rationalized Christianity, and of not having given it its full value as a religion of salvation. It must not, however, be forgotten that Justin is here speaking as the apologist of Christianity to an educated Pagan public, on whose philosophical view of life he had to base his arguments, and from whom he could not expect an intimate comprehension of the religious position of Christians. That he himself had a thorough comprehension of it he showed in the Dialogue with the Jew Trypho. Here, where he had to deal with the Judaism that believed in a Messiah, he was far better able to do justice to Christianity as a revelation; and so we find that the arguments of this work are much more completely in harmony with primitive Christian theology than those of the Apology. He also displays in this work a considerable knowledge of the Rabbinical writings and a skilful polemical method which was surpassed by none of the later anti-Jewish writers.
Justin is a most valuable authority for the life of the Christian Church in the middle of the 2nd century. While we have elsewhere no connected account of this, Justin’s Apology contains a few paragraphs (61 seq.), which give a vivid description of the public worship of the Church and its method of celebrating the sacraments (Baptism and the Eucharist). And from this it is clear that though, as a theologian, Justin wished to go his own way, as a believing Christian he was ready to make his standpoint that of the Church and its baptismal confession of faith. His works are also of great value for the history of the New Testament writings. He knows of no canon of the New Testament, i.e. no fixed and inclusive collection of the apostolic writings. His sources for the teachings of Jesus are the “Memoirs of the Apostles,” by which are probably to be understood the Synoptic Gospels (without the Gospel according to St John), which, according to his account, were read along with the prophetic writings at the public services. From his writings we derive the impression of an amiable personality, who is honestly at pains to arrive at an understanding with his opponents. As a theologian, he is of wide sympathies; as a writer, he is often diffuse and somewhat dull. There are not many traces of any particular literary influence of his writings upon the Christian Church, and this need not surprise us. The Church as a whole took but little interest in apologetics and polemics, nay, had at times even an instinctive feeling that in these controversies that which she held holy might easily suffer loss. Thus Justin’s writings were not much read, and at the present time both the Apology and the Dialogue are preserved in but a single MS. (cod. Paris, 450, A.D. 1364).
Bibliography.—The editions of Robert Étienne (Stephanus) (1551); H. Sylburg (1593); F. Morel (1615); Prudentius Maranuis (1742) are superseded by J. C. T. Otto, Justini philosophi et martyris opera quae feruntur omnia (3rd ed. 5 vols., Jena, 1876–1881). This edition contains besides the Apologies (vol. i.) and the Dialogue (vol. ii.) the following writings: Speech to the Greeks (Oratio); Address to the Greeks (Cohortatio): On the Monarchy of God; Epistle to Diognetus; Fragments on the Resurrection and other Fragments; Exposition of the True Faith; Epistle to Zenas and Serenus; Refutation of certain Doctrines of Aristotle; Questions and Answers to the Orthodox; Questions of Christians to Pagans; Questions of Pagans to Christians. None of these writings, not even the Cohortatio, which former critics ascribed to Justin, can be attributed to him. The authenticity of the Dialogue has occasionally been disputed, but without reason. For a handy edition of the Apology see G. Krüger, Die Apologien Justins des Märtyrers (3rd ed. Tübingen, 1904). There is a good German translation with a comprehensive commentary by H. Veil (1894). For English translations consult the “Oxford Library of the Fathers” and the “Ante-Nicene Library.” Full information about Justin’s history and views may be had from the following monographs: C. Semisch, Justin der Märtyrer (2 vols., 1840–1842); J. Donaldson, A Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine, vol. 2 (1866); C. E. Freppel, St Justin (3rd ed., 1886); Moritz von Engelhardt, Das Christentum Justins des Märtyrers (1878); T. M. Wehofer, Die Apologie Justins des Philosophen und Märtyrers in litterarhistorischer Beziehung zum ersten Male untersucht (1897); Alfred Leonhard Feder, Justins des Märtyrers Lehre von Jesus Christus (1906). On the critical questions raised by the spurious writings consult W. Gaul, Die Abfassungsverhältnisse der pseudo-justinischen Cohortatio ad Graecos (1902); Adolf Harnack, Diodor von Tarsus. Vier pseudo-justinische Schriften als Eigentum Diodors nachgewiesen (1901). (G. K.)
JUTE, a vegetable fibre now occupying a position in the manufacturing
scale inferior only to cotton and flax. The term jute
appears to have been first used in 1746, when the captain of the
“Wake” noted in his log that he had sent on shore “60 bales
of gunney with all the jute rope” (New Eng. Dict. s.v.). In 1795
W. Roxburgh sent to the directors of the East India Company a
bale of the fibre which he described as “the jute of the natives.”
Importations of the substance had been made at earlier times
under the name of pāt, an East Indian native term by which
the fibre continued to be spoken of in England till the early years
of the 19th century, when it was supplanted by the name it now
bears. This modern name appears to be derived from jhot or
jhout (Sansk. jhat), the vernacular name by which the substance
is known in the Cuttack district, where the East India Company
had extensive roperies when Roxburgh first used the term.
 |
| Fig. 1.—Capsules of Jute Plants. a, Corchorus capsularis; b, C. olitorius. |
The fibre is obtained from two species of Corchorus (nat. ord. Tiliaceae), C. capsularis and C. olitorius, the products of both being so essentially alike that neither in commerce nor agriculture is any distinction made between them. These and various other species of Corchorus are natives of Bengal, where they have been cultivated from very remote times for economic purposes, although there is reason to believe that the cultivation did not originate in the northern parts of India. The two species cultivated for jute fibre are in all respects very similar to each other, except in their fructification and the relatively greater size attained by C. capsularis. They are annual plants from 5 to 10 ft. high, with a cylindrical stalk as thick as a man’s finger, and hardly branching except near the top. The light-green leaves are from 4 to 5 in. long by 112 in. broad above the base, and taper upward into a fine point; the edges are serrated; the two lower teeth are drawn out into bristle-like points. The small whitish-yellow flowers are produced in clusters of two or three opposite the leaves.
The capsules or seed-pods in the case of C. capsularis are globular, rough and wrinkled, while in C. olitorius they are slender, quill-like cylinders (about 2 in. long), a very marked distinction, as may be noted from fig. 1, in which a and b show the capsules of C. capsularis and C. olitorius respectively. Fig. 2 represents a flowering top of C. olitorius.
Both species are cultivated in India, not only on account
