRUS; DARIUS, &c.

[37] The evidence for Artaxerxes III., accepted by Ewald and others
(see W. R. Smith, _Old Testament in Jewish Church_, p. 438 seq.; W.
Judeich, _Kleinasiat. Stud._, p. 170; T. K. Cheyne, _Ency. Bib._,
col. 2202; F. C. Kent, _Hist._ [1899], pp. 230 sqq.) has however been
questioned by Willrich, _Judaica_, 35-39 (see Cheyne, _Ency. Bib._,
col. 3941). The account of Josephus (above) raises several
difficulties, especially the identity of Bagoses. It has been
supposed that he has placed the record too late, and that this
Bagoses is the Judaean governor who flourished about 408 B.C. (See p.
286, n. 3.)

[38] Thus a decree of Darius I. takes the part of his subjects
against the excessive zeal of the official Gadatas, and grants
freedom of taxation and exemption from forced labour to those
connected with a temple of Apollo in Asia Minor (_Bulletin de
correspondance hellénique_, xiii. 529; E. Meyer, _Entstehung des
Judenthums_, p. 19 seq.; cf. id. _Forschungen_, ii. 497).

[39] In addition to this, the Egyptian story of the priest Uza-hor at
the court of Cambyses and Darius reflects a policy of religious
tolerance which illustrates the biblical account of Ezra and Nehemiah
(Brugsch, _Gesch. Aeg._ pp. 784 sqq.; see Cheyne, _Jew. Relig. Life
after the Exile_, pp. 40-43).

[40] From Têma in north Arabia, also, there is monumental evidence of
the 5th century B.C. for Babylonian and Assyrian influence upon the
language, cult and art. For Nippur, see _Bab. Exped. of Univ. of
Pennsylvania_, series A., vol. ix. (1898), by H. V. Hilprecht; for
Elephantine, the Mond papyri, A. H. Sayce and A. E. Cowley, _Aramaic
Papyri Discovered at Assuan_ (1906), and those cited above (p. 282,
n. 1). For the Jewish colonies in general, see H. Guthe, _Ency.
Bib._, art. "Dispersion" (with references); also below, § 25 sqq.

[41] See EZRA AND NEHEMIAH with bibliographical references, also T.
K. Cheyne, _Introd. to Isaiah_ (1895); _Jew. Religious Life after the
Exile_ (1898); E. Sellin, _Stud. z. Entstehungsgesch. d. jüd.
Gemeinde_ (1901); R. H. Kennett in Swete's _Cambridge Biblical
Essays_ (pp. 92 sqq.); G. Jahn, _Die Bücher Esra u. Nehemja_ (1909);
and C. C. Torrey, _Ezra Studies_ (1910).

[42] There is an obvious effort to preserve the continuity of
tradition (a) in Ezra ii. which gives a list of families who returned
from exile each to its own city, and (b) in the return of the holy
vessels in the time of Cyrus (contrast 1 Esdras iv. 43 seq.), a view
which, in spite of Dan. i. 2, v. 2 seq., conflicts with 2 Kings xxiv.
13 and xxv. 13 (see, however, v. 14). That attempts have been made to
adjust contradictory representations is suggested by the prophecy
ascribed to Jeremiah (xxvii. 16 sqq.) where the restoration of the
holy vessels finds no place in the shorter text of the Septuagint
(see W. R. Smith, _Old Test. and Jew. Church_, pp. 104 sqq.).

[43] The view that Deuteronomy is later than the 7th century has been
suggested by M. Vernes, _Nouvelle hypothèse sur la comp. et l'origine
du Deut._ (1887); Havet, _Christian. et ses origines_ (1878); Horst,
in _Rev. de l'hist. des relig._, 1888; and more recently by E. Day,
_Journ. Bib. Lit._ (1902), pp. 202 sqq.; and R. H. Kennett, _Journ.
Theol. Stud._ (1906), pp. 486 sqq. The strongest counter-arguments
(see W. E. Addis, _Doc. of Hexat._ ii. 2-9) rely upon the historical
trustworthiness of 2 Kings xxii. seq. Weighty reasons are brought
also by conservative writers against the theory that Deuteronomy
dates from or about the age of Josiah, and their objections to the
"discovery" of a new law-roll apply equally to the "re-discovery" and
promulgation of an old and authentic code.

[44] See, for Cheyne's view, his _Decline and Fall of Judah.
Introduction_ (1908). The former tendency has many supporters; see,
among recent writers, N. Schmidt, _Hibbert Journal_ (1908), pp. 322
sqq.; C. F. Burney, _Journ. Theol. Stud._ (1908), pp. 321 sqq.; O. A.
Toffteen, _The Historic Exodus_ (1909), pp. 120 sqq.; especially
Meyer and Luther, _Die Israeliten_, pp. 442-440, &c. For the early
recognition of the evidence in question, see J. Wellhausen, _De
gentibus et familiis Judaeis_ (Göttingen, 1870); _Prolegomena_ (Eng.
trans.), pp. 216 sqq., 342 sqq., and 441-443 (from art. "Israel," §
2, _Ency. Brit._ 9th ed.); also A. Kuenen, _Relig. of Israel_ (i. 135
seq., 176-182); W. R. Smith, _Prophets of Israel_, pp. 28 seq., 379.

[45] For the prominence of the "southern" element in Judah see E.
Meyer, _Entstehung d. Judenthums_ (1896), pp. 119, 147, 167, 177, 183
n. 1; _Israeliten_, pp. 352 n. 5, 402, 429 seq.

[46] See § 23 end, and LEVITES. When Edom is renowned for wisdom and
a small Judaean family boasts of sages whose names have south
Palestinian affinity (1 Chron. ii. 6), and when such names as Korah,
Heman, Ethan and Obed-edom, are associated with psalmody, there is no
inherent improbability in the conjecture that the "southern" families
settled around Jerusalem may have left their mark in other parts of
the Old Testament. It is another question whether such literature can
be identified (for Cheyne's views, see _Ency. Bib._ "Prophetic
Literature," "Psalms," and his recent studies).

[47] One may recall, in this connexion, Caxton's very interesting
prologue to Malory's _Morte d'Arthur_ and his remarks on the
permanent value of the "histories" of this British hero. [Cf. also
Horace, _Ep._ 1. ii. and R. Browning, "Development."]

[48] It is noteworthy that Josephus, who has his own representation
of the post-exilic age, allows two years and four months for the work
(_Ant._ xi. 5, 8).

[49] The papyri from Elephantine (p. 282, n. 1, above) mention as
contemporaries the Jerusalem priest Johanan (cf. the son of Joiada
and father of Jaddua, Neh. xii. 22), Bagohi (Bagoas), governor of
Judah, and Delaiah and Shelemiah sons of Sanballat (408-407 B.C.)
They ignore any strained relations between Samaria and Judah, and
Delaiah and Bagohi unite in granting permission to the Jewish colony
to rebuild their place of worship. If this fixes the date of
Sanballat and Nehemiah in the time of the first Artaxerxes, the
probability of confusion in the later written sources is enhanced by
the recurrence of identical names of kings, priests, &c., in the
history.

[50] The Samaritans, for their part, claimed the traditions of their
land and called themselves the posterity of Joseph, Ephraim and
Manasseh. But they were ready to deny their kinship with the Jews
when the latter were in adversity, and could have replied to the
tradition that they were foreigners with a _tu quoque_ (Josephus,
_Ant._ ix. 14, 3; xi. 8, 6; xii. 5, 5) (see SAMARITANS).

[51] The statement that the king desired to avoid the divine wrath
may possibly have some deeper meaning (e.g. some recent revolt, Ezra
vii. 23).

[52] It must suffice to refer to the opinions of Bertholet, Buhl,
Cheyne, Guthe, Van Hoonacker, Jahn, Kennett, Kent, Kosters, Marquart,
Torrey, and Wildeboer.

[53] C. F. Kent, _Israel's Hist. and Biog. Narratives_ (1905), p. 358
seq. The objections against this very probable view undervalue Ezra
iv. 7-23 and overlook the serious intricacies in the book of
Nehemiah.

[54] There are three inquiries: (a) the critical value of 1 Esdras,
(b) the character of the different representations of post-exilic
internal and external history, and (c) the recovery of the historical
facts. To start with the last before considering (a) and (b) would be
futile.

[55] For example, to the sufferings under Artaxerxes III. (§ 19) have
been ascribed such passages as Isa. lxiii. 7-lxiv. 12; Ps. xliv.,
lxxiv., lxxix., lxxx., lxxxiii. (see also LAMENTATIONS). In their
present form they are not of the beginning of the 6th century and, if
the evidence for Artaxerxes III. proves too doubtful, they may belong
to the history preceding Nehemiah's return, provided the internal
features do not stand in the way (e.g. prior or posterior to the
formation of the exclusive Judaean community, &c.). Since the book of
Baruch (named after Jeremiah's scribe) is now recognized to be
considerably later (probably after the destruction of Jerusalem A.D.
70), it will be seen that the recurrence of similar causes leads to a
similarity in the contemporary literary productions (with a reshaping
of earlier tradition), the precise date of which depends upon
delicate points of detail and not upon the apparently obvious
historical elements.

[56] See H. Winckler, _Keil. u. Alte Test._, 295, and Kennett,
_Journ. Theol. Stud._ (1906), p. 487; _Camb. Bib. Essays_, p. 117.
The Chaldeans alone destroyed Jerusalem (2 Kings xxv.); Edom was
friendly or at least neutral (Jer. xxvii. 3, xl. 11 seq.). The
proposal to read "Edomites" for "Syrians" in the list of bands which
troubled Jehoiakim (2 Kings xxiv. 2) is not supported by the
contemporary reference, Jer. xxxv. 11.

[57] It is at least a coincidence that the prophet who took the part
of Tobiah and Sanballat against Nehemiah (vi. 10 seq.) bears the same
name as the one who advised Rehoboam to acquiesce in the disruption
(1 Kings xii. 21-24), or announced the divine selection of Jeroboam
(ib. v. 24, Septuagint only).

[58] See HEBREW RELIGION, § 8 seq., and the relevant portions of the
histories of Israel.

[59] J. Wellhausen, art. "Israel," _Ency. Brit._ 9th ed., vol. xiii.
p. 419; or his _Prolegomena_, pp. 497 seq.

[60] An instructive account of Judaism in the early post-exilic age
on critical lines (from the Jewish standpoint) is given by C. G.
Montefiore, _Hibbert Lectures_ (1892), pp. 355 sqq.; cf. also the
sketch by I. Abrahams, _Judaism_ (1907).

[61] Cf. the story of Phinehas, Num. xxv. 6 sqq.; on Gen. xxxiv., see
SIMEON. Apropos of hostility towards Samaria, it is singular that the
term of reproach, "Cutheans," applied to the Samaritans is derived
from Cutha, the famous seat of the god Nergal, only some 25 m. N.E.
of Babylon itself (see above, p. 286, n. 4).

[62] The various tendencies which can be observed in the later
pseudepigraphical and apocalyptical writings are of considerable
value in any consideration of the development of thought illustrated
in the Old Testament itself.

[63] Reference may be made to H. Winckler, _Gesch. Israels_, ii.
(1900); W. Erbt, _Die Hebräer_ (1906); and T. K. Cheyne, _Traditions
and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_ (1907).

[64] On the writers mentioned below see articles s.v.

[65] For the importance of the Portuguese Jews, see PORTUGAL:
_History_.

JEWSBURY, GERALDINE ENDSOR (1812-1880), English writer, daughter of Thomas Jewsbury, a Manchester merchant, was born in 1812 at Measham, Derbyshire. Her first novel, _Zoe: the History of Two Lives_, was published in 1845, and was followed by _The Half Sisters_ (1848), _Marian Withers_ (1851), _Constance Herbert_ (1855), _The Sorrows of Gentility_ (1856), _Right or Wrong_ (1859). In 1850 she was invited by Charles Dickens to write for _Household Words_; for many years she was a frequent contributor to the _Athenaeum_ and other journals and magazines. It is, however, mainly on account of her friendship with Thomas Carlyle and his wife that her name is remembered. Carlyle described her, after their first meeting in 1841, as "one of the most interesting young women I have seen for years; clear delicate sense and courage looking out of her small sylph-like figure." From this time till Mrs Carlyle's death in 1866, Geraldine Jewsbury was the most intimate of her friends. The selections from Geraldine Jewsbury's letters to Jane Welsh Carlyle (1892, ed. Mrs Alexander Ireland) prove how confidential were the relations between the two women for a quarter of a century. In 1854 Miss Jewsbury removed from Manchester to London to be near her friend. To her Carlyle turned for sympathy when his wife died; and at his request she wrote down some "biographical anecdotes" of Mrs Carlyle's childhood and early married life. Carlyle's comment was that "few or none of these narratives are correct in details, but there is a certain mythical truth in all or most of them;" and he added, "the Geraldine accounts of her (Mrs Carlyle's) childhood are substantially correct." He accepted them as the groundwork for his own essay on "Jane Welsh Carlyle," with which they were therefore incorporated by Froude when editing Carlyle's _Reminiscences_. Miss Jewsbury was consulted by Froude when he was preparing Carlyle's biography, and her recollection of her friend's confidences confirmed the suspicion that Carlyle had on one occasion used physical violence towards his wife. Miss Jewsbury further informed Froude that the secret of the domestic troubles of the Carlyles lay in the fact that Carlyle had been "one of those persons who ought never to have married," and that Mrs Carlyle had at one time contemplated having her marriage legally annulled (see _My Relations with Carlyle_, by James Anthony Froude, 1903). The endeavour has been made to discredit Miss Jewsbury in relation to this matter, but there seems to be no sufficient ground for doubting that she accurately repeated what she had learnt from Mrs Carlyle's own lips. Miss Jewsbury died in London on the 23rd of September 1880.

JEW'S EARS, the popular name of a fungus, known botanically as _Hirneola auricula-judae_, so called from its shape, which somewhat resembles a human ear. It is very thin, flexible, flesh-coloured to dark brown, and one to three inches broad. It is common on branches of elder, which it often kills, and is also found on elm, willow, oak and other trees. It was formerly prescribed as a remedy for dropsy.

JEW'S HARP, or JEW'S TRUMP (Fr. _guimbarde_, O. Fr. _trompe_, _gronde_; Ger. _Mundharmonica_, _Maultrommel_, _Brummeisen_; Ital. _scaccia-pensieri_ or _spassa-pensiero_), a small musical instrument of percussion, known for centuries all over Europe. "Jew's trump" is the older name, and "trump" is still used in parts of Great Britain. Attempts have been made to derive "Jew's" from "jaws" or Fr. _jeu_, but, though there is no apparent reason for associating the instrument with the Jews, it is certain that "Jew's" is the original form (see the _New English Dictionary_ and C. B. Mount in _Notes and Queries_ (Oct. 23, 1897, p. 322). The instrument consists of a slender tongue of steel riveted at one end to the base of a pear-shaped steel loop; the other end of the tongue, left free and passing out between the two branches of the frame, terminates in a sharp bend at right angles, to enable the player to depress it by an elastic blow and thus set it vibrating while firmly pressing the branches of the frame against his teeth. The vibrations of the steel tongue produce a compound sound composed of a fundamental and its harmonics. By using the cavity of the mouth as a resonator, each harmonic in succession can be isolated and reinforced, giving the instrument the compass shown. The lower harmonics of the series cannot be obtained, owing to the limited capacity of the resonating cavity. The black notes on the stave show the scale which may be produced by using two harps, one tuned a fourth above the other. The player on the Jew's harp, in order to isolate the harmonics, frames his mouth as though intending to pronounce the various vowels. At the beginning of the 19th century, when much energy and ingenuity were being expended in all countries upon the invention of new musical instruments, the _Maultrommel_, re-christened _Mundharmonica_ (the most rational of all its names), attracted attention in Germany. Heinrich Scheibler devised an ingenious holder with a handle, to contain five Jew's harps, all tuned to different notes; by holding one in each hand, a large compass, with duplicate notes, became available; he called this complex Jew's harp _Aura_[1] and with it played themes with variations, marches, Scotch reels, &c. Other virtuosi, such as Eulenstein, a native of Würtemberg, achieved the same result by placing the variously tuned Jew's harps upon the table in front of him, taking them up and setting them down as required. Eulenstein created a sensation in London in 1827 by playing on no fewer than sixteen Jew's harps. In 1828 Sir Charles Wheatstone published an essay on the technique of the instrument in the _Quarterly Journal of Science_. (K. S.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] See _Allg. musik. Ztg._ (Leipzig, 1816), p. 506, and Beilage 5,
where the construction of the instruments is described and
illustrated and the system of notation shown in various pieces of
music.

JEZEBEL (Heb. _i-zebel_, perhaps an artificial form to suggest "un-exalted," a divine name or its equivalent would naturally be expected instead of the first syllable), wife of Ahab, king of Israel (1 Kings xvi. 31), and mother of Athaliah, in the Bible. Her father Eth-baal (Ithobal, Jos., _contra Ap._ i. 18) was king of Tyre and priest of the goddess Astarte. He had usurped the throne and was the first important Phoenician king after Hiram (see PHOENICIA). Jezebel, a true daughter of a priest of Astarte, showed herself hostile to the worship of Yahweh, and to his prophets, whom she relentlessly pursued (1 Kings xviii. 4-13; see ELIJAH). She is represented as a woman of virile character, and became notorious for the part she took in the matter of Naboth's vineyard. When the Jezreelite[1] sheikh refused to sell the family inheritance to the king, Jezebel treacherously caused him to be arrested on a charge of treason, and with the help of false witnesses he was found guilty and condemned to death. For this the prophet Elijah pronounced a solemn curse upon Ahab and Jezebel, which was fulfilled when Jehu, who was anointed king at Elisha's instigation, killed the son Jehoram, massacred all the family, and had Jezebel destroyed (1 Kings xxi.; 2 Kings ix. 11-28). What is told of her comes from sources written under the influence of strong religious bias; among the exaggerations must be reckoned 1 Kings xviii. 13, which is inconsistent with xix. 18 and xxii. 6. A literal interpretation of the reference to Jezebel's idolatry (2 Kings ix. 22) has made her name a byword for a false prophetess in Rev. ii. 20. Her name is often used in modern English as a synonym for an abandoned woman or one who paints her face. (S. A. C.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] According to another tradition Naboth lived at Samaria (xxi. 1
[LXX.], 18 seq.; cf. xxii. 38). A similar confusion regarding the
king's home appears in 2 Kings x. 11 compared with vv. 1, 17.

JEZREEL (Heb. "God sows"), the capital of the Israelite monarchy under Ahab, and the scene of stirring Biblical events (1 Sam. xxix. 1; 1 Kings xxi.; 2 Kings ix. 21-37). The name was also applied to the great plain (Esdraelon) dominated by the city ("valley of Jezreel," Josh. xvii. 16, &c.). The site has never been lost, and the present village _Zercin_ retains the name radically unchanged. In Greek (e.g. Judith) the name appears under the form [Greek: Esdraêla]; it is _Stradela_ in the _Bordeaux Pilgrim_, and to the Crusaders the place was known as _Parvum Gerinum_. The modern stone village stands on a bare rocky knoll, 500 ft. above the broad northern valley, at the north extremity of a long ledge, terminating in steep cliffs, forming part of the chain of Mt Gilboa. The buildings are modern, but some scanty remains of rock-hewn wine presses and a few scattered sarcophagi mark the antiquity of the site. The view over the plains is fine and extensive. It is vain now to look for Ahab's palace or Naboth's vineyard. The fountain mentioned in 1 Sam. xxix. 1 is perhaps the fine spring _'Ain el Meiyyita_, north of the village, a shallow pool of good water full of small fish, rising between black basalt boulders: or more probably the copious _'Ain Jalud_.

A second city named Jezreel lay in the hill country of Judah, somewhere near Hebron (Josh. xv. 56). This was the native place of David's wife Abinoam (1 Sam. xxv. 43).

See, for an excellent description of the scenery and history of the
Israelite Jezreel, G. A. Smith, _Hist. Geog._ xix.

JHABUA, a native state of Central India, in the Bhopawar agency. Area, with the dependency of Rutanmal, 1336 sq. m. Pop. (1901), 80,889. More than half the inhabitants belong to the aboriginal Bhils. Estimated revenue, £7000; tribute, £1000. Manganese and opium are exported. The chief, whose title is raja, is a Rajput of the Rathor clan, descended from a branch of the Jodhpur family. Raja Udai Singh was invested in 1898 with the powers of administration.

The town of JHABUA (pop. 3354) stands on the bank of a lake, and is surrounded by a mud wall. A dispensary and a guesthouse were constructed to commemorate Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in 1897.

JHALAWAR, a native state of India, in the Rajputana agency, pop. (1901), 90,175; estimated revenue, £26,000; tribute, £2000. Area, 810 sq. m. The ruling family of Jhalawar belongs to the Jhala clan of Rajputs, and their ancestors were petty chiefs of Halwad in the district of Jhalawar, in Kathiawar. About 1709 one of the younger sons of the head of the clan left his country with his son to try his fortunes at Delhi. At Kotah he left his son Madhu Singh, who soon became a favourite with the maharaja, and received from him an important post, which became hereditary. On the death of one of the Kotah rajas (1771), the country was left to the charge of Zalim Singh, a descendant of Madhu Singh. From that time Zalim Singh was the real ruler of Kotah. He brought it to a wonderful state of prosperity, and under his administration, which lasted over forty-five years, the Kotah territory was respected by all parties. In 1838 it was resolved, with the consent of the chief of Kotah, to dismember the state, and to create the new principality of Jhalawar as a separate provision for the descendants of Zalim Singh. The districts then severed from Kotah were considered to represent one-third (£120,000) of the income of Kotah; by treaty they acknowledged the supremacy of the British, and agreed to pay an annual tribute of £8000. Madan Singh received the title of maharaja rana, and was placed on the same footing as the other chiefs in Rajputana. He died in 1845. An adopted son of his successor took the name of Zalim Singh in 1875 on becoming chief of Jhalawar. He was a minor and was not invested with governing powers till 1884. Owing to his maladministration, his relations with the British government became strained, and he was finally deposed in 1896, "on account of persistent misgovernment and proved unfitness for the powers of a ruling chief." He went to live at Benares, on a pension of £2000; and the administration was placed in the hands of the British resident. After much consideration, the government resolved in 1897 to break up the state, restoring the greater part to Kotah, but forming the two districts of Shahabad and the Chaumahla into a new state, which came into existence in 1899, and of which Kunwar Bhawani Singh, a descendant of the original Zalim Singh, was appointed chief.

The chief town is PATAN, or JHALRAPATAN (pop. 7955), founded close to an old site by Zalim Singh in 1796, by the side of an artificial lake. It is the centre of trade, the chief exports of the state being opium, oil-seeds and cotton. The palace is at the cantonment or chhaoni, 4 m. north. The ancient site near the town was occupied by the city of Chandrawati, said to have been destroyed in the time of Aurangzeb. The finest feature of its remains is the temple of Sitaleswar Mahadeva (c. 600).

JHANG, a town and district of British India, in the Multan division of the Punjab. The town, which forms one municipality with the newer and now more important quarter of Maghiana, is about 3 m. from the right bank of the river Chenab. Founded by Mal Khan, a Sial chieftain, in 1462, it long formed the capital of a Mahommedan state. Pop. (1901), 24,382. Maghiana has manufactures of leather, soap and metal ware.

The DISTRICT OF JHANG extends along both sides of the Chenab, including its confluences with the Jhelum and the Ravi. Area, 3726 sq. m. Pop. (1901), 378,695, showing an apparent decrease of 13% in the decade, due to the creation of the district of Lyallpur in 1904. But actually the population increased by 132% on the old area, owing to the opening of the Chenab canal and the colonization of the tract irrigated by it. Within Jhang many thousands of acres of government waste have been allotted to colonists, who are reported to be flourishing. A branch of the North-Western railway enters the district in this quarter, extending throughout its entire length. The Southern Jech Doab railway serves the south. The principal industries are the ginning, pressing and weaving of cotton.

Jhang contains the ruins of Shorkot, identified with one of the towns taken by Alexander. In modern times the history of Jhang centres in the famous clan of Sials, who exercised an extensive sway over a large tract between Shahpur and Multan, with little dependence on the imperial court at Delhi, until they finally fell before the all-absorbing power of Ranjit Singh. The Sials of Jhang are Mahommedans of Rajput descent, whose ancestor, Rai Shankar of Daranagar, emigrated early in the 13th century from the Gangetic Doab. In the beginning of the 19th century Maharaja Ranjit Singh invaded Jhang, and captured the Sial chieftain's territory. The latter recovered a small portion afterwards, which he was allowed to retain on payment of a yearly tribute. In 1847, after the establishment of the British agency at Lahore, the district came under the charge of the British government; and in 1848 Ismail Khan, the Sial leader, rendered important services against the rebel chiefs, for which he received a pension. During the Mutiny of 1857 the Sial leader again proved his loyalty by serving in person on the British side. His pension was afterwards increased, and he obtained the title of khan bahadur, with a small _jagir_ for life.

JHANSI, a city and district of British India, in the Allahabad division o£ the United Provinces. The city is the centre of the Indian Midland railway system, whence four lines diverge to Agra, Cawnpore, Allahabad and Bhopal. Pop. (1901), 55,724. A stone fort crowns a neighbouring rock. Formerly the capital of a Mahratta principality, which lapsed to the British in 1853, it was during the Mutiny the scene of disaffection and massacre. It was then made over to Gwalior, but has been taken back in exchange for other territory. Even when the city was within Gwalior, the civil headquarters and the cantonment were at Jhansi Naoabad, under its walls. Jhansi is the principal centre for the agricultural trade of the district, but its manufactures are small.

The DISTRICT OF JHANSI was enlarged in 1891 by the incorporation of the former district of Lalitpur, which extends farther into the hill country, almost entirely surrounded by native states. Combined area, 3628 sq.m. Pop. (1901), 616,759 showing a decrease of 10% in the decade, due to the results of famine. The main line and branches of the Indian Midland railway serve the district, which forms a portion of the hill country of Bundelkhand, sloping down from the outliers of the Vindhyan range on the south to the tributaries of the Jumna on the north. The extreme south is composed of parallel rows of long and narrow-ridged hills. Through the intervening valleys the rivers flow down impetuously over ledges of granite or quartz. North of the hilly region, the rocky granite chains gradually lose themselves in clusters of smaller hills. The northern portion consists of the level plain of Bundelkhand, distinguished for its deep black soil, known as _mar_, and admirably adapted for the cultivation of cotton. The district is intersected or bounded by three principal rivers--the Pahuj, Betwa and Dhasan. The district is much cut up, and portions of it are insulated by the surrounding native states. The principal crops are millets, cotton, oil-seeds, pulses, wheat, gram and barley. The destructive _kans_ grass has proved as great a pest here as elsewhere in Bundelkhand. Jhansi is especially exposed to blights, droughts, floods, hailstorms, epidemics, and their natural consequence--famine.

Nothing is known with certainty as to the history of this district before the period of Chandel rule, about the 11th century of our era. To this epoch must be referred the artificial reservoirs and architectural remains of the hilly region. The Chandels were succeeded by their servants the Khangars, who built the fort of Karar, lying just outside the British border. About the 14th century the Bundelas poured down upon the plains, and gradually spread themselves over the whole region which now bears their name. The Mahommedan governors were constantly making irruptions into the Bundela country; and in 1732 Chhatar Sal, the Bundela chieftain, called in the aid of the Mahrattas. They came to his assistance with their accustomed promptitude, and were rewarded on the raja's death in 1734, by the bequest of one-third of his dominions. Their general founded the city of Jhansi, and peopled it with inhabitants from Orchha state. In 1806 British protection was promised to the Mahratta chief, and in 1817 the peshwa ceded to the East India Company all his rights over Bundelkhand. In 1853 the raja died childless, and his territories lapsed to the British. The Jhansi state and the Jalaun and Chanderi districts were then formed into a superintendency. The widow of the raja considered herself aggrieved because she was not allowed to adopt an heir, and because the slaughter of cattle was permitted in the Jhansi territory. Reports were spread which excited the religious prejudices of the Hindus. The events of 1857 accordingly found Jhansi ripe for mutiny. In June a few men of the 12th native infantry seized the fort containing the treasure and magazine, and massacred the European officers of the garrison. Everywhere the usual anarchic quarrels rose among the rebels, and the country was plundered mercilessly. The rani put herself at the head of the rebels, and died bravely in battle. It was not till November 1858, after a series of sharp contests with various guerilla leaders, that the work of reorganization was fairly set on foot.

JHELUM, or JEHLAM (_Hydaspes_ of the Greeks), a river of northern India. It is the most westerly of the "five rivers" of the Punjab. It rises in the north-east of the Kashmir state, flows through the city of Srinagar and the Wular lake, issues through the Pir Panjal range by the narrow pass of Baramula, and enters British territory in the Jhelum district. Thence it flows through the plains of the Punjab, forming the boundary between the Jech Doab and the Sind Sagar Doab, and finally joins the Chenab at Timmu after a course of 450 miles. The Jhelum colony, in the Shahpur district of the Punjab, formed on the example of the Chenab colony in 1901, is designed to contain a total irrigable area of 1,130,000 acres. The Jhelum canal is a smaller work than the Chenab canal, but its silt is noted for its fertilizing qualities. Both projects have brought great prosperity to the cultivators.

JHELUM, or JEHLAM, a town and district of British India, in the Rawalpindi division of the Punjab. The town is situated on the right bank of the river Jhelum, here crossed by a bridge of the North-Western railway, 103 m. N. of Lahore. Pop. (1901), 14,951. It is a modern town with river and railway trade (principally in timber from Kashmir), boat-building and cantonments for a cavalry and four infantry regiments.

The DISTRICT OF JEHLUM stretches from the river Jhelum almost to the Indus. Area, 2813 sq. m. Pop. (1901), 501,424, showing a decrease of 2% in the decade. Salt is quarried at the Mayo mine in the Salt Range. There are two coal-mines, the only ones worked in the province, from which the North-Western railway obtains part of its supply of coal. The chief centre of the salt trade is Pind Dadan Khan (pop. 13,770). The district is crossed by the main line of the North-Western railway, and also traversed along the south by a branch line. The river Jhelum is navigable throughout the district, which forms the south-eastern portion of a rugged Himalayan spur, extending between the Indus and Jhelum to the borders of the Sind Sagar Doab. Its scenery is very picturesque, although not of so wild a character as the mountain region of Rawalpindi to the north, and is lighted up in places by smiling patches of cultivated valley. The backbone of the district is formed by the Salt Range, a treble line of parallel hills running in three long forks from east to west throughout its whole breadth. The range rises in bold precipices, broken by gorges, clothed with brushwood and traversed by streams which are at first pure, but soon become impregnated with the saline matter over which they pass. Between the line of hills lies a picturesque table-land, in which the beautiful little lake of Kallar Kahar nestles amongst the minor ridges. North of the Salt Range, the country extends upwards in an elevated plateau, diversified by countless ravines and fissures, until it loses itself in tangled masses of Rawalpindi mountains. In this rugged tract cultivation is rare and difficult, the soil being choked with saline matter. At the foot of the Salt Range, however, a small strip of level soil lies along the banks of the Jhelum, and is thickly dotted with prosperous villages. The drainage of the district is determined by a low central watershed running north and south at right angles to the Salt Range. The waters of the western portion find their way into the Sohan, and finally into the Indus; those of the opposite slope collect themselves into small torrents, and empty themselves into the Jhelum.

The history of the district dates back to the semi-mythical period of the _Mahabharata_. Hindu tradition represents the Salt Range as the refuge of the five Pandava brethren during the period of their exile, and every salient point in its scenery is connected with some legend of the national heroes. Modern research has fixed the site of the conflict between Alexander and Porus as within Jhelum district, although the exact point at which Alexander effected the passage of the Jhelum (or Hydaspes) is disputed. After this event, we have little information with regard to the condition of the district until the Mahommedan conquest brought back literature and history to Upper India. The Janjuahs and Jats, who now hold the Salt Range and its northern plateau respectively, appear to have been the earliest inhabitants. The Ghakkars seem to represent an early wave of conquest from the east, and they still inhabit the whole eastern slope of the district; while the Awans, who now cluster in the western plain, are apparently later invaders from the opposite quarter. The Ghakkars were the dominant race at the period of the first Mahommedan incursions, and long continued to retain their independence. During the flourishing period of the Mogul dynasty, the Ghakkar chieftains were prosperous and loyal vassals of the house of Baber; but after the collapse of the Delhi Empire Jhelum fell, like its neighbours, under the sway of the Sikhs. In 1765 Gujar Singh defeated the last independent Ghakkar prince, and reduced the wild mountaineers to subjection. His son succeeded to his dominions, until 1810, when he fell before the irresistible power of Ranjit Singh. In 1849 the district passed, with the rest of the Sikh territories, into the hands of the British.

JHERING, RUDOLF VON (1818-1892), German jurist, was born on the 22nd of August 1818 at Aurich in East Friesland, where his father practised as a lawyer. Young Jhering entered the university of Heidelberg in 1836 and, after the fashion of German students, visited successively Göttingen and Berlin. G. F. Puchta, the author of _Geschichte des Rechts bei dem römischen Volke_, alone of all his teachers appears to have gained his admiration and influenced the bent of his mind. After graduating _doctor juris_, Jhering established himself in 1844 at Berlin as _privatdocent_ for Roman law, and delivered public lectures on the _Geist des römischen Rechts_, the theme which may be said to have constituted his life's work. In 1845 he became an ordinary professor at Basel, in 1846 at Rostock, in 1849 at Kiel, and in 1851 at Giessen. Upon all these seats of learning he left his mark; beyond any other of his contemporaries he animated the dry bones of Roman law. The German juristic world was still under the dominating influence of the Savigny cult, and the older school looked askance at the daring of the young professor, who essayed to adapt the old to new exigencies and to build up a system of natural jurisprudence. This is the keynote of his famous work, _Geist des römischen Rechts auf den verschiedenen Stufen seiner Entwickelung_ (1852-1865), which for originality of conception and lucidity of scientific reasoning placed its author in the forefront of modern Roman jurists. It is no exaggeration to say that in the second half of the 19th century the reputation of Jhering was as high as that of Savigny in the first. Their methods were almost diametrically opposed. Savigny and his school represented the conservative, historical tendency. In Jhering the philosophical conception of jurisprudence, as a science to be utilized for the further advancement of the moral and social interests of mankind, was predominant. In 1868 Jhering accepted the chair of Roman Law at Vienna, where his lecture-room was crowded, not only with regular students but with men of all professions and even of the highest ranks in the official world. He became one of the lions of society, the Austrian emperor conferring upon him in 1872 a title of hereditary nobility. But to a mind constituted like his, the social functions of the Austrian metropolis became wearisome, and he gladly exchanged its brilliant circles for the repose of Göttingen, where he became professor in 1872. In this year he had read at Vienna before an admiring audience a lecture, published under the title of _Der Kampf um's Recht_ (1872; Eng. trans., _Battle for Right_, 1884). Its success was extraordinary. Within two years it attained twelve editions, and it has been translated into twenty-six languages. This was followed a few years later by _Der Zweck im Recht_ (2 vols., 1877-1883). In these two works is clearly seen Jhering's individuality. The _Kampf um's Recht_ shows the firmness of his character, the strength of his sense of justice, and his juristic method and logic: "to assert his rights is the duty that every responsible person owes to himself." In the _Zweck im Recht_ is perceived the bent of the author's intellect. But perhaps the happiest combination of all his distinctive characteristics is to be found in his _Jurisprudenz des täglichen Lebens_ (1870; Eng. trans., 1904). A great feature of his lectures was his so-called _Praktika_, problems in Roman law, and a collection of these with hints for solution was published as early as 1847 under the title _Civilrechtsfälle ohne Entscheidungen_. In Göttingen he continued to work until his death on the 17th of September 1892. A short time previously he had been the centre of a devoted crowd of friends and former pupils, assembled at Wilhelmshöhe near Cassel to celebrate the jubilee of his doctorate. Almost all countries were worthily represented, and this pilgrimage affords an excellent illustration of the extraordinary fascination and enduring influence that Jhering commanded. In appearance he was of middle stature, his face clean-shaven and of classical mould, lit up with vivacity and beaming with good nature. He was perhaps seen at his best when dispensing hospitality in his own house. With him died the best beloved and the most talented of Roman-law professors of modern times. It was said of him by Professor Adolf Merkel in a memorial address, _R. v. Jhering_ (1893), that he belonged to the happy class of persons to whom Goethe's lines are applicable: "Was ich in der Jugend gewünscht, das habe ich im Alter die Fülle," and this may justly be said of him, though he did not live to complete his _Geist des römischen Rechts_ and his _Rechtsgeschichte_. For this work the span of a single life would have been insufficient, but what he has left to the world is a monument of vigorous intellectual power and stamps Jhering as an original thinker and unrivalled exponent (in his peculiar interpretation) of the spirit of Roman law.

Among others of his works, all of them characteristic of the author
and sparkling with wit, may be mentioned the following: _Beiträge zur
Lehre von Besitz_, first published in the _Jahrbücher für die Dogmatik
des heutigen römischen und deutschen Privat-rechts_, and then
separately; _Der Besitzwille_, and an article entitled "Besitz" in the
_Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften_ (1891), which aroused at the
time much controversy, particularly on account of the opposition
manifested to Savigny's conception of the subject. See also _Scherz
und Ernst in der Jurisprudenz_ (1885); _Das Schuldmoment im römischen
Privat-recht_ (1867); _Das Trinkgeld_ (1882); and among the papers he
left behind him his _Vorgeschichte der Indoeuropäer_, a fragment, has
been published by v. Ehrenberg (1894). See for an account of his life
also M. de Jonge, _Rudolf v. Jhering_ (1888); and A. Merkel, _Rudolf
von Jhering_ (1893). (P. A. A.)

JIBITOS, a tribe of South American Indians, first met with by the Franciscans in 1676 in the forest near the Huallaga river, in the Peruvian province of Loreto. After their conversion they settled in villages on the western bank of the river.