with Andrew, brother of Simon Peter, at the suggestion of the Baptist, left him and made the acquaintance of Jesus. They immediately sought out their brothers and became companions of Jesus, remaining with Him during His early ministry in Judea (John i.-iv. passim). They returned to their home and usual occupation, from which Jesus formally summoned them when He opened His ministry in Galilee (Mark i. 19, 20). Obeying the summons, they became disciples in the full sense of the word, remaining with Jesus to the end. John, James, and Peter were the three disciples with whom Jesus was most intimate. With Andrew they make up the group of four which heads each of the three lists of the Twelve Apostles (Mark iii. 14-19; Matt. x. 2-4; Luke vi. 13-16). These three alone witnessed the raising of Jairus's daughter, the Transfiguration, and the agony in Gethsemane (Mark v. 37; ix. 2; xiv. 33, and parallels). It was John whose devotion to Jesus was so zealous that he rebuked one who, though not of the company of Jesus' disciples, was found casting out demons in His rame (Mark ix. 38 sqq.; Luke ix. 49, 50). The trait of character thus revealed gives us a hint, possibly, of the reason for Jesus' designation of James and John as Boanerges (Sons of Thunder). The same fiery zeal showed itself in the desire (Luke ix. 54) to call down fire from heaven upon the Samaritans who did not welcome Jesus. Near the close of Jesus' ministry James and John, prompted by their mother, asked to be given the seats of honor in the coming Messianic kingdom. Jesus' reply promised them only the cup of sacrificial service as their future portion (Matt. xx. 20 sqq.; Mark x. 35 sqq.). At the Last Supper John had the seat nearest the Master, and to him Jesus indicated privately which one was the traitor (John xiii. 23). He followed Jesus to the scene of the trial (John xviii. 15), and as he stood near the cross Jesus committed His mother to his care (John xix. 25 sqq.). He lingered long enough to see the piercing of Jesus' side (John xix. 35), and then returned to the city, where he appears to have had acquaintances or relatives (John xviii. 15; xix. 27). At the news of the resurrection he visited the tomb with Peter, and entering in and observing how the grave clothes were arranged, he believed' (John xx. 1-10). A few days later he returned to Galilee, where on a certain morning he and other disciples had a vision of the risen Jesus and were given anew the commission to carry on His work (John xxi.; cf. Matt. xxviii. 16-20). In the record of the early Church (in Acts), John appears mainly in company with Peter, who, however, seems to have been the chief speaker. Though no words of his during these years are recorded, he was evidently prominent and influential (cf. Acts iii. 1-4, 11: iv. 13, 19; viii. 14). Paul speaks of him (Gal. it. 9) as one of the 'pillars' of the Church in Jerusalem, who at the time of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv.; Gal. ii. 1-10), with James (the Just) and Peter, gave Paul the right hand of fellowship and recognized the value of his work among the Gentiles. This was about A.D. 49-50, about twenty years after the crucifixion. Henceforth the New Testament record is silent as to John's career. Whether he was present in Jerusalem at Paul's last visit (Acts xxi. 17) is unknown. The Apocalypse (see REVELATION), supposed to have been written

by him (cf. i. 1, 4, 9; xxii. 8), gives us no certain clew as to its date or his circumstances at the time. With the Gospel (q.v.) it presupposes a circle of hearers among whom the Apostle was influential, and locates them in Asia Minor. The Apocalypse itself was written from Patmos, where the writer was "on account of the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus." Ancient tradition has interpreted this as an experience of suffering due to persecution, but this is not certain. To fill in the gap between the statements in Acts and Galatians, and the conditions presupposed in the Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse, we must suppose that at some time between A.D. 50 and 70 John left Jerusalem to labor elsewhere, and finally, probably after Paul's death, came to the Province of Asia, where he spent the remainder of his life, residing chiefly at Ephesus. During his residence in Asia he wrote his Gospel, Epistles, and the Apocalypse, all addressed to readers belonging to the same general circle of churches. John is said by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles., III., xviii., xx., xxiii., partly based on Irenæus) to have been banished to Patmos by Domitian (A.D. 81-96), then to have removed to Ephesus by permission of Nerva (96-98), and to have lived on until some time in Trajan's reign (98-117). At Ephesus he was widely known and loved. Among his disciples was Polycarp, afterwards Bishop of Smyrna, who greatly influenced Irenæus in his youth (Iren. ad Florinum, in Euseb., Hist. Eccles., V., xx.). Here he also had to oppose the heretical teachings of Cerinthus (Iren., Contra Hæres., III., iii. 4). The presence of dangerous heresy led him to write the Gospel. According to the old legend in the Muratorian Canon, he did this in conjunction with fellow-disciples, all contributing of their reminiscences, but John alone doing the writing. In extreme old age his oft-repeated exhortation was, "Little children, love one another" (so Jerome, Com. in Gal., vi. 10). other story is told by Clement of Alexandria of his reclaiming the chief of a robber band from his evil life. According to Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus (c.190), he died and was buried at Ephesus. Later legend affirmed that he was not really dead, but that the earth above his body rose and fell with his breathing. For literature, see article JOHN, GOSPEL OF.

An

JOHN THE BAPTIST. The forerunner of Jesus Christ. The sources on which we depend for our knowledge of the man and his work are: (1) The sections of the Gospels especially devoted to a description of him and his ministry. Of these the accounts in the Synoptic Gospels relate chiefly to his career up to the baptism of Jesus, while the account of the fourth Gospel is concerned mainly with John's relation to Jesus after the baptism of the latter. (2) The incidental notices of the Baptist in the Gospels, either by the Evangelists themselves or in their reports of Jesus' words. (3) The account of Josephus (Ant., xviii. 5, 2). From these various sources we learn that John the Baptist was born about six months before Jesus, in a town in the hill country of Judea. The name of the town is not given. The parents were of priestly stock, and full of anxious thought and earnest expectation concerning the future of Israel. To this only child, born in their old age and looked upon as a gift of Jehovah, they gave the name John

But

(Hebrew Johanan, ‘Jehovah is gracious'). Naturally, he was well instructed in the religious literature of Israel. To what exent, if at all, he was initiated into the priestly life we are not told. It is noteworthy that the messengers sent to him by the Jerusalem authorities were certain priests and Levites, as though these were best fitted to examine him (John i. 19). The greater part of his early manhood was spent in retirement, in the quiet of the wilderness. at last, as in the case of the prophets of old, the Word of the Lord' (Luke iii. 2) came to him, and he issued from his retirement with a message such as Israel had not heard for centuries. (For the date, see NEW TESTAMENT CHRONOLOGY.) The scene of his first public appearance was in the Lower Jordan Valley, and the wild slopes of Northeastern Judea (Matt. iii. 1; Mark i. 4; Luke iii. 3). Here, clad in homely garb, eating the simplest diet, he began his public ministry, crying, "Prepare ye the way of the Lord" (Mark i. 2). Hearers soon began to throng about him, the whole country was agitated, and even from Galilee the crowds gathered to hear the great preacher.

ful, took his message to heart and were baptized (Luke vii. 29, 30, 33; Matt. xxi. 31, 32). For months, possibly a year, John continued this work, not always in the same place, but never far from the Jordan. He organized a body of disciples, and prescribed for them certain regulations touching prayer and fasting (Matt. xi. 1 sqq.; Luke viii. 18 sqq., xi. 1; v. 33; Mark ii. 18 sqq., vi. 29). In the course of his ministryunder what circumstances it is not stated-he rebuked Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, for his adulterous marriage with Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip. For this Herod, under the pretext that John's large following made him a menace to the public welfare, imprisoned him. During his captivity his disciples had free access to him, and even Herod delighted to hear his teachings. Finally, at the definite request of Herodias, he was beheaded at the castle of Machærus (Mark vi. 17-29; Matt. xiv. 3-12; Luke ii. 19, 20; cf. the account of Josephus). It seems likely that John's disciples continued their organization for some years at least. Twenty or more years later Christians were found even in Asia Minor who had been baptized according to John's institution, not in. the more specifically Christian way (Acts xviii. 25; xix. 3, 4). In other words, they had been baptized simply in reference to repentance from sin, but not with the emphasis on the Messianic era as already ushered in and partly realized in the Messianic work of Jesus (cf. Acts i. 5; xi. 16).

The message of the preacher was not a honeyed one. Like the prophets of old, his summons was "Repent!" Righteousness was the one thing needful. For it was a time of crisis. The axe was already laid to the tree; the chaff of the threshing-floor was about to be burned. 'The Day of Jehovah' foretold by the prophets was at hand (Matt. iii. 2, 7, 10; Mark i. 4; Luke iii. 3, 7-9). Nothing but a thorough repentance, a new moral condition, could save Israel from doom. What made this message so startling was its stern application to Israel, the chosen people. The Messianic age was not painted in glowing colors as a glorious triumph of Israel over her enemies. No false trust in the boasted descent from Abraham was permitted to blind the eyes or dull the conscience. The Messianic age was to be ushered in by judgment-a judgment that was to sift Israel herself first of all. Only a new, purified, righteous Israel could hope to meet and greet that age with confidence. This coming dispensation held a large place in John's thought. the many inquiries as to who he claimed to be, his reply was: "I am only the herald, only the voice that prepares the way; the greater one is to follow; one for whom I am unworthy even to do a slave's service" (Matt. iii. 11, 12; Mark i. 7: Luke iii. 15-18). And it was doubtless with reference to this impending age that John instituted the rite of baptism, which is not inaptly termed a baptism of repentance to the remission of sins.' The symbol was somewhat common in Jewish circles. Ceremonial lustrations with water were frequently practiced. But John's baptism was no ordinary lustration. The requisite to receiving it was a confession of sin, and the baptized one arose from the water as a member of the new Israel, repentant, hoping for forgiveness, and thus ready to meet the Messianic age, which to such would be an age of blessing, not of judgment.

To

The multitudes that came to hear the Baptist were of two opinions. Some refused to admit the reality of his mission, and would have nothing to do with his baptism. Of such a mind were the higher classes. The humbler classes, on the other hand, welcomed him as a true prophet; and many of them, even those most despised and sin

As to the relation of John to Jesus, it is not likely that there was any intimate acquaintance between them before their public work began (John i. 31), though their mothers were related (Luke i. 36). But the report of the great excitement in the Lower Jordan Valley reached Nazareth, and in due time among those presenting themselves for baptism was Jesus of Nazareth. The work of John had summoned Him to His life work. The Baptist discerned that there stood before him no ordinary person, and he was unwilling to baptize the candidate; but yielded at Jesus' reasoning that "so it is becoming to us to fulfill all righteousness" (Matt. iii. 14, 15). Possibly only to John and Jesus was the baptism of Jesus with the Spirit visible (Mark i. 10, 11; Matt. iii. 16. 17; Luke iii. 21, 22; cf. John i. 32-34). Though thus ushered into His public ministry by John, Jesus seems to have had little converse with him subsequently (yet cf. John iii. 26). Nevertheless, Jesus ever recognized the greatness of John's work and character. In his opinion John was no 'reed shaken with the wind,' but a prophet, the last in the great succession. He was the greatest of mortals (Matt. xi. 7-15; Luke vii. 24-28; xvi. 16). He came in the "way of righteousness" (Matthew xxi. 32), and the result of his work was that many were seeking to enter into the kingdom of heaven as by force. His witness was a witness to the truth, for he was a 'burning and shining light' (John v. 33-35). More than all this, he was the one definitely predicted in Mal. iii. 1 as the Elias who was to come (Mark ix. 13; Matt. xvii. 12). These statements show conclusively that Jesus recognized in John His forerunner, whose duty it was to prepare for His greater ministry. Such preparation was accomplished in two ways. On the one hand the general awakening of the moral sense of Israel by the Baptist's preaching

made Jesus' profounder and higher message more readily and easily apprehended. On the other hand, the definite designation of Jesus as the Messiah--the Lamb who takes away the world's sin-to a few choice spirits among his followers led these to Jesus as the first and truest of His disciples (John i. 29 sqq.). Notwithstanding Jesus' testimony to John's greatness and recognition of him as His forerunner, He taught that John's conception of His mission was not altogether adequate. The least in the kingdom' -i.e. the humblest one of those who entered the kingdom along the lines of Jesus' message of the Heavenly Father and His love--was on a higher plane than John the Baptist (Matt. xi. 11; Luke vii. 28). John's prophetic gift and calling did not make him infallible. His view

of the Messianic age saw it mainly as one of judgment, sifting, and punishment. Jesus, with just as great an insistence on righteousness, proclaimed it in a gospel of glad tidings as an epoch of release from bondage, an era of comfort to the weary, a welcome to the Father's house. To John the judgment was in the foreground, to Jesus it was still in the distant future. John did not advance beyond the old doctrine; Jesus fulfilled this and opened a new era (Matt. ix. 11-17; Mark ii. 21, 22). Jesus trusted the spiritual discernment of John to discover these truths when He sent back his messengers with His reply to their master in prison (Matt. xi. 1-6; Luke xi. 18-23). John baptized with water to repentance, but Jesus' work led to the baptism with the Spirit (Acts i. 5; xi. 16). Consult the various lives of Christ, and Köhler, Johannes der Täufer (Halle, 1884); Reynolds, John the Baptist (London, 1888).

JOHN. The name of twenty-three popes. --JOHN I., Pope 523-526, a native of Tuscany. Nothing is known of his pontificate except his heading an embassy to the Emperor Justin II. at Constantinople, at the request of Theodoric, in regard to the execution of an Imperial edict against the Arians. On his return he was imprisoned by Theodoric, who was dissatisfied with the result of his mission, and died in captivity.JOHN II., Pope 532-535. A Roman, Mercurius by name. He appealed to Athalaric, King of the Goths, for aid in putting down simony, which was fearfully prevalent. His letters are in Migne, Patrologia Latina, Ixvi.-JOIN III., Pope 560-573.-JOHN IV., Pope 640-642, a Dalmatian by birth. He condemned the Monothelites, and

insisted that Honorius I. had not sanctioned their doctrine.-JOHN V., Pope 685-686, a Syrian, the first of several popes of Eastern birth, who owed their election to the influence of the exarchs. He had been sent by Pope Agatho as his legate to the sixth general council.-JOHN VI., Pope 701-705, a Greek. He decided the prolonged conflict between Saint Wilfrid of York and the See of Canterbury in the former's favor. His letters are in Migne, Patrologia Latina, lxxxix.—JOHN VII., Pope 705-707, the immediate successor of the preceding.-JOHN VIII., Pope 872-882. A Roman by birth and Archdeacon of Rome before his elevation. He supported the claim of Charles the Bald to the Empire and crowned him in 875; two years later he upheld his disputed right in a great synod at Ravenna. The incursions of the Saracens in Lower Italy gave him much trouble, and after strenuously opposing any compromise

with them, he was obliged to purchase exemption from their attacks by a yearly tribute. He made a determined attempt to reunite the Eastern Church with Rome, but was defeated by the crafty stubbornness of Photius (q.v.). His numerous letters are in Migne, Patrologia Latina, cxxvi. Consult for the Eastern negotiations, Hergenröther, Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel (Regensburg, 1867).

JOHN IX., Pope 898-900. A Benedictine, the candidate of the Frankish party. His position amid the troubles of the time was very insecure, and, though a zealous man, he accomplished little except the rehabilitation of his predecessor Formosus.-JOHN X., Pope 914-928. A native of Romagna, he became Archbishop of Ravenna in 905, and was raised to the Papacy by the influence of Theodora's faction. But he disappointed their expectations by striving to render his temporal power independent of any party. He defeated the Saracens in person, and attempted a reconciliation with the Eastern Church. He was imprisoned, and finally murdered by Marozia, daughter of Theodora, in the way of whose ambitious designs he stood. His letters are in Migne, cxxxii.-JOHN XI., Pope 931-936, the son of Marozia by her first husband, Alberic. She and her other son, Alberic II., practically ruled, leaving none but purely sacerdotal functions to the Pope.-JOHN XII., Pope 955-964, the son of Alberic II., elected at the age of eighteen. His name was Octavian; he was the first to introduce the practice of adopting a new name. He gained the support of Otho I., whom he crowned Emperor in 962, but fell out with him afterwards, and, in consequence of many grievous accusations, was threatened with deposition. He conquered his opponents, but died soon afterwards.-JOHN XIII., Pope 965-972. He was Bishop of Narni before his choice as the candidate of Otho I. for the Papacy. By his influence with the Emperor, John recovered Ravenna and the rest of the patrimonium Petri. He crowned Otho's young son as associate in the Empire, and aided in procuring for him the hand of the Greek Princess Theophano. His letters are in Migne, Patrologia Latina, cxxxv.-JOHN XIV., Pope 983-984. previously Bishop of Pavia and Chancellor of Otho II. When the Emperor died and his wife, Theophano, left Rome, John was helpless. Boniface VII., who had seized the Papacy on the death of Otho I., and had then fled to Constantinople in fear of the Counts of Tusculum, now returned and im

prisoned him in the Castle of Sant' Angelo, where

he was done to death four months later. Consult Floss, Die Papstwahl unter den Ottonen (Freiburg, 1858). Another John is included in some lists of the popes as the immediate successor of Boniface, but according to modern investigations he has no claim to the title. His inclusion has introduced a confusion into the numbering of the later Johns.

JOHN XV., Pope 985-996, elevated by Crescen tius and his party, and completely under their influence. After his death, Otho III. caused the election of his own kinsman Bruno, as Gregory V., but on the Emperor's departure he was driven out by Crescentius, who in 997 set up John Philagathus, a native of the Greek Province of Calabria, as JOHN XVI. He was overthrown by the return of the Emperor, and treated with a cruelty which he did not long survive.-JOHN XVII., Pope for a few months in 1003.-Joпx

XVIII., 1003-09. He affected a temporary reconciliation with the Church of Constantinople, and left the name of a learned and pious man. He is said to have retired to a monastery to end his days, but it is not improbable that he was driven out by the son of Crescentius.-JOHN XIX., Pope 1024-33, a Roman of the family of the counts of Tusculum. He succeeded his brother, Benedict VIII. He attempted to consolidate the renewed union with the East by conceding to the Patriarch of Constantinople, in a sense, the title of Ecumenical; but the feeling of Western Christendom was so strong against the concession that he was obliged to withdraw it, and the

breach became wider than ever.

He crowned the

Emperor Conrad II. in the presence of the English King Canute. His letters are in Migne, Patrologia Latina, cxl.-JOHN XX., often called JOHN XXI., Pope 1276-77, a Spaniard, Peter by name, made Cardinal-Bishop of Frascati in 1273. He was a man of great learning, especially in philosophy and medicine. He left some treatises which are interesting contributions to the history of mediæval medicine. His enemies accused him of dealing in magic arts, and considered his death by the fall of a ceiling as a judgment.

JOHN XXII., Pope 1316-34, Jacques d'Euse, a native of Cahors, made Bishop of Fréjus in 1300 and Cardinal-Bishop of Porto in 1312. He was chosen Pope after a vacancy of two years, and fixed his residence at Avignon. Attempting to carry out, in very altered circumstances, the vast and comprehensive policy of Gregory VII. and Innocent III., he interposed in the contest for the Imperial crown between Louis of Bavaria and Frederick of Austria, in favor of the latter. He was involved in several other controversies of a more theological nature; that on the poverty of Christ, which sprang up among the Franciscans (see FRATICELLIANS) was partly connected with support given by the recalcitrant members of the order to Louis. His opinion that the just would not be admitted to the beatific vision until the general resurrection was vigorously opposed by many theologians, and he retracted it before his death. He endeavored to propagate the Christian faith in the most distant lands, and to promote a crusade, in which he was hindered by the constantly divided state of Christendom. He collected large sums for the treasury of the Church, but his own life was simple and ascetic. Consult: Verlaque, Jean XXII., sa vie et ses œuvres (Paris, 1883); Souchon, Die Papstwahlen von Bonifaz VIII. bis Urban VI. (Brunswick, 1888); Friedensburg, Ludwig der Bayer und Friedrich von Oesterreich (Göttingen, 1877).-JoHN XXIII., Pope 1410-15, Baldassarre Cossa, of a noble Neapolitan family. He was made cardinal in 1402. He took a prominent part in the Council of Pisa, and in the effort to terminate the

great schism by the elevation of Pietro Philargi

as Alexander V. On Alexander's death he was chosen by the same dubious authority. He called the Council of Constance ( q.v.), by which he was deposed. He fled, but was captured and imprisoned for four years, until he was released by the intervention of his successor, Martin V., who made him dean of the Sacred College. He died and was buried in Florence.

JOHN I., ZIMISCES (925-976). A Byzantine Emperor, 969-976. His uncle, Nicephorus Phocas, who had mounted the throne by his aid, gave him the chief military command in the Empire. He

ably seconded the Emperor in his victorious campaigns against the Saracens. John learned, however, that there was a conspiracy headed by another uncle to deprive him of his power; so, to prevent his own downfall, he murdered the Emperor, and he himself mounted the throne. During his reign war was waged successfully against the Russians, Saracens, and Bulgarians. He is supposed to have been poisoned while on his return from the campaign in Syria.

JOHN II., COMNENUS (1088-1143). A Byzantine Emperor called 'the Good.' He succeeded his father, Alexius, on the throne in 1118. He won many victories in his wars against the Turks in Asia and against the Servians and the Hungarians in Europe, but his administration was weak, and his whole government enfeebled by corruption.

JOHN V. Byzantine emperor. See PALEOLO

GUS.

JOHN VI., Byzantine emperor. See CANTACUZENUS.

JOHN VII., VIII. Byzantine emperors. See PALEOLOGUS.

JOHN I. (1350-95). King of Aragon and son of Peter IV., whom he succeeded on the throne

in 1387. He maintained a school of troubadours at his Court.

JOHN (1513-71). Margrave of BrandenburgKüstrin, second son of the Elector Joachim Ï. of Brandenburg. He was better known as Hans of Küstrin, from one of the possessions which he secured upon the death of his father in 1535. In 1537 he introduced the Protestant religion into his dominions, and the next year joined the Schmalkaldic League, though with the express stipulation that it should be for the purpose of protecting religious belief and not for political reasons. Consequently, on the outbreak of the Schmalkaldic War he joined the Emperor Charles V. and took an important part in the battle of Mühlberg, where the Imperial forces gained a decisive victory over the Protestant princes (1547). At length realizing the mistake he had made, he went over to the Elector Maurice of Saxony, and exerted himself on the Protestant side during the treaty-making at Passau (1552). Internal peace once more restored to Germany, he accompanied the Emperor Charles V. in his French campaign, and took part in the unsuccessful siege of Metz. His chief title to fame, however rests in the ability with which he governed his lands. He restrained the nobility, cleared the country of highway robbers, extended its frontiers, and encouraged agriculture, commerce, and industries.

JOHN I. 1379 to 1390.

(1358-90). King of Castile from He succeeded to the throne on the

death of his father, Henry II. To defeat the schemes of John of Gaunt (q.v.), Duke of Lancaster, who had assumed the title of King of Castile, and of Ferdinand of Portugal, he attacked Portugal. Ferdinand submitted in 1382, and made peace by giving his daughter Beatrice, the heiress of Portugal, to John. On Ferdinand's death John again made war upon Portugal in support of the claims of Beatrice, and later fought against John I., who had been elected King of that country, but failed the first time on account of a pestilence, and the second time was defeated at Aljubarotta, in 1385.

JOHN (c.1167-1216). King of England from 1199 to 1216. He was the youngest son of Henry II. by his wife, Eleanor of Guienne, and was born probably on December 24, 1167. His father called him 'Lackland' early, probably, because Henry had divided his dominions among his elder sons, and thus left John without a portion. John was appointed in a council, held at Oxford in 1177, King of Ireland, and in April, 1185, he went over to take the reins of government, but ruled so badly that he was recalled the following September. John united with his brothers in their repeated rebellions against their father, and it was the sudden communication of the news of his having joined his brother Richard's uprising that caused the death of Henry. When Richard I. succeeded to the crown, he conferred upon his young brother earldoms which amounted to nearly one-third of the Kingdom. This did not, however, prevent John from endeavoring to seize the crown during Richard's captivity. John was, nevertheless, pardoned on Richard's return and treated with great clemency, and is said to have been designated by his brother on his deathbed as his successor. John hastened, at his brother's death, to obtain the support of the Continental barons, and then returned to England, being crowned at Westminster May 27, 1199. Arthur (q.v.), the son of his elder brother Geoffrey, was, according to modern laws of heredity, the lawful heir to the crown, but at this time the rules of succession to the crown were still imperfect. The claims of Arthur were supported by the King of France, but John bought off the latter's influence. In 1200 he obtained a divorce from his first wife, Avice of Gloucester, and married Isabella of Angoulême, who was betrothed to Hugh le Brun, son of Hugh, Count of La Marche, one of his vassals. In revenge Le Brun stirred up the nobles of Poitou against him, and embraced the cause of young Arthur. In the war which ensued, Arthur, who was again assisted by France, was taken prisoner, and confined in the Castle of Rouen, where, according to tradition, he was put to death. As a result of the war, the English monarch lost to Philip Augustus of France Normandy, Touraine, Maine, Anjou, and Poitou. In 1207 John quarreled with the Pope concerning the ap pointment of a new Archbishop of Canterbury, and, as a result, the Kingdom was placed under an interdict in 1208; John in return confiscated the property of the clergy who obeyed the interdiet, and banished the bishops. He also compelled William, King of Scotland, who had joined his enemies, to do him homage (1209), put down a rebellion in Ireland (1210), and subdued Llewelyn, the independent Prince of Wales (1211). The Pope, in 1212, solemnly deposed John, and absolved his subjects from their allegiance, and commissioned Philip Augustus of France to execute his sentence. John, denounced by the Church, and hated for his cruelty and tyranny by his subjects, found his position untenable, and was compelled, in 1213, to make abject submission to Rome, and to hold his king dom as a fief of the Papacy. Philip Augustus, nevertheless, proceeded with his scheme of invasion, though no longer approved by Rome; but the French fleet was totally defeated in the harbor of Damme. Subsequent events, however, proved more favorable to France, and John's strength was crushed in 1214 by the defeat at

Bouvines (q.v.). At length the English barons saw the opportunity to end the tyranny of John; they drew up a petition demanding the redress of abuses in the government and the administration of justice and the issuance of a charter of liberties modeled on that of Henry I. This was rejected by the King, and became the signal for war. The army of the barons assembled at Stamford and marched to London; they met the King at Runnymede, and on June 15, 1215, was signed the great charter, Magna Charta (q.v.), the basis of the English Constitution. The Pope soon after annulled the charter, and the war broke out again. The barons now called over the Dauphin of France to be their leader, and Louis landed near Sandwich, May 21, 1216. In crossing the Welland John lost his regalia and treasures and part of his baggage and army. He was taken ill, and died at Newark Castle October 19, 1216. Consult: Norgate, England Under the Angevin Kings (London, 1887); Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, vol. i. (6th ed., Oxford, 1897); Pauli, Geschichte von England, vol iii. (Hamburg, 1853); Norgate, John Lackland (New York, 1902).

JOHN II. (1319-64). King of France from 1350 to 1364, surnamed the Good. He succeeded his father, Philip VI. of Valois, in 1350, and commenced his reign by acts of despotism and cruelty. The English, in 1356, invaded France, and John was defeated by Edward the Black Prince, at Poitiers (q.v.). He was carried to Bordeaux and then to London, where he was a prisoner until October 25, 1360. His ranBretigny (q.v.). som was fixed by a treaty with Edward III. at In 1363 he gave to his son Philip the Duchy of Burgundy, which was destined to become a danger to France. His son, the Duke of Anjou, who had been in London as a hostage for the payment of John's ransom, escaped in violation of his parole, and thereupon John voluntarily returned in 1364 as a prisoner to London, where he suddenly died. Consult Cosneau, Les grandes traités de la guerre de cent ans (Paris, 1889).

JOHN III., VATATZES (1193-1254). An Emperor of Nicæa, known as 'Ducas.' His skill as dore I. in 1222. a soldier led to his being chosen to succeed ThenHe was a very successful general and an able administrator.

JOHN IV., LASCARIS. An Emperor of Nicæa. He succeeded his father, Theodore II., in 1253, when he was scarcely ten years old. Three years afterwards he was deposed and blinded by Michael Palæologus.

JOHN II., CASIMIR (1609-72). King of Poland from 1648 to 1668. He was the youngest son of Sigismund III., and on his father's death in 1632 became lord of an extensive appanage in Poland. In 1640, however, he en tered the Jesuit Order at Rome and was made a cardinal by Pope Innocent X. Returning to Poland, he was elected to succeed his brother, Ladislas IV., as King in 1648, and married his widow, Maria Luisa Gonzaga, receiving from the Pope absolution from his vows. The first part of his reign was disturbed by the revolt of the Cossacks under Chmielnicki. In 1655 Charles X. of Sweden made war upon Poland, and in 1656 was joined by Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg. In 1657 the Elector went over to the side of Poland, which in return formally renounced