{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_39232/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_39232","id":"gutenberg_39232","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39232","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Encyclopedias/Dictionaries/Reference","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Encyclopedias and dictionaries"],"text":"Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's notes:\n\n(1) Numbers following letters (without space) like C2 were originally\n printed in subscript. Letter subscripts are preceded by an\n underscore, like C_n.\n\n(2) Characters following a carat (^) were printed in superscript.\n\n(3) Side-notes were relocated to function as titles of their respective\n paragraphs.\n\n(4) Macrons and breves above letters and dots below letters were not\n inserted.\n\n(5) [root] stands for the root symbol; [alpha], [beta], etc. for greek\n letters.\n\n(6) The following typographical errors have been corrected:\n\n ARTICLE HINDUISM: \"But, in this respect, we also meet in the epics\n with the first clear evidence of what in after time became the\n prominent feature of the worship of Siva and his consort all over\n India ...\" 'respect' amended from 'repect'.\n\n ARTICLE HINDUISM: \"Though the Lingayats still show a certain\n animosity towards the Brahmans, and in the Census lists are\n accordingly classed as an independent group beside the Hindus ...\"\n 'classed' amended from 'classes'.\n\n ARTICLE HINTERLAND: \"In the purely physical sense 'interior' or\n 'back country' is more commonly used, but the word has gained a\n distinct political significance.\" 'or' amended from 'on'.\n\n ARTICLE HIPPODROME: \"... so that the width was far greater, being\n about 400 ft., the course being 600 to 700 ft. long.\" 'course'\n amended from 'cource'.\n\n ARTICLE HIRSAU: \"C. H. Klaiber, Das Kloster Hirschau (Tubingen,\n 1886); and Baer, Die Hirsauer Bauschule (Freiburg, 1897).\"\n 'Hirsauer' amended from 'Hirsauers'.\n\n ARTICLE HOBBES, THOMAS: \"In politics the revulsion from his\n particular conclusions did not prevent the more clear-sighted of\n his opponents from recognizing the force of his supreme\n demonstration of the practical irresponsibility of the sovereign\n power ...\" 'particular' amended from 'particuar'.\n\n ARTICLE HOFFMANN, JOHANN JOSEPH: \"His Japanese grammar (Japanische\n Sprachlehre) was published in Dutch and English in 1867, and in\n English and German in 1876.\" 'Sprachlehre' amended from\n 'Sprechlehre'.\n\n ARTICLE HOFMEYR, JAN HENDRIK: \"He was editor of the Zuid Afrikaan\n till its incorporation with Ons Land, and of the Zuid Afrikaansche\n Tijdschrift.\" 'Tijdschrift' amended from 'Tidjschrift'.\n\n ARTICLE HOHENLOHE: \"... which was to exercise an important\n influence on his political activity. As the younger son of a cadet\n line of his house it was necessary for Prince Chlodwig to follow a\n profession.\" 'political' amended from 'politcal'.\n\n ARTICLE HOLLAND: \"The height of the boezem peil ranges between\n 1(1/3) ft. above to 1(5/6) ft. below the Amsterdam zero ...\"\n 'between' amended from 'beween'.\n\n ARTICLE HOLLAND: \"... Nieuwe Wandelingen door Nederland, by J.\n Craandijk and P. A. Schipperus (Haarlem, 1888) ...\" 'Wandelingen'\n amended from 'Wanderlingen'.\n\n ARTICLE HOLLAND: \"... agreed to accept the sovereignty of the\n Netherlands provinces, except Holland and Zeeland.\" 'Netherlands'\n amended from 'Netherland'.\n\n ARTICLE HOLLAND: \"left England on the 22nd of August for\n Sainte-Mere Eglise in Normandy.\" 'Eglise' amended from 'Eglide'.\n\n\n\n\n ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA\n\n A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE\n AND GENERAL INFORMATION\n\n ELEVENTH EDITION\n\n\n VOLUME XIII, SLICE V\n\n Hinduism to Home, Earls of\n\n\n\n\nARTICLES IN THIS SLICE:\n\n\n HINDUISM HODY, HUMPHREY\n HINDU KUSH HOE, RICHARD MARCH\n HINDUR HOE\n HINGANGHAT HOEFNAGEL, JORIS\n HINGE HOF\n HINGHAM HOFER, ANDREAS\n HINRICHS, HERMANN WILHELM HOFFDING, HARALD\n HINSCHIUS, PAUL HOFFMANN, AUGUST HEINRICH\n HINTERLAND HOFFMANN, ERNST THEODOR WILHELM\n HINTON, JAMES HOFFMANN, FRANCOIS BENOIT\n HIOGO HOFFMANN, FRIEDRICH\n HIP HOFFMANN, JOHANN JOSEPH\n HIP-KNOB HOFMANN, AUGUST WILHELM VON\n HIPPARCHUS HOFMANN, JOHANN CHRISTIAN KONRAD VON\n HIPPASUS OF METAPONTUM HOFMANN, MELCHIOR\n HIPPEASTRUM HOFMEISTER, WILHELM FRIEDRICH BENEDICT\n HIPPED ROOF HOFMEYR, JAN HENDRIK\n HIPPEL, THEODOR GOTTLIEB VON HOFSTEDE DE GROOT, PETRUS\n HIPPIAS OF ELIS HOGARTH, WILLIAM\n HIPPO HOGG, JAMES\n HIPPOCRAS HOGG, THOMAS JEFFERSON\n HIPPOCRATES HOGMANAY\n HIPPOCRENE HOGSHEAD\n HIPPODAMUS HOHENASPERG\n HIPPODROME HOHENFRIEDBERG\n HIPPOLYTUS (Greek legend hunter) HOHENHEIM\n HIPPOLYTUS (Church writer) HOHENLIMBURG\n HIPPOLYTUS, THE CANONS OF HOHENLOHE\n HIPPONAX HOHENSTAUFEN\n HIPPOPOTAMUS HOHENSTEIN\n HIPPURIC ACID HOHENZOLLERN\n HIPURNIAS HOKKAIDO\n HIRA HOKUSAI\n HIRADO HOLBACH, PAUL HEINRICH DIETRICH\n HIRE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT HOLBEACH\n HIRING HOLBEIN, HANS (the elder)\n HIROSAKI HOLBEIN, HANS (the younger)\n HIROSHIGE HOLBERG, LUDVIG HOLBERG\n HIROSHIMA HOLBORN\n HIRPINI HOLCROFT, THOMAS\n HIRSAU HOLDEN, HUBERT ASHTON\n HIRSCH, MAURICE DE HOLDEN, SIR ISAAC\n HIRSCH, SAMSON RAPHAEL HOLDERLIN, JOHANN CHRISTIAN FRIEDRICH\n HIRSCHBERG HOLDERNESSE, EARL OF\n HIRSON HOLDHEIM, SAMUEL\n HIRTIUS, AULUS HOLGUIN\n HISHAM IBN AL-KALBI HOLIDAY\n HISPELLUM HOLINSHED, RAPHAEL\n HISSAR (district in Asia) HOLKAR\n HISSAR (Indian town & district) HOLL, FRANK\n HISTIAEUS HOLLAND, CHARLES\n HISTOLOGY HOLLAND, SIR HENRY\n HISTORY HOLLAND, HENRY FOX\n HIT HOLLAND, HENRY RICH\n HITA, GINES PEREZ DE HOLLAND, HENRY RICHARD VASSALL FOX\n HITCHCOCK, EDWARD HOLLAND, JOSIAH GILBERT\n HITCHCOCK, GEORGE HOLLAND, PHILEMON\n HITCHCOCK, ROSWELL DWIGHT HOLLAND, RICHARD\n HITCHIN HOLLAND (country)\n HITTITES HOLLAND, COUNTY AND PROVINCE OF\n HITTORFF, JACQUES IGNACE HOLLAND (Michigan, U.S.A.)\n HITZACKER HOLLAND (cloth)\n HITZIG, FERDINAND HOLLAR, WENZEL or WENCESLAUS\n HIUNG-NU HOLLES, DENZIL HOLLES\n HIVITES HOLLOWAY, THOMAS\n HJORRING HOLLY\n HKAMTI LONG HOLLYHOCK\n HLOTHHERE HOLLY SPRINGS\n HOACTZIN HOLMAN, JAMES\n HOADLY, BENJAMIN HOLMES, OLIVER WENDELL\n HOAR, SAMUEL HOLMFIRTH\n HOARE, SIR RICHARD COLT HOLOCAUST\n HOBART, GARRET AUGUSTUS HOLOCENE\n HOBART, JOHN HENRY HOLROYD, SIR CHARLES\n HOBART PASHA HOLSTEIN, FRIEDRICH VON\n HOBART (capital of Tasmania) HOLSTEIN (duchy of Germany)\n HOBBEMA, MEYNDERT HOLSTEN, KARL CHRISTIAN JOHANN\n HOBBES, THOMAS HOLSTENIUS, LUCAS\n HOBBY HOLSTER\n HOBHOUSE, ARTHUR HOBHOUSE HOLT, SIR JOHN\n HOBOKEN (town of Belgium) HOLTEI, KARL EDUARD VON\n HOBOKEN (New Jersey, U.S.A.) HOLTY, LUDWIG HEINRICH CHRISTOPH\n HOBSON'S CHOICE HOLTZENDORFF, JOACHIM FRANZ PHILIPP VON\n HOBY, SIR THOMAS HOLTZMANN, HEINRICH JULIUS\n HOCHE, LAZARE HOLUB, EMIL\n HOCHHEIM HOLY\n HOCHST HOLY ALLIANCE, THE\n HOCHSTADT HOLYHEAD\n HOCHSTETTER, FERDINAND VON HOLY ISLAND\n HOCKEY HOLYOAKE, GEORGE JACOB\n HOCK-TIDE HOLYOKE\n HOCUS HOLYSTONE\n HODDEN HOLY WATER\n HODDESDON HOLY WEEK\n HODEDA HOLYWELL\n HODENING HOLYWOOD\n HODGE, CHARLES HOLZMINDEN\n HODGKIN, THOMAS HOLZTROMPETE\n HODGKINSON, EATON HOMAGE\n HODGSON, BRIAN HOUGHTON HOMBERG, WILHELM\n HODMEZO-VASARHELY HOMBURG-VOR-DER-HOHE\n HODOGRAPH HOME, EARLS OF\n HODSON, WILLIAM STEPHEN RAIKES\n\n\n\n\nHINDUISM, a term generally employed to comprehend the social\ninstitutions, past and present, of the Hindus who form the great\nmajority of the people of India; as well as the multitudinous crop of\ntheir religious beliefs which has grown up, in the course of many\ncenturies, on the foundation of the Brahmanical scriptures. The actual\nproportion of the total population of India (294 millions) included\nunder the name of \"Hindus\" has been computed in the census report for\n1901 at something like 70% (206 millions); the remaining 30% being made\nup partly of the followers of foreign creeds, such as Mahommedans,\nParsees, Christians and Jews, partly of the votaries of indigenous forms\nof belief which have at various times separated from the main stock, and\ndeveloped into independent systems, such as Buddhism, Jainism and\nSikhism; and partly of isolated hill and jungle tribes, such as the\nSantals, Bhils (Bhilla) and Kols, whose crude animistic tendencies have\nhitherto kept them, either wholly or for the most part, outside the pale\nof the Brahmanical community. The name \"Hindu\" itself is of foreign\norigin, being derived from the Persians, by whom the river Sindhu was\ncalled Hindhu, a name subsequently applied to the inhabitants of that\nfrontier district, and gradually extended over the upper and middle\nreaches of the Gangetic valley, whence this whole tract of country\nbetween the Himalaya and the Vindhya mountains, west of Bengal, came to\nbe called by the foreign conquerors \"Hindustan,\" or the abode of the\nHindus; whilst the native writers called it \"Aryavarta,\" or the abode\nof the Aryas.\n\nBut whilst, in its more comprehensive acceptation, the term Hinduism\nwould thus range over the entire historical development of Brahmanical\nIndia, it is also not infrequently used in a narrower sense, as denoting\nmore especially the modern phase of Indian social and religious\ninstitutions--from the earlier centuries of the Christian era down to\nour own days--as distinguished from the period dominated by the\nauthoritative doctrine of pantheistic belief, formulated by the\nspeculative theologians during the centuries immediately succeeding the\nVedic period (see BRAHMANISM). In this its more restricted sense the\nterm may thus practically be taken to apply to the later bewildering\nvariety of popular sectarian forms of belief, with its social\nconcomitant, the fully developed caste-system. But, though one may at\ntimes find it convenient to speak of \"Brahmanism and Hinduism,\" it must\nbe clearly understood that the distinction implied in the combination of\nthese terms is an extremely vague one, especially from the chronological\npoint of view. The following considerations will probably make this\nclear.\n\n\n Connexion with Brahmanism.\n\nThe characteristic tenet of orthodox Brahmanism consists in the\nconception of an absolute, all-embracing spirit, the Brahma (neutr.),\nbeing the one and only reality, itself unconditioned, and the original\ncause and ultimate goal of all individual souls (_jiva_, i.e. living\nthings). Coupled with this abstract conception are two other doctrines,\nviz. first, the transmigration of souls (_samsara_), regarded by Indian\nthinkers as the necessary complement of a belief in the essential\nsameness of all the various spiritual units, however contaminated, to a\ngreater or less degree, they may be by their material embodiment; and in\ntheir ultimate re-union with the _Paramatman_, or Supreme Self; and\nsecond, the assumption of a triple manifestation of the ceaseless\nworking of that Absolute Spirit as a creative, conservative and\ndestructive principle, represented respectively by the divine\npersonalities of Brahma (masc.), Vishnu and Siva, forming the _Trimurti_\nor Triad. As regards this latter, purely exoteric, doctrine, there can\nbe little doubt of its owing its origin to considerations of theological\nexpediency, as being calculated to supply a sufficiently wide formula of\nbelief for general acceptance; and the very fact of this divine triad\nincluding the two principal deities of the later sectarian worship,\nVishnu and Siva, goes far to show that these two gods at all events must\nhave been already in those early days favourite objects of popular\nadoration to an extent sufficient to preclude their being ignored by a\ndiplomatic priesthood bent upon the formulation of a common creed. Thus,\nso far from sectarianism being a mere modern development of Brahmanism,\nit actually goes back to beyond the formulation of the Brahmanical\ncreed. Nay, when, on analysing the functions and attributes of those two\ndivine figures, each of them is found to be but a compound of several\npreviously recognized deities, sectarian worship may well be traced\nright up to the Vedic age. That the theory of the triple manifestation\nof the deity was indeed only a compromise between Brahmanical\naspirations and popular worship, probably largely influenced by the\ntraditional sanctity of the number three, is sufficiently clear from the\nfact that, whilst Brahma, the creator, and at the same time the very\nembodiment of Brahmanical class pride, has practically remained a mere\nfigurehead in the actual worship of the people, Siva, on the other hand,\nso far from being merely the destroyer, is also the unmistakable\nrepresentative of generative and reproductive power in nature. In fact,\nBrahma, having performed his legitimate part in the mundane evolution by\nhis original creation of the universe, has retired into the background,\nbeing, as it were, looked upon as _functus officio_, like a venerable\nfigure of a former generation, whence in epic poetry he is commonly\nstyled _pitamaha_, \"the grandsire.\" But despite the artificial character\nof the _Trimurti_, it has retained to this day at least its theoretical\nvalidity in orthodox Hinduism, whilst it has also undoubtedly exercised\nconsiderable influence in shaping sectarian belief, in promoting\nfeelings of toleration towards the claims of rival deities; and in a\ntendency towards identifying divine figures newly sprung into popular\nfavour with one or other of the principal deities, and thus helping to\nbring into vogue that notion of avatars, or periodical descents or\nincarnations of the deity, which has become so prominent a feature of\nthe later sectarian belief.\n\nUnder more favourable political conditions,[1] the sacerdotal class\nmight perhaps, in course of time, have succeeded in imposing something\nlike an effective common creed on the heterogeneous medley of races and\ntribes scattered over the peninsula, just as they certainly did succeed\nin establishing the social prerogative of their own order over the\nlength and breadth of India. They were, however, fated to fall far short\nof such a consummation; and at all times orthodox Brahmanism has had to\nwink at, or ignore, all manner of gross superstitions and repulsive\npractices, along with the popular worship of countless hosts of\ngodlings, demons, spirits and ghosts, and mystic objects and symbols of\nevery description. Indeed, according to a recent account by a close\nobserver of the religious practices prevalent in southern India, fully\nfour-fifths of the people of the Dravidian race, whilst nominally\nacknowledging the spiritual guidance of the Brahmans, are to this day\npractically given over to the worship of their nondescript local village\ndeities (_grama-devata_), usually attended by animal sacrifices\nfrequently involving the slaughter, under revolting circumstances, of\nthousands of victims. Curiously enough these local deities are nearly\nall of the female, not the male sex. In the estimation of these people\n\"Siva and Vishnu may be more dignified beings, but the village deity is\nregarded as a more present help in trouble, and more intimately\nconcerned with the happiness and prosperity of the villagers. The origin\nof this form of Hinduism is lost in antiquity, but it is probable that\nit represents a pre-Aryan religion, more or less modified in various\nparts of south India by Brahmanical influence. At the same time, many of\nthe deities themselves are of quite recent origin, and it is easy to\nobserve a deity in making even at the present day.\"[2] It is a\nsignificant fact that, whilst in the worship of Siva and Vishnu, at\nwhich no animal sacrifices are offered, the officiating priests are\nalmost invariably Brahmans, this is practically never the case at the\npopular performance of those \"gloomy and weird rites for the\npropitiation of angry deities, or the driving away of evil spirits, when\nthe pujaris (or ministrants) are drawn from all other castes, even from\nthe Pariahs, the out-caste section of Indian society.\"\n\n\n Caste.\n\nAs from the point of view of religious belief, so also from that of\nsocial organization no clear line of demarcation can be drawn between\nBrahmanism and Hinduism. Though it was not till later times that the\nnetwork of class divisions and subdivisions attained anything like the\ndegree of intricacy which it shows in these latter days, still in its\norigin the caste-system is undoubtedly coincident with the rise of\nBrahmanism, and may even be said to be of the very essence of it.[3] The\ncardinal principle which underlies the system of caste is the\npreservation of purity of descent, and purity of religious belief and\nceremonial usage. Now, that same principle had been operative from the\nvery dawn of the history of Aryanized India. The social organism of the\nAryan tribe did not probably differ essentially from that of most\ncommunities at that primitive stage of civilization; whilst the body of\nthe people--the _Vis_ (or aggregate of _Vaisyas_)--would be mainly\noccupied with agricultural and pastoral pursuits, two professional\nclasses--those of the warrior and the priest--had already made good\ntheir claim to social distinction. As yet, however, the tribal community\nwould still feel one in race and traditional usage. But when the\nfair-coloured Aryan immigrants first came in contact with, and drove\nback or subdued the dark-skinned race that occupied the northern\nplains--doubtless the ancestors of the modern Dravidian people--the\npreservation of their racial type and traditionary order of things would\nnaturally become to them a matter of serious concern. In the extreme\nnorth-western districts--the Punjab and Rajputana, judging from the\nfairly uniform physical features of the present population of these\nparts--they seem to have been signally successful in their endeavour to\npreserve their racial purity, probably by being able to clear a\nsufficiently extensive area of the original occupants for themselves\nwith their wives and children to settle upon. The case was, however,\nvery different in the adjoining valley of the Jumna and Ganges, the\nsacred _Madhyadesa_ or Middle-land of classical India. Here the Aryan\nimmigrants were not allowed to establish themselves without undergoing a\nconsiderable admixture of foreign blood. It must remain uncertain\nwhether it was that the thickly-populated character of the land scarcely\nadmitted of complete occupation, but only of a conquest by an army of\nfighting men, starting from the Aryanized region--who might, however,\nsubsequently draw women of their own kin after them--or whether, as has\nbeen suggested, a second Aryan invasion of India took place at that time\nthrough the mountainous tracts of the upper Indus and northern Kashmir,\nwhere the nature of the road would render it impracticable for the\ninvading bands to be accompanied by women and children. Be this as it\nmay, the physical appearance of the population of this central region of\nnorthern India--Hindustan and Behar--clearly points to an intermixture\nof the tall, fair-coloured, fine-nosed Aryan with the short-sized,\ndark-skinned, broad-nosed Dravidian; the latter type becoming more\npronounced towards the lower strata of the social order.[4] Now, it was\nprecisely in this part of India that mainly arose the body of literature\nwhich records the gradual rise of the Brahmanical hierarchy and the\nearly development of the caste-system.\n\nThe problem that now lay before the successful invaders was how to deal\nwith the indigenous people, probably vastly outnumbering them, without\nlosing their own racial identity. They dealt with them in the way the\nwhite race usually deals with the coloured race--they kept them socially\napart. The land being appropriated by the conquerors, husbandry, as the\nmost respectable industrial occupation, became the legitimate calling of\nthe Aryan settler, the _Vaisya_; whilst handicrafts, gradually\nmultiplying with advancing civilization and menial service, were\nassigned to the subject race. The generic name applied to the latter was\n_Sudra_, originally probably the name of one of the subjected tribes. So\nfar the social development proceeded on lines hardly differing from\nthose with which one is familiar in the history of other nations. The\nIndo-Aryans, however, went a step farther. What they did was not only to\nkeep the native race apart from social intercourse with themselves, but\nto shut them out from all participation in their own higher aims, and\nespecially in their own religious convictions and ceremonial practices.\nSo far from attempting to raise their standard of spiritual life, or\neven leaving it to ordinary intercourse to gradually bring about a\ncertain community of intellectual culture and religious sentiment, they\ndeliberately set up artificial barriers in order to prevent their own\ntraditional modes of worship from being contaminated with the obnoxious\npractices of the servile race. The serf, the _Sudra_, was not to worship\nthe gods of the Aryan freemen. The result was the system of four castes\n(_varna_, i.e. \"colour\"; or _jati_, \"gens\"). Though the Brahman, who by\nthis time had firmly secured his supremacy over the _kshatriya_, or\nnoble, in matters spiritual as well as in legislative and administrative\nfunctions, would naturally be the prime mover in this regulation of the\nsocial order, there seems no reason to believe that the other two upper\nclasses were not equally interested in seeing their hereditary\nprivileges thus perpetuated by divine sanction. Nothing, indeed, is more\nremarkable in the whole development of the caste-system than the jealous\npride which every caste, from the highest to the lowest, takes in its\nown peculiar occupation and sphere of life. The distinctive badge of a\nmember of the three upper castes was the sacred triple cord or thread\n(_sutra_)--made of cotton, hemp or wool, according to the respective\ncaste--with which he was invested at the _upanayana_ ceremony, or\ninitiation into the use of the sacred _savitri_, or prayer to the sun\n(also called _gayatri_), constituting his second birth. Whilst the Arya\nwas thus a _dvi-ja_, or twice-born, the Sudra remained unregenerate\nduring his lifetime, his consolation being the hope that, on the\nfaithful performance of his duties in this life, he might hereafter be\nborn again into a higher grade of life. In later times, the strict\nadherence to caste duties would naturally receive considerable support\nfrom the belief in the transmigration of souls, already prevalent before\nBuddha's time, and from the very general acceptance of the doctrine of\n_karma_ (\"deed\"), or retribution, according to which a man's present\nstation and manner of life are the result of the sum-total of his\nactions and thoughts in his former existence; as his actions here will\nagain, by the same automatic process of retribution, determine his\nstatus and condition in his next existence. Though this doctrine is\nespecially insisted upon in Buddhism, and its designation as a specific\nterm (Pali, _Kamma_) may be due to that creed, the notion itself was\ndoubtless already prevalent in pre-Buddhist times. It would even seem to\nbe necessarily and naturally implied in Brahmanical belief in\nmetempsychosis; whilst in the doctrine of Buddha, who admits no soul,\nthe theory of the net result or fruit of a man's actions serving\nhereafter to form or condition the existence of some new individual who\nwill have no conscious identity with himself, seems of a peculiarly\nartificial and mystic character. But, be this as it may, \"the doctrine\nof _karma_ is certainly one of the firmest beliefs of all classes of\nHindus, and the fear that a man shall reap as he has sown is an\nappreciable element in the average morality ... the idea of forgiveness\nis absolutely wanting; evil done may indeed be outweighed by meritorious\ndeeds so far as to ensure a better existence in the future, but it is\nnot effaced, and must be atoned for\" (_Census Report_, i. 364).\n\nIn spite, however, of the artificial restrictions placed on the\nintermarrying of the castes, the mingling of the two races seems to have\nproceeded at a tolerably rapid rate. Indeed, the paucity of women of the\nAryan stock would probably render these mixed unions almost a necessity\nfrom the very outset; and the vaunted purity of blood which the caste\nrules were calculated to perpetuate can scarcely have remained of more\nthan a relative degree even in the case of the Brahman caste. Certain it\nis that mixed castes are found referred to at a comparatively early\nperiod; and at the time of Buddha--some five or six centuries before the\nChristian era--the social organization would seem to have presented an\nappearance not so very unlike that of modern times. It must be\nconfessed, however, that our information regarding the development of\nthe caste-system is far from complete, especially in its earlier stages.\nThus, we are almost entirely left to conjecture on the important point\nas to the original social organization of the subject race. Though\ndoubtless divided into different tribes scattered over an extensive\ntract of land, the subjected aborigines were slumped together under the\ndesignation of Sudras, whose duty it was to serve the upper classes in\nall the various departments of manual labour, save those of a downright\nsordid and degrading character which it was left to _vratyas_ or\noutcasts to perform. How, then, was the distribution of crafts and\nhabitual occupations of all kinds brought about? Was the process one of\nspontaneous growth adapting an already existing social organization to a\nnew order of things; or was it originated and perpetuated by regulation\nfrom above? Or was it rather that the status and duties of existing\noffices and trades came to be determined and made hereditary by some\nsuch artificial system as that by which the Theodosian Code succeeded\nfor a time in organizing the Roman society in the 5th century of our\nera? \"It is well known\" (says Professor Dill) \"that the tendency of the\nlater Empire was to stereotype society, by compelling men to follow the\noccupation of their fathers, and preventing a free circulation among\ndifferent callings and grades of life. The man who brought the grain\nfrom Africa to the public stores at Ostia, the baker who made it into\nloaves for distribution, the butchers who brought pigs from Samnium,\nLucania or Bruttium, the purveyors of wine and oil, the men who fed the\nfurnaces of the public baths, were bound to their callings from one\ngeneration to another. It was the principle of rural serfdom applied to\nsocial functions. Every avenue of escape was closed. A man was bound to\nhis calling not only by his father's but also by his mother's condition.\nMen were not permitted to marry out of their gild. If the daughter of\none of the baker caste married a man not belonging to it, her husband\nwas bound to her father's calling. Not even a dispensation obtained by\nsome means from the imperial chancery, not even the power of the Church\ncould avail to break the chain of servitude.\" It can hardly be gainsaid\nthat these artificial arrangements bear a very striking analogy to those\nof the Indian caste-system; and if these class restrictions were\ncomparatively short-lived on Italian ground, it was not perhaps so much\nthat so strange a plant found there an ethnic soil less congenial to its\npermanent growth, but because it was not allowed sufficient time to\nbecome firmly rooted; for already great political events were impending\nwhich within a few decades were to lay the mighty empire in ruins. In\nIndia, on the other hand, the institution of caste--even if artificially\ncontrived and imposed by the Indo-Aryan priest and ruler--had at least\nample time allowed it to become firmly established in the social habits,\nand even in the affections, of the people. At the same time, one could\nmore easily understand how such a system could have found general\nacceptance all over the Dravidian region of southern India, with its\nmerest sprinkling of Aryan blood, if it were possible to assume that\nclass arrangements of a similar kind must have already been prevalent\namongst the aboriginal tribes prior to the advent of the Aryan. Whether\na more intimate acquaintance with the manners and customs of those rude\ntribes that have hitherto kept themselves comparatively free from Hindu\ninfluences may yet throw some light on this question, remains to be\nseen. But, by this as it may, the institution of caste, when once\nestablished, certainly appears to have gone on steadily developing; and\nnot even the long period of Buddhist ascendancy, with its uncompromising\nresistance to the Brahman's claim to being the sole arbiter in matters\nof faith, seems to have had any very appreciable retardant effect upon\nthe progress of the movement. It was not only by the formation of ever\nnew endogamous castes and sub-castes that the system gained in extent\nand intricacy, but even more so by the constant subdivision of the\ncastes into numerous exogamous groups or septs, themselves often\ninvolving gradations of social status important enough to seriously\naffect the possibility of intermarriage, already hampered by various\nother restrictions. Thus a man wishing to marry his son or daughter had\nto look for a suitable match outside his sept, but within his caste. But\nwhilst for his son he might choose a wife from a lower sept than his\nown, for his daughter, on the other hand, the law of hypergamy compelled\nhim, if at all possible, to find a husband in a higher sept. This would\nnaturally lead to an excess of women over men in the higher septs, and\nwould render it difficult for a man to get his daughter respectably\nmarried without paying a high price for a suitable bridegroom and\nincurring other heavy marriage expenses. It can hardly be doubted that\nthis custom has been largely responsible for the crime of female\ninfanticide, formerly so prevalent in India; as it also probably is to\nsome extent for infant marriages, still too common in some parts of\nIndia, especially Bengal; and even for the all but universal repugnance\nto the re-marriage of widows, even when these had been married in early\nchildhood and had never joined their husbands. Yet violations of these\nrules are jealously watched by the other members of the sept, and are\nliable--in accordance with the general custom in which communal matters\nare regulated in India--to be brought before a special council\n(_panchayat_), originally consisting of five (_pancha_), but now no\nlonger limited to that number, since it is chiefly the greater or less\nstrictness in the observance of caste rules and the orthodox ceremonial\ngenerally that determine the status of the sept in the social scale of\nthe caste. Whilst community of occupation was an important factor in the\noriginal formation of non-tribal castes, the practical exigencies of\nlife have led to considerable laxity in this respect--not least so in\nthe case of Brahmans who have often had to take to callings which would\nseem altogether incompatible with the proper spiritual functions of\ntheir caste. Thus, \"the prejudice against eating cooked food that has\nbeen touched by a man of an inferior caste is so strong that, although\nthe Shastras do not prohibit the eating of food cooked by a Kshatriya or\nVaisya, yet the Brahmans, in most parts of the country, would not eat\nsuch food. For these reasons, every Hindu household--whether Brahman,\nKshatriya or Sudra--that can afford to keep a paid cook generally\nentertains the services of a Brahman for the performance of its\n_cuisine_--the result being that in the larger towns the very name of\nBrahman has suffered a strange degradation of late, so as to mean only a\ncook\" (Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya, _Hindu Castes and Sects_). In this\ncaste, however, as in all others, there are certain kinds of occupation\nto which a member could not turn for a livelihood without incurring\nserious defilement. In fact, adherence to the traditional ceremonial and\nrespectability of occupation go very much hand-in-hand. Thus, amongst\nagricultural castes, those engaged in vegetable-growing or\nmarket-gardening are inferior to the genuine peasant or yeoman, such as\nthe Jat and Rajput; whilst of these the Jat who practises widow-marriage\nranks below the Rajput who prides himself on his tradition of ceremonial\northodoxy--though racially there seems little, if any, difference\nbetween the two; and the Rajput, again, is looked down upon by the\nBabhan of Behar because he does not, like himself, scruple to handle the\nplough, instead of invariably employing low-caste men for this manual\nlabour. So also when members of the Baidya, or physician, caste of\nBengal, ranging next to that of the Brahman, farm land on tenure, \"they\nwill on no account hold the plough, or engage in any form of manual\nlabour, and thus necessarily carry on their cultivation by means of\nhired servants\" (H. H. Risley, _Census Report_).\n\n The scale of social precedence as recognized by native public opinion\n is concisely reviewed (ib.) as revealing itself \"in the facts that\n particular castes are supposed to be modern representatives of one or\n other of the original castes of the theoretical Hindu system; that\n Brahmans will take water from certain castes; that Brahmans of high\n standing will serve particular castes; that certain castes, though not\n served by the best Brahmans, have nevertheless got Brahmans of their\n own whose rank varies according to circumstances; that certain castes\n are not served by Brahmans at all but have priests of their own; that\n the status of certain castes has been raised by their taking to\n infant-marriage or abandoning the re-marriage of widows; that the\n status of others has been modified by their pursuing some occupations\n in a special or peculiar way; that some can claim the services of the\n village barber, the village palanquin-bearer, the village midwife,\n &c., while others cannot; that some castes may not enter the\n courtyards of certain temples; that some castes are subject to special\n taboos, such as that they must not use the village well, or may draw\n water only with their own vessels, that they must live outside the\n village or in a separate quarter, that they must leave the road on the\n approach of a high-caste man and must call out to give warning of\n their approach.\" ... \"The first point to observe is the predominance\n throughout India of the influence of the traditional system of four\n original castes. In every scheme of grouping the Brahman heads the\n list. Then come the castes whom popular opinion accepts as the modern\n representatives of the Kshatriyas; and these are followed by the\n mercantile groups supposed to be akin to the Vaisyas. When we leave\n the higher circles of the twice-born, the difficulty of finding a\n uniform basis of classification becomes apparent. The ancient\n designation Sudra finds no great favour in modern times, and we can\n point to no group that is generally recognized as representing it. The\n term is used in Bombay, Madras and Bengal to denote a considerable\n number of castes of moderate respectability, the higher of whom are\n considered 'clean' Sudras, while the precise status of the lower is a\n question which lends itself to endless controversy.\" ... In northern\n and north-western India, on the other hand, \"the grade next below the\n twice-born rank is occupied by a number of castes from whose hands\n Brahmans and members of the higher castes will take water and certain\n kinds of sweetmeats. Below these again is rather an indeterminate\n group from whom water is taken by some of the higher castes, not by\n others. Further down, where the test of water no longer applies, the\n status of the caste depends on the nature of its occupation and its\n habits in respect of diet. There are castes whose touch defiles the\n twice-born, but who do not commit the crowning enormity of eating\n beef.... In western and southern India the idea that the social state\n of a caste depends on whether Brahmans will take water and sweetmeats\n from its members is unknown, for the higher castes will as a rule take\n water only from persons of their own caste and sub-caste. In Madras\n especially the idea of ceremonial pollution by the proximity of an\n unclean caste has been developed with much elaboration. Thus the table\n of social precedence attached to the Cochin report shows that while a\n Nayar can pollute a man of a higher caste only by touching him, people\n of the Kammalan group, including masons, blacksmiths, carpenters and\n workers in leather, pollute at a distance of 24 ft., toddy-drawers at\n 36 ft., Pulayan or Cheruman cultivators at 48 ft., while in the case\n of the Paraiyan (Pariahs) who eat beef the range of pollution is no\n less than 64 ft.\"\n\nIn this bewildering maze of social grades and class distinctions, the\nBrahman, as will have been seen, continues to hold the dominant\nposition, being respected and even worshipped by all the others. \"The\nmore orthodox Sudras carry their veneration for the priestly class to\nsuch a degree that they will not cross the shadow of a Brahman, and it\nis not unusual for them to be under a vow not to eat any food in the\nmorning, before drinking _Bipracharanamrita_, i.e. water in which the\ntoe of a Brahman has been dipped. On the other hand, the pride of the\nBrahmans is such that they do not bow to even the images of the gods\nworshipped in a Sudra's house by Brahman priests\" (Jog. Nath Bh.). There\nare, however, not a few classes of Brahmans who, for various reasons,\nhave become degraded from their high station, and formed separate castes\nwith whom respectable Brahmans refuse to intermarry and consort. Chief\namongst these are the Brahmans who minister for \"unclean\" Sudras and\nlower castes, including the makers and dealers in spirituous liquors; as\nwell as those who officiate at the great public shrines or places of\npilgrimage where they might be liable to accept forbidden gifts, and, as\na matter of fact, often amass considerable wealth; and those who\nofficiate as paid priests at cremations and funeral rites, when the\nwearing apparel and bedding of the deceased are not unfrequently claimed\nby them as their perquisites.\n\nAs regards the other two \"twice-born\" castes, several modern groups do\nindeed claim to be their direct descendants, and in vindication of their\ntitle make it a point to perform the _upanayana_ ceremony and to wear\nthe sacred thread. But though the Brahmans, too, will often acquiesce in\nthe reasonableness of such claims, it is probably only as a matter of\npolicy that they do so, whilst in reality they regard the other two\nhigher castes as having long since disappeared and been merged by\nmiscegenation in the Sudra mass. Hence, in the later classical Sanskrit\nliterature, the term _dvija_, or twice-born, is used simply as a synonym\nfor a Brahman. As regards the numerous groups included under the term of\nSudras, the distinction between \"clean\" and \"unclean\" Sudras is of\nespecial importance for the upper classes, inasmuch as only the\nformer--of whom nine distinct castes are usually recognized--are as a\nrule considered fit for employment in household service.\n\n\n Theology.\n\nThe picture thus presented by Hindu society--as made up of a confused\ncongeries of social groups of the most varied standing, each held\ntogether and kept separate from others by a traditional body of\nceremonial rules and by the notion of social gradations being due to a\ndivinely instituted order of things--finds something like a counterpart\nin the religious life of the people. As in the social sphere, so also in\nthe sphere of religious belief, we find the whole scale of types\nrepresented from the lowest to the highest; and here as there, we meet\nwith the same failure of welding the confused mass into a well-ordered\nwhole. In their theory of a triple manifestation of an impersonal deity,\nthe Brahmanical theologians, as we have seen, had indeed elaborated a\ndoctrine which might have seemed to form a reasonable, authoritative\ncreed for a community already strongly imbued with pantheistic notions;\nyet, at best, that creed could only appeal to the sympathies of a\ncomparatively limited portion of the people. Indeed, the sacerdotal\nclass themselves had made its universal acceptance an impossibility,\nseeing that their laws, by which the relations of the classes were to be\nregulated, aimed at permanently excluding the entire body of aboriginal\ntribes from the religious life of their Aryan masters. They were to be\nleft for all time coming to their own traditional idolatrous notions and\npractices. However, the two races could not, in the nature of things, be\npermanently kept separate from each other. Indeed, even prior to the\ndefinite establishment of the caste-system, the mingling of the lower\nrace with the upper classes, especially with the aristocratic landowners\nand still more so with the yeomanry, had probably been going on to such\nan extent as to have resulted in two fairly well-defined intermediate\ntypes of colour between the priestly order and the servile race and to\nhave facilitated the ultimate division into four \"colours\" (_varna_). In\ncourse of time the process of intermingling, as we have seen, assumed\nsuch proportions that the priestly class, in their pride of blood, felt\nnaturally tempted to recognize, as of old, only two \"colours,\" the Aryan\nBrahman and the non-Aryan Sudra. Under these conditions the religious\npractices of the lower race could hardly have failed in the long run to\ntell seriously upon the spiritual life of the lay body of the\nBrahmanical community. To what extent this may have been the case, our\nlimited knowledge of the early phases of the sectarian worship of the\npeople does not enable us to determine. But, on the other hand, the same\nprocess of racial intermixture also tended to gradually draw the lower\nrace more or less under the influence of the Brahmanical forms of\nworship, and thus contributed towards the shaping of the religious\nsystem of modern Hinduism. The grossly idolatrous practices, however,\nstill so largely prevalent in the Dravidian South, show how superficial,\nafter all, that influence has been in those parts of India where the\nadmixture of Aryan blood has been so slight as to have practically had\nno effect on the racial characteristics of the people. These present-day\npractices, and the attitude of the Brahman towards them, help at all\nevents to explain the aversion with which the strange rites of the\nsubjected tribes were looked upon by the worshippers of the Vedic\npantheon. At the same time, in judging the apparently inhuman way in\nwhich the Sudras were treated in the caste rules, one has always to bear\nin mind the fact that the belief in metempsychosis was already universal\nat the time, and seemed to afford the only rational explanation of the\napparent injustice involved in the unequal distribution of the good\nthings in this world; and that, if the Sudra was strictly excluded from\nthe religious rites and beliefs of the superior classes, this exclusion\nin no way involved the question of his ultimate emancipation and his\nunion with the Infinite Spirit, which were as certain in his case as in\nthat of any other sentient being. What it did make impossible for him\nwas to attain that union immediately on the cessation of his present\nlife, as he would first have to pass through higher and purer stages of\nmundane existence before reaching that goal; but in this respect he only\nshared the lot of all but a very few of the saintliest in the higher\nspheres of life, since the ordinary twice-born would be liable to sink,\nafter his present life, to grades yet lower than that of the Sudra.\n\nTo what extent the changes, which the religious belief of the Aryan\nclasses underwent in post-Vedic times, may have been due to aboriginal\ninfluences is a question not easily answered, though the later creeds\noffer only too many features in which one might feel inclined to suspect\ninfluences of that kind. The literary documents, both in Sanskrit and\nPali, dating from about the time of Buddha onwards--particularly the two\nepic poems, the _Mahabharata_ and _Ramayana_--still show us in the main\nthe _personnel_ of the old pantheon; but the character of the gods has\nchanged; they have become anthropomorphized and almost purely\nmythological figures. A number of the chief gods, sometimes four, but\ngenerally eight of them, now appear as _lokapalas_ or world-guardians,\nhaving definite quarters or intermediate quarters of the compass\nassigned to them as their special domains. One of them, Kubera, the god\nof wealth, is a new figure; whilst another, Varuna, the most spiritual\nand ethical of Vedic deities--the king of the gods and the universe; the\nnightly, star-spangled firmament--has become the Indian Neptune, the god\nof waters. Indra, their chief, is virtually a kind of superior raja,\nresiding in _svarga_, and as such is on visiting terms with earthly\nkings, driving about in mid-air with his charioteer Matali. As might\nhappen to any earth-lord, Indra is actually defeated in battle by the\nson of the demon-king of Lanka (Ceylon), and kept there a prisoner till\nransomed by Brahma and the gods conferring immortality on his conqueror.\nA quaint figure in the pantheon of the heroic age is Hanuman, the\ndeified chief of monkeys--probably meant to represent the aboriginal\ntribes of southern India--whose wonderful exploits as Rama's ally on the\nexpedition to Lanka Indian audiences will never weary of hearing\nrecounted. The Gandharvas figure already in the Veda, either as a single\ndivinity, or as a class of genii, conceived of as the body-guard of Soma\nand as connected with the moon. In the later Vedic times they are\nrepresented as being fond of, and dangerous to, women; the Apsaras,\napparently originally water-nymphs, being closely associated with them.\nIn the heroic age the Gandharvas have become the heavenly minstrels\nplying their art at Indra's court, with the Apsaras as their wives or\nmistresses. These fair damsels play, however, yet another part, and one\nfar from complimentary to the dignity of the gods. In the epics\nconsiderable merit is attached to a life of seclusion and ascetic\npractices by means of which man is considered capable of acquiring\nsupernatural powers equal or even superior to those of the gods--a\nnotion perhaps not unnaturally springing from the pantheistic\nconception. Now, in cases of danger being threatened to their own\nascendancy by such practices, the gods as a rule proceed to employ the\nusually successful expedient of despatching some lovely nymph to lure\nthe saintly men back to worldly pleasures. Seeing that the epic poems,\nas repeated by professional reciters, either in their original Sanskrit\ntext, or in their vernacular versions, as well as dramatic compositions\nbased on them, form to this day the chief source of intellectual\nenjoyment for most Hindus, the legendary matter contained in these\nheroic poems, however marvellous and incredible it may appear, still\nenters largely into the religious convictions of the people. \"These\npopular recitals from the Ramayan are done into Gujarati in easy,\nflowing narrative verse ... by Premanand, the sweetest of our bards.\nThey are read out by an intelligent Brahman to a mixed audience of all\nclasses and both sexes. It has a perceptible influence on the Hindu\ncharacter. I believe the remarkable freedom from infidelity which is to\nbe seen in most Hindu families, in spite of their strange gregarious\nhabits, can be traced to that influence; and little wonder\" (B. M.\nMalabari, _Gujarat and the Gujaratis_). Hence also the universal\nreverence paid to serpents (_naga_) since those early days; though\nwhether it simply arose from the superstitious dread inspired by the\ninsidious reptile so fatal to man in India, or whether the verbal\ncoincidence with the name of the once-powerful non-Aryan tribe of Nagas\nhad something to do with it must remain doubtful. Indian myth represents\nthem as a race of demons sprung from Kadru, the wife of the sage\nKasyapa, with a jewel in their heads which gives them their sparkling\nlook; and inhabiting one of the seven beautiful worlds below the earth\n(and above the hells), where they are ruled over by three chiefs or\nkings, Sesha, Vasuki and Takshaka; their fair daughters often entering\ninto matrimonial alliances with men, like the mermaids of western\nlegend.\n\nIn addition to such essentially mythological conceptions, we meet in the\nreligious life of this period with an element of more serious aspect in\nthe two gods, on one or other of whom the religious fervour of the large\nmajority of Hindus has ever since concentrated itself, viz. Vishnu and\nSiva. Both these divine figures have grown out of Vedic conceptions--the\ngenial Vishnu mainly out of a not very prominent solar deity of the same\nname; whilst the stern Siva, i.e. the kind or gracious one--doubtless a\neuphemistic name--has his prototype in the old fierce storm-god Rudra,\nthe \"Roarer,\" with certain additional features derived from other\ndeities, especially Pushan, the guardian of flocks and bestower of\nprosperity, worked up therewith. The exact process of the evolution of\nthe two deities and their advance in popular favour are still somewhat\nobscure. In the epic poems which may be assumed to have taken their\nfinal shape in the early centuries before and after the Christian era,\ntheir popular character, so strikingly illustrated by their inclusion in\nthe Brahmanical triad, appears in full force; whilst their cult is\nlikewise attested by the coins and inscriptions of the early centuries\nof our era. The co-ordination of the two gods in the Trimurti does not\nby any means exclude a certain rivalry between them; but, on the\ncontrary, a supreme position as the true embodiment of the Divine Spirit\nis claimed for each of them by their respective votaries, without,\nhowever, an honourable, if subordinate, place being refused to the rival\ndeity, wherever the latter, as is not infrequently the case, is not\nactually represented as merely another form of the favoured god. Whilst\nat times a truly monotheistic fervour manifests itself in the adoration\nof these two gods, the polytheistic instincts of the people did not fail\nto extend the pantheon by groups of new deities in connexion with them.\nTwo of such new gods actually pass as the sons of Siva and his consort\nParvati, viz. Skanda--also called Kumara (the youth), Karttikeya, or\nSubrahmanya (in the south)--the six-headed war-lord of the gods; and\nGanese, the lord (or leader) of Siva's troupes of attendants, being at\nthe same time the elephant-headed, paunch-bellied god of wisdom; whilst\na third, Kama (Kamadeva) or Kandarpa, the god of love, gets his popular\nepithet of Ananga, \"the bodiless,\" from his having once, in frolicsome\nplay, tried the power of his arrows upon Siva, whilst engaged in austere\npractices, when a single glance from the third (forehead) eye of the\nangry god reduced the mischievous urchin to ashes. For his chief\nattendant, the great god (Mahadeva, Mahesvara) has already with him the\n\"holy\" Nandi--presumably, though his shape is not specified, identical\nin form as in name with Siva's sacred bull of later times, the\nappropriate symbol of the god's reproductive power. But, in this\nrespect, we also meet in the epics with the first clear evidence of what\nin after time became the prominent feature of the worship of Siva and\nhis consort all over India, viz. the feature represented by the _linga_,\nor phallic symbol.\n\nAs regards Vishnu, the epic poems, including the supplement to the\nMahabharata, the Harivamsa, supply practically the entire framework of\nlegendary matter on which the later Vaishnava creeds are based. The\ntheory of Avataras which makes the deity--also variously called\nNarayana, Purushottama, or Vasudeva--periodically assume some material\nform in order to rescue the world from some great calamity, is fully\ndeveloped; the ten universally recognized \"descents\" being enumerated in\nthe larger poem. Though Siva, too, assumes various forms, the\nincarnation theory is peculiarly characteristic of Vaishnavism; and the\nfact that the principal hero of the Ramayana (Rama), and one of the\nprominent warriors of the Mahabharata (Krishna) become in this way\nidentified with the supreme god, and remain to this day the chief\nobjects of the adoration of Vaishnava sectaries, naturally imparts to\nthese creeds a human interest and sympathetic aspect which is wholly\nwanting in the worship of Siva. It is, however, unfortunately but too\ntrue that in some of these creeds the devotional ardour has developed\nfeatures of a highly objectionable character.\n\n Even granting the reasonableness of the triple manifestation of the\n Divine Spirit, how is one to reconcile all these idolatrous practices,\n this worship of countless gods and godlings, demons and spirits\n indwelling in every imaginable object round about us, with the\n pantheistic doctrine of the _Ekam Advitiyam_, \"the One without a\n Second\"? The Indian theosophist would doubtless have little difficulty\n in answering that question. For him there is only the One Absolute\n Being, the one reality that is all in all; whilst all the phenomenal\n existences and occurrences that crowd upon our senses are nothing more\n than an illusion of the individual soul estranged for a time from its\n divine source--an illusion only to be dispelled in the end by the\n soul's fuller knowledge of its own true nature and its being one with\n the eternal fountain of blissful being. But to the man of ordinary\n understanding, unused to the rarefied atmosphere of abstract thought,\n this conception of a transcendental, impersonal Spirit and the\n unreality of the phenomenal world can have no meaning: what he\n requires is a deity that stands in intimate relation to things\n material and to all that affects man's life. Hence the exoteric theory\n of manifestations of the Supreme Spirit; and that not only the\n manifestations implied in the triad of gods representing the cardinal\n processes of mundane existence--creation, preservation, and\n destruction or regeneration--but even such as would tend to supply a\n rational explanation for superstitious imaginings of every kind. For\n \"the Indian philosophy does not ignore or hold aloof from the religion\n of the masses: it underlies, supports and interprets their polytheism.\n This may be accounted the keystone of the fabric of Brahmanism, which\n accepts and even encourages the rudest forms of idolatry, explaining\n everything by giving it a higher meaning. It treats all the worships\n as outward, visible signs of some spiritual truth, and is ready to\n show how each particular image or rite is the symbol of some aspect of\n universal divinity. The Hindus, like the pagans of antiquity, adore\n natural objects and forces--a mountain, a river or an animal. The\n Brahman holds all nature to be the vesture or cloak of indwelling,\n divine energy, which inspires everything that produces awe or passes\n man's understanding\" (Sir Alfred C. Lyall, _Brahminism_).\n\n\n Sectarianism.\n\nDuring the early centuries of our era, whilst Buddhism, where\ncountenanced by the political rulers, was still holding its own by the\nside of Brahmanism, sectarian belief in the Hindu gods seems to have\nmade steady progress. The caste-system, always calculated to favour\nunity of religious practice within its social groups, must naturally\nhave contributed to the advance of sectarianism. Even greater was the\nsupport it received later on from the Puranas, a class of poetical works\nof a partly legendary, partly discursive and controversial character,\nmainly composed in the interest of special deities, of which eighteen\nprincipal (_maha-purana_) and as many secondary ones (_upa-purana_) are\nrecognized, the oldest of which may go back to about the 4th century of\nour era. It was probably also during this period that the female element\nwas first definitely admitted to a prominent place amongst the divine\nobjects of sectarian worship, in the shape of the wives of the principal\ngods viewed as their _sakti_, or female energy, theoretically identified\nwith the _Maya_, or cosmic Illusion, of the idealistic Vedanta, and the\n_Prakriti_, or plastic matter, of the materialistic Sankhya philosophy,\nas the primary source of mundane things. The connubial relations of the\ndeities may thus be considered \"to typify the mystical union of the two\neternal principles, spirit and matter, for the production and\nreproduction of the universe.\" But whilst this privilege of divine\nworship was claimed for the consorts of all the gods, it is principally\nto Siva's consort, in one or other of her numerous forms, that adoration\non an extensive scale came to be offered by a special sect of votaries,\nthe _Saktas_.\n\n\n Sankara.\n\nIn the midst of these conflicting tendencies, an attempt was made, about\nthe latter part of the 8th century, by the distinguished Malabar\ntheologian and philosopher Sankara Acharya to restore the Brahmanical\ncreed to something like its pristine purity, and thus once more to bring\nabout a uniform system of orthodox Hindu belief. Though himself, like\nmost Brahmans, apparently by predilection a follower of Siva, his aim\nwas the revival of the doctrine of the Brahma as the one self-existent\nBeing and the sole cause of the universe; coupled with the recognition\nof the practical worship of the orthodox pantheon, especially the gods\nof the Trimurti, as manifestations of the supreme deity. The practical\nresult of his labours was the foundation of a new sect, the _Smartas_,\ni.e. adherents of the _smriti_ or tradition, which has a numerous\nfollowing amongst southern Brahmans, and, whilst professing Sankara's\ndoctrines, is usually classed as one of the Saiva sects, its members\nadopting the horizontal sectarial mark peculiar to Saivas, consisting in\ntheir case of a triple line, the _tripundra_, prepared from the ashes of\nburnt cow-dung and painted on the forehead. Sankara also founded four\nMaths, or convents, for Brahmans; the chief one being that of Sringeri\nin Mysore, the spiritual head (_Guru_) of which wields considerable\npower, even that of excommunication, over the Saivas of southern India.\nIn northern India, the professed followers of Sankara are mainly limited\nto certain classes of mendicants and ascetics, although the tenets of\nthis great Vedanta teacher may be said virtually to constitute the creed\nof intelligent Brahmans generally.\n\n Whilst Sankara's chief title to fame rests on his philosophical works,\n as the upholder of the strict monistic theory of Vedanta, he doubtless\n played an important part in the partial remodelling of the Hindu\n system of belief at a time when Buddhism was rapidly losing ground in\n India. Not that there is any evidence of Buddhists ever having been\n actually persecuted by the Brahmans, or still less of Sankara himself\n ever having done so; but the traditional belief in some personal god,\n as the principal representative of an invisible, all-pervading deity,\n would doubtless appeal more directly to the minds and hearts of the\n people than the colourless ethical system promulgated by the Sakya\n saint. Nor do Buddhist places of worship appear as a rule to have been\n destroyed by Hindu sectaries, but they seem rather to have been taken\n over by them for their own religious uses; at any rate there are to\n this day not a few Hindu shrines, especially in Bengal, dedicated to\n Dharmaraj, \"the prince of righteousness,\" as the Buddha is commonly\n styled. That the tenets and practices of so characteristic a faith as\n Buddhism, so long prevalent in India, cannot but have left their marks\n on Hindu life and belief may readily be assumed, though it is not so\n easy to lay one's finger on the precise features that might seem to\n betray such an influence. If the general tenderness towards animals,\n based on the principle of _ahimsa_, or inflicting no injury on\n sentient beings, be due to Buddhist teaching, that influence must have\n made itself felt at a comparatively early period, seeing that\n sentiments of a similar nature are repeatedly urged in the Code of\n Manu. Thus, in v. 46-48, \"He who does not willingly cause the pain of\n confinement and death to living beings, but desires the good of all,\n obtains endless bliss. He who injures no creature obtains without\n effort what he thinks of, what he strives for, and what he fixes his\n mind on. Flesh-meat cannot be procured without injury to animals, and\n the slaughter of animals is not conducive to heavenly bliss: from\n flesh-meat, therefore, let man abstain.\" Moreover, in view of the fact\n that Jainism, which originated about the same time as Buddhism,\n inculcates the same principle, even to an extravagant degree, it seems\n by no means improbable that the spirit of kindliness towards living\n beings generally was already widely diffused among the people when\n these new doctrines were promulgated. To the same tendency doubtless\n is due the gradual decline and ultimate discontinuance of animal\n sacrifices by all sects except the extreme branch of\n Sakti-worshippers. In this respect, the veneration shown to serpents\n and monkeys has, however, to be viewed in a somewhat different light,\n as having a mythical background; whilst quite a special significance\n attaches to the sacred character assigned to the cow by all classes of\n Hindus, even those who are not prepared to admit the claim of the\n Brahman to the exalted position of the earthly god usually conceded to\n him. In the Veda no tendency shows itself as yet towards rendering\n divine honour to the cow; and though the importance assigned her in an\n agricultural community is easily understood, still the exact process\n of her deification and her identification with the mother earth in the\n time of Manu and the epics requires further elucidation. An idealized\n type of the useful quadruped--likewise often identified with the\n earth--presents itself in the mythical Cow of Plenty, or \"wish-cow\"\n (Kamadhenu, or Kamadugha, i.e. wish-milker), already appearing in the\n Atharvaveda, and in epic times assigned to Indra, or identified with\n Surabhi, \"the fragrant,\" the sacred cow of the sage Vasishtha.\n Possibly the growth of the legend of Krishna--his being reared at\n Gokula (cow-station); his tender relations to the _gopis_, or\n cow-herdesses, of Vrindavana; his epithets _Gopala_, \"the cowherd,\"\n and _Govinda_, \"cow-finder,\" actually explained as \"recoverer of the\n earth\" in the great epic, and the _go-loka_, or \"cow-world,\" assigned\n to him as his heavenly abode--may have some connexion with the sacred\n character ascribed to the cow from early times.\n\n\n Worship.\n\nSince the time of Sankara, or for more than a thousand years, the gods\nVishnu and Siva, or _Hari_ and _Hara_ as they are also commonly\ncalled--with their wives, especially that of the latter god--have shared\nbetween them the practical worship of the vast majority of Hindus. But,\nthough the people have thus been divided between two different religious\ncamps, sectarian animosity has upon the whole kept within reasonable\nlimits. In fact, the respectable Hindu, whilst owning special allegiance\nto one of the two gods as his _ishta devata_ (favourite deity), will not\nwithhold his tribute of adoration from the other gods of the pantheon.\nThe high-caste Brahman will probably keep at his home a salagram stone,\nthe favourite symbol of Vishnu, as well as the characteristic emblems of\nSiva and his consort, to both of which he will do reverence in the\nmorning; and when he visits some holy place of pilgrimage, he will not\nfail to pay his homage at both the Saiva and the Vaishnava shrines\nthere. Indeed, \"sectarian bigotry and exclusiveness are to be found\nchiefly among the professional leaders of the modern brotherhoods and\ntheir low-caste followers, who are taught to believe that theirs are the\nonly true gods, and that the rest do not deserve any reverence whatever\"\n(Jog. Nath). The same spirit of toleration shows itself in the\ncelebration of the numerous religious festivals. Whilst some of\nthese--e.g. the _Sankranti_ (called _Pongal_, i.e. \"boiled rice,\" in the\nsouth), which marks the entrance of the sun into the sign of Capricorn\nand the beginning of its northward course (_uttarayana_) on the 1st day\nof the month Magha (c. Jan. 12); the _Ganesa-caturthi_, or 4th day of\nthe light fortnight of Bhadra (August-September), considered the\nbirthday of Ganesa, the god of wisdom; and the _Holi_, the Indian\nSaturnalia in the month of Phalguna (February to March)--have nothing of\na sectarian tendency about them; others again, which are of a distinctly\nsectarian character--such as the _Krishna-janmashtami_, the birthday of\nKrishna on the 8th day of the dark half of Bhadra, or (in the south) of\nSravana (July-August), the _Durga-puja_ and the _Dipavali_, or lamp\nfeast, celebrating Krishna's victory over the demon Narakasura, on the\nlast two days of Asvina (September-October)--are likewise observed and\nheartily joined in by the whole community irrespective of sect. Widely\ndifferent, however, as is the character of the two leading gods are also\nthe modes of worship practised by their votaries.\n\n_Siva_ has at all times been the favourite god of the Brahmans,[5] and\nhis worship is accordingly more widely extended than that of his rival,\nespecially in southern India. Indeed there is hardly a village in India\nwhich cannot boast of a shrine dedicated to Siva, and containing the\nemblem of his reproductive power; for almost the only form in which the\n\"Great God\" is adored is the _Linga_, consisting usually of an upright\ncylindrical block of marble or other stone, mostly resting on a circular\nperforated slab. The mystic nature of these emblems seems, however, to\nbe but little understood by the common people; and, as H. H. Wilson\nremarks, \"notwithstanding the acknowledged purport of this worship, it\nis but justice to state that it is unattended in Upper India by any\nindecent or indelicate ceremonies, and it requires a rather lively\nimagination to trace any resemblance in its symbols to the objects they\nare supposed to represent.\" In spite, however, of its wide diffusion,\nand the vast number of shrines dedicated to it, the worship of Siva has\nnever assumed a really popular character, especially in northern India,\nbeing attended with scarcely any solemnity or display of emotional\nspirit. The temple, which usually stands in the middle of a court, is as\na rule a building of very moderate dimensions, consisting either of a\nsingle square chamber, surmounted by a pyramidal structure, or of a\nchamber for the linga and a small vestibule. The worshipper, having\nfirst circumambulated the shrine as often as he pleases, keeping it at\nhis right-hand side, steps up to the threshold of the sanctum, and\npresents his offering of flowers or fruit, which the officiating priest\nreceives; he then prostrates himself, or merely lifts his hands--joined\nso as to leave a hollow space between the palms--to his forehead,\nmuttering a short prayer, and takes his departure. Amongst the many\nthousands of Lingas, twelve are usually regarded as of especial\nsanctity, one of which, that of Somnath in Gujarat, where Siva is\nworshipped as \"the lord of Soma,\" was, however, shattered by Mahmud of\nGhazni; whilst another, representing Siva as _Visvesvara_, or \"Lord of\nthe Universe,\" is the chief object of adoration at Benares, the great\ncentre of Siva-worship. The Saivas of southern India, on the other hand,\nsingle out as peculiarly sacred five of their temples which are supposed\nto enshrine as many characteristic aspects (linga) of the god in the\nform of the five elements, the most holy of these being the shrine of\nChidambaram (i.e. \"thought-ether\") in S. Arcot, supposed to contain the\nether-linga. According to Pandit S. M. Natesa (_Hindu Feasts, Fasts and\nCeremonies_), \"the several forms of the god Siva in these sacred shrines\nare considered to be the bodies or casements of the soul whose natural\nbases are the five elements--earth, water, fire, air and ether. The\napprehension of God in the last of these five as ether is, according to\nthe Saiva school of philosophy, the highest form of worship, for it is\nnot the worship of God in a tangible form, but the worship of what, to\nordinary minds, is vacuum, which nevertheless leads to the attainment of\na knowledge of the all-pervading without physical accessories in the\nshape of any linga, which is, after all, an emblem. That this is the\ncase at Chidambaram is known to every Hindu, for if he ever asks the\npriests to show him the God in the temple he is pointed to an empty\nspace in the holy of holies, which has been termed the Akasa, or\nether-linga.\" But, however congenial this refined symbolism may be to\nthe worshipper of a speculative turn of mind, it is difficult to see how\nit could ever satisfy the religious wants of the common man little given\nto abstract conceptions of this kind.\n\n\n Mendicant orders.\n\nFrom early times, detachment from the world and the practice of\nausterities have been regarded in India as peculiarly conducive to a\nspirit of godliness, and ultimately to a state of ecstatic communion\nwith the deity. On these grounds it was actually laid down as a rule for\na man solicitous for his spiritual welfare to pass the last two of the\nfour stages (_asrama_) of his life in such conditions of renunciation\nand self-restraint. Though there is hardly a sect which has not\ncontributed its share to the element of religious mendicancy and\nasceticism so prevalent in India, it is in connexion with the Siva-cult\nthat these tendencies have been most extensively cultivated. Indeed, the\npersonality of the stern God himself exhibits this feature in a very\nmarked degree, whence the term _mahayogi_ or \"great ascetic\" is often\napplied to him.\n\n Of Saiva mendicant and ascetic orders, the members of which are\n considered more or less followers of Sankara Acharya, the following\n may be mentioned: (1) _Dandis_, or staff-bearers, who carry a wand\n with a piece of red cloth, containing the sacred cord, attached to it,\n and also wear one or more pieces of cloth of the same colour. They\n worship Siva in his form of Bhairava, the \"terrible.\" A sub-section of\n this order are the Dandi Dasnamis, or Dandi of ten names, so called\n from their assuming one of the names of Sankara's four disciples, and\n six of their pupils. (2) _Yogis_ (or popularly, Jogis), i.e. adherents\n of the Yoga philosophy and the system of ascetic practices enjoined by\n it with the view of mental abstraction and the supposed attainment of\n superhuman powers--practices which, when not merely pretended, but\n rigidly carried out, are only too apt to produce vacuity of mind and\n wild fits of frenzy. In these degenerate days their supernatural\n powers consist chiefly in conjuring, sooth-saying, and feats of\n jugglery, by which they seldom fail in imposing upon a credulous\n public. (3) _Sannyasis_, devotees who \"renounce\" earthly concerns, an\n order not confined either to the Brahmanical caste or to the Saiva\n persuasion. Those of the latter are in the habit of smearing their\n bodies with ashes, and wearing a tiger-skin and a necklace or rosary\n of _rudraksha_ berries (Elaeocarpus Ganitrus, lit. \"Rudra's eye\"),\n sacred to Siva, and allowing their hair to grow till it becomes matted\n and filthy. (4) _Parama-hamsas_, i.e. \"supreme geese (or swans),\" a\n term applied to the world-soul with which they claim to be identical.\n This is the highest order of asceticism, members of which are supposed\n to be solely engaged in meditating on the Brahma, and to be \"equally\n indifferent to pleasure or pain, insensible of heat or cold, and\n incapable of satiety or want.\" Some of them go about naked, but the\n majority are clad like the Dandis. (5) _Aghora Panthis_, a vile and\n disreputable class of mendicants, now rarely met with. Their filthy\n habits and disgusting practices of gross promiscuous feeding, even to\n the extent of eating offal and dead men's flesh, look almost like a\n direct repudiation of the strict Brahmanical code of ceremonial purity\n and cleanliness, and of the rules regulating the matter and manner of\n eating and drinking; and they certainly make them objects of loathing\n and terror wherever they are seen.\n\n On the general effect of the manner of life led by _Sadhus_ or \"holy\n men,\" a recent observer (J. C. Oman, _Mystics, Ascetics and Saints of\n India_, p. 273) remarks: \"_Sadhuism_, whether perpetuating the\n peculiar idea of the efficiency of austerities for the acquisition of\n far-reaching powers over natural phenomena, or bearing its testimony\n to the belief in the indispensableness of detachment from the world as\n a preparation for the ineffable joy of ecstatic communion with the\n Divine Being, has undoubtedly tended to keep before men's eyes, as the\n highest ideal, a life of purity, self-restraint, and contempt of the\n world and human affairs. It has also necessarily maintained amongst\n the laity a sense of the righteous claims of the poor upon the charity\n of the more affluent members of the community. Moreover, _sadhuism_,\n by the multiplicity of the independent sects which have arisen in\n India, has engendered and favoured a spirit of tolerance which cannot\n escape the notice of the most superficial observer.\"\n\n\n Lingayats.\n\nAn independent Saiva sect, or, indeed, the only strictly Saiva sect, are\nthe _Vira Saivas_, more commonly called _Lingayats_ (popularly Lingaits)\nor _Lingavats_, from their practice of wearing on their person a phallic\nemblem of Siva, made of copper or silver, and usually enclosed in a case\nsuspended from the neck by a string. Apparently from the movable nature\nof their badge, their _Gurus_ are called _Jangamas_ (\"movable\"). This\nsect counts numerous adherents in southern India; the Census Report of\n1901 recording nearly a million and a half, including some 70 or 80\ndifferent, mostly endogamous, castes. The reputed founder, or rather\nreformer, of the sect was Basava (or Basaba), a Brahman of the Belgaum\ndistrict who seems to have lived in the 11th or 12th century. According\nto the Basava-purana he early in life renounced his caste and went to\nreside at Kalyana, then the capital of the Chalukya kingdom, and later\non at Sangamesvara near Ratnagiri, where he was initiated into the Vira\nSaiva faith which he subsequently made it his life's work to propagate.\nHis doctrine, which may be said to constitute a kind of reaction against\nthe severe sacerdotalism of Sankara, has spread over all classes of the\nsouthern community, most of the priests of Saiva temples there being\nadherents of it; whilst in northern India its votaries are only\noccasionally met with, and then mostly as mendicants, leading about a\nneatly caparisoned bull as representing Siva's sacred bull _Nandi_.\nThough the Lingayats still show a certain animosity towards the\nBrahmans, and in the Census lists are accordingly classed as an\nindependent group beside the Hindus, still they can hardly be excluded\nfrom the Hindu community, and are sure sooner or later to find their way\nback to the Brahmanical fold.\n\n\n Avatars.\n\nVishnu, whilst less popular with Brahmans than his rival, has from early\ntimes proved to the lay mind a more attractive object of adoration on\naccount of the genial and, so to speak, romantic character of his\nmythical personality. It is not, however, so much the original figure of\nthe god himself that enlists the sympathies of his adherents as the\nadditional elements it has received through the theory of periodical\n\"descents\" (_avatara_) or incarnations applied to this deity. Whilst the\nSaiva philosophers do not approve of the notion of incarnations, as\nbeing derogatory to the dignity of the deity, the Brahmans have\nnevertheless thought fit to adopt it as apparently a convenient\nexpedient for bringing certain tendencies of popular worship within the\npale of their system, and probably also for counteracting the Buddhist\ndoctrines; and for this purpose Vishnu would obviously offer himself as\nthe most attractive figure in the Brahmanical trinity. Whether the\nincarnation theory started from the original solar nature of the god\nsuggestive of regular visits to the world of men, or in what other way\nit may have originated, must remain doubtful. Certain, however, it is\nthat at least one of his Avatars is clearly based on the Vedic\nconception of the sun-god, viz. that of the dwarf who claims as much\nground as he can cover by three steps, and then gains the whole universe\nby his three mighty strides. Of the ten or more Avatars, assumed by\ndifferent authorities, only two have entered to any considerable extent\ninto the religious worship of the people, viz. those of _Rama_ (or\nRamachandra) and _Krishna_, the favourite heroes of epic romance. That\nthese two figures would appeal far more strongly to the hearts and\nfeelings of the people, especially the warlike Kshatriyas,[6] than the\naustere Siva is only what might have been expected; and, indeed, since\nthe time of the epics their cult seems never to have lacked numerous\nadherents. But, on the other hand, the essentially human nature of these\ntwo gods would naturally tend to modify the character of the relations\nbetween worshipper and worshipped, and to impart to the modes and forms\nof adoration features of a more popular and more human kind. And\naccordingly it is exactly in connexion with these two incarnations of\nVishnu, especially that of Krishna, that a new spirit was infused into\nthe religious life of the people by the sentiment of fervent devotion to\nthe deity, as it found expression in certain portions of the epic poems,\nespecially the _Bhagavadgita_, and in the _Bhagavata-purana_ (as against\nthe more orthodox Vaishnava works of this class such as the\nVishnu-purana), and was formulated into a regular doctrine of faith in\nthe _Sandilya-sutra_, and ultimately translated into practice by the\nVaishnava reformers.\n\n\n Ramanujas.\n\nThe first successful Vaishnava reaction against Sankara's reconstructed\ncreed was led by Ramanuja, a southern Brahman of the 12th century. His\nfollowers, the Ramanujas, or Sri-Vaishnavas as they are usually called,\nworship Vishnu (Narayana) with his consort Sri or Lakshmi (the goddess\nof beauty and fortune), or their incarnations Rama with Sita and Krishna\nwith Rukmini. Ramanuja's doctrine, which is especially directed against\nthe Linga-worship, is essentially based on the tenets of an old\nVaishnava sect, the Bhagavatas or Pancharatras, who worshipped the\nSupreme Being under the name of Vasudeva (subsequently identified with\nKrishna, as the son of Vasudeva, who indeed is credited by some scholars\nwith the foundation of that monotheistic creed). The sectarial mark of\nthe Ramanujas resembles a capital U (or, in the case of another\ndivision, a Y), painted with a white clay called gopi-chandana, between\nthe hair and the root of the nose, with a red or yellow vertical stroke\n(representing the female element) between the two white lines. They also\nusually wear, like all Vaishnavas, a necklace of _tulasi_, or basil\nwood, and a rosary of seeds of the same shrub or of the lotus. Their\nmost important shrines are those of Srirangam near Trichinopoly,\nMailkote in Mysore, Dvaraka (the city of Krishna) on the Kathiawar\ncoast, and Jagannath in Orissa; all of them decorated with Vishnu's\nemblems, the tulasi plant and salagram stone. The Ramanuja Brahmans are\nmost punctilious in the preparation of their food and in regard to the\nprivacy of their meals, before taking which they have to bathe and put\non woollen or silk garments. Whilst Sankara's mendicant followers were\nprohibited to touch fire and had to subsist entirely on the charity of\nBrahman householders, Ramanuja, on the contrary, not only allowed his\nfollowers to use fire, but strictly forbade their eating any food\ncooked, or even seen, by a stranger. On the speculative side, Ramanuja\nalso met Sankara's strictly monistic theory by another recognizing\nVishnu as identical with Brahma as the Supreme Spirit animating the\nmaterial world as well as the individual souls which have become\nestranged from God through unbelief, and can only attain again conscious\nunion with him through devotion or love (_bhakti_). His tenets are\nexpounded in various works, especially in his commentaries on the\nVedanta-sutras and the Bhagavadgita. The followers of Ramanuja have\nsplit into two sects, a northern one, recognizing the Vedas as their\nchief authority, and a southern one, basing their tenets on the Nalayir,\na Tamil work of the Upanishad order. In point of doctrine, they differ\nin their view of the relation between God Vishnu and the human soul;\nwhilst the former sect define it by the _ape_ theory, which makes the\nsoul cling to God as the young ape does to its mother, the latter\nexplain it by the cat theory, by which Vishnu himself seizes and rescues\nthe souls as the mother cat does her young ones.\n\n\n Madhvas.\n\n_Madhva Acharya_, another distinguished Vedanta teacher and founder of a\nVaishnava sect, born in Kanara in A.D. 1199, was less intolerant of the\nLinga cult than Ramanuja, but seems rather to have aimed at a\nreconciliation of the Saiva and Vaishnava forms of worship. The\n_Madhvas_ or _Madhvacharis_ favour Krishna and his consort as their\nspecial objects of adoration, whilst images of Siva, Parvati, and their\nson Ganesa are, however, likewise admitted and worshipped in some of\ntheir temples, the most important of which is at Udipi in South Kanara,\nwith eight monasteries connected with it. This shrine contains an image\nof Krishna which is said to have been rescued from the wreck of a ship\nwhich brought it from Dvaraka, where it was supposed to have been set up\nof old by no other than Krishna's friend Arjuna, one of the five Pandava\nprinces. Followers of the Madhva creed are but rarely met with in Upper\nIndia. Their sectarial mark is like the U of the Sri-Vaishnavas, except\nthat their central line is black instead of red or yellow. Madhva--who\nafter his initiation assumed the name Anandatirtha--composed numerous\nSanskrit works, including commentaries on the Brahma sutras (i.e. the\nVedanta aphorisms), the Gita, the Rigveda and many Upanishads. His\nphilosophical theory was a dualistic one, postulating distinctness of\nnature for the divine and the human soul, and hence independent\nexistence, instead of absorption, after the completion of mundane\nexistence.\n\n\n Ramats.\n\nThe Ramanandis or Ramavats (popularly Ramats) are a numerous northern\nsect of similar tenets to those of the Ramanujas. Indeed its founder,\nRamananda, who probably flourished in the latter part of the 14th\ncentury, according to the traditional account, was originally a\nSri-Vaishnava monk, and, having come under the suspicion of laxity in\nobserving the strict rules of food during his peregrinations, and been\nordered by his superior (Mahant) to take his meals apart from his\nbrethren, left the monastery in a huff and set up a schismatic math of\nhis own at Benares. The sectarial mark of his sect differs but slightly\nfrom that of the parent stock. The distinctive features of their creed\nconsist in their making Rama and Sita, either singly or conjointly, the\nchief objects of their adoration, instead of Vishnu and Lakshmi, and\ntheir attaching little or no importance to the observance of privacy in\nthe cooking and eating of their food. Their mendicant members, usually\nknown as Vairagis, are, like the general body of the sect, drawn from\nall castes without distinction. Thus, the founder's twelve chief\ndisciples include, besides Brahmans, a weaver, a currier, a Rajput, a\nJat and a barber--for, they argue, seeing that Bhagavan, the Holy One\n(Vishnu), became incarnate even in animal form, a Bhakta (believer) may\nbe born even in the lowest of castes. Ramananda's teaching was thus of a\ndistinctly levelling and popular character; and, in accordance\ntherewith, the Bhakta-mala and other authoritative writings of the sect\nare composed, not in Sanskrit, but in the popular dialects. A follower\nof this creed was the distinguished poet Tulsidas, the composer of the\nbeautiful Hindi version of the Ramayana and other works which \"exercise\nmore influence upon the great body of Hindu population than the whole\nvoluminous series of Sanskrit composition\" (H. H. Wilson).\n\n\n Kabir.\n\nThe traditional list of Ramananda's immediate disciples includes the\nname of Kabir, the weaver, a remarkable man who would accordingly have\nlived in the latter part of the 15th century, and who is claimed by both\nHindus and Moslems as having been born within their fold. The story goes\nthat, having been deeply impressed by Ramananda's teaching, he sought to\nattach himself to him; and, one day at Benares, in stepping down the\nghat at daybreak to bathe in the Ganges, and putting himself in the way\nof the teacher, the latter, having inadvertently struck him with his\nfoot, uttered his customary exclamation \"Ram Ram,\" which, being also the\ninitiatory formula of the sect, was claimed by Kabir as such, making him\nRamananda's disciple. Be this as it may, Kabir's own reformatory\nactivity lay in the direction of a compromise between the Hindu and the\nMahommedan creeds, the religious practices of both of which he\ncriticized with equal severity. His followers, the Kabir Panthis (\"those\nfollowing Kabir's path\"), though neither worshipping the gods of the\npantheon, nor observing the rites and ceremonial of the Hindus, are\nnevertheless in close touch with the Vaishnava sects, especially the\nRamavats, and generally worship Rama as the supreme deity, when they do\nnot rather address their homage, in hymns and otherwise, to the founder\nof their creed himself. Whilst very numerous, particularly amongst the\nlow-caste population, in western, central and northern India, resident\nadherents of Kabir's doctrine are rare in Bengal and the south; although\n\"there is hardly a town in India where strolling beggars may not be\nfound singing songs of Kabir in the original or as translated into the\nlocal dialects.\" The mendicants of this creed, however, never actually\nsolicit alms; and, indeed, \"the quaker-like spirit of the sect, their\nabhorrence of all violence, their regard for truth and the\ninobtrusiveness of their opinions render them very inoffensive members\nof the state\" (H. H. Wilson). The doctrines of Kabir are taught, mostly\nin the form of dialogues, in numerous Hindi works, composed by his\ndisciples and adherents, who, however, usually profess to give the\nteacher's own words.\n\nThe peculiar conciliatory tendencies of Kabir were carried on with even\ngreater zeal from the latter part of the 15th century by one of his\nfollowers, Nanak Shah, the promulgator of the creed of the _Nanak\nShahis_ or _Sikhs_--i.e. (Sanskr.) _sishya_, disciples, whose guru, or\nteacher, he called himself--a peaceful sect at first until, in\nconsequence of Mahommedan persecution, a martial spirit was infused into\nit by the tenth, and last, guru, Govind Shah, changing it into a\npolitical organization. Whilst originally more akin in its principles to\nthe Moslem faith, the sect seems latterly to have shown tendencies\ntowards drifting back to the Hindu pale.\n\n Of Ramananda's disciples and successors several others, besides Kabir,\n have established schismatic divisions of their own, which do not,\n however, offer any very marked differences of creed. The most\n important of these, the Dadu Panthi sect, founded by Dadu about the\n year 1600, has a numerous following in Ajmir and Marwar, one section\n of whom, the Nagas, engage largely in military service, whilst the\n others are either householders or mendicants. The followers of this\n creed wear no distinctive sectarial mark or badge, except a skull-cap;\n nor do they worship any visible image of any deity, the repetition\n (_japa_) of the name of Rama being the only kind of adoration\n practised by them.\n\n\n Eroticism and Krishna worship.\n\nAlthough the Vaishnava sects hitherto noticed, in their adoration of\nVishnu and his incarnations, Krishna and Ramachandra, usually associate\nwith these gods their wives, as their _saktis_, or female energies, the\nsexual element is, as a rule, only just allowed sufficient scope to\nenhance the emotional character of the rites of worship. In some of the\nlater Vaishnava creeds, on the other hand, this element is far from\nbeing kept within the bounds of moderation and decency. The favourite\nobject of adoration with adherents of these sects is Krishna with his\nmate--but not the devoted friend and counsellor of the Pandavas and\ndeified hero of epic song, nor the ruler of Dvaraka and wedded lord of\nRukmini, but the juvenile Krishna, Govinda or Bala Gopala, \"the cowherd\nlad,\" the foster son of the cowherd Nanda of Gokula, taken up with his\namorous sports with the _Gopis_, or wives of the cowherds of Vrindavana\n(Brindaban, near Mathura on the Yamuna), especially his favourite\nmistress Radha or Radhika. This episode in the legendary life of Krishna\nhas every appearance of being a later accretion. After barely a few\nallusions to it in the epics, it bursts forth full-blown in the\nHarivansa, the Vishnu-purana, the Narada-Pancharatra and the\nBhagavata-purana, the tenth canto of which, dealing with the life of\nKrishna, has become, through vernacular versions, especially the Hindi\n_Prem-sagar_, or \"ocean of love,\" a favourite romance all over India,\nand has doubtless helped largely to popularize the cult of Krishna.\nStrange to say, however, no mention is as yet made by any of these works\nof Krishna's favourite Radha; it is only in another Purana--though\nscarcely deserving that designation--that she makes her appearance, viz.\nin the Brahma-vaivarta, in which Krishna's amours in Nanda's cow-station\nare dwelt upon in fulsome and wearisome detail; whilst the poet\nJayadeva, in the 12th century, made her love for the gay and inconstant\nboy the theme of his beautiful, if highly voluptuous, lyrical drama,\n_Gita-govinda_.\n\n The earliest of the sects which associate Radha with Krishna in their\n worship is that of the Nimavats, founded by Nimbaditya or Nimbarka\n (i.e. \"the sun of the Nimba tree\"), a teacher of uncertain date, said\n to have been a Telugu Brahman who subsequently established himself at\n Mathura (Muttra) on the Yamuna, where the headquarters of his sect\n have remained ever since. The Mahant of their monastery at Dhruva\n Kshetra near Mathura, who claims direct descent from Nimbarka, is said\n to place the foundation of that establishment as far back as the 5th\n century--doubtless an exaggerated claim; but if Jayadeva, as is\n alleged, and seems by no means improbable, was really a follower of\n Nimbarka, this teacher must have flourished, at latest, in the early\n part of the 12th century. He is indeed taken by some authorities to be\n identical with the mathematician Bhaskara Acharya, who is known to\n have completed his chief work in A.D. 1150. It is worthy of remark, in\n this respect, that--in accordance with Ramanuja's and Nimbarka's\n philosophical theories--Jayadeva's presentation of Krishna's fickle\n love for Radha is usually interpreted in a mystical sense, as\n allegorically depicting the human soul's striving, through love, for\n reunion with God, and its ultimate attainment, after many\n backslidings, of the longed-for goal. As the chief authority of their\n tenets, the Nimavats recognize the Bhagavata-purana; though several\n works, ascribed to Nimbarka--partly of a devotional character and\n partly expository of Vedanta topics--are still extant. Adherents of\n this sect are fairly numerous in northern India, their frontal mark\n consisting of the usual two perpendicular white lines, with, however,\n a circular black spot between them.\n\n Of greater importance than the sect just noticed, because of their far\n larger following, are the two sects founded early in the 16th century\n by Vallabha (Ballabha) Acharya and Chaitanya. In the forms of worship\n favoured by votaries of these creeds the emotional and erotic elements\n are allowed yet freer scope than in those that preceded them; and, as\n an effective auxiliary to these tendencies, the use of the vernacular\n dialects in prayers and hymns of praise takes an important part in the\n religious service. The Vallabhacharis, or, as they are usually called,\n from the title of their spiritual heads, the Gokulastha Gosains, i.e.\n \"the cow-lords (_gosvamin_) residing in Gokula,\" are very numerous in\n western and central India. Vallabha, the son of a Telinga Brahman,\n after extensive journeyings all over India, settled at Gokula near\n Mathura, and set up a shrine with an image of Krishna Gopala. About\n the year 1673, in consequence of the fanatical persecutions of the\n Mogul emperor, this image was transferred to Nathdvara in Udaipur\n (Mewar), where the shrine of Srinatha (\"the lord of Sri,\" i.e. Vishnu)\n continues to be the chief centre of worship for adherents of this\n creed; whilst seven other images, transferred from Mathura at the same\n time, are located at different places in Rajputana. Vallabha himself\n went subsequently to reside at Benares, where he died. In the doctrine\n of this Vaishnava prophet, the adualistic theory of Sankara is\n resorted to as justifying a joyful and voluptuous cult of the deity.\n For, if the human soul is identical with God, the practice of\n austerities must be discarded as directed against God, and it is\n rather by a free indulgence of the natural appetites and the pleasures\n of life that man's love for God will best be shown. The followers of\n his creed, amongst whom there are many wealthy merchants and bankers,\n direct their worship chiefly to Gopal Lal, the boyish Krishna of\n Vrindavana, whose image is sedulously attended like a revered living\n person eight times a day--from its early rising from its couch up to\n its retiring to repose at night. The sectarial mark of the adherents\n consists of two red perpendicular lines, meeting in a semicircle at\n the root of the nose, and having a round red spot painted between\n them. Their principal doctrinal authority is the Bhagavata-purana, as\n commented upon by Vallabha himself, who was also the author of several\n other Sanskrit works highly esteemed by his followers. In this sect,\n children are solemnly admitted to full membership at the early age of\n four, and even two, years of age, when a rosary, or necklace, of 108\n beads of basil (tulsi) wood is passed round their necks, and they are\n taught the use of the octo-syllabic formula _Sri-Krishnah saranam\n mama_, \"Holy Krishna is my refuge.\" Another special feature of this\n sect is that their spiritual heads, the Gosains, also called\n Maharajas, so far from submitting themselves to self-discipline and\n austere practices, adorn themselves in splendid garments, and allow\n themselves to be habitually regaled by their adherents with choice\n kinds of food; and being regarded as the living representatives of the\n \"lord of the Gopis\" himself, they claim and receive in their own\n persons all acts of attachment and worship due to the deity, even, it\n is alleged, to the extent of complete self-surrender. In the final\n judgment of the famous libel case of the Bombay Maharajas, before the\n Supreme Court of Bombay, in January 1862, these improprieties were\n severely commented upon; and though so unsparing a critic of Indian\n sects as Jogendra Nath seems not to believe in actual immoral\n practices on the part of the Maharajas, still he admits that \"the\n corrupting influence of a religion, that can make its female votaries\n address amorous songs to their spiritual guides, must be very great.\"\n\n A modern offshoot of Vallabha's creed, formed with the avowed object\n of purging it of its objectionable features, was started, in the early\n years of the 19th century, by Sahajananda, a Brahman of the Oudh\n country, who subsequently assumed the name of Svami Narayana. Having\n entered on his missionary labours at Ahmadabad, and afterwards removed\n to Jetalpur, where he had a meeting with Bishop Heber, he subsequently\n settled at the village of Wartal, to the north-west of Baroda, and\n erected a temple to Lakshmi-Narayana, which, with another at\n Ahmadabad, forms the two chief centres of the sect, each being\n presided over by a Maharaja. Their worship is addressed to Narayana,\n i.e. Vishnu, as the Supreme Being, together with Lakshmi, as well as\n to Krishna and Radha. The sect is said to be gaining ground in\n Gujarat. Chaitanya, the founder of the great Vaishnava sect of\n Bengal, was the son of a high-caste Brahman of Nadiya, the famous\n Bengal seat of Sanskrit learning, where he was born in 1485, two years\n after the birth of Martin Luther, the German reformer. Having married\n in due time, and a second time after the death of his first wife, he\n lived as a \"householder\" (_grihastha_) till the age of 24, when he\n renounced his family ties and set out as a religious mendicant\n (_vairagin_), visiting during the next six years the principal places\n of pilgrimage in northern India, and preaching with remarkable success\n his doctrine of Bhakti, or passionate devotion to Krishna, as the\n Supreme Deity. He subsequently made over to his principal disciples\n the task of consolidating his community, and passed the last twelve\n years of his life at Puri in Orissa, the great centre of the worship\n of Vishnu as Jagannatha, or \"lord of the world,\" which he remodelled\n in accordance with his doctrine, causing the mystic songs of Jayadeva\n to be recited before the images in the morning and evening as part of\n the daily service; and, in fact, as in the other Vaishnava creeds,\n seeking to humanize divine adoration by bringing it into accord with\n the experience of human love. To this end, music, dancing,\n singing-parties (_sankirtan_), theatricals--in short anything\n calculated to produce the desired impression--would prove welcome to\n him. His doctrine of Bhakti distinguishes five grades of devotional\n feeling in the _Bhaktas_, or faithful adherents: viz. (_santi_) calm\n contemplation of the deity; (_dasya_) active servitude; (_sakhya_)\n friendship or personal regard; (_vatsalya_) tender affection as\n between parents and children; (_madhurya_) love or passionate\n attachment, like that which the Gopis felt for Krishna. Chaitanya also\n seems to have done much to promote the celebration on an imposing\n scale of the great Puri festival of the Ratha-yatra, or\n \"car-procession,\" in the month of Ashadha, when, amidst multitudes of\n pilgrims, the image of Krishna, together with those of his brother\n Balarama and his sister Subhadra, is drawn along, in a huge car, by\n the devotees. Just as this festival was, and continues to be, attended\n by people from all parts of India, without distinction of caste or\n sex, so also were all classes, even Mahommedans, admitted by Chaitanya\n as members of his sect. Whilst numerous observances are recommended as\n more or less meritorious, the ordinary form of worship is a very\n simple one, consisting as it does mainly of the constant repetition of\n names of Krishna, or Krishna and Radha, which of itself is considered\n sufficient to ensure future bliss. The partaking of flesh food and\n spirituous liquor is strictly prohibited. By the followers of this\n sect, also, an extravagant degree of reverence is habitually paid to\n their gurus or spiritual heads. Indeed, Chaitanya himself, as well as\n his immediate disciples, have come to be regarded as complete or\n partial incarnations of the deity to whom adoration is due, as to\n Krishna himself; and their modern successors, the Gosains, share to\n the fullest extent in the devout attentions of the worshippers.\n Chaitanya's movement, being chiefly directed against the vile\n practices of the Saktas, then very prevalent in Bengal, was doubtless\n prompted by the best and purest of intentions; but his own doctrine of\n divine, though all too human, love was, like that of Vallabha, by no\n means free from corruptive tendencies,--yet, how far these tendencies\n have worked their way, who would say? On this point, Dr W. W.\n Hunter--who is of opinion that \"the death of the reformer marks the\n beginning of the spiritual decline of Vishnu-worship,\" observes\n (_Orissa_, i. 111), \"The most deplorable corruption of Vishnu-worship\n at the present day is that which has covered the temple walls with\n indecent sculptures, and filled its innermost sanctuaries with\n licentious rites\" ... yet ... \"it is difficult for a person not a\n Hindu to pronounce upon the real extent of the evil. None but a Hindu\n can enter any of the larger temples, and none but a Hindu priest\n really knows the truth about their inner mysteries\"; whilst the\n well-known native scholar Babu Rajendralal Mitra points out\n (_Antiquities of Orissa_, i. 111) that \"such as they are, these\n sculptures date from centuries before the birth of Chaitanya, and\n cannot, therefore, be attributed to his doctrines or to his followers.\n As a Hindu by birth, and a Vaishnava by family religion, I have had\n the freest access to the innermost sanctuaries and to the most secret\n of scriptures. I have studied the subject most extensively, and have\n had opportunities of judging which no European can have, and I have no\n hesitation in saying that, 'the mystic songs' of Jayadeva and the\n 'ocean of love' notwithstanding, there is nothing in the rituals of\n Jagannatha which can be called licentious.\" Whilst in Chaitanya's\n creed, Krishna, in his relations to Radha, remains at least\n theoretically the chief partner, an almost inevitable step was taken\n by some minor sects in attaching the greater importance to the female\n element, and making Krishna's love for his mistress the guiding\n sentiment of their faith. Of these sects, it will suffice to mention\n that of the Radha-Vallabhis, started in the latter part of the 16th\n century, who worship Krishna as Radha-vallabha, \"the darling of\n Radha.\" The doctrines and practices of these sects clearly verge upon\n those obtaining in the third principal division of Indian sectarians\n which will now be considered.\n\n\n Saktas\n\nThe Saktas, as we have seen, are worshippers of the _sakti_, or the\nfemale principle as a primary factor in the creation and reproduction of\nthe universe. And as each of the principal gods is supposed to have\nassociated with him his own particular _sakti_, as an indispensable\ncomplement enabling him to properly perform his cosmic functions,\nadherents of this persuasion might be expected to be recruited from all\nsects. To a certain extent this is indeed the case; but though\nVaishnavism, and especially the Krishna creed, with its luxuriant growth\nof erotic legends, might have seemed peculiarly favourable to a\ndevelopment in this direction, it is practically only in connexion with\nthe Saiva system that an independent cult of the female principle has\nbeen developed; whilst in other sects--and, indeed, in the ordinary\nSaiva cult as well--such worship, even where it is at all prominent, is\ncombined with, and subordinated to, that of the male principle. What has\nmade this cult attach itself more especially to the Saiva creed is\ndoubtless the character of Siva as the type of reproductive power, in\naddition to his function as destroyer which, as we shall see, is\nlikewise reflected in some of the forms of his Sakti. The theory of the\ngod and his Sakti as cosmic principles is perhaps already foreshadowed\nin the Vedic couple of Heaven and Earth, whilst in the speculative\ntreatises of the later Vedic period, as well as in the post-Vedic\nBrahmanical writings, the assumption of the self-existent being dividing\nhimself into a male and a female half usually forms the starting-point\nof cosmic evolution.[7] In the later Saiva mythology this theory finds\nits artistic representation in Siva's androgynous form of Ardha-narisa,\nor \"half-woman-lord,\" typifying the union of the male and female\nenergies; the male half in this form of the deity occupying the\nright-hand, and the female the left-hand side. In accordance with this\ntype of productive energy, the Saktas divide themselves into two\ndistinct groups, according to whether they attach the greater importance\nto the male or to the female principle; viz. the _Dakshinacharis_, or\n\"right-hand-observers\" (also called _Dak-shina-margis_, or followers \"of\nthe right-hand path\"), and the _Vamacharis_, or \"left-hand-observers\"\n(or _Vama-margis_, followers \"of the left path\"). Though some of the\nPuranas, the chief repositories of sectarian doctrines, enter largely\ninto Sakta topics, it is only in the numerous Tantras that these are\nfully and systematically developed. In these works, almost invariably\ncomposed in the form of a colloquy, Siva, as a rule, in answer to\nquestions asked by his consort Parvati, unfolds the mysteries of this\noccult creed.\n\n The principal seat of Sakta worship is the north-eastern part of\n India--Bengal, Assam and Behar. The great majority of its adherents\n profess to follow the right-hand practice; and apart from the implied\n purport and the emblems of the cult, their mode of adoration does not\n seem to offer any very objectionable features. And even amongst the\n adherents of the left-hand mode of worship, many of these are said to\n follow it as a matter of family tradition rather than of religious\n conviction, and to practise it in a sober and temperate manner; whilst\n only an extreme section--the so-called _Kaulas_ or _Kulinas_, who\n appeal to a spurious Upanishad, the Kaulopanishad, as the divine\n authority of their tenets--persist in carrying on the mystic and\n licentious rites taught in many of the Tantras. But strict secrecy\n being enjoined in the performance of these rites, it is not easy to\n check any statements made on this point. The Sakta cult is, however,\n known to be especially prevalent--though apparently not in a very\n extreme form--amongst members of the very respectable Kayastha or\n writer caste of Bengal, and as these are largely employed as clerks\n and accountants in Upper India, there is reason to fear that their\n vicious practices are gradually being disseminated through them.\n\nThe divine object of the adoration of the Saktas, then, is Siva's\nwife--the _Devi_ (goddess), _Mahadevi_ (great goddess), or _Jagan-mata_\n(mother of the world)--in one or other of her numerous forms, benign or\nterrible. The forms in which she is worshipped in Bengal are of the\nlatter category, viz. _Durga_, \"the unapproachable,\" and _Kali_, \"the\nblack one,\" or, as some take it, the wife of _Kala_, \"time,\" or death\nthe great dissolver, viz. Siva. In honour of the former, the\n_Durga-puja_ is celebrated during ten days at the time of the autumnal\nequinox, in commemoration of her victory over the buffalo-headed demon\nMahishasura; when the image of the ten-armed goddess, holding a weapon\nin each hand, is worshipped for nine days, and cast into the water on\nthe tenth day, called the Dasahara, whence the festival itself is\ncommonly called Dasara in western India. _Kali_, on the other hand, the\nmost terrible of the goddess's forms, has a special service performed to\nher, at the _Kali-puja_, during the darkest night of the succeeding\nmonth; when she is represented as a naked black woman, four-armed,\nwearing a garland of heads of giants slain by her, and a string of\nskulls round her neck, dancing on the breast of her husband (Mahakala),\nwith gaping mouth and protruding tongue; and when she has to be\npropitiated by the slaughter of goats, sheep and buffaloes. On other\noccasions also Vamacharis commonly offer animal sacrifices, usually one\nor more kids; the head of the victim, which has to be severed by a\nsingle stroke, being always placed in front of the image of the goddess\nas a blood-offering (_bali_), with an earthen lamp fed with ghee burning\nabove it, whilst the flesh is cooked and served to the guests attending\nthe ceremony, except that of buffaloes, which is given to the low-caste\nmusicians who perform during the service. Even some adherents of this\nclass have, however, discontinued animal sacrifices, and use certain\nkinds of fruit, such as coco-nuts or pumpkins, instead. The use of wine,\nwhich at one time was very common on these occasions, seems also to have\nbecome much more restricted; and only members of the extreme section\nwould still seem to adhere to the practice of the so-called five _m's_\nprescribed by some of the Tantras, viz. _mamsa_ (flesh), _matsya_\n(fish), _madya_ (wine), _maithuna_ (sexual union), and _mudra_ (mystical\nfinger signs)--probably the most degrading cult ever practised under the\npretext of religious worship.\n\n In connexion with the principal object of this cult, Tantric theory\n has devised an elaborate system of female figures representing either\n special forms and personifications or attendants of the \"Great\n Goddess.\" They are generally arranged in groups, the most important of\n which are the _Mahavidyas_ (great sciences), the 8 (or 9) _Mataras_\n (mothers) or _Mahamataras_ (great mothers), consisting of the wives of\n the principal gods; the 8 _Nayikas_ or mistresses; and different\n classes of sorceresses and ogresses, called _Yoginis_, _Dakinis_ and\n _Sakinis_. A special feature of the Sakti cult is the use of obscure\n Vedic _mantras_, often changed so as to be quite meaningless and on\n that very account deemed the more efficacious for the acquisition of\n superhuman powers; as well as of mystic letters and syllables called\n _bija_ (germ), of magic circles (_chakra_) and diagrams (_yantra_),\n and of amulets of various materials inscribed with formulae of fancied\n mysterious import.\n\n\n General conclusions.\n\nThis survey of the Indian sects will have shown how little the character\nof their divine objects of worship is calculated to exert that elevating\nand spiritualizing influence, so characteristic of true religious\ndevotion. In all but a few of the minor groups religious fervour is only\ntoo apt to degenerate into that very state of sexual excitation which\ndevotional exercises should surely tend to repress. If the worship of\nSiva, despite the purport of his chief symbol, seems on the whole less\nliable to produce these undesirable effects than that of the rival\ndeity, it is doubtless due partly to the real nature of that emblem\nbeing little realized by the common people, and partly to the somewhat\nrepellent character of the \"great god,\" more favourable to evoking\nfeelings of awe and terror than a spirit of fervid devotion. All the\nmore are, however, the gross stimulants, connected with the adoration of\nhis consort, calculated to work up the carnal instincts of the devotees\nto an extreme degree of sensual frenzy. In the Vaishnava camp, on the\nother hand, the cult of Krishna, and more especially that of the\nyouthful Krishna, can scarcely fail to exert an influence which, if of a\nsubtler and more insinuating, is not on that account of a less\ndemoralizing kind. Indeed, it would be hard to find anything less\nconsonant with godliness and divine perfection than the pranks of this\njuvenile god; and if poets and thinkers try to explain them away by dint\nof allegorical interpretation, the plain man will not for all their\nrefinements take these amusing adventures any the less _au pied de la\nlettre_. No fault, in this respect, can assuredly be found with the\nlegendary Rama, a very paragon of knightly honour and virtue, even as\nhis consort Sita is the very model of a noble and faithful wife; and yet\nthis cult has perhaps retained even more of the character of mere\nhero-worship than that of Krishna. Since by the universally accepted\ndoctrine of _karman_ (deed) or _karmavipaka_ (\"the maturing of deeds\")\nman himself--either in his present, or some future, existence--enjoys\nthe fruit of, or has to atone for, his former good and bad actions,\nthere could hardly be room in Hindu pantheism for a belief in the\nremission of sin by divine grace or vicarious substitution. And\naccordingly the \"descents\" or incarnations of the deity have for their\nobject, not so much the spiritual regeneration of man as the deliverance\nof the world from some material calamity threatening to overwhelm it.\nThe generally recognized principal Avatars do not, however, by any means\nconstitute the only occasions of a direct intercession of the deity in\nworldly affairs, but--in the same way as to this day the eclipses of the\nsun and moon are ascribed by the ordinary Hindu to these luminaries\nbeing temporarily swallowed by the dragon _Rahu_ (or _Graha_, \"the\nseizer\")--so any uncommon occurrence would be apt to be set down as a\nspecial manifestation of divine power; and any man credited with\nexceptional merit or achievement, or even remarkable for some strange\nincident connected with his life or death, might ultimately come to be\nlooked upon as a veritable incarnation of the deity, capable of\ninfluencing the destinies of man, and might become an object of local\nadoration or superstitious awe and propitiatory rites to multitudes of\npeople. That the transmigration theory, which makes the spirit of the\ndeparted hover about for a time in quest of a new corporeal abode, would\nnaturally lend itself to superstitious notions of this kind can scarcely\nbe doubted. Of peculiar importance in this respect is the worship of the\n_Pitris_ (\"fathers\") or deceased ancestors, as entering largely into the\neveryday life and family relations of the Hindus. At stated intervals to\noffer reverential homage and oblations of food to the forefathers up to\nthe third degree is one of the most sacred duties the devout Hindu has\nto discharge. The periodical performance of the commemorative rite of\nobsequies called _Sraddha_--i.e. an oblation \"made in faith\" (_sraddha_,\nLat. _credo_)--is the duty and privilege of the eldest son of the\ndeceased, or, failing him, of the nearest relative who thereby\nestablishes his right as next of kin in respect of inheritance; and\nthose other relatives who have the right to take part in the ceremony\nare called _sapinda_, i.e. sharing in the _pindas_ (or balls of cooked\nrice, constituting along with libations of water the usual offering to\nthe Manes)--such relationship being held a bar to intermarriage. The\nfirst _Sraddha_ takes place as soon as possible after the _antyeshti_\n(\"final offering\") or funeral ceremony proper, usually spread over ten\ndays; being afterwards repeated once a month for a year, and\nsubsequently at every anniversary and otherwise voluntarily on special\noccasions. Moreover, a simple libation of water should be offered to the\nFathers twice daily at the morning and evening devotion called _sandhya_\n(\"twilight\"). It is doubtless a sense of filial obligation coupled with\nsentiments of piety and reverence that gave rise to this practice of\noffering gifts of food and drink to the deceased ancestors. Hence also\nfrequent allusion is made by poets to the anxious care caused to the\nFathers by the possibility of the living head of the family being\nafflicted with failure of offspring; this dire prospect compelling them\nto use but sparingly their little store of provisions, in case the\nsupply should shortly cease altogether. At the same time one also meets\nwith frank avowals of a superstitious fear lest any irregularity in the\nperformance of the obsequial rites should cause the Fathers to haunt\ntheir old home and trouble the peace of their undutiful descendant, or\neven prematurely draw him after them to the Pitri-loka or world of the\nFathers, supposed to be located in the southern region. Terminating as\nit usually does with the feeding and feeing of a greater or less number\nof Brahmans and the feasting of members of the performers' own caste,\nthe Sraddha, especially its first performance, is often a matter of very\nconsiderable expense; and more than ordinary benefit to the deceased is\nsupposed to accrue from it when it takes place at a spot of recognized\nsanctity, such as one of the great places of pilgrimage like Prayaga\n(Allahabad, where the three sacred rivers, Ganga, Yamuna and Sarasvati,\nmeet), Mathura, and especially Gaya and Kasi (Benares). But indeed the\n_tirtha-yatra_, or pilgrimage to holy bathing-places, is in itself\nconsidered an act of piety conferring religious merit in proportion to\nthe time and trouble expended upon it. The number of such places is\nlegion and is constantly increasing. The banks of the great rivers such\nas the Ganga (Ganges), the Yamuna (Jumna), the Narbada, the Krishna\n(Kistna), are studded with them, and the water of these rivers is\nsupposed to be imbued with the essence of sanctity capable of cleansing\nthe pious bather of all sin and moral taint. To follow the entire course\nof one of the sacred rivers from the mouth to the source on one side and\nback again on the other in the sun-wise (pradakshina) direction--that\nis, always keeping the stream on one's right-hand side--is held to be a\nhighly meritorious undertaking which it requires years to carry through.\nNo wonder that water from these rivers, especially the Ganges, is sent\nand taken in bottles to all parts of India to be used on occasion as\nhealing medicine or for sacramental purposes. In Vedic times, at the\n_Rajasuya_, or inauguration of a king, some water from the holy river\nSarasvati was mixed with the sprinkling water used for consecrating the\nking. Hence also sick persons are frequently conveyed long distances to\na sacred river to heal them of their maladies; and for a dying man to\nbreathe his last at the side of the Ganges is devoutly believed to be\nthe surest way of securing for him salvation and eternal bliss.\n\n Such probably was the belief of the ordinary Hindu two thousand years\n ago, and such it remains to this day. In the light of facts such as\n these, who could venture to say what the future of Hinduism is likely\n to be? Is the regeneration of India to be brought about by the modern\n theistic movements, such as the Brahma-samaj and Arya-samaj, as so\n close and sympathetic an observer of Hindu life and thought as Sir A.\n Lyall seems to think? \"The Hindu mind,\" he remarks, \"is essentially\n speculative and transcendental; it will never consent to be shut up in\n the prison of sensual experience, for it has grasped and holds firmly\n the central idea that all things are manifestations of some power\n outside phenomena. And the tendency of contemporary religious\n discussion in India, so far as it can be followed from a distance, is\n towards an ethical reform on the old foundations, towards searching\n for some method of reconciling their Vedic theology with the practices\n of religion taken as a rule of conduct and a system of moral\n government. One can already discern a movement in various quarters\n towards a recognition of impersonal theism, and towards fixing the\n teaching of the philosophical schools upon some definitely authorized\n system of faith and morals, which may satisfy a rising ethical\n standard, and may thus permanently embody that tendency to substitute\n spiritual devotion for external forms and caste rules which is the\n characteristic of the sects that have from time to time dissented from\n orthodox Brahminism.\"\n\n AUTHORITIES.--_Census of India_ (1901), vol. i. part i.; _India_, by\n H. H. Risley and E. A. Gait; vol. i. _Ethnographical Appendices_, by\n H. H. Risley; _The Indian Empire_, vol. i. (new ed., Oxford, 1907); J.\n Muir, _Original Sanskrit Texts_ (2nd ed., 5 vols., London, 1873);\n Monier Williams, _Religious Thought and Life in India_ (London, 1883);\n _Modern India and the Indians_ (London, 1878, 3rd ed. 1879);\n _Hinduism_ (London, 1877); Sir Alfred C. Lyall, _Asiatic Studies_ (2\n series, London, 1899); \"Hinduism\" in _Religious Systems of the World_\n (London, 1904); \"Brahminism\" in _Great Religions of the World_ (New\n York and London, 1902); W. J. Wilkins, _Modern Hinduism_ (London,\n 1887); J. C. Oman, _Indian Life, Religious and Social_ (London, 1879);\n _The Mystics, Ascetics and Saints of India_ (London, 1903); _The\n Brahmans, Theists and Muslims of India_ (London, 1907); S. C. Bose,\n _The Hindus as they are_ (2nd ed., Calcutta, 1883); J. Robson,\n _Hinduism and Christianity_ (Edinburgh and London, 3rd ed., 1905); J.\n Murray Mitchell, _Hinduism Past and Present_ (2nd ed., London, 1897);\n Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya, _Hindu Castes and Sects_ (Calcutta, 1896);\n A. Barth, _The Religions of India_ (London, 1882); E. W. Hopkins, _The\n Religions of India_ (London, 1896). (J. E.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [1] \"It is, perhaps, by surveying India that we at this day can best\n represent to ourselves and appreciate the vast external reform worked\n upon the heathen world by Christianity, as it was organized and\n executed throughout Europe by the combined authority of the Holy\n Roman Empire and the Church Apostolic.\" Sir Alfred C. Lyall, _Asiatic\n Studies_, i. 2.\n\n [2] Henry Whitehead, D. D., bishop of Madras, _The Village Deities of\n Southern India_ (Madras, 1907).\n\n [3] \"The effect of caste is to give all Hindu society a religious\n basis.\" Sir A. C. Lyall, _Brahmanism_.\n\n [4] Thus, in Berar, \"there is a strong non-Aryan leaven in the dregs\n of the agricultural class, derived from the primitive races which\n have gradually melted down into settled life, and thus become fused\n with the general community, while these same races are still distinct\n tribes in the wild tracts of hill and jungle.\" Sir Alfred C. Lyall,\n _As. St._, i. 6.\n\n [5] Siva is said to have first appeared in the beginning of the\n present age as Sveta, the White, for the purpose of benefiting the\n Brahmans, and he is invariably painted white; whilst Vishnu, when\n pictured, is always of a dark-blue colour.\n\n [6] As in the case of Siva's traditional white complexion, it may not\n be without significance, from a racial point of view, that Vishnu,\n Rama and Krishna have various darker shades of colour attributed to\n them, viz. blue, hyacinthine, and dark azure or dark brown\n respectively. The names of the two heroes meaning simply \"black\" or\n \"dark,\" the blue tint may originally have belonged to Vishnu, who is\n also called _pitavasas_, dressed in yellow garment, i.e. the colours\n of sky and sun combined.\n\n [7] This notion not improbably took its origin in the mystic\n cosmogonic hymn, Rigv. x. 129, where it is said that--\"that one\n (existent, neutr.) breathed breathless by (or with) its _svadha_ (?\n inherent power, or nature), beyond that there was nothing whatever\n ... that one live (germ) which was enclosed in the void was generated\n by the power of heat (or fervour); desire then first came upon it,\n which was the first seed of the mind ... fertilizing forces there\n were, _svadha_ below, _prayati_ (? will) above.\"\n\n\n\n\nHINDU KUSH, a range of mountains in Central Asia. Throughout 500 m. of\nits length, from its roots in the Pamir regions till it fades into the\nKoh-i-Baba to the west of Kabul, this great range forms the water-divide\nbetween the Kabul and the Oxus basins, and, for the first 200 m.\nreckoning westwards, the southern boundary of Afghanistan. It may be\nsaid to spring from the head of the Taghdumbash Pamir, where it unites\nwith the great meridional system of Sarikol stretching northwards, and\nthe yet more impressive mountain barrier of Muztagh, the northern base\nof which separates China from the semi-independent territory of Kanjut.\nThe Wakhjir pass, crossing the head of the Taghdumbash Pamir into the\nsources of the river Hunza, almost marks the tri-junction of the three\ngreat chains of mountains. As the Hindu Kush strikes westwards, after\nfirst rounding the head of an Oxus tributary (the Ab-i-Panja, which\nCurzon considers to be the true source of the Oxus), it closely\noverlooks the trough of that glacier-fed stream under its northern\nspurs, its crest at the nearest point being separated from the river by\na distance which cannot much exceed 10 m. As the river is here the\nnorthern boundary of Afghanistan, and the crest of the Hindu Kush the\nsouthern boundary, this distance represents the width of the Afghan\nkingdom at that point.\n\n _Physiography._--For the first 100 m. of its length the Hindu Kush is\n a comparatively flat-backed range of considerable width, permitting\n the formation of small lakes on the crest, and possessing no\n considerable peaks. It is crossed by many passes, varying in height\n from 12,500 ft. to 17,500 ft., the lowest and the easiest being the\n well-known group about Baroghil, which has from time immemorial\n offered a line of approach from High Asia to Chitral and Jalalabad. As\n the Hindu Kush gradually recedes from the Ab-i-Panja and turns\n south-westwards it gains in altitude, and we find prominent peaks on\n the crest which measure more than 24,000 ft. above sea-level. Even\n here, however, the main central water-divide, or axis of the chain, is\n apparently not the line of highest peaks, which must be looked for to\n the south, where the great square-headed giant called Tirach Mir\n dominates Chitral from a southern spur. For some 40 or 50 m. of this\n south-westerly bend, bearing away from the Oxus, where the Hindu Kush\n overlooks the mountain wilderness of Badakshan to the west, the crest\n is intersected by many passes, of which the most important is the\n Dorah group (including the Minjan and the Mandal), which rise to about\n 15,000 ft., and which are, under favourable conditions, practicable\n links between the Oxus and Chitral basins.\n\n\n Kafiristan section.\n\n From the Dorah to the Khawak pass (or group of passes, for it is\n seldom that one line of approach only is to be found across the Hindu\n Kush), which is between 11,000 and 12,000 ft. in altitude, the\n water-divide overlooks Kafiristan and Badakshan. Here its exact\n position is matter of conjecture. It lies amidst a wild, inaccessible\n region of snowbound crests, and is certainly nowhere less than 15,000\n ft. above sea-level. There is a tradition that Timur attempted the\n passage of the Hindu Kush by one of the unmapped passes hereabouts,\n and that, having failed, he left a record of his failure engraved on a\n rock in the pass.\n\n\n Passes.\n\n The Khawak, at the head of the Panjshir tributary of the Kabul river,\n leading straight from Badakshan to Charikar and the city of Kabul, is\n now an excellent kafila route, the road having been engineered under\n the amir Abdur Rahman's direction, and it is said to be available for\n traffic throughout the year. From the Khawak to the head of the\n Ghorband (a river of the Hindu Kush which, rising to the north-west of\n Kabul, flows north-east to meet the Panjshir near Charikar, whence\n they run united into the plains of Kohistan) the Hindu Kush is\n intersected by passes at intervals, all of which were surveyed, and\n several utilized, during the return of the Russo-Afghan boundary\n commission from the Oxus to Kabul in 1886. Those utilized were the\n Kaoshan (the \"Hindu Kush\" pass _par excellence_), 14,340 ft.; the\n Chahardar (13,900 ft.), which is a link in one of the amir of\n Afghanistan's high roads to Turkestan; and the Shibar (9800 ft.),\n which is merely a diversion into the upper Ghorband of that group of\n passes between Bamian and the Kabul plains which are represented by\n the Irak, Hajigak, Unai, &c. About this point it is geographically\n correct to place the southern extremity of the Hindu Kush, for here\n commences the Koh-i-Baba system into which the Hindu Kush is merged.\n\n\n General conformation.\n\n The general conformation of the Hindu Kush system south of the Khawak,\n no less than such fragmentary evidence of its rock composition as at\n present exists to the north, points to its construction under the same\n conditions of upheaval and subsequent denudation as are common to the\n western Himalaya and the whole of the trans-Indus borderland. Its\n upheaval above the great sea which submerged all the north-west of the\n Indian peninsula long after the Himalaya had massed itself as a\n formidable mountain chain, belongs to a comparatively recent geologic\n period, and the same thrust upwards of vast masses of cretaceous\n limestone has disturbed the overlying recent beds of shale and clays\n with very similar results to those which have left so marked an\n impress on the Baluch frontier. Successive flexures or ridges are\n ranged in more or less parallel lines, and from between the bands of\n hard, unyielding rock of older formation the soft beds of recent shale\n have been washed out, to be carried through the enclosing ridges by\n rifts which break across their axes. The Hindu Kush is, in fact, but\n the face of a great upheaved mass of plateau-land lying beyond it\n northwards, just as the Himalaya forms the southern face of the great\n central tableland of Tibet, and its general physiography, exhibiting\n long, narrow, lateral valleys and transverse lines of \"antecedent\"\n drainage, is similar. There are few passes across the southern\n section of the Hindu Kush (and this section is, from the\n politico-geographical point of view, more important to India than the\n whole Himalayan system) which have not to surmount a succession of\n crests or ridges as they cross from Afghan Turkestan to Afghanistan.\n The exceptions are, of course, notable, and have played an important\n part in the military history of Asia from time immemorial. From a\n little ice-bound lake called Gaz Kul, or Karambar, which lies on the\n crest of the Hindu Kush near its northern origin at the head of the\n Taghdumbash Pamir, two very important river systems (those of Chitral\n and Hunza) are believed to originate. The lake really lies on the\n watershed between the two, and is probably a glacial relic. Its\n contribution to either infant stream appears to depend on conditions\n of overflow determined by the blocking of ice masses towards one end.\n It marks the commencement of the water-divide which primarily\n separates the Gilgit basin from that of the Yashkun, or Chitral,\n river, and subsequently divides the drainage of Swat and Bajour from\n that of the Chitral (or Kunar). The Yashkun-Chitral-Kunar river (it is\n called by all three names) is the longest affluent of the Kabul, and\n it is in many respects a more important river than the Kabul.\n Throughout its length it is closely flanked on its left bank by this\n main water-divide, which is called Moshabar or Shandur in its northern\n sections, and owns a great variety of names where it divides Bajour\n from the Kunar valley. It is this range, crowned by peaks of 22,000\n ft. altitude and maintaining an average elevation of some 10,000 ft.\n throughout its length of 250 m., that is the real barrier of the\n north--not the Hindu Kush itself. Across it, at its head, are the\n glacial passes which lead to the foot of the Baroghil. Of these\n Darkot, with a glacial staircase on each side, is typical. (See\n GILGIT.) Those passes (the Kilik and Mintaka) from the Pamir regions,\n which lead into the rocky gorges and defiles of the upper affluents of\n the Hunza to the east of the Darkot, belong rather to the Muztagh\n system than to the Hindu Kush. Other passes across this important\n water-divide are the Shandur (12,250 ft.), between Gilgit and Mastuj;\n the Lowarai (10,450 ft.), between the Panjkora and Chitral valleys;\n and farther south certain lower crossings which once formed part of\n the great highway between Kabul and India.\n\n\n Chitral.\n\n Deep down in the trough of the Chitral river, about midway between its\n source and its junction with the Kabul at Jalalabad, is the village\n and fort of Chitral (q.v.). Facing Chitral, on the right bank of the\n river, and extending for some 70 m. from the Hindu Kush, is the lofty\n snow-clad spur of the Hindu Kush known as Shawal, across which one or\n two difficult passes lead into the Bashgol valley of Kafiristan. This\n spur carries the boundary of Afghanistan southwards to Arnawai (some\n 50 m. below Chitral), where it crosses the river to the long Shandur\n watershed. South of Arnawai the Kunar valley becomes a part of\n Afghanistan (see KUNAR). The value of Chitral as an outpost of British\n India may be best gauged by its geographical position. It is about 100\n m. (direct map measurement) from the outpost of Russia at Langar Kisht\n on the river Panja, with the Dorah pass across the Hindu Kush\n intervening. The Dorah may be said to be about half-way between the\n two outposts, and the mountain tracks leading to it on either side are\n rough and difficult. The Dorah, however, is not the only pass which\n leads into the Chitral valley from the Oxus. The Mandal pass, a few\n miles south of the Dorah, is the connecting link between the Oxus and\n the Bashgol valley of Kafiristan; and the Bashgol valley leads\n directly to the Chitral valley at Arnawai, about 50 m. below Chitral.\n Nor must we overlook the connexion between north and south of the\n Hindu Kush which is afforded by the long narrow valley of the Chitral\n (or Yashkun) itself, leading up to the Baroghil pass. This route was\n once made use of by the Chinese for purposes of pilgrimage, if not for\n invasion. Access to Chitral from the north is therefore but a matter\n of practicable tracks, or passes, in two or three directions, and the\n measure of practicability under any given conditions can best be\n reckoned from Chitral itself. By most authorities the possibility of\n an advance in force from the north, even under the most favourable\n conditions, is considered to be exceedingly small; but the tracks and\n passes of the Hindu Kush are only impracticable so long as they are\n left as nature has made them.\n\n_Historical Notices._--Hindu Kush is the Caucasus of Alexander's\nhistorians. It is also included in the Paropamisus, though the latter\nterm embraces more, Caucasus being apparently used only when the alpine\nbarrier is in question. Whether the name was given in mere vanity to the\nbarrier which Alexander passed (as Arrian and others repeatedly allege),\nor was founded also on some verbal confusion, cannot be stated. It was\nno doubt regarded (and perhaps not altogether untruly) as a part of a\ngreat alpine zone believed to traverse Asia from west to east, whether\ncalled Taurus, Caucasus or Imaus. Arrian himself applies Caucasus\ndistinctly to the Himalaya also. The application of the name Tanais to\nthe Syr seems to indicate a real confusion with Colchian Caucasus.\nAlexander, after building an Alexandria at its foot (probably at Hupian\nnear Charikar), crossed into Bactria, first reaching Drapsaca, or\nAdrapsa. This has been interpreted as Anderab, in which case he probably\ncrossed the Khawak Pass, but the identity is uncertain. The ancient Zend\nname is, according to Rawlinson, Paresina, the essential part of\nParopamisus; this accounts for the great Asiastic _Parnassus_ of\nAristotle, and the _Pho-lo-sin-a_ of Hsuan Tsang.\n\nThe name Hindu Kush is used by Ibn Batuta, who crossed (c. 1332) from\nAnderab, and he gives the explanation of the name which, however\ndoubtful, is still popular, as (Pers.) Hindu-Killer, \"because of the\nnumber of Indian slaves who perished in passing\" its snows. Baber always\ncalls the range Hindu Kush, and the way in which he speaks of it shows\nclearly that it was a range that was meant, not a solitary pass or peak\n(according to modern local use, as alleged by Elphinstone and Burnes).\nProbably, however, the title was confined to the section from Khawak to\nKoh-i-Baba. The name has by some later Oriental writers been modified\ninto Hindu _Koh_ (mountain), but this is factitious, and throws no more\nlight on the origin of the title. The name seems to have become known to\nEuropean geographers by the Oriental translations of the two Petis de la\nCroix, and was taken up by Delisle and D'Anville. Rennell and\nElphinstone familiarized it. Burnes first crossed the range (1832). A\nBritish force was stationed at Bamian beyond it in 1840, with an outpost\nat Saighan.\n\nThe Hindu Kush, formidable as it seems, and often as it has been the\nlimit between petty states, has hardly ever been the boundary of a\nconsiderable power. Greeks, White Huns, Samanidae of Bokhara,\nGhaznevides, Mongols, Timur and Timuridae, down to Saddozais and\nBarakzais, have ruled both sides of this great alpine chain.\n\n AUTHORITIES.--Information about the Hindu Kush and Chitral is now\n comparatively exact. The Russo-Afghan Boundary Commission of 1884 and\n the Chitral expedition of 1895 opened up a vast area for geographical\n investigation, and the information collected is to be found in the\n reports and gazetteers of the Indian government. The following are the\n chief recent authorities:--Report of the Russo-Afghan Boundary\n Commission (1886); Report of Lockhart's Mission (1886); Report of\n Asmar Boundary Commission (1895); Report of Pamir Boundary Commission\n (1896); J. Biddulph, _Tribes of the Hindu Kush_ (Calcutta, 1880); W.\n M'Nair, \"Visit to Kafiristan,\" vol. vi. _R.G.S. Proc._, 1884; F.\n Younghusband, \"Journeys on the Pamirs, &c.,\" vol. xiv. _R.G.S. Proc._,\n 1892; Colonel Durand, _Making a Frontier_ (London, 1899); Sir G.\n Robertson, _Chitral_ (London, 1899). (T. H. H.*)\n\n\n\n\nHINDUR, or NALAGARH, one of the Simla hill states, under the government\nof the Punjab, India. Pop. (1901) 52,551; area, 256 sq. m.; estimated\nrevenue, L8600. The country was overrun by the Gurkhas for some years\nbefore 1815, when they were driven out by the British, and the raja was\nconfirmed in possession of the territory. The principal products are\ngrain and opium.\n\n\n\n\nHINGANGHAT, a town of British India in Wardha district, Central\nProvinces, 21 m. S.W. of Wardha town. Pop (1901) 12,662. It is a main\nseat of the cotton trade, the cotton here produced in the rich Wardha\nvalley having given its name to one of the best indigenous staples of\nIndia. The principal native traders are Marwaris, many of whom have\nlarge transactions and export on their own account; but the greater\nnumber act as middle-men. There are two cotton-mills and several ginning\nand pressing factories.\n\n\n\n\nHINGE (in Mid. Eng. _henge_ or _heeng_, from _hengen_, to hang), a\nmovable joint, particularly that by which a door or window \"hangs\" from\nits side-post, or by which a lid or cover is attached to that which it\ncloses; also any device which allows two parts to be joined together and\nmove upon each other (see JOINERY). Figuratively the word is used of\nthat on which something depends, a cardinal or turning point, a crisis.\n\n\n\n\nHINGHAM, a township of Plymouth county, Massachusetts, U.S.A., on\nMassachusetts Bay. Pop (1890) 4564; (1900) 5059 (969 being\nforeign-born); (1905, state census) 4819; (1910) 4965. Area, about 30\nsq. m. The township is traversed by the New York, New Haven & Hartford\nrailway, and contains the villages of Hingham, West Hingham, Hingham\nCenter, and South Hingham. Derby Academy, a co-educational school\nfounded and endowed with about L12,000 in 1784 by Sarah Derby\n(1714-1790), was opened in 1791. Hingham has a public library (1868),\nwith 12,000 volumes in 1908. The Old Meeting House, erected in 1681, is\none of the oldest church buildings in the country used continuously.\nManufactures were relatively much more important in the 17th and 18th\ncenturies than since. There were settlers here as early as 1633, some of\nthem--notably Edmund Hobart, ancestor of Bishop John Henry\nHobart,--being natives of Hingham, Norfolk, England, whence the name;\nand in 1635 common land called Barecove became the township of Hingham.\n\n See _History of the Town of Hingham_ (4 vols., Hingham, 1893).\n\n\n\n\nHINRICHS, HERMANN FRIEDRICH WILHELM (1794-1861), German philosopher,\nstudied theology at Strassburg, and philosophy at Heidelberg under Hegel\n(q.v.), who wrote a preface to his _Religion im innern Verhaltniss zur\nWissenschaft_ (Heidelberg, 1722). He became a _Privatdozent_ in 1819,\nand held professorships at Breslau (1822) and Halle (1824).\n\n WORKS.--(1) Philosophical: _Grundlinien der Philosophie der Logik_\n (Halle, 1826); _Genesis des Wissens_ (Heidelberg, 1835). (2) On\n aesthetics: _Vorlesungen uber Goethes Faust_ (Halle, 1825); _Schillers\n Dichtungen nach ihrem historischen Zusammenhang_ (Leipzig, 1837-1839).\n By these works he became a recognized exponent of orthodox\n Hegelianism. (3) Historical: _Geschichte der Rechts- und\n Staatsprinzipien seit der Reformation bis auf die Gegenwart_ (Leipzig,\n 1848-1852); _Die Konige_ (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1853).\n\n\n\n\nHINSCHIUS, PAUL (1835-1898), German jurist, was the son of Franz Sales\nAugust Hinschius (1807-1877), and was born in Berlin on the 25th of\nDecember 1835. His father was not only a scientific jurist, but also a\nlawyer in large practice in Berlin. After working under his father,\nHinschius in 1852 began to study jurisprudence at Heidelberg and Berlin,\nthe teacher who had most influence upon him being Aemilius Ludwig\nRichter (1808-1864), to whom he afterwards ascribed the great revival of\nthe study of ecclesiastical law in Germany. In 1855 Hinschius took the\ndegree of _doctor utriusque juris_, and in 1859 was admitted to the\njuridical faculty of Berlin. In 1863 he went as professor\nextraordinarius to Halle, returning in the same capacity to Berlin in\n1865; and in 1868 became professor ordinarius at the university of Kiel,\nwhich he represented in the Prussian Upper House (1870-1871). He also\nassisted his father in editing the _Preussische Anwaltszeitung_ from\n1862 to 1866 and the _Zeitschrift fur Gesetzgebung und Rechtspflege in\nPreussen_ from 1867 to 1871. In 1872 he was appointed professor\nordinarius of ecclesiastical law at Berlin. In the same year he took\npart in the conferences of the ministry of ecclesiastical affairs, which\nissued in the famous \"Falk laws.\" In connexion with the developments of\nthe _Kulturkampf_ which resulted from the \"Falk laws,\" he wrote several\ntreatises: e.g. on \"The Attitude of the German State Governments towards\nthe Decrees of the Vatican Council\" (1871), on \"The Prussian Church Laws\nof 1873\" (1873), \"The Prussian Church Laws of the years 1874 and 1875\"\n(1875), and \"The Prussian Church Law of 14th July 1880\" (1881). He sat\nin the Reichstag as a National Liberal from 1872 to 1878, and again in\n1881 and 1882, and from 1889 onwards he represented the university of\nBerlin in the Prussian Upper House. He died on the 13th of December\n1898.\n\nThe two great works by which Hinschius established his fame are the\n_Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae et capitula Angilramni_ (2 parts,\nLeipzig, 1863) and _Das Kirchenrecht der Katholiken und Protestanten in\nDeutschland_, vols, i.-vi. (Berlin, 1869-1877). The first of these, for\nwhich during 1860 and 1861 he had gathered materials in Italy, Spain,\nFrance, England, Scotland, Ireland, Holland and Belgium, was the first\ncritical edition of the False Decretals. His most monumental work,\nhowever, is the _Kirchenrecht_, which remains incomplete. The six\nvolumes actually published (_System des katholischen Kirchenrechts_)\ncover only book i. of the work as planned; they are devoted to an\nexhaustive historical and analytical study of the Roman Catholic\nhierarchy and its government of the church. The work is planned with\nspecial reference to Germany; but in fact its scheme embraces the whole\nof the Roman Catholic organization in its principles and practice.\nUnfortunately even this part of the work remains incomplete; two\nchapters of book i. and the whole of book ii., which was to have dealt\nwith \"the rights and duties of the members of the hierarchy,\" remain\nunwritten; the most notable omission is that of the ecclesiastical law\nin relation to the regular orders. Incomplete as it is, however, the\n_Kirchenrecht_ remains a work of the highest scientific authority.\nEpoch-making in its application of the modern historical method to the\nstudy of ecclesiastical law in its theory and practice, it has become\nthe model for the younger school of canonists.\n\n See the articles s.v. by E. Seckel in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopadie_\n (3rd ed., 1900), and by Ulrich Steitz in the _Allgemeine deutsche\n Biographie_, vol. 50 (Leipzig, 1905).\n\n\n\n\nHINTERLAND (German for \"the land behind\"), the region lying behind a\ncoast or river line, or a country dependent for trade or commerce on any\nother region. In the purely physical sense \"interior\" or \"back country\"\nis more commonly used, but the word has gained a distinct political\nsignificance. It first came into prominence during 1883-1885, when\nGermany insisted that she had a right to exercise jurisdiction in the\nterritory behind those parts of the African coast that she had occupied.\nThe \"doctrine of the hinterland\" was that the possessor of the littoral\nwas entitled to as much of the back country as geographically,\neconomically or politically was dependent upon the coast lands, a\ndoctrine which, in the space of ten years, led to the partition of\nAfrica between various European powers.\n\n\n\n\nHINTON, JAMES (1822-1875), English surgeon and author, son of John\nHoward Hinton (1791-1873), Baptist minister and author of the _History\nand Topography of the United States_ and other works, was born at\nReading in 1822. He was educated at his grandfather's school near\nOxford, and at the Nonconformist school at Harpenden, and in 1838, on\nhis father's removal to London, was apprenticed to a woollen-draper in\nWhitechapel. After retaining this situation about a year he became clerk\nin an insurance office. His evenings were spent in intense study, and\nthis, joined to the ardour, amounting to morbidness, of his interest in\nmoral problems, so affected his health that in his nineteenth year he\nresolved to seek refuge from his own thoughts by running away to sea.\nHis intention having, however, been discovered, he was sent, on the\nadvice of the physician who was consulted regarding his health, to St\nBartholomew's Hospital to study for the medical profession. After\nreceiving his diploma in 1847, he was for some time assistant surgeon at\nNewport, Essex, but the same year he went out to Sierra Leone to take\nmedical charge of the free labourers on their voyage thence to Jamaica,\nwhere he stayed some time. He returned to England in 1850, and entered\ninto partnership with a surgeon in London, where he soon had his\ninterest awakened specially in aural surgery, and gave also much of his\nattention to physiology. He made his first appearance as an author in\n1856 by contributing papers on physiological and ethical subjects to the\n_Christian Spectator_; and in 1859 he published _Man and his\nDwelling-place_. A series of papers entitled \"Physiological Riddles,\" in\nthe _Cornhill Magazine_, afterwards published as _Life in Nature_\n(1862), as well as another series entitled _Thoughts on Health_ (1871),\nproved his aptitude for popular scientific exposition. After being\nappointed aural surgeon to Guy's Hospital in 1863, he speedily acquired\na reputation as the most skilful aural surgeon of his day, which was\nfully borne out by his works, _An Atlas of Diseases of the membrana\ntympani_ (1874), and _Questions of Aural Surgery_ (1874). But his health\nbroke down, and in 1874 he gave up practice; and he died at the Azores\nof acute inflammation of the brain on the 16th of December 1875. In\naddition to the works already mentioned, he was the author of _The\nMystery of Pain_ (1866) and _The Place of the Physician_ (1874). On\naccount of their fresh and vigorous discussion of many of the important\nmoral and social problems of the time, his writings had a wide\ncirculation on both sides of the Atlantic.\n\n His _Life and Letters_, edited by Ellice Hopkins, with an introduction\n by Sir W. W. Gull, appeared in 1878.\n\n\n\n\nHIOGO [HYOGO], a town of Japan in the province of Settsu, Nippon, on the\nwestern shore of the bay of Osaka, adjoining the foreign settlement of\nKobe, 21 m. W. of Osaka by rail. The growth of its prosperity has been\nvery remarkable. Its population, including that of Kobe, was 135,639 in\n1891, and 285,002 in 1903. From 1884 to the close of the century its\ntrade increased nearly eightfold, and the increase was not confined to a\nfew staples of commerce, but was spread over almost the whole trade, in\nwhich silk and cotton fabrics, floor-mats, straw-plaits, matches, and\ncotton yarns are specially important. Kobe owes much of its prosperity\nto the fact of serving largely as the shipping port of Osaka, the chief\nmanufacturing town in Japan. The foreign community, exclusive of\nChinese, exceeds 1000 persons. Kobe is considered the brightest and\nhealthiest of all the places assigned as foreign settlements in Japan,\nits pure, dry air and granite subsoil constituting special advantages.\nIt is in railway communication with all parts of the country, and\nwharves admit of steamers of large size loading and discharging cargo\nwithout the aid of lighters. The area originally appropriated for a\nforeign settlement soon proved too restricted, and foreigners received\npermission to lease lands and houses direct from Japanese owners beyond\nthe treaty limits, a privilege which, together with that of building\nvillas on the hills behind the town, ultimately involved some diplomatic\ncomplications. Kobe has a shipbuilding yard, and docks in its immediate\nneighbourhood.\n\nHiogo has several temples of interest, one of which has near it a huge\nbronze statue of Buddha, while by the Minatogawa, which flows into the\nsea between Hiogo and Kobe, a temple commemorates the spot where\nKusunoki Masashige, the mirror of Japanese loyalty, met his death in\nbattle in 1336. The temple of Ikuta was erected on the site of the\nancient fane built by Jingo on her return from Korea in the 3rd century.\n\nHiogo's original name was Bako. Its position near the entrance of the\nInland Sea gave it some maritime importance from a very early period,\nbut it did not become really prominent until the 12th century, when\nKiyomori, chief of the Taira clan, transferred the capital from Kioto to\nFukuhara, in Hiogo's immediate neighbourhood, and undertook various\npublic works for improving the place. The change of capital was very\nbrief, but Hiogo benefited permanently from the distinction.\n\n\n\n\nHIP. (1) (From O. Eng. _hype_, a word common in various forms to many\nTeutonic languages; cf. Dutch _heup_, and Ger. _Hufte_), the projecting\npart of the body formed by the top of the thighbone and the side of the\npelvis, in quadrupeds generally known as the haunch (see JOINTS). (2)(O.\nEng. _heope_, from same root as M.H. Ger. _hiefe_, a thorn-bush), the\nfruit of the dog-rose (_Rosa canina_); \"hips\" are usually joined with\n\"haws,\" the fruit of the hawthorn.\n\n\n\n\nHIP-KNOB, in architecture, the finial on the hip of a roof, between the\nbarge-boards of a gable.\n\n\n\n\nHIPPARCHUS (fl. 146-126 B.C.), Greek astronomer, was born at Nicaea in\nBithynia early in the 2nd century B.C. He observed in the island of\nRhodes probably from 161, certainly from 146 until about 126 B.C., and\nmade the capital discovery of the precession of the equinoxes in 130\n(see ASTRONOMY: _History_). The outburst of a new star in 134 B.C. is\nstated by Pliny (_Hist. nat._ ii. 26) to have prompted the preparation\nof his catalogue of 1080 stars, substantially embodied in Ptolemy's\n_Almagest_. Hipparchus founded trigonometry, and compiled the first\ntable of chords. Scientific geography originated with his invention of\nthe method of fixing terrestrial positions by circles of latitude and\nlongitude. There can be little doubt that the fundamental part of his\nastronomical knowledge was derived from Chaldaea. None of his many works\nhas survived except a Commentary on the _Phaenomena_ of Aratus and\nEudoxus, published by P. Victorius at Florence in 1567, and included by\nD. Petavius in his _Uranologium_ (Paris, 1630). A new edition was\npublished by Carolus Manitius (Leipzig, 1894).\n\n See J. B. J. Delambre, _Histoire de l'astronomie ancienne_, i. 173; P.\n Tannery, _Recherches sur l'histoire de l'astr. ancienne_, p. 130; A.\n Berry, _Hist. of Astronomy_, pp. 40-61; M. Marie, _Hist. des\n sciences_, i. 207; G. Cornewall Lewis, _Astronomy of the Ancients_, p.\n 207; R. Grant, _Hist. of Phys. Astronomy_, pp. 318, 437; F. Boll,\n _Sphaera_, p. 61 (Leipzig, 1903); R. Wolf, _Geschichte der\n Astronomie_, p. 45; J. F. Montucla, _Hist. des mathematiques_, t. i.\n p. 257; J. A. Schmidt, _Variorum philosophicorum decas_, cap. i.\n (Jenae, 1691). (A. M. C.)\n\n\n\n\n\nHIPPASUS OF METAPONTUM, Pythagorean philosopher, was one of the earliest\nof the disciples of Pythagoras. He is mentioned both by Diogenes\nLaertius and by Iamblichus, but nothing is known of his life. Diogenes\nsays that he left no writings, but other authorities make him the author\nof a [Greek: mystikos logos] directed against the Pythagoreans.\nAccording to Aristotle (_Metaphysica_, i. 3), he was an adherent of the\nHeraclitean fire-doctrine, whereas the Pythagoreans maintained the\ntheory that number is the principle of everything. He seems to have\nregarded the soul as composed of igneous matter, and so approximates the\northodox Pythagorean doctrine of the central fire, or Hestia, to the\nmore detailed theories of Heraclitus. In spite of this divergence,\nHippasus is always regarded as a Pythagorean.\n\n See Diogenes viii. 84; Brandis, _History of Greek and Roman\n Philosophy_; also PYTHAGORAS.\n\n\n\n\nHIPPEASTRUM, in botany, a genus of the natural order Amaryllidaceae,\ncontaining about 50 species of bulbous plants, natives of tropical and\nsub-tropical South America. In cultivation they are generally known as\n_Amaryllis_. The handsome funnel-shaped flowers are borne in a cluster\nof two to many, at the end of a short hollow scape. The species and the\nnumerous hybrids which have been obtained artificially, show a great\nvariety in size and colour of the flower, including the richest deep\ncrimson and blood-red, white, or with striped, mottled or blended\ncolours. They are of easy culture, and free-blooming habit. Like other\nbulbs they are increased by offsets, which should be carefully removed\nwhen the plants are at rest, and should be allowed to attain a fair size\nbefore removal. These young bulbs should be potted singly in February or\nMarch, in mellow loamy soil with a moderate quantity of sand, about\ntwo-thirds of the bulb being kept above the level of the soil, which\nshould be made quite solid. They should be removed to a temperature of\n60 deg. by night and 70 deg. by day, very carefully watered until the\nroots have begun to grow freely, after which the soil should be kept\nmoderately moist. As they advance the temperature should be raised to 70\ndeg. at night, and to 80 deg. or higher with sun heat by day. They do\nnot need shading, but should have plenty of air, and be syringed daily\nin the afternoon. When growing they require a good supply of water.\nAfter the decay of the flowers they should be returned to a brisk moist\ntemperature of from 70 deg. to 80 deg. by day during summer to perfect\ntheir leaves, and then be ripened off in autumn. Through the winter they\nshould have less water, but must not be kept entirely dry. The minimum\ntemperature should now be about 55 deg., to be increased 10 deg. or 15\ndeg. in spring. As the bulbs get large they will occasionally need\nshifting into larger pots. Propagation is also readily effected by seeds\nfor raising new varieties. Seeds are sown when ripe in well drained pans\nof sandy loam at a temperature of about 65 deg. The seedlings when large\nenough to handle are placed either singly in very small pots or several\nin a pot or shallow pan, and put in a bottom heat, in a moist atmosphere\nwith a temperature from 60 deg. to 70 deg. _H. Ackermanni_, with large,\nhandsome, crimson flowers--itself a hybrid--is the parent of many of the\nlarge-flowered forms; _H. equestre_ (Barbados lily), with\nyellowish-green flowers tipped with scarlet, has also given rise to\nseveral handsome forms; _H. aulicum_ (flowers crimson and green), _H.\npardinum_ (flowers creamy-white spotted with crimson), and _H. vittatum_\n(flowers white with red stripes, a beautiful species and the parent of\nmany varieties), are stove or warm greenhouse plants. These kinds,\nhowever, are now only regarded as botanical curiosities, and are rarely\ngrown in private or commercial establishments. They have been ousted by\nthe more gorgeous looking hybrids, which have been evolved during the\npast 100 years. _H. Johnsoni_ is named after a Lancashire watchmaker who\nraised it in 1799 by crossing _H. Reginae_ with _H. vittatum_. Since\nthat time other species have been used for hybridizing, notably _H.\nreticulatum_, _H. aulicum_, _H. solandriflorum_, and sometimes _H.\nequestre_ and _H. psittacinum_. The finest forms since 1880 have been\nevolved from _H. Leopoldi_ and _H. pardinum_. (J. Ws.)\n\n\n\n\nHIPPED ROOF, the name given in architecture to a roof which slopes down\non all four sides instead of terminating on two sides against a\nvertical gable. Sometimes a compromise is made between the two, half the\nroof being hipped and half resting on the vertical wall; this gives much\nmore room inside the roof, and externally a most picturesque effect,\nwhich is one of the great attractions of domestic architecture in the\nsouth of England, and is rarely found in other countries.\n\n\n\n\nHIPPEL, THEODOR GOTTLIEB VON (1741-1796), German satirical and humorous\nwriter, was born on the 31st of January 1741, at Gerdauen in East\nPrussia, where his father was rector of a school. He enjoyed an\nexcellent education at home, and in his sixteenth year he entered\nKonigsberg university as a student of theology. Interrupting his\nstudies, he went, on the invitation of a friend, to St Petersburg, where\nhe was introduced at the brilliant court of the empress Catherine II.\nReturning to Konigsberg he became a tutor in a private family; but,\nfalling in love with a young lady of high position, his ambition was\naroused, and giving up his tutorship he devoted himself with enthusiasm\nto legal studies. He was successful in his profession, and in 1780 was\nappointed chief burgomaster in Konigsberg, and in 1786 privy councillor\nof war and president of the town. As he rose in the world, however, his\ninclination for matrimony vanished, and the lady who had stimulated his\nambition was forgotten. He died at Konigsberg on the 23rd of April 1796,\nleaving a considerable fortune. Hippel had extraordinary talents, rich\nin wit and fancy; but his was a character full of contrasts and\ncontradictions. Cautiousness and ardent passion, dry pedantry and piety,\nmorality and sensuality; simplicity and ostentation composed his nature;\nand, hence, his literary productions never attained artistic finish. In\nhis _Lebenslaufe nach aufsteigender Linie_ (1778-1781) he intended to\ndescribe the lives of his father and grandfather, but he eventually\nconfined himself to his own. It is an autobiography, in which persons\nwell known to him are introduced, together with a mass of heterogeneous\nreflections on life and philosophy. _Kreuz- und Querzuge des Ritters A\nbis Z_ (1793-1794) is a satire levelled against the follies of the\nage--ancestral pride and the thirst for orders, decoration and the like.\nAmong others of his better known works are _Uber die Ehe_ (1774) and\n_Uber die burgerliche Verbesserung der Weiber_ (1792). Hippel has been\ncalled the fore-runner of Jean Paul Richter, and has some resemblance to\nthis author, in his constant digressions and in the interweaving of\nscientific matter in his narrative. Like Richter he was strongly\ninfluenced by Laurence Sterne.\n\n In 1827-1838 a collected edition of Hippel's works in 14 vols., was\n issued at Berlin. _Uber die Ehe_ has been edited by E. Brenning\n (Leipzig, 1872), and the _Lebenslaufe nach aufsteigender Linie_ has in\n a modernized edition by A. von Ottingen (1878), gone through several\n editions. See J. Czerny, _Sterne, Hippel und Jean Paul_ (Berlin,\n 1904).\n\n\n\n\nHIPPIAS OF ELIS, Greek sophist, was born about the middle of the 5th\ncentury B.C. and was thus a younger contemporary of Protagoras and\nSocrates. He was a man of great versatility and won the respect of his\nfellow-citizens to such an extent that he was sent to various towns on\nimportant embassies. At Athens he made the acquaintance of Socrates and\nother leading thinkers. With an assurance characteristic of the later\nsophists, he claimed to be regarded as an authority on all subjects, and\nlectured, at all events with financial success, on poetry, grammar,\nhistory, politics, archaeology, mathematics and astronomy. He boasted\nthat he was more popular than Protagoras, and was prepared at any moment\nto deliver an extempore address on any subject to the assembly at\nOlympia. Of his ability there is no question, but it is equally certain\nthat he was superficial. His aim was not to give knowledge, but to\nprovide his pupils with the weapons of argument, to make them fertile in\ndiscussion on all subjects alike. It is said that he boasted of wearing\nnothing which he had not made with his own hands. Plato's two dialogues,\nthe _Hippias major_ and _minor_, contain an expose of his methods,\nexaggerated no doubt for purposes of argument but written with full\nknowledge of the man and the class which he represented. Ast denies\ntheir authenticity, but they must have been written by a contemporary\nwriter (as they are mentioned in the literature of the 4th century), and\nundoubtedly represent the attitude of serious thinkers to the growing\ninfluence of the professional Sophists. There is, however, no question\nthat Hippias did a real service to Greek literature by insisting on the\nmeaning of words, the value of rhythm and literary style. He is credited\nwith an excellent work on Homer, collections of Greek and foreign\nliterature, and archaeological treatises, but nothing remains except the\nbarest notes. He forms the connecting link between the first great\nsophists, Protagoras and Prodicus, and the innumerable eristics who\nbrought their name into disrepute.\n\n For the general atmosphere in which Hippias moved see SOPHISTS; also\n histories of Philosophy (e.g. Windelband, Eng. trans. by Tufts, pt. 1,\n c. 2, SS 7 and 8).\n\n\n\n\nHIPPO, a Greek philosopher and natural scientist, classed with the\nIonian or physical school. He was probably a contemporary of Archelaus\nand lived chiefly in Athens. Aristotle declared that he was unworthy of\nthe name of philosopher, and, while comparing him with Thales in his\nmain doctrine, adds that his intellect was too shallow for serious\nconsideration. He held that the principle of all things is moisture\n([Greek: to hygron]); that fire develops from water, and from fire the\nmaterial universe. Further he denied all existence save that of material\nthings as known through the senses, and was, therefore, classed among\nthe \"Atheists.\" The gods are merely great men canonized by popular\ntradition. It is said that he composed his own epitaph, wherein he\nclaims for himself a place in this company.\n\n\n\n\nHIPPOCRAS, an old medicinal drink or cordial, made of wine mixed with\nspices--such as cinnamon, ginger and sugar--and strained through woollen\ncloths. The early spelling usual in English was _ipocras_, or _ypocras_.\nThe word is an adaptation of the Med. Lat. _Vinum Hippocraticum_, or\nwine of Hippocrates, so called, not because it was supposed to be a\nreceipt of the physician, but from an apothecary's name for a strainer\nor sieve, \"Hippocrates' sleeve\" (see W. W. Skeat, _Chaucer_, note to the\n_Merchant's Tale_).\n\n\n\n\nHIPPOCRATES, Greek philosopher and writer, termed the \"Father of\nMedicine,\" was born, according to Soranus, in Cos, in the first year of\nthe 80th Olympiad, i.e. in 460 B.C. He was a member of the family of the\nAsclepiadae, and was believed to be either the nineteenth or seventeenth\nin direct descent from Aesculapius. It is also claimed for him that he\nwas descended from Hercules through his mother, Phaenarete. He studied\nmedicine under Heraclides, his father, and Herodicus of Selymbria; in\nphilosophy Gorgias of Leontini and Democritus of Abdera were his\nmasters. His earlier studies were prosecuted in the famous Asclepion of\nCos, and probably also at Cnidos. He travelled extensively, and taught\nand practised his profession at Athens, probably also in Thrace,\nThessaly, Delos and his native island. He died at Larissa in Thessaly,\nhis age being variously stated as 85, 90, 104 and 109. The incidents of\nhis life are shrouded by uncertain traditions, which naturally sprang up\nin the absence of any authentic record; the earliest biography was by\none of the Sorani, probably Soranus the younger of Ephesus, in the 2nd\ncentury; Suidas, the lexicographer, wrote of him in the 11th, and\nTzetzes in the 12th century. In all these biographies there is internal\nevidence of confusion; many of the incidents related are elsewhere told\nof other persons, and certain of them are quite irreconcilable with his\ncharacter, so far as it can be judged of from his writings and from the\nopinions expressed of him by his contemporaries; we may safely reject,\nfor instance, the legends that he set fire to the library of the Temple\nof Health at Cnidos, in order to destroy the evidence of plagiarism, and\nthat he refused to visit Persia at the request of Artaxerxes Longimanus,\nduring a pestilential epidemic, on the ground that he would in so doing\nbe assisting an enemy. He is referred to by Plato (_Protag._ p. 283;\n_Phaedr._ p. 211) as an eminent medical authority, and his opinion is\nalso quoted by Aristotle. The veneration in which he was held by the\nAthenians serves to dissipate the calumnies which have been thrown on\nhis character by Andreas, and the whole tone of his writings bespeaks a\nman of the highest integrity and purest morality.\n\nBorn of a family of priest-physicians, and inheriting all its traditions\nand prejudices, Hippocrates was the first to cast superstition aside,\nand to base the practice of medicine on the principles of inductive\nphilosophy. It is impossible to trace directly the influence exercised\nupon him by the great men of his time, but one cannot fail to connect\nhis emancipation of medicine from superstition with the widespread power\nexercised over Greek life and thought by the living work of Socrates,\nPlato, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Herodotus and Thucydides. It was\na period of great intellectual development, and it only needed a\npowerful mind such as his to bring to bear upon medicine the same\ninfluences which were at work in other sciences. It must be remembered\nthat his training was not altogether bad, although superstition entered\nso largely into it. He had a great master in Democritus, the originator\nof the doctrine of atoms, and there is every reason to believe that the\nvarious \"asclepia\" were very carefully conducted hospitals for the sick,\npossessing a curious system of case-books, in the form of votive\ntablets, left by the patients, on which were recorded the symptoms,\ntreatment and result of each case. He had these records at his command;\nand he had the opportunity of observing the system of training and the\ntreatment of injuries in the gymnasia. One of his great merits is that\nhe was the first to dissociate medicine from priest-craft, and to direct\nexclusive attention to the natural history of disease. How strongly his\nmind revolted against the use of charms, amulets, incantations and such\ndevices appears from his writings; and he has expressly recorded, as\nunderlying all his practice, the conviction that, however diseases may\nbe regarded from the religious point of view, they must all be\nscientifically treated as subject to natural laws (_De aere_, 29). Nor\nwas he anxious to maintain the connexion between philosophy and medicine\nwhich had for long existed in a confused and confusing fashion.[1] His\nknowledge of anatomy, physiology and pathology was necessarily\ndefective, the respect in which the dead body was held by the Greeks\nprecluding him from practising dissection; thus we find him writing of\nthe tissues without distinguishing between the various textures of the\nbody, confusing arteries, veins and nerves, and speaking vaguely of the\nmuscles as \"flesh.\" But when we come to study his observations on the\nnatural history of disease as presented in the living subject, we\nrecognize at once the presence of a great clinical physician.\nHippocrates based his principles and practice on the theory of the\nexistence of a spiritual restoring essence or principle, [Greek:\nphysis], the _vis medicatrix naturae_, in the management of which the\nart of the physician consisted. This art could, he held, be only\nobtained by the application of experience, not only to disease at large,\nbut to disease in the individual. He strongly deprecated blind\nempiricism; the aphorism \"[Greek: he peira sphalere, he krisis chalepe]\"\n(whether it be his or not), tersely illustrates his position. Holding\nfirmly to the principle, [Greek: nouson physies ietroi], he did not\nallow himself to remain inactive in the presence of disease; he was not\na merely \"expectant\" physician; as Sydenham puts it, his practice was\n\"the support of enfeebled and the coercion of outrageous nature.\" He\nlargely employed powerful medicines and blood-letting both ordinary and\nby cupping. He advises, however, great caution in their application. He\nplaced great dependence on diet and regimen, and here, quaint as many of\nhis directions may now sound, not only in themselves, but in the reasons\ngiven, there is much which is still adhered to at the present day. His\ntreatise [Greek: Peri aeron, hydaton, kai topon] (_Airs, Waters, and\nPlaces_) contains the first enunciation of the principles of public\nhealth. Although the treatises [Greek: Peri krisimon] cannot be accepted\nas authentic, we find in the [Greek: Prognostikon] evidence of the\nacuteness of observation in the manner in which the occurrence of\ncritical days in disease is enunciated. His method of reporting cases is\nmost interesting and instructive; in them we can read how thoroughly he\nhad separated himself from the priest-physician. Laennec, to whom we are\nindebted for the practice of auscultation, freely admits that the idea\nwas suggested to him by study of Hippocrates, who, treating of the\npresence of morbid fluids in the thorax, gives very particular\ndirections, by means of succussion, for arriving at an opinion\nregarding their nature. Laennec says, \"Hippocrate avait tente\nl'auscultation immediate.\" Although the treatise [Greek: Peri nouson] is\ndoubtfully from the pen of Hippocrates, it contains strong evidence of\nhaving been the work of his grandson, representing the views of the\nFather of Medicine. Although not accurate in the conclusions reached at\nthe time, the value of the method of diagnosis is shown by the retention\nin modern medicine of the name and the practice of \"Hippocratic\nsuccussion.\" The power of graphic description of phenomena in the\nHippocratic writings is illustrated by the retention of the term \"facies\nHippocratica,\" applied to the appearance of a moribund person, pictured\nin the _Prognostics_. In surgery his writings are important and\ninteresting, but they do not bear the same character of caution as the\ntreatises on medicine; for instance, in the essay _On Injuries of the\nHead_, he advocates the operation \"of trephining\" more strongly and in\nwider classes of cases than would be warranted by the experience of\nlater times.\n\n The _Hippocratic Collection_ consists of eighty-seven treatises, of\n which a part only can be accepted as genuine. The collection has been\n submitted to the closest criticism in ancient and modern times by a\n large number of commentators (for full list of the early commentators,\n see Adams's _Genuine Works of Hippocrates_, Sydenham Society, i. 27,\n 28). The treatises have been classified according to (1) the direct\n evidence of ancient writers, (2) peculiarities of style and method,\n and (3) the presence of anachronisms and of opinions opposed to the\n general Hippocratic teaching--greatest weight being attached to the\n opinions of Erotian and Galen. The general estimate of commentators is\n thus stated by Adams: \"The peculiar style and method of Hippocrates\n are held to be conciseness of expression, great condensation of\n matter, and disposition to regard all professional subjects in a\n practical point of view, to eschew subtle hypotheses and modes of\n treatment based on vague abstractions.\" The treatises have been\n grouped in the four following sections: (1) genuine; (2) those\n consisting of notes taken by students and collected after the death of\n Hippocrates; (3) essays by disciples; (4) those utterly spurious.\n Littre accepts the following thirteen as absolutely genuine: (1) _On\n Ancient Medicine_ ([Greek: Peri archaies ietrikes]); (2) _The\n Prognostics_ ([Greek: Prognostikon]); (3) _The Aphorisms_ ([Greek:\n Aphorismoi]); (4) _The Epidemics_, i. and iii. ([Greek: Epidemion a'\n kai g']); (5) _On Regimen in Acute Diseases_ ([Greek: Peri diaites\n oxeon]); (6) _On Airs, Waters, and Places_ ([Greek: Peri aeron,\n hydaton, kai topon]); (7) _On the Articulations_ ([Greek: Peri\n arthron]); (8) _On Fractures_ ([Greek: Peri agmon]); (9) _The\n Instruments of Reduction_ ([Greek: Mochlikos]); (10) _The Physician's\n Establishment, or Surgery_ ([Greek: Kat' ietreion]); (11) _On Injuries\n of the Head_ ([Greek: Peri ton en kephale tromaton]); (12) _The Oath_\n ([Greek: Horkos]); (13) _The Law_ ([Greek: Nomos]). Of these Adams\n accepts as certainly genuine the 2nd, 6th, 5th, 3rd (7 books), 4th,\n 7th, 8th, 9th and 12th, and as \"pretty confidently acknowledged as\n genuine, although the evidence in their favour is not so strong,\" the\n 1st, 10th and 13th, and, in addition, (14) _On Ulcers_ ([Greek: Peri\n helkon]); (15) _On Fistulae_ ([Greek: Peri syringon]); (16) _On\n Hemorrhoids_ ([Greek: Peri haimorrhoidon]); (17) _On the Sacred\n Disease_ ([Greek: Peri hieres nousou]). According to the sceptical and\n somewhat subjective criticism of Ermerins, the whole collection is to\n be regarded as spurious except _Epidemics_, books i. and iii. (with a\n few interpolations), _On Airs, Waters, and Places_, _On Injuries of\n the Head_ (\"insigne fragmentum libri Hippocratei\"), the former portion\n of the treatise _On Regimen in Acute Diseases_, and the \"obviously\n Hippocratic\" fragments of the _Coan Prognostics_. Perhaps also the\n _Oath_ may be accepted as genuine; its comparative antiquity is not\n denied. The _Aphorisms_ are certainly later and inferior. In the other\n non-Hippocratic writings Ermerins thinks he can distinguish the hands\n of no fewer than nineteen different authors, most of them anonymous,\n and some of them very late.\n\n The earliest Greek edition of the Hippocratic writings is that which\n was published by Aldus and Asulanus at Venice in 1526 (folio); it was\n speedily followed by that of Frobenius, which is much more accurate\n and complete (fol., Basel, 1538). Of the numerous subsequent editions,\n probably the best was that of Foesius (Frankfort, 1595, 1621, Geneva,\n 1657), until the publication of the great works of Littre, _Oeuvres\n completes d'Hippocrate, traduction nouvelle avec le texte grec en\n regard, collationnee sur les manuscrits et toutes les editions,\n accompagnee d'une introduction, de commentaires medicaux, de\n variantes, et de notes philologiques_ (10 vols., Paris, 1839-1861),\n and of F. Z. Ermerins, _Hippocratis et aliorum medicorum veterum\n reliquiae_ (3 vols., Utrecht, 1859-1864). See also Adams (as cited\n above), and Reinhold's _Hippocrates_ (2 vols., Athens, 1864-1867).\n Daremberg's edition of the _Oeuvres choisies_ (2nd ed., Paris, 1855)\n includes the _Oath_, the _Law_, the _Prorrhetics_, book i., the\n _Prognostics, On Airs, Waters, and Places, Epidemics_, books i. and\n iii., _Regimen_, and _Aphorisms_. Of the separate works attributed to\n Hippocrates the editions and translations are almost innumerable; of\n the _Prognostics_, for example, seventy editions are known, while of\n the _Aphorisms_ there are said to exist as many as three hundred. For\n some notice of the Arabic, Syriac and Hebrew translations of works\n professedly by Hippocrates (Ibukrat or Bukrat), the number of which\n greatly exceeds that of the extant Greek originals, reference may be\n made to Flugel's contribution to the article \"Hippokrates\" in the\n _Encyklopadie_ of Ersch and Gruber. They have been partially\n catalogued by Fabricius in his _Bibliotheca Graeca_. (J. B. T.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [1] \"Hippocrates Cous, primus quidem ex omnibus memoria dignus, ab\n studio sapientiae disciplinam hanc separavit, vir et arte et facundia\n insignis\" (Celsus, _De medicina_).\n\n\n\n\nHIPPOCRENE (the \"fountain of the horse,\" [Greek: he hippou krene]), the\nspring on Mt Helicon, in Boeotia, which, like the other spring there,\nAganippe, was sacred to the Muses and Apollo, and hence taken as the\nsource of poetic inspiration. The spring, surrounded by an ancient wall,\nis now known as _Kryopegadi_ or the cold spring. According to the\nlegend, it was produced by the stamping of the hoof of Bellerophon's\nhorse Pegasus. The same story accounts for the Hippocrene in Troezen and\nthe spring Peirene at Corinth.\n\n\n\n\nHIPPODAMUS, of Miletus, a Greek architect of the 5th century B.C. It was\nhe who introduced order and regularity into the planning of cities, in\nplace of the previous intricacy and confusion. For Pericles he planned\nthe arrangement of the harbour-town Peiraeus at Athens. When the\nAthenians founded Thurii in Italy he accompanied the colony as\narchitect, and afterwards, in 408 B.C., he superintended the building of\nthe new city of Rhodes. His schemes consisted of series of broad,\nstraight streets, cutting one another at right angles.\n\n\n\n\nHIPPODROME (Gr. [Greek: hippodromos], from [Greek: hippos], horse, and\n[Greek: dromos], racecourse), the course provided by the Greeks for\nhorse and chariot racing; it corresponded to the Roman _circus_, except\nthat in the latter only four chariots ran at a time, whereas ten or more\ncontended in the Greek games, so that the width was far greater, being\nabout 400 ft., the course being 600 to 700 ft. long. The Greek\nhippodrome was usually set out on the slope of a hill, and the ground\ntaken from one side served to form the embankment on the other side. One\nend of the hippodrome was semicircular, and the other end square with an\nextensive portico, in front of which, at a lower level, were the stalls\nfor the horses and chariots. The modern hippodrome is more for\nequestrian and other displays than for horse racing. The Hippodrome in\nParis somewhat resembles the Roman amphitheatre, being open in the\ncentre to the sky, with seats round on rising levels.\n\n\n\n\nHIPPOLYTUS, in Greek legend, son of Theseus and Hippolyte, queen of the\nAmazons (or of her sister Antiope), a famous hunter and charioteer and\nfavourite of Artemis. His stepmother Phaedra became enamoured of him,\nbut, finding her advances rejected, she hanged herself, leaving a letter\nin which she accused Hippolytus of an attempt upon her virtue. Theseus\nthereupon drove his son from his presence with curses and called upon\nhis father Poseidon to destroy him. While Hippolytus was driving along\nthe shore at Troezen (the scene of the _Hippolytus_ of Euripides), a\nsea-monster (a bull or _phoca_) sent by Poseidon emerged from the waves;\nthe horses were scared, Hippolytus was thrown out of the chariot, and\nwas dragged along, entangled in the reins, until he died. According to a\ntradition of Epidaurus, Asclepius restored him to life at the request of\nArtemis, who removed him to Italy (see VIRBIUS). At Troezen, where he\nhad a special sanctuary and priest, and was worshipped with divine\nhonours, the story of his death was denied. He was said to have been\nrescued by the gods at the critical moment, and to have been placed\namongst the stars as the Charioteer (Auriga). It was also the custom of\nthe Troezenian maidens to cut off a lock of their hair and to dedicate\nit to Hippolytus before marriage (see Frazer on Pausanias ii. 32. 1).\nWell-known classical parallels to the main theme are Bellerophon and\nAntea (or Stheneboea) and Peleus and Astydamia. The story was the\nsubject of two plays by Euripides (the later of which is extant), of a\ntragedy by Seneca and of Racine's _Phedre_. A trace of it has survived\nin the legendary death of the apocryphal martyr Hippolytus, a Roman\nofficer who was torn to pieces by wild horses as a convert to\nChristianity (see J. J. Dollinger, _Hippolytus and Callistus_, Eng. tr.\nby A. Plummer, 1876, pp. 28-39, 51-60).\n\nAccording to the older explanations, Hippolytus represented the sun,\nwhich sets in the sea (cf. the scene of his death and the story of\nPhaethon), and Phaedra the moon, which travels behind the sun, but is\nunable to overtake it. It is more probable, however, that he was a local\nhero famous for his chastity, perhaps originally a priest of Artemis,\nworshipped as a god at Troezen, where he was closely connected and\nsometimes confounded with Asclepius. It is noteworthy that, in a speech\nput into the mouth of Theseus by Euripides, the father, who of course\nbelieves his wife's story and regards Hippolytus as a hypocrite, throws\nhis son's pretended misogyny and asceticism (Orphism) in his teeth. This\nseems to point to a struggle between a new ritual and that of Poseidon,\nthe chief deity of Troezen, in which the representative of the intruding\nreligion meets his death through the agency of the offended god, as\nOrpheus (q.v.) was torn to pieces by the votaries of the jealous\nDionysus. According to S. Reinach (_Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft_,\nx., 1907, p. 47), the Troezenian Hippolytus was a horse, the hypostasis\nof an equestrian divinity periodically torn to pieces by the faithful,\nwho called themselves, and believed themselves to be, horses. Death was\nfollowed by resuscitation, as in the similar myths of Adonis (the sacred\nboar), Orpheus (the fox), Pentheus (the fawn), Phaethon (the white\nsun-horse).\n\n See Wilamowitz-Mollendorff's Introduction to his German translation of\n Euripides' _Hippolytus_ (1891); A. Kalkmann, _De Hippolytis\n Euripideis_ (Bonn, 1882); and (for representations in art) \"Uber\n Darstellung der Hippolytussage\" in _Archaologische Zeitung_ (xli.\n 1883); J. E. Harrison, _Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens_\n (1890), cl.\n\n\n\n\nHIPPOLYTUS, a writer of the early Church. The mystery which enveloped\nthe person and writings of Hippolytus,[1] one of the most prolific\necclesiastical writers of early times, had some light thrown upon it for\nthe first time about the middle of the 19th century by the discovery of\nthe so-called _Philosophumena_ (see below). Assuming this writing to be\nthe work of Hippolytus, the information given in it as to the author and\nhis times can be combined with other traditional dates to form a\ntolerably clear picture. Hippolytus must have been born in the second\nhalf of the 2nd century, probably in Rome. Photius describes him in his\n_Bibliotheca_ (cod. 121) as a disciple of Irenaeus, and from the context\nof this passage it is supposed that we may conclude that Hippolytus\nhimself so styled himself. But this is not certain, and even if it were,\nit does not necessarily imply that Hippolytus enjoyed the personal\nteaching of the celebrated Gallic bishop; it may perhaps merely refer to\nthat relation of his theological system to that of Irenaeus which can\neasily be traced in his writings. As a presbyter of the church at Rome\nunder Bishop Zephyrinus (199-217), Hippolytus was distinguished for his\nlearning and eloquence. It was at this time that Origen, then a young\nman, heard him preach (Hieron. _Vir. ill._ 61; cp. Euseb. _H.E._ vi. 14,\n10). It was probably not long before questions of theology and church\ndiscipline brought him into direct conflict with Zephyrinus, or at any\nrate with his successor Calixtus I. (q.v.). He accused the bishop of\nfavouring the Christological heresies of the Monarchians, and, further,\nof subverting the discipline of the Church by his lax action in\nreceiving back into the Church those guilty of gross offences. The\nresult was a schism, and for perhaps over ten years Hippolytus stood as\nbishop at the head of a separate church. Then came the persecution under\nMaximinus the Thracian. Hippolytus and Pontius, who was then bishop,\nwere transported in 235 to Sardinia, where it would seem that both of\nthem died. From the so-called chronograph of the year 354 (_Catalogus\nLiberianus_) we learn that on the 13th of August, probably in 236, the\nbodies of the exiles were interred in Rome and that of Hippolytus in the\ncemetery on the Via Tiburtina. So we must suppose that before his death\nthe schismatic was received again into the bosom of the Church, and this\nis confirmed by the fact that his memory was henceforth celebrated in\nthe Church as that of a holy martyr. Pope Damasus I. dedicated to him\none of his famous epigrams, and Prudentius (_Peristephanon_, 11) drew a\nhighly coloured picture of his gruesome death, the details of which are\ncertainly purely legendary: the myth of Hippolytus the son of Theseus\nwas transferred to the Christian martyr. Of the historical Hippolytus\nlittle remained in the memory of after ages. Neither Eusebius (_H.E._\nvi. 20, 2) nor Jerome (_Vir. ill._ 61) knew that the author so much read\nin the East and the Roman saint were one and the same person. The notice\nin the _Chronicon Paschale_ preserves one slight reminiscence of the\nhistorical facts, namely, that Hippolytus's episcopal see was situated\nat Portus near Rome. In 1551 a marble statue of a seated man was found\nin the cemetery of the Via Tiburtina: on the sides of the seat were\ncarved a paschal cycle, and on the back the titles of numerous writings.\nIt was the statue of Hippolytus, a work at any rate of the 3rd century;\nat the time of Pius IX. it was placed in the Lateran Museum, a record in\nstone of a lost tradition.\n\nHippolytus's voluminous writings, which for variety of subject can be\ncompared with those of Origen, embrace the spheres of exegesis,\nhomiletics, apologetics and polemic, chronography and ecclesiastical\nlaw. His works have unfortunately come down to us in such a fragmentary\ncondition that it is difficult to obtain from them any very exact notion\nof his intellectual and literary importance. Of his exegetical works the\nbest preserved are the _Commentary on the Prophet Daniel_ and the\n_Commentary on the Song of Songs_. In spite of many instances of a want\nof taste in his typology, they are distinguished by a certain sobriety\nand sense of proportion in his exegesis. We are unable to form an\nopinion of Hippolytus as a preacher, for the _Homilies on the Feast of\nEpiphany_ which go under his name are wrongly attributed to him. He\nwrote polemical words directed against the pagans, the Jews and\nheretics. The most important of these polemical treatises is the\n_Refutation of all Heresies_, which has come to be known by the\ninappropriate title of the _Philosophumena_. Of its ten books, the\nsecond and third are lost; Book i. was for a long time printed (with the\ntitle _Philosophumena_) among the works of Origen; Books iv.-x. were\nfound in 1842 by the Greek Minoides Mynas, without the name of the\nauthor, in a MS. at Mount Athos. It is nowadays universally admitted\nthat Hippolytus was the author, and that Books i. and iv.-x. belong to\nthe same work. The importance of the work has, however, been much\noverrated; a close examination of the sources for the exposition of the\nGnostic system which is contained in it has proved that the information\nit gives is not always trustworthy. Of the dogmatic works, that on\n_Christ and Antichrist_ survives in a complete state. Among other things\nit includes a vivid account of the events preceding the end of the\nworld, and it was probably written at the time of the persecution under\nSeptimius Severus, i.e. about 202. The influence of Hippolytus was felt\nchiefly through his works on chronographic and ecclesiastical law. His\nchronicle of the world, a compilation embracing the whole period from\nthe creation of the world up to the year 234, formed a basis for many\nchronographical works both in the East and West. In the great\ncompilations of ecclesiastical law which arose in the East since the 4th\ncentury (see below: also APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS) much of the material\nwas taken from the writings of Hippolytus; how much of this is genuinely\nhis, how much of it worked over, and how much of it wrongly attributed\nto him, can no longer be determined beyond dispute even by the most\nlearned investigation.\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The edition of J. A. Fabricius, _Hippolyti opera graece\n et latine_ (2 vols., Hamburg, 1716-1718, reprinted in Gallandi,\n _Bibliotheca veterum patrum_ (vol. ii., 1766), and Migne, _Cursus\n patrol. ser. Graeca_, vol. x.) is out of date. The preparation of a\n complete critical edition has been undertaken by the Prussian Academy\n of Sciences. The task is one of extraordinary difficulty, for the\n textual problems of the various writings are complex and confused: the\n Greek original is extant in a few cases only (the _Commentary on\n Daniel_, the _Refutation, on Antichrist_, parts of the _Chronicle_,\n and some fragments); for the rest we are dependent on fragments of\n translations, chiefly Slavonic, all of which are not even published.\n Of the Academy's edition one volume was published at Berlin in 1897,\n containing the _Commentaries on Daniel_ and on the _Song of Songs_,\n the treatise on _Antichrist_, and the _Lesser Exegetical_ and\n _Homiletic Works_, edited by Nathanael Bonwetsch and Hans Achelis. The\n _Commentary on the Song of Songs_ has also been published by Bonwetsch\n (Leipzig, 1902) in a German translation based on a Russian translation\n by N. Marr of the Grusian (Georgian) text, and he added to it\n (Leipzig, 1904) a translation of various small exegetical pieces,\n which are preserved in a Georgian version only (_The Blessing of\n Jacob_, _The Blessing of Moses_, _The Narrative of David and\n Goliath_). A great part of the original of the _Chronicle_ has been\n published by Adolf Bauer (Leipzig, 1905) from the _Codex Matritensis\n Graecus_, 221. For the _Refutation_ we are still dependent on the\n editions of Miller (Oxford, 1851), Duncker and Schneidewin (Gottingen,\n 1859), and Cruice (Paris, 1860). An English translation is to be found\n in the _Ante-Nicene Christian Library_ (Edinburgh, 1868-1869).\n\n See Bunsen, _Hippolytus and his Age_ (1852, 2nd ed., 1854; Ger. ed.,\n 1853); Dollinger, _Hippolytus und Kallistus_ (Regensb. 1853; Eng.\n transl., Edinb., 1876); Gerhard Ficker, _Studien zur Hippolytfrage_\n (Leipzig, 1893); Hans Achelis, _Hippolytstudien_ (Leipzig, 1897); Karl\n Johannes Neumann, _Hippolytus von Rom in seiner Stellung zu Staat und\n Welt_, part i. (Leipzig, 1902); Adhemar d'Ales, _La Theologie de Saint\n Hippolyte_ (Paris, 1906). (G. K.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [1] According to the legend St Hippolytus was a Roman soldier who was\n converted by St Lawrence.\n\n\n\n\nHIPPOLYTUS, THE CANONS OF. This book stands at the head of a series of\nChurch Orders, which contain instructions in regard to the choice and\nordination of Christian ministers, regulations as to widows and virgins,\nconditions of reception of converts from heathenism, preparation for and\nadministration of baptism, rules for the celebration of the eucharist,\nfor fasting, daily prayers, charity suppers, memorial meals,\nfirst-fruits, &c. We shall give (1) a description of the book as we have\nit at present; (2) a brief statement of its relation to allied\ndocuments; (3) some remarks on the evidence for its date and authorship.\n\n1. We possess the _Canons of Hippolytus_ only in an Arabic version,\nitself made from a Coptic version of the original Greek. Attention was\ncalled to the book by Wansleben and Ludolf towards the end of the 17th\ncentury, but it was only in 1870 that it was edited by Haneberg, who\nadded a Latin translation, and so made it generally accessible. In 1891\nH. Achelis reproduced this translation in a revised form, embodying it\nin a synopsis of allied documents. He suspected much interpolation and\nderangement of order, and consequently rearranged its contents with a\nfree hand. In 1900 a German translation was made by H. Riedel, based on\nfresh MSS. These showed that the book, as hitherto edited, had been\nthrown into disorder by the displacement of two pages near the end; they\nalso removed other difficulties upon which the theory of interpolation\nhad been based. Further discoveries, to be spoken of presently, have\nadded to our materials for the study of the book.\n\n The book is attributed to \"Hippolytus, the chief of the bishops of\n Rome,\" and is divided into thirty-eight canons, to which short\n headings are prefixed. This division is certainly not original, but it\n is convenient for purposes of reference. Canon 1 is prefatory; it\n contains a brief confession of faith in the Trinity, and especially in\n the Word, the Son of God; and it speaks of the expulsion of heretics\n from the Church. Canons 2-5 give regulations for the selection and\n ordination of bishops, presbyters and deacons. The bishop is chosen by\n the whole congregation: \"one of the bishops and presbyters\" is to lay\n hands upon him and say a prayer which follows (3): he is at once to\n proceed with \"the offering,\" taking up the eucharistic service at the\n point where the _sursum corda_ comes in. A presbyter (4) is to be\n ordained with the same prayer as a bishop, \"with the exception of the\n word bishop\"; but he is given no power of ordination (this appears to\n be inconsistent with c. 2). The duties of a deacon are described, and\n the prayer of his ordination follows (5). Canons 6-9 deal with various\n classes in the Church. One who has suffered punishment for the faith\n (6) is to be counted a presbyter without ordination: \"his confession\n is his ordination.\" Readers and sub-deacons (7) are given the Gospel,\n but are not ordained by laying-on of hands. A claim to ordination on\n the ground of gifts of healing (8) is to be admitted, if the facts are\n clear and the healing is from God. Widows are not ordained (9):\n \"ordination is for men only.\" Canons 10-15 describe conditions for the\n admission of converts. Certain occupations are incompatible with\n Christian life: only under compulsion may a Christian be a soldier.\n Canons 16-18 deal chiefly with regulations concerning women. Canon 19\n is a long one dealing with catechumens, preparation for baptism,\n administration of that sacrament, and of the eucharist for the newly\n baptized. The candidate is twice anointed: first, with the oil of\n exorcism, after he has said, with his face westward, \"I renounce thee,\n O devil, and all thy following\"; and, again, immediately after the\n baptism. As he stands in the water, he declares his faith in response\n to an interrogatory creed; and after each of the three clauses he is\n immersed. After the second anointing the bishop gives thanks \"for that\n Thou hast made them worthy that they should be born again, and hast\n poured out Thy Holy Ghost upon them, so that they may belong, each one\n of them, to the body of the Church\": he signs them with the cross on\n their foreheads, and kisses them. The eucharist then proceeds: \"the\n bishop gives them of the body of Christ and says, This is the body of\n Christ, and they answer Amen\"; and similarly for the cup. Milk and\n honey are then given to them as being \"born a second time as little\n children.\" A warning is added against eating anything before\n communicating. Canons 20-22 deal with fast-days, daily services in\n church, and the fast of the passover-week. Canon 23 seems as if it\n closed the series, speaking, as it does, of \"our brethren the bishops\"\n who in their cities have made regulations \"according to the commands\n of our fathers the apostles\": \"let none of our successors alter them;\n because it saith that the teaching is greater than the sea, and hath\n no end.\" We pass on, however, to regulations about the sick (24) who\n are to be visited by the bishop, \"because it is a great thing for the\n sick that the high-priest should visit them (for the shadow of Peter\n healed the sick).\" Canons 25-27 deal again with prayers and\n church-services. The \"seven hours\" are specified, with reasons for\n their observance (25): attendance at sermons is urged (26), \"for the\n Lord is in the place where his lordship is proclaimed\" (comp.\n _Didache_ 4, part of the _Two Ways_). When there are no prayers in\n church, reading at home is enjoined (27): \"let the sun each morning\n see the book upon thy knees\" (comp. Ath. _Ad virg._, S 12, \"Let the\n sun when he ariseth see the book in thy hands\"). Prayer must be\n preceded by the washing of the hands. \"No believer must take food\n before communicating, especially on fast-days\": only believers may\n communicate (28). The sacred elements must be guarded, \"lest anything\n fall into the cup, and it be a sin unto death for the presbyters.\" No\n crumb must be dropped, \"lest an evil spirit get possession of it.\"\n Canons 30-35 contain various rules, and specially deal with suppers\n for the poor (i.e. _agapae_) and memorial feasts. Then we have a\n prayer for the offering of first-fruits (36); a direction that\n ministers shall wear fair garments at \"the mysteries\" (37); and a\n command to watch during the night of the resurrection (38). The last\n canon hereupon passes into a general exhortation to right living,\n which forms a sixth part of the whole book. In Riedel's translation we\n read this for the first time as a connected whole. It falls into two\n parts, and describes, first, the true life of ordinary Christians,\n warning them against an empty profession, and laying down many\n precepts of morality; and then it addresses itself to the \"ascete\" who\n \"wishes to belong to the rank of the angels,\" and who lives a life of\n solitude and poverty. He is encouraged by an exposition, on somewhat\n strange lines, of the temptations of our Lord, and is specially warned\n against spiritual pride and contempt of other men. The book closes\n with an appeal for love and mutual service, based on the parables in\n St Matthew xxv.\n\n2. It is impossible to estimate the position of the Canons of Hippolytus\nwithout some reference to allied documents (see APOSTOLICAL\nCONSTITUTIONS). (a) The most important of these is what is now commonly\ncalled the _Egyptian Church Order_. This is preserved to us in Coptic\nand Aethiopic versions, of which Achelis, in his synopsis, gives German\ntranslations. The subject-matter and arrangement of these canons\ncorrespond generally to those of Hippolytus; but many of the details are\nmodified to bring them into accord with a later practice. A new light\nwas thrown on the criticism of this work by Hauler's discovery (1900) of\na Latin version (of which, unfortunately, about half is missing) in the\nVerona palimpsest, from which he has also given us large Latin fragments\nof the _Didascalia_ (which underlies books i.-vi. of the Apostolic\nConstitutions, and which hitherto we have only known from the Syriac).\nThe Latin of the Egyptian Church Order is somewhat more primitive than\nthe Coptic, and approaches more nearly, at some points, to the _Canons\nof Hippolytus_. It has a preface which refers to a treatise _Concerning\nSpiritual Gifts_, as having immediately preceded it; but neither this\nnor the Coptic-Aethiopic form has either the introduction or concluding\nexhortation which is found in the _Canons of Hippolytus_. (b) _The\nTestament of the Lord_ is a document in Syriac, of which the opening\npart had been published by Lagarde, and of which Rahmani (1899) has\ngiven us the whole. It professes to contain instructions given by our\nLord to the apostles after the resurrection. After an introduction\ncontaining apocalyptical matter, it passes on to give elaborate\ndirections for the ordering of the Church, embodying, in a much-expanded\nform, the Egyptian Church Order, and showing a knowledge of the preface\nto that document which appears in the Latin version. It cannot be placed\nwith probability earlier than the latter part of the 4th century. (c)\nThe _Apostolic Constitutions_ is a composite document, which probably\nbelongs to the end of the 4th century. Its first six books are an\nexpanded edition of a _Didascalia_ which we have already mentioned: its\nseventh book similarly expands and modifies the _Didache_ its eighth\nbook begins by treating of \"spiritual gifts,\" and then in c. 3 passes on\nto expand in like manner the Egyptian Church Order. The hand which has\nwrought up all these documents has been shown to be that of the\ninterpolator of the Ignatian Epistles in the longer Greek recension. (d)\nThe _Canons of Basil_ is the title of an Arabic work, of which a German\ntranslation has been given us by Riedel, who thinks that they have come\nthrough Coptic from an original Greek book. They embody, in a modified\nform, considerable portions of the Canons of Hippolytus.\n\n3. We now approach the difficult questions of date and authorship. Much\nof the material has been quite recently brought to light, and criticism\nhas not had time to investigate and pronounce upon it. Some provisional\nremarks, therefore, are all that can prudently be made. It seems plain\nthat we have two lines of tradition: (1) The Canons of Hippolytus,\nfollowed by the Canons of Basil; (2) the Egyptian Church Order, itself\nrepresented (a) by the Latin version, the Testament of the Lord, and the\nApostolic Constitutions, which are linked together by the same preface\n(or portions of it); (b) by the Coptic and Aethiopic versions. Now, the\npreface of the Latin version points to a time when the canons were\nembodied in a _corpus_ of similar materials, or, at the least, were\npreceded by a work on \"Spiritual Gifts.\" The Canons of Hippolytus have a\nwholly different preface, and also a long exhortation at the close. The\nquestion which criticism must endeavour to answer is, whether the Canons\nof Hippolytus are the original from which the Egyptian Church Order is\nderived, or whether an earlier body of canons lies behind them both. At\npresent it is probably wise to assume that the latter is the true\nexplanation. For the Canons of Hippolytus appear to contain\ncontradictory regulations (e.g. cc. 2 and 4 of the presbyters), and also\nsuggest that they have received a considerable supplement (after c. 23).\nThere is, however, no doubt that they present us with a more primitive\nstage of Church life than we find in the Egyptian Church Order. The\nmention of sub-deacons (which, after Riedel's fresh manuscript evidence,\ncannot now be dismissed as due to interpolation) makes it difficult to\nassign a date much earlier than the middle of the 3rd century.\n\nThe Puritan severity of the canons well accords with the temper of the\nwriter to whom the Arabic title attributes them; and it is to be noted\nthat the exhortation at the close contains a quotation from 2 Peter\nactually attributed to the apostle, and Hippolytus is perhaps the\nearliest author who can with certainty be said to have used this\nepistle. But the general style of Hippolytus, which is simple,\nstraight-forward and strong, is in marked contrast with that of the\nclosing passage of the canons; moreover, his mind, as presented to us in\nhis extant writings, appears to be a much larger one than that of the\nwriter of these canons; it is as difficult to think of Hippolytus as it\nwould be to think of Origen in such a connexion. How, then, are we to\naccount for the attribution? There is evidence to show that Hippolytus\nwas highly reverenced throughout the East: his writings, which were in\nGreek, were known, but his history was entirely unknown. He was supposed\nto be \"a pupil ([Greek: gnorimos]) of apostles\" (Palladius, 4th\ncentury), and the Arabic title calls him \"chief of the bishops of Rome,\"\ni.e. archbishop of Rome. It is hard to trust this attribution more than\nthe attribution of a Coptic discourse on the _Dormitio Mariae_ to\n\"Evodius, archbishop of the great city Rome, who was the second after\nPeter the apostle\" (_Texts and Studies_, iv. 2-44)--Evodius being by\ntradition first bishop of Antioch. A whole group of books on Church\nOrder bears the name of Clement of Rome; and the attribution of our\ncanons to Hippolytus may be only an example of the same tendency. The\nfact that Hippolytus wrote a treatise _Concerning Spiritual Gifts_, and\nthat some such treatise is not only referred to in the Latin preface to\nthe Egyptian Church Order, but is actually found at the beginning of\nbook viii. of the Apostolic Constitutions, introduces an interesting\ncomplication; but we cannot here pursue the matter further. Dom Morin's\ningenious attribution of the canons to Dionysius of Alexandria (on the\nground of Eusebius, _H.E._ vi. 46., 5) cannot be accepted in view of the\nbroader church policy which that writer represents. If the Hippolytean\nauthorship be given up, it is probable that Egypt will make the\nstrongest claim to be the locality in which the canons were compiled in\ntheir present form.\n\n The authorities of chief practical importance are H. Achelis, _Texte\n u. Unters._ vi. 4 (1891); Rahmani, _Testamentum Domini_ (1899);\n Hauler, _Didascaliae Apostolorum_ (1900); Riedel,\n _Kirchenrechtsquellen des Patriarchats Alexandrien_ (1900).\n (J. A. R.)\n\n\n\n\nHIPPONAX, of Ephesus, Greek iambic poet. Expelled from Ephesus in 540\nB.C. by the tyrant Athenagoras, he took refuge in Clazomenae, where he\nspent the rest of his life in poverty. His deformed figure and malicious\ndisposition exposed him to the caricature of the Chian sculptors Bupalus\nand Athenis, upon whom he revenged himself by issuing against them a\nseries of satires. They are said to have hanged themselves like Lycambes\nand his daughters when assailed by Archilochus, the model and\npredecessor of Hipponax. His coarseness of thought and feeling, his rude\nvocabulary, his want of grace and taste, and his numerous allusions to\nmatters of merely local interest prevented his becoming a favourite in\nAttica. He was considered the inventor of parody and of a peculiar\nmetre, the _scazon_ or _choliambus_, which substitutes a spondee for the\nfinal iambus of an iambic senarius, and is an appropriate form for the\nburlesque character of his poems.\n\n Fragments in Bergk, _Poetae lyrici Graeci_; see also B. J. Peltzer,\n _De parodica Graecorum poesi_ (1855), containing an account of\n Hipponax and the fragments.\n\n\n\n\nHIPPOPOTAMUS (\"river-horse,\" Gr. [Greek: hippos], horse and [Greek:\npotamos], river), the name of the largest representative of the\nnon-ruminating artiodactyle ungulate mammals, and its living and extinct\nrelatives. The common hippopotamus (_Hippopotamus amphibius_), which\nformerly inhabited all the great rivers of Africa but whose range has\nnow been much restricted, is most likely the _behemoth_ of Scripture,\nand may very probably in Biblical times have been found in the Jordan\nvalley, since at a still earlier (Pleistocene) epoch it ranged over a\nlarge part of Europe. It typifies not only a genus, but likewise a\nfamily, _Hippopotamidae_, distinguished from its relatives the pigs and\npeccaries, or _Suidae_, by the following assemblage of characters:\nMuzzle very broad and rounded. Feet short and broad, with four subequal\ntoes, bearing short rounded hoofs, and all reaching the ground in\nwalking. Incisors not rooted but continuously growing; those of the\nupper jaw curved and directed downwards; those of the lower straight and\nprocumbent. Canines very large, curved, continuously growing; upper ones\ndirected downwards. Premolars 4/4; molars 3/3. Stomach complex. No\ncaecum.\n\n[Illustration: The Hippopotamus (_Hippopotamus amphibius_).]\n\nIn form the hippopotamus is a huge, unwieldy creature, measuring in the\nlargest specimens fully 14 ft. from the extremity of the upper lip to\nthe tip of the tail, while it ordinarily attains a length of 12 ft.,\nwith a height of 5 ft. at the shoulders, and a girth round the thickest\npart of the body almost equal to its length. The small ears are\nexceedingly flexible, and kept in constant motion when the animal is\nseeking to catch a distant sound; the eyes are placed high up on the\nhead, but little below the level of the ears; while the gape is wide,\nand the upper lip thick and bulging so as to cover over even its large\ntusks when the mouth is closed. The molars, which show trefoil-shaped\ngrinding-surfaces are well adapted for masticating vegetable substances,\nwhile the formidable array of long spear-like incisors and curved\nchisel-edged canines or tusks root up rank grass like an agricultural\nimplement. The legs are short, so that the body is but little elevated\nabove the ground; and the feet, which are small in proportion to the\nsize of the animal, terminate in four short toes each bearing a small\nhoof. With the exception of a few tufts of hair on the lips, on the\nsides of the head and neck, and at the extremity of the short robust\ntail, the skin of the hippopotamus, some portions of which are 2 in. in\nthickness, is destitute of covering. Hippopotamuses are gregarious\nanimals, living in herds of from 20 to 40 individuals on the banks and\nin the beds of rivers, in the neighbourhood of which they most readily\nfind appropriate food. This consists chiefly of grass and of aquatic\nplants, of which these animals consume enormous quantities, the stomach\nbeing capable of containing from 5 to 6 bushels. They feed principally\nby night, remaining in the water during the day, although in districts\nwhere they are little disturbed they are less exclusively aquatic. In\nsuch remote quarters, they put their heads boldly out of the water to\nblow, but when rendered suspicious they become exceedingly cautious in\nthis respect, only exposing their nostrils above the water, and even\nthis they prefer doing amid the shelter of water plants. In spite of\ntheir enormous size and uncouth form, they are expert swimmers and\ndivers, and can remain easily under the water from five to eight\nminutes. They walk on the bottoms of rivers, beneath at least 1 ft. of\nwater. At nightfall they come on land to feed; and when, as often\nhappens on the banks of the Nile, they reach cultivated ground, they do\nimmense damage to growing crops, destroying by their ponderous tread\neven more than they devour. To scare away these unwelcome visitors the\nnatives in such districts are in the habit of kindling fires at night.\nAlthough hippopotamuses do not willingly go far from the water on which\ntheir existence depends, they occasionally travel long distances by\nnight in search of food, and in spite of their clumsy appearance are\nable to climb steep banks and precipitous ravines with ease. Of a\nwounded hippopotamus which Sir S. Baker saw leaving the water and\ngalloping inland, he writes: \"I never could have imagined that so\nunwieldy an animal could have exhibited such speed. No man could have\nhad a chance of escape.\" The hippopotamus does not confine itself to\nrivers and lakes, but has been known to prefer the waters of the ocean\nas its home during the day. Of a mild and inoffensive disposition, it\nseeks to avoid collision with man; when wounded, however, or in defence\nof its young, it exhibits great ferocity, and native canoes are capsized\nand occasionally demolished by its infuriated attacks; the bellowing\ngrunt then becoming loud enough to be heard a mile away. As among\nelephants, so also among hippopotamuses there are \"rogues\"--old bulls\nwhich have become soured in solitude, and are at all times dangerous.\nAssuming the offensive on every occasion, they attack all and sundry\nwithout shadow of provocation; and the natives avoid their haunts, which\nare usually well known.\n\nThe only other living species is the pygmy hippopotamus, _H.\n(Choeropsis) liberiensis_, of West Africa, an animal not larger than a\nclumsily made pig of full dimensions, and characterized by having\ngenerally one (in place of two) pair of incisors. It is much less\naquatic than its giant relative, having, in fact, the habits of a pig.\n\nA small extinct species (_H. lemerlei_) inhabited Madagascar at a\ncomparatively recent date; while other dwarf kinds were natives of Crete\n(_H. minutus_) and Malta and Sicily (_H. pentlandi_) during the\nPleistocene. A large form of the ordinary species (_H. amphibius major_)\nwas distributed over Europe as far north as Yorkshire at the same epoch;\nwhile an allied species (_H. palaeindicus_) inhabited Pleistocene India.\nContemporary with the latter was, however, a species (_H. namadicus_)\nwith three pairs of incisors; and \"hexaprotodont\" hippopotamuses are\nalso characteristic of the Pliocene of India and Burma (_H. sivalensis_\nand _H. iravadicus_), and of Algeria, Egypt and southern Europe (_H.\nhipponensis_).\n\n For the ancestral genera of the hippopotamus line, see ARTIODACTYLA.\n (R. L.*)\n\n\n\n\nHIPPURIC ACID (Gr. [Greek: hippos], horse, [Greek: ouron], urine),\nbenzoyl glycocoll or benzoyl amidoacetic acid, C9H9NO3 or\nC6H5CO.NH.CH2.CO2H, an organic acid found in the urine of horses and\nother herbivorae. It is excreted when many aromatic compounds, such as\nbenzoic acid and toluene, are taken internally. J. v. Liebig in 1829\nshowed that it differed from benzoic acid, and in 1839 determined its\nconstitution, while in 1853 V. Dessaignes (_Ann._ 87, p. 325)\nsynthesized it by acting with benzoyl chloride on zinc glycocollide. It\nis also formed by heating benzoic anhydride with glycocoll (Th. Curtius,\n_Ber._, 1884, 17, p. 1662), and by heating benzamide with\nmonochloracetic acid. It crystallizes in rhombic prisms which are\nreadily soluble in hot water, melt at 187 deg. C. and decompose at about\n240 deg. C. It is readily hydrolysed by hot caustic alkalis to benzoic\nacid and glycocoll. Nitrous acid converts it into benzoyl glycollic\nacid, C6H5CO.O.CH2.CO2H. Its ethyl ester reacts with hydrazine to form\nhippuryl hydrazine, C6H5CO.NH.CH2.CO.NH.NH2, which was used by Curtius\nfor the preparation of azoimide (q.v.).\n\n\n\n\nHIPURNIAS, a tribe of South American Indians, 2000 or 3000 in number,\nliving on the river Purus, western Brazil. Their houses are long, low\nand narrow: the side walls and roof are one, poles being fixed in the\nground and then bent together so as to meet and form a pointed arch for\nthe cross-sections. They use small bark canoes. Their chief weapons are\npoisoned arrows. They have a native god called Guintiniri.\n\n\n\n\nHIRA, the capital of an Arabian kingdom, founded in the 2nd century\nA.D., on the western edge of Irak, was situated at 32 deg. N., 44 deg.\n20' E., about 4 m. S.E. of modern Nejef, by the Sa'ade canal, on the\nshore of the Bahr Nejef or Assyrium Stagnum. Its kings governed the\nwestern shore of the lower Euphrates and of the Persian Gulf, their\nkingdom extending inland to the confines of the Nejd. This Lakhmid\nkingdom was more or less dependent, during the four centuries of its\nexistence, on the Sassanian empire, to which it formed a sort of buffer\nstate towards Arabia. After the battle of Kadesiya and the founding of\nKufa by the Arabs, Hira lost its importance and fell into decay. The\nruin mounds covering the ancient site, while extensive, are\ninsignificant in appearance and give no indications of the existence of\nimportant buildings.\n\n\n\n\nHIRADO, an island belonging to Japan, 19(1/2) m. long and 6 m. wide,\nlying off the west coast of the province of Hizen, Kiushiu, in 33 deg.\n15' N. and 129 deg. 25' E. It is celebrated as the site of the original\nDutch factory--often erroneously written Firando--and as the place where\none of the finest blue-and-white porcelains of Japan (_Hiradoyaki_) was\nproduced in the 17th and 18th centuries. The kilns are still active.\n\n\n\n\nHIRE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT, in the law of contract, a form of bailment of\ngoods, on credit, which has extended very considerably of late years.\nOriginally applied to the sale of the more expensive kinds of goods,\nsuch as pianos and articles of furniture, the hire-purchase agreement\nhas now been extended to almost every description. The agreement is\nusually in writing, with a stipulation that the payments to purchase\nshall be by weekly, monthly or other instalments. The agreement is\nvirtually one to purchase, but in order that the vendor may be able to\nrecover the goods at any time on non-payment of an instalment, it is\ntreated as an agreement to let and hire, with a provision that when the\nlast instalment has been paid the goods shall become the property of the\nhirer. A clause provides that in case of default of any instalment, or\nbreach of any part of the agreement, all previous payments shall be\nforfeited to the lender, who can forcibly recover the goods. Such\nagreements, therefore, do not pass the property in the goods, which\nremains in the lender until all the instalments have been paid. But the\nterms of the agreement may sometimes purposely obscure the nature of the\ntransaction between the parties, where, for example, the hire-purchase\nis merely to create a security for money. In such a case a judge will\nlook to the true nature of the transaction. If it is not a real letting\nand hiring, the agreement will require registration under the Bills of\nSale Acts. If the agreement contains words to the effect that a person\nhas \"bought or agreed to buy\" goods, the transaction comes under the\nFactors Act 1889, and the person in possession of the goods may dispose\nof them and give a good title. The doctrine of reputed ownership, by\nwhich a bankrupt is deemed the reputed owner of goods in his apparent\npossession, has been somewhat modified by trade customs, in accordance\nwith which property is frequently let out on the hire-purchase system\n(see BANKRUPTCY).\n\n\n\n\nHIRING (from O. Eng. _hyrian_, a word common to many Teutonic languages\ncf. Ger. _heuern_, Dutch _huren_, &c.), in law, a contract by which one\nman grants the use of a thing to another in return for a certain price.\nIt corresponds to the _locatio-conductio_ of Roman law. That contract\nwas either a letting of a thing (_locatio-conductio rei_) or of labour\n(_locatio operarum_). The distinguishing feature of the contract was\nthe price. Thus the contracts of _mutuum_, _commodatum_, _depositum_\nand _mandatum_, which are all gratuitous contracts, become, if a price\nis fixed, cases of _locatio-conductio_. In modern English law the term\ncan scarcely be said to be used in a strictly technical sense. The\ncontracts which the Roman law grouped together under the head of\n_locatio-conductio_--such as those of landlord and tenant, master and\nservant, &c.--are not in English law treated as cases of hiring but as\nindependent varieties of contract. Neither in law books nor in ordinary\ndiscourse could a tenant farmer be said to hire his land. Hiring would\ngenerally be applied to contracts in which the services of a man or the\nuse of a thing are engaged for a short time.\n\n_Hiring Fairs_, or _Statute Fairs_, still held in Wales and some parts\nof England, were formerly an annual fixture in every important country\ntown. These fairs served to bring together masters and servants. The men\nand maids seeking work stood in rows, the males together and the females\ntogether, while masters and mistresses walked down the lines and\nselected those who suited them. Originally these hiring-fairs were\nalways held on Martinmas Day (11th of November). Now they are held on\ndifferent dates in different towns, usually in October or November. In\nCumberland the men seeking work stood with straws in their mouths. In\nLincolnshire the bargain between employer and employed was closed by the\ngiving of the \"fasten-penny,\" the earnest money, usually a shilling,\nwhich \"fastened\" the contract for a twelvemonth. Some few days after the\nStatute Fair it was customary to hold a second called a Mop Fair or\nRunaway Mop. \"Mop\" (from Lat. _mappa_, napkin, or small cloth) meant in\nOld English a tuft or tassel, and the fair was so called, it is\nsuggested, in allusion to tufts or badges worn by those seeking\nemployment. Thus the carter wore whipcord on his hat, the cowherd a tuft\nof cow's hair, and so on. Another possible explanation would be to take\nthe word \"mop\" in its old provincial slang sense of \"a fool,\" mop fair\nbeing the fools' fair, a sort of last chance offered to those who were\ntoo dull or slovenly-looking to be hired at the statute fair. Perhaps\n\"runaway\" suggests the idea of those absent through drunkenness, or\nthose who simply feared to face the ordeal of the larger hiring and so\nran away.\n\n\n\n\nHIROSAKI, a town of Japan in the province of Michmoku or Rikuchiu, north\nNippon, 22 m. S.W. of Aomori by rail. Pop. about 37,000. The fine\nisolated cone of Iwakisan, a mountain of pilgrimage, rises to the west.\nHirosaki is a very old place, formerly residence of a great daimio (or\ndaimyo) and capital of a vast principality, and still the seat of a high\ncourt with jurisdiction over the surrounding districts of Aomori and\nAkita. Like most places in north Nippon, it is built with continuous\nverandas extending from house to house, and affording a promenade\ncompletely sheltered from the snows of winter. Apples of fine flavour\ngrow in the district, which also enjoys some reputation for its peculiar\ngreen lacquer-ware.\n\n\n\n\nHIROSHIGE (1797-1858), Japanese artist, was one of the principal members\nof that branch of the _Ukiyo-ye_ or Popular School of Painting in Japan,\na school which chiefly made colour-prints. His family name was Ando\nTokitaro; that under which he is known having been, in accordance with\nJapanese practice, adopted by him in recognition of the fact that he was\na pupil of Toyohiro. The earliest reference to him is in the account\ngiven by an inhabitant of the Lu-chu islands of a visit to Japan; where\na sketch of a procession drawn with great skill by Hiroshige at the age\nof ten years only is mentioned as one of the remarkable sights seen. At\nthe age of fifteen he applied unsuccessfully to be admitted to the\nstudio of the elder Toyokuni; but was eventually received by Toyohiro.\nOn the death of the latter in 1828, he began to practise on his own\naccount, but finding small encouragement at Yedo (Tokyo) he removed to\nKioto, where he published a set of landscapes. He soon returned to Yedo,\nwhere his work soon became popular, and was imitated by other artists.\nHe died in that city on the 6th day of the 9th month of the year, Ansei\n5th, at the age of sixty-two, and was buried at Asakusa. One of his\npupils, Hironobu, received from him the name of Hiroshige II. and\nanother, Ando Tokubei, that of Hiroshige III. All three were closely\nassociated with the work signed with the name of the master. Hiroshige\nII. some time after the year 1863 fell into disgrace and was compelled\nto leave Yedo for Nagasaki, where he died; Hiroshige III. then called\nhimself Hiroshige II. He died in 1896. The earlier prints by these\nartists, whose work can hardly be separated, are of extraordinary merit.\nThey applied the process of colour block printing to the purposes of\ndepicting landscape, with a breadth, skill and suitability of convention\nthat has been equalled only by Hokusai in Japan, and by no European.\nMost of their subjects were derived from the neighbourhood of Yedo, or\nwere scenes on the old high road--the Tokaido--that ran from that city\nto Kioto. The two elder of the name were competent painters, and\npictures and drawings by them are occasionally to be met with.\n\n See E. F. Strange, \"Japanese Colour-prints\" (_Victoria and Albert\n Museum Handbook_, 1904). (E. F. S.)\n\n\n\n\nHIROSHIMA, a city and seaport of Japan, capital of the government of its\nname in central Nippon. Pop. (1903) 113,545. It is very beautifully\nsituated on a small plain surrounded by hills, the bay being studded\nwith islands. In its general aspect it resembles Osaka, from which it is\n190 m. W. by rail, and next to that place and Hiogo it is the most\nimportant commercial centre on the Inland Sea. The government has an\narea of about 3000 sq. m., with a population of about 1,500,000.\nHiroshima is famous all over Japan owing to its association with the\nneighbouring islet of Itaku-Shima, \"Island of Light,\" which is dedicated\nto the goddess Bentin and regarded as one of the three wonders of Japan.\nThe chief temple dates from the year 587, and the island, which is\ninhabited largely by priests and their attendants, is annually visited\nby thousands of pilgrims. But the hallowed soil is never tilled, so that\nall provisions have to be brought from the surrounding districts.\n\n\n\n\nHIRPINI (from an Oscan or Sabine stem _hirpo-_, \"wolf\"), an inland\nSamnite tribe in the south of Italy, whose territory was bounded by that\nof the Lucani on the S., the Campani on the S.W., the Appuli (Apuli) and\nFrentani on the E. and N.E. On the N. we find them, politically\nspeaking, identified with the Pentri and Caraceni, and with them\nconstituting the Samnite alliance in the wars of the 4th century B.C.\n(see SAMNITES). The Roman policy of separation cut them off from these\nallies by the foundation of Beneventum in 268 B.C., and henceforward\nthey are a separate unit; they joined Hannibal in 216 B.C., and retained\ntheir independence until, after joining in the Social war, which in\ntheir part of Italy can hardly be said to have ceased till the final\ndefeat of the Samnites by Sulla in 83 B.C., they received the Roman\nfranchise. Of their Oscan speech, besides the evidence of their\nplace-names, only a few fragments survive (R. S. Conway, _The Italic\nDialects_, pp. 170 ff.; and for _hirpo-_, ib. p. 200). In the ethnology\nof Italy the Hirpini appear from one point of view as the purest type of\nSafine stock, namely, that in which the proportion of ethnica formed\nwith the suffix _-no-_ is highest, thirty-three out of thirty-six tribal\nor municipal epithets being formed thereby (e.g. _Caudini_, _Compsani_)\nand only one with the suffix -_ti_- (_Abellinates_), where it is\nclearly secondary. On the significance of this see SABINI. (R. S. C.)\n\n\n\n\nHIRSAU (formerly _Hirschau_), a village of Germany, in the kingdom of\nWurttemberg, on the Nagold and the Pforzheim-Horb railway, 2 m. N. of\nCalw. Pop. 800. Hirsau has some small manufactures, but it owes its\norigin and historical interest to its former Benedictine monastery,\n_Monasterium Hirsaugiense_, at one period one of the most famous in\nEurope. Its picturesque ruins, of which only the chapel with the library\nhall are still in good preservation, testify to the pristine grandeur of\nthe establishment. It was founded about 830 by Count Erlafried of Calw,\nat the instigation of his son, Bishop Notting of Vercelli, who enriched\nit with, among other treasures, the body of St Aurelius. Its first\noccupants (838) were a colony of fifteen monks from Fulda, disciples of\nHrabanus Maurus and Walafrid Strabo, headed by the abbot Liudebert.\nDuring about a century and a half, under the fostering care of the\ncounts of Calw, it enjoyed great prosperity, and became an important\nseat of learning; but towards the end of the 10th century the ravages of\nthe pestilence combined with the rapacity of its patrons, and the\nselfishness and immorality of its inmates, to bring it to the lowest\nebb. After it had been desolate and in ruins for upwards of sixty years\nit was rebuilt in 1059, and under Abbot William--Wilhelm von\nHirsau--abbot from 1069 to 1091, it more than regained its former\nsplendour. By his _Constitutiones Hirsaugienses_, a new religious order,\nthe Ordo Hirsaugiensis, was formed, the rule of which was afterwards\nadopted by many monastic establishments throughout Germany, such as\nthose of Blaubeuren, Erfurt and Schaffhausen. The friend and\ncorrespondent of Pope Gregory VII., and of Anselm of Canterbury, Abbot\nWilliam took active part in the politico-ecclesiastical controversies of\nhis time; while a treatise from his pen, _De musica et tonis_, as well\nas the _Philosophicarum et astronomicarum institutionum libri iii._,\nbears witness to his interest in science and philosophy. About the end\nof the 12th century the material and moral welfare of Hirsau was again\nvery perceptibly on the decline; and it never afterwards again rose into\nimportance. In consequence of the Reformation it was secularized in\n1558; in 1692 it was laid in ruins by the French. The _Chronicon\nHirsaugiense_, or, as in the later edition it is called, _Annales\nHirsaugienses_ of Abbot Trithemius (Basel, 1559; St Gall, 1690), is,\nalthough containing much that is merely legendary, an important source\nof information, not only on the affairs of this monastery, but also on\nthe early history of Germany. The _Codex Hirsaugiensis_ was edited by A.\nF. Gfrorer and printed at Stuttgart in 1843.\n\n See Steck, _Das Kloster Hirschau_ (1844); Helmsdorfer, _Forschungen\n zur Geschichte des Abts Wilhelm von Hirschau_ (Gottingen, 1874);\n Weizsacker, _Fuhrer durch die Geschichte des Klosters Hirschau_\n (Stuttgart, 1898); Sussmann, _Forschungen zur Geschichte des Klosters\n Hirschau_ (Halle, 1903); Giseke, _Die Hirschauer wahrend des\n Investiturstreits_ (Gotha, 1883); C. H. Klaiber, _Das Kloster\n Hirschau_ (Tubingen, 1886); and Baer, _Die Hirsauer Bauschule_\n (Freiburg, 1897).\n\n\n\n\nHIRSCH, MAURICE DE, BARON HIRSCH AUF GEREUTH, in the baronage of Bavaria\n(1831-1896), capitalist and philanthropist (German by birth,\nAustro-Hungarian by domicile), was born at Munich, 9th December 1831.\nHis grandfather, the first Jewish landowner in Bavaria, was ennobled\nwith the _pradikat_ \"auf Gereuth\" in 1818; his father, who was banker to\nthe Bavarian king, was created a baron in 1869. The family for\ngenerations has occupied a prominent position in the German Jewish\ncommunity. At the age of thirteen young Hirsch was sent to Brussels to\nschool, but when seventeen years old he went into business. In 1855 he\nbecame associated with the banking house of Bischoffsheim & Goldschmidt,\nof Brussels, London and Paris. He amassed a large fortune, which he\nincreased by purchasing and working railway concessions in Austria,\nTurkey and the Balkans, and by speculations in sugar and copper. While\nliving in great splendour in Paris and London and on his estates in\nHungary, he devoted much of his time to schemes for the relief of his\nHebrew co-religionists in lands where they were persecuted and\noppressed. He took a deep interest in the educational work of the\nAlliance Israelite Universelle, and on two occasions presented the\nsociety with gifts of a million francs. For some years he regularly\npaid the deficits in the accounts of the Alliance, amounting to several\nthousand pounds a year. In 1889 he capitalized his donations and\npresented the society with securities producing an annual income of\nL16,000. On the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the emperor\nFrancis Joseph's accession to the Austrian throne he gave L500,000 for\nthe establishment of primary and technical schools in Galicia and the\nBukowina. The greatest charitable enterprise on which he embarked was in\nconnexion with the persecution of the Jews in Russia (see\nANTI-SEMITISM). He gave L10,000 to the funds raised for the repatriation\nof the refugees in 1882, but, feeling that this was a very lame\nconclusion to the efforts made in western Europe for the relief of the\nRussian Jews, he offered the Russian Government L2,000,000 for the\nendowment of a system of secular education to be established in the\nJewish pale of settlement. The Russian Government was willing to accept\nthe money, but declined to allow any foreigner to be concerned in its\ncontrol or administration. Thereupon Baron de Hirsch resolved to devote\nthe money to an emigration and colonization scheme which should afford\nthe persecuted Jews opportunities of establishing themselves in\nagricultural colonies outside Russia. He founded the Jewish Colonization\nAssociation as an English society, with a capital of L2,000,000, and in\n1892 he presented to it a further sum of L7,000,000. On the death of his\nwife in 1899 the capital was increased to L11,000,000, of which\nL1,250,000 went to the Treasury, after some litigation, in death duties.\nThis enormous fund, which is probably the greatest charitable trust in\nthe world, is now managed by delegates of certain Jewish societies,\nchiefly the Anglo-Jewish Association of London and the Alliance\nIsraelite Universelle of Paris, among whom the shares in the association\nhave been divided. The association, which is prohibited from working for\nprofit, possesses large colonies in South America, Canada and Asia\nMinor. In addition to its vast agricultural work it has a gigantic and\ncomplex machinery for dealing with the whole problem of Jewish\npersecution, including emigration and distributing agencies, technical\nschools, co-operative factories, savings and loan banks and model\ndwellings in the congested Russian jewries. It also subventions and\nassists a large number of societies all over the world whose work is\nconnected with the relief and rehabilitation of Jewish refugees. Besides\nthis great organization, Baron de Hirsch founded in 1891 a benevolent\ntrust in the United States for the benefit of Jewish immigrants, which\nhe endowed with L493,000. His minor charities were on a princely scale,\nand during his residence in London he distributed over L100,000 among\nthe local hospitals. It was in this manner that he disposed of the whole\ngross proceeds derived from his successes on the English turf, of which\nhe was a lavish patron. He raced, as he said himself, \"for the London\nhospitals,\" and in 1892, when his filly, La Fleche, won the Oaks, St\nLeger and One Thousand Guineas, his donations from this source amounted\nto about L40,000. Baron de Hirsch married on 28th June 1855 Clara,\ndaughter of Senator Bischoffsheim of Brussels (b. 1833), by whom he had\na son and daughter, both of whom predeceased him. He died at Ogyalla,\nnear Komorn, in Hungary, 21st April 1896. The baroness, who seconded her\nhusband's charitable work with great munificence--their total\nbenefactions have been estimated at L18,000,000,--died at Paris on the\n1st of April 1899.\n\n For details of Baron de Hirsch's chief charities see the annual\n reports of the Alliance Israelite Universelle and of the\n \"Administration Centrale\" of the Jewish Colonization Association.\n (L. W.)\n\n\n\n\nHIRSCH, SAMSON RAPHAEL (1808-1888), Jewish theologian, was born in\nHamburg in 1808 and died at Frankfort-on-the-Main in 1888. He opposed\nthe reform tendency of Geiger (q.v.), and presented Jewish orthodoxy in\na new and attractive light. His philosophical conception of tradition,\nassociated as it was with conservatism in ritual practice, created what\nis often known as the Frankfort \"Neo-Orthodoxy.\" Hirsch exercised a\nprofound influence on the Synagogue and undoubtedly stemmed the tide of\nliberalism. His famous _Nineteen Letters_ (1836), with which the\nNeo-Orthodoxy began, were translated into English by Drachmann (New\nYork, 1899). Other works by Hirsch were _Horeb_, and commentaries on\nthe Pentateuch and Psalms. These are marked by much originality, but\ntheir exegesis is fanciful. Three volumes of his essays have been\npublished (1902-1908); these were collected as _Gesammelte Schriften_\nfrom his periodical _Jeschurun_.\n\n For Hirsch's religious philosophy see S. A. Hirsch, _A Book of Essays_\n (London, 1905). (I. A.)\n\n\n\n\nHIRSCHBERG, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Silesia,\nbeautifully situated at the confluence of the Bober and Zacken, 1120 ft.\nabove the sea-level, 48 m. S.E. of Gorlitz, on the railway to Glatz,\nwith branches to Grunthal and Schmiedeberg. Pop. (1905) 19,317. It is\nsurrounded by pleasant promenades occupying the site of its former\nfortifications. It possesses an Evangelical church, the church of the\nHoly Cross, one of the six _Gnaden Kirchen_ for the Silesian Protestants\nstipulated for in the agreement at Altranstadt between Charles XII. of\nSweden and the emperor Joseph I. in 1707, four Roman Catholic churches,\none of which dates from the 14th century, a synagogue, several schools,\nan orphanage and an asylum. The town is the principal emporium of\ncommerce in the Silesian mountains, and its industries include the\ncarding and spinning of wool, and the manufacture of linen and cotton\nfabrics, yarn, artificial flowers, paper, cement, porcelain,\nsealing-wax, blacking, chemicals and cider. There is also a lively trade\nin corn, wine and agricultural produce. The town is celebrated for its\nromantic surroundings, including the Cavalierberg, from which there is a\nsplendid view, the Hausberg, the Helicon, crowned by a small Doric\ntemple, the Kreuzberg, with walks commanding beautiful views, and the\nSattler ravine, over which there is a railway viaduct. Hirschberg was in\nexistence in the 11th century, and obtained town rights in 1108 from\nDuke Boleslaus of Poland. It withstood a siege by the Hussites in 1427,\nand an attack of the imperial troops in 1640. The foundation of its\nprosperity was laid in the 16th century by the introduction of the\nmanufacture of linen and veils.\n\nHirschberg is also the name of a town of Thuringia on the Saale with\nmanufactures of leather and knives. Pop. 2000.\n\n\n\n\nHIRSON, a town of northern France in the department of Aisne, 35 m. by\nrail N.E. of Laon, on the Oise. Pop. (1906) 8335. It occupies an\nimportant strategic position close to the point of intersection of\nseveral railway lines, and not far from the Belgian frontier. For its\ndefence there are a permanent fort and two batteries, near the railway\njunction. The town carries on the manufacture of glass bottles, tiles,\niron and tin goods, wool-spinning and brewing.\n\n\n\n\nHIRTIUS, AULUS (c. 90-43 B.C.), Roman historian and statesman. He was\nwith Julius Caesar as legate in Gaul, but after the civil war broke out\nin 49 he seems to have remained in Rome to protect Caesar's interests.\nHe was also a personal friend of Cicero. He was nominated with C. Vibius\nPansa by Caesar for the consulship of 43; and after the dictator's\nassassination in March 44, he and his colleague supported the senatorial\nparty against M. Antonius, with whom Hirtius had at first sided. The\nconsuls set out for Mutina, where Antonius was besieging Decimus Brutus.\nOn the 15th of April, Pansa was attacked by Antonius at Forum Gallorum,\nabout 8 m. from Mutina, and lost his life in the engagement. Hirtius,\nhowever, compelled Antonius to retire on Mutina, where another battle\ntook place on the 25th (or 27th) of April, in which Hirtius was slain.\nOf the continuations of Caesar's _Commentaries_--the eighth book of the\nGallic war, the history of the Alexandrian, African and Spanish\nwars--the first is generally allowed to be by Hirtius; the Alexandrian\nwar is perhaps by him (or Oppius); the last two are supposed to have\nbeen written at his request, by persons who had taken part in the events\ndescribed, with a view to subsequent revision and incorporation in his\nproposed work on military commanders. The language of Hirtius is good,\nbut his style is monotonous and lacks vigour.\n\n Hirtius and the other continuators of Caesar are discussed in M.\n Schanz, _Geschichte der romischen Literatur_, i.; also R. Schneider,\n _Bellum Africanum_ (1905). For the history of the period see under\n ANTONIUS; Cicero's _Letters_ (ed. Tyrrell and Purser); G. Boissier,\n _Cicero and his Friends_ (Eng. trans., 1897).\n\n\n\n\nHISHAM IBN AL-KALBI [Abu-l Mundhir Hisham ibn Mahommed ibn us-Sa'b\nul-Kalb] (d. c. 819), Arabic historian, was born in Kufa, but spent\nmuch of his life in Bagdad. Like his father, on whose authority he\nrelied largely, he collected information about the genealogies and\nhistory of the ancient Arabs. According to the _Fihrist_ (see NADIM) he\nwrote 140 works. As independent works they have almost entirely ceased\nto exist, but his account of the genealogies of the Arabs is continually\nquoted in the _Kitab ul-Aghani_.\n\n Large extracts from another of his works, the _Kitab ul-Asnam_, are\n contained in the _Khizanat ul-Adab_ (iii. 242-246) and in the\n geography of Yaqut (q.v.). These latter have been translated with\n comments by J. Wellhausen in his _Reste des arabischen Heidentums_\n (2nd ed., Berlin, 1897). (G. W. T.)\n\n\n\n\nHISPELLUM (mod. Spello, q.v.), an ancient town of Umbria, Italy, 3 m. N.\nof Fulginiae, on the road between it and Perusia, 1030 ft. above\nsea-level. It does not appear to be mentioned before the time of\nAugustus, who founded a colony there (_Colonia Iulia Hispellum_) and\nextended its territory to the springs of the Clitumnus, which had\noriginally belonged to the territory of Mevania. It received the name of\nFlavia Constans by a rescript of the emperor Constantine, a copy of\nwhich on a marble tablet is still preserved at Spello. The gate by which\nthe town is entered is ancient and has three portrait statues above it;\ntwo other gates and a part of the city wall, built of rectangular blocks\nof local limestone, may still be seen, as also the ruins of what is\npossibly a triumphal arch (attributed to Augustus) and an amphitheatre,\nand perhaps of a theatre, close to the modern high-road, outside the\ntown. (T. As.)\n\n\n\n\nHISSAR, a district in Central Asia, lying between 66 deg. 30' and 70\ndeg. E. and 39 deg. 15' and 37 deg. N. and dependent on the amir of\nBokhara. It forms that part of the basin of the Amu-darya or Oxus which\nlies on the north side of the river, opposite the Afghan province of\nBalkh. The western prolongation of the Tian-shan, which divides the\nbasin of the Zarafshan from that of the upper Amu, after rising to a\nheight of 12,300 ft., bifurcates in 67 deg. 45' E. The main chain, the\nsouthern arm of this bifurcation, designated the Hissar range, but\nsometimes called also Koh-i-tau, forms the N. and N.W. boundaries of\nHissar. On the W. it is wholly bounded by the desert; the Amu limits it\non the S. and S.E.; and Karateghin and Darvaz complete the boundary on\nthe E. Until 1875 it was one of the least known tracts of Central Asia.\nHissar is traversed from north to south by four tributaries of the Amu,\nviz. the Surkhab or Vakhsh, Kafirnihan, Surkhan and Shirabad-darya,\nwhich descend from the snowy mountains to the north and form a series of\nfertile valleys, disposed in a fan-shape, within which lie the principal\ntowns. In the N.W. boundary range between Khuzar and Derbent is situated\nthe defile formerly called the Iron Gate (Caspian Gates, Bab-al-Hadid,\nDar Ahanin and in Chinese T'ie-men-kuan) but now styled Buzghol-khana or\nthe Goat-house. It was also called Kohluga, said to be a Mongol word\nmeaning barrier. This pass is described as a deep but narrow chasm in a\ntransverse range, whose rocks overhang and threaten to choke the\ntortuous and gloomy corridor (in places but five paces wide) which\naffords the only exit from the valley. In ancient times it was a vantage\npoint of much importance and commanded one of the chief routes between\nTurkestan and India. Hsuan Tsang, the Chinese traveller, who passed\nthrough it in the 7th century, states that there were then two folding\ndoors or gates, cased with iron and hung with bells, placed across the\npass. Clavijo, the Spanish ambassador to the court of Timur, heard of\nthis when he passed through the defile nearly 800 years later, but the\ngates had then disappeared.\n\nThe Surkhan valley is highly cultivated, especially in its upper\nportion. It supplies Bokhara with corn and sheep, but its chief products\nare rice and flax. The town of Hissar (pop. 15,000) commands the\nentrance into the fertile valleys of the Surkhan and Kafirnihan, just as\nKabadian at the southern end of the latter defends them from the south.\nHissar was long famous for its damascened swords and its silk goods.\nKulab produces wheat in abundance, and gold is brought thither from the\nsurrounding districts. Kabadian is a large, silk-producing town, and is\nsurrounded with rice-fields.\n\nThe population consists principally of Uzbegs and Tajiks, the former\npredominating and gradually pushing the Tajiks into the hills. On the\nbanks of the Amu there are Turkomans who work the ferries, drive sheep\nand accompany caravans. Lyuli (gipsies), Jews, Hindus and Afghans are\nother elements of the population. The climate of the valleys of Hissar\nand Kulab is pleasant, as they are protected by mountains to the north\nand open towards the south. They produce all the cereals and garden\nplants indigenous to Central Asia. Cotton is grown in the district of\nShirabad; and cotton, wheat, flax, sheep and rock-salt are all exported.\n\n_History._--This country was anciently part of the Persian empire of the\nAchaemenidae, and probably afterwards of the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom,\nand then subject to the invading Asiatic tribes who broke up that\nkingdom, e.g. the Yue-chi. It was afterwards conquered by the\nEphthalites or White Huns, who were subdued by the Turks in the early\npart of the 7th century. It then became subject successively to the\nMahommedan invaders from Persia, and after to the Mongol dynasty of\nJenghiz Khan, and to Timur and his successors. It subsequently became a\ncluster of Uzbeg states and was annexed by the amir of Bokhara (q.v.) in\n1869-1870, soon after the Russian occupation of Samarkand.\n (J. T. Be.; C. El.)\n\n\n\n\nHISSAR, a town and district of British India, in the Delhi division of\nthe Punjab. The town is situated on the Rajputana railway and the\nWestern Jumna canal, 102 m. W.N.W. of Delhi. Pop. (1901) 17,647. It was\nfounded in 1356 by the emperor Feroz Shah, who constructed the canal to\nsupply it with water; but this fell into decay during the 18th century,\nowing to the constant inroads of marauders. Hissar was almost completely\ndepopulated during the famine of 1783, but was afterwards occupied by\nthe famous Irish adventurer George Thomas, who built a fort and\ncollected inhabitants. It is now chiefly known for its cattle and horse\nfairs, and has a cotton factory.\n\nThe DISTRICT comprises an area of 5217 sq. m. It forms the western\nborder district of the great Bikanir desert, and consists for the most\npart of sandy plains dotted with shrub and brushwood, and broken by\nundulations towards the south, which rise into hills of rock like\nislands out of a sea of sand. The Ghaggar is its only river, whose\nsupply is uncertain, depending much on the fall of rain in the lower\nHimalayas; its overflow in times of heavy rain is caught by _jhils_,\nwhich dry up in the hot season. The Western Jumna canal crosses the\ndistrict from east to west, irrigating many villages. The soil is in\nplaces hard and clayey, and difficult to till; but when sufficiently\nirrigated it is highly productive. Old mosques and other buildings exist\nin parts of the district. Hissar produces a breed of large milk-white\noxen, which are in great request for the carriages of natives. The\ndistrict has always been subject to famine. The first calamity of this\nkind of which there is authentic record was in 1783; and Hissar has\nsuffered severely in more recent famines. Its population in 1901 was\n781,717, showing practically no increase in the decade, whereas in the\nprevious decade there had been an increase of 15%. The climate is very\ndry, hot westerly winds blowing from the middle of March till July.\nCotton weaving, ginning and pressing are carried on. The district is\nserved by the Rajputana-Malwa, the Southern Punjab and the\nJodhpur-Bikanir railways. The chief trading centres are Bhiwani, Hansi,\nHissar and Sirsa.\n\nBefore the Mahommedan conquest, the semi-desert tract of which Hissar\ndistrict now forms part was the retreat of Chauhan Rajputs. Towards the\nend of the 18th century the Bhattis of Bhattiana gained ascendancy after\nbloody struggles. To complete the ruin brought on by these conflicts,\nnature lent her aid in the great famine of 1783. Hissar passed nominally\nto the British in 1803, but they could not enforce order till 1810.\nEarly in the mutiny of 1857 Hissar was wholly lost for a time to British\nrule, and all Europeans were either murdered or compelled to fly. The\nBhattis rose under their hereditary chiefs, and the majority of the\nMahommedan population followed their example. Before Delhi had been\nrecovered, the rebels were utterly routed.\n\n\n\n\nHISTIAEUS (d. 494 B.C.), tyrant of Miletus under the Persian king Darius\nHystaspis. According to Herodotus he rendered great service to Darius\nwhile he was campaigning in Scythia by persuading his fellow-despots not\nto destroy the bridge over the Danube by which the Persians must return.\nChoosing his own reward for this service, he became possessor of\nterritory near Myrcinus (afterwards Amphipolis), rich in timber and\nminerals. The success of his enterprise led to his being invited to\nSusa, where in the midst of every kind of honour he was virtually a\nprisoner of Darius, who had reason to dread his growing power in Ionia.\nDuring this period the Greek cities were left under native despots\nsupported by Persia, Aristagoras, son-in-law of Histiaeus, being ruler\nof Miletus in his stead. This prince, having failed against Naxos in a\njoint expedition with the satrap Artaphernes, began to stir up the\nIonians to revolt, and this result was brought to pass, according to\nHerodotus, by a secret message from Histiaeus. The revolt assumed a\nformidable character and Histiaeus persuaded Darius that he alone could\nquell it. He was allowed to leave Susa, but on his arrival at the coast\nfound himself suspected by the satrap, and was ultimately driven to\nestablish himself (Herodotus says as a pirate; more probably in charge\nof the Bosporus route) at Byzantium. After the total failure of the\nrevolt at the battle of Lade, he made various attempts to re-establish\nhimself, but was captured by the Persian Harpagus and crucified by\nArtaphernes at Sardis. His head was embalmed and sent to Darius, who\ngave it honourable burial. The theory of Herodotus that the Ionian\nrevolt was caused by the single message of Histiaeus is incredible;\nthere is evidence to show that the Ionians had been meditating since\nabout 512 a patriotic revolt against the Persian domination and the\n\"tyrants\" on whom it rested (see Grote, _Hist. of Greece_, ed. 1907,\nespecially p. 122 note; art. IONIA, and authorities; also S. Heinlein in\n_Klio_, 1909, pp. 341-351).\n\n\n\n\nHISTOLOGY (Gr. [Greek: histos], web, tissue, properly the web-beam of\nthe loom, from [Greek: histanai], to make to stand), the science which\ndeals with the structure of the tissues of plants and animals (see\nCYTOLOGY).\n\n\n\n\nHISTORY. The word \"history\" is used in two senses. It may mean either\nthe record of events, or events themselves. Originally (see below)\nlimited to inquiry and statement, it was only in comparatively modern\ntimes that the meaning of the word was extended to include the phenomena\nwhich form or might form their subject. It was perhaps by a somewhat\ncareless transference of ideas that this extension was brought about.\nNow indeed it is the commoner meaning. We speak of the \"history of\nEngland\" without reference to any literary narrative. We term kings and\nstatesmen the \"makers of history,\" and sometimes say that the historian\nonly records the history which they make. History in this connexion is\nobviously not the record, but the thing to be recorded. It is\nunfortunate that such a double meaning of the word should have grown up,\nfor it is productive of not a little confusion of thought.\n\nHistory in the wider sense is all that has happened, not merely all the\nphenomena of human life, but those of the natural world as well. It\nincludes everything that undergoes change; and as modern science has\nshown that there is nothing absolutely static, therefore the whole\nuniverse, and every part of it, has its history. The discovery of ether\nbrought with it a reconstruction of our ideas of the physical universe,\ntransferring the emphasis from the mathematical expression of static\nrelationships to a dynamic conception of a universe in constant\ntransformation; matter in equipoise became energy in gradual\nreadjustment. Solids are solids no longer. The universe is in motion in\nevery particle of every part; rock and metal merely a transition stage\nbetween crystallization and dissolution. This idea of universal activity\nhas in a sense made physics itself a branch of history. It is the same\nwith the other sciences--especially the biological division, where the\ndoctrine of evolution has induced an attitude of mind which is\ndistinctly historical.\n\nBut the tendency to look at things historically is not merely the\nattitude of men of science. Our outlook upon life differs in just this\nparticular from that of preceding ages. We recognize the unstable\nnature of our whole social fabric, and are therefore more and more\ncapable of transforming it. Our institutions are no longer held to be\ninevitable and immutable creations. We do not attempt to fit them to\nabsolute formulae, but continually adapt them to a changing environment.\nEven modern architecture, notably in America, reflects the consciousness\nof change. The permanent character of ancient or medieval buildings was\nfitted only to a society dominated by static ideals. Now the architect\nbuilds, not for all time, but for a set of conditions which will\ninevitably cease in the not distant future. Thus our whole society not\nonly bears the marks of its evolution, but shows its growing\nconsciousness of the fact in the most evident of its arts. In\nliterature, philosophy and political science, there is the same\nhistorical trend. Criticism no longer judges by absolute standards; it\napplies the standards of the author's own environment. We no longer\ncondemn Shakespeare for having violated the ancient dramatic laws, nor\nVoltaire for having objected to the violations. Each age has its own\nexpression, and in judging each we enter the field of history. In\nethics, again, the revolt against absolute standards limits us to the\nrelative, and morals are investigated on the basis of history, as\nlargely conditioned by economic environment and the growth of\nintellectual freedom. Revelation no longer appeals to scientific minds\nas a source of knowledge. Experience on the other hand is history. As\nfor political science, we do not regard the national state as that\nultimate and final product which men once saw in the Roman Empire. It\nhas hardly come into being before forces are evident which aim at its\ndestruction. Internationalism has gained ground in Europe in recent\nyears; and Socialism itself, which is based upon a distinct\ninterpretation of history, is regarded by its followers as merely a\nstage in human progress, like those which have gone before it. It is\nevident that Freeman's definition of history as \"past politics\" is\nmiserably inadequate. Political events are mere externals. History\nenters into every phase of activity, and the economic forces which urge\nsociety along are as much its subject as the political result.\n\nIn short the historical spirit of the age has invaded every field. The\nworld-picture presented in this encyclopaedia is that of a dynamic\nuniverse, of phenomena in process of ceaseless change. Owing to this\ninsistent change all things which happen, or seem to happen, are history\nin the broader sense of the word. The encyclopaedia itself is a history\nof them in the stricter sense,--the description and record of this\nuniversal process. This narrower meaning is the subject of the rest of\nthis article.\n\nThe word \"history\" comes from the Gr. [Greek: historia], which was used\nby the Ionians in the 6th century B.C. for the search for knowledge in\nthe widest sense. It meant inquiry, investigation, not narrative. It was\nnot until two centuries later that the historikos, the reciter of\nstories, superseded the _historeon_ ([Greek: historeon]), the seeker\nafter knowledge. Thus history began as a branch of scientific\nresearch,--much the same as what the Athenians later termed philosophy.\nHerodotus himself was as much a scientific explorer as a reciter of\nnarrative, and his life-long investigation was _historie_ in his Ionian\nspeech. Yet it was Herodotus himself who first hinted at the new use of\nthe word, applied merely to the details accumulated during a long search\nfor knowledge. It is not until Aristotle, however, that we have it\ndefinitely applied to the literary product instead of the inquiry which\nprecedes it. From Aristotle to modern times, history (Lat. _historia_)\nhas been a form of literature. It is only in the scientific environment\nof to-day that we recognize once more, with those earliest of the\nforerunners of Herodotus, that history involves two distinct operations,\none of which, investigation, is in the field of science, while the\nother, the literary presentation, is in the field of art.\n\nThe history of history itself is therefore two-fold. History as art\nflourishes with the arts. It calls upon the imagination and the literary\ngifts of expression. Its history does not run parallel with the\nscientific side, but rather varies in inverse ratio with scientific\nactivity. Those periods which have been dominated by the great masters\nof style have been less interested in the criticism of the historian's\nmethods of investigation than in the beauty of his rhetoric. The\nscientific historian, deeply interested in the search for truth, is\ngenerally but a poor artist, and his uncoloured picture of the past will\nnever rank in literature beside the splendid distortions which glow in\nthe pages of a Michelet or Macaulay. History the art, in so far as it is\nconditioned upon genius, has no single traceable line of development.\nHere the product of the age of Pericles remains unsurpassed still; the\nworks of Herodotus and Thucydides standing along with those of Pheidias\nas models for all time. On the other hand, history the science has\ndeveloped so that it has not only gained recognition among historians as\na distinct subject, but it has raised with it a group of auxiliary\nsciences which serve either as tools for investigation or as a basis for\ntesting the results. The advance in this branch of history in the 19th\ncentury was one of its greatest achievements. The vast gulf which lies\nbetween the history of Egypt by Herodotus and that by Flinders Petrie is\nthe measure of its achievement. By the mechanism now at his disposal the\nscientific explorer can read more history from the dust-heaps of Abydos\nthan the greatest traveller of antiquity could gather from the priests\nof Sais. In tracing the history of history we must therefore keep in\nmind the double aspect.\n\nHistory itself, this double subject, the science and the art combined,\nbegins with the dawn of memory and the invention of speech. It is wrong\nto term those ages _pre-historic_ whose history has not come down to us,\nincluding in one category the pre-literary age and the literary whose\ntraces have been lost. Even the pre-literary had its history, first in\nmyth and then in saga. The saga, or epos, was a great advance upon the\nmyth, for in it the deeds of men replace or tend to replace the deeds of\nthe gods. But we are still largely in the realm of imagination. Poetry,\nas Thucydides complained, is a most imperfect medium for fact. The bard\nwill exaggerate or distort his story. True history, as a record of what\nreally has happened, first reached maturity in prose. Therefore,\nalthough much of the past has been handed down to us in epic, in ballad\nand in the legends of folk-lore, we must turn from them to what became\nhistory in the narrower sense.\n\nThe earliest prose origins of history are the inscriptions. Their\ninadequacy is evident from two standpoints. Their permanence depends not\nupon their importance, but upon the durability of the substance on which\nthey are inscribed. A note for a wedding ring baked into the clay of\nBabylon has been preserved, while the history of the greatest events has\nperished. In the second place they are sealed to all but those who know\nhow to read them, and so they lie forgotten for centuries while oral\ntradition flourishes,--being within the reach of every man. It is only\nrecently that archaeology, turning from the field of art, has undertaken\nto interpret for us this first written history. The process by which the\nmodern fits together all the obtainable remains of an antiquity, and\nreconstructs even that past which left no written record, lies outside\nthe field of this article. But such enlargement of the field of history\nis a modern scientific product, and is to be distinguished from the\nimperfect beginnings of history-writing which the archaeologist is able\nto decipher.\n\nNext to the inscriptions,--sometimes identical with them,--are the early\nchronicles. These are of various kinds. Family chronicles preserved the\nmemory of heroic ancestors whose deeds in the earliest age would have\npassed into the keeping of the bards. Such family archives were perhaps\nthe main source for Roman historians. But they are not confined to Rome\nor Greece. Genealogies also pass from the bald verse, which was the\nvehicle for oral transmission, to such elaborate tables as those in\nwhich Manetho has preserved the dynasties of Egyptian Pharaohs.\n\nIn this field the priest succeeds the poet. The temple itself became the\nchief repository of records. There were simple religious annals, votive\ntablets recording miracles accomplished at a shrine, lists of priests\nand priestesses, accounts of benefactions, of prodigies and portents. In\nsome cases, as in Rome, the pontiffs kept a kind of register, not merely\nof religious history, but of important political events as well. Down to\nthe time of the Gracchi (131 B.C.) the Pontifex Maximus inscribed the\nyear's events upon annual tablets of wood which were preserved in the\nRegia, the official residence of the pontiff in the Forum. These\npontifical \"annals\" thus came to be a sort of civic history. Chronicles\nof the Greek cities were commonly ascribed to mythical authors, as for\ninstance that of Miletus, the oldest, to Cadmus the inventor of letters.\nBut they were continued and edited by men in whom the critical spirit\nwas awakening, as when the chroniclers of Ionian towns began the\ncriticism of Homer.\n\nThe first historians were the logographi of these Ionian cities; men who\ncarried their inquiry (_historie_) beyond both written record and oral\ntradition to a study of the world around them. Their \"saying\" (_logos_)\nwas gathered mostly from contemporaries; and upon the basis of a widened\nexperience they became critics of their traditions. The opening lines of\nHecataeus of Miletus begin the history of the true historic spirit in\nwords which read like a sentence from Voltaire. \"Hecataeus of Miletus\nthus speaks: I write as I deem true, for the traditions of the Greeks\nseem to me manifold and laughable.\" Those words mark an epoch in the\nhistory of thought. They are the introduction to historical criticism\nand scientific investigation. Whatever the actual achievement of\nHecataeus may have been, from his time onward the scientific movement\nwas set going. Herodotus of Heraclea struggled to rationalize mythology,\nand established chronology on a solid basis. And finally Herodotus, a\nprofessional story-teller, rose to the height of genuine scientific\ninvestigation. Herodotus' inquiry was not simply that of an idle\ntourist. He was a critical observer, who tested his evidence. It is easy\nfor the student now to show the inadequacy of his sources, and his\nfailure here or there to discriminate between fact and fable. But given\nthe imperfect medium for investigation and the absence of an\narchaeological basis for criticism, the work of Herodotus remains a\nscientific achievement, as remarkable for its approximation to truth as\nfor the vastness of its scope. Yet it was Herodotus' chief glory to have\njoined to this scientific spirit an artistic sense which enabled him to\ncast the material into the truest literary form. He gathered all his\nknowledge of the ancient world, not simply for itself, but to mass it\naround the story of the war between the east and west, the Greeks and\nthe Persians. He is first and foremost a story-teller; his theme is like\nthat of the bards, a heroic event. His story is a vast prose epos, in\nwhich science is to this extent subordinated to art. \"This is the\nshowing forth of the Inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, to the end\nthat neither the deeds of men may be forgotten by lapse of time, nor the\nworks, great and marvellous, which have been produced, some by Hellenes,\nsome by Barbarians, may lose their renown, and especially that the\ncauses may be remembered for which these waged war with one another\"\n(i.e. the Persian war).\n\nIn Thucydides a higher art than that of Herodotus was combined with a\nhigher science. He scorned the story-teller \"who seeks to please the ear\nrather than to speak the truth,\" and yet his rhetoric is the culmination\nof Greek historical prose. He withdrew from vulgar applause, conscious\nthat his narrative would be considered \"disappointing to the ear,\" yet\nhe recast the materials out of which he constructed it in order to lift\nthat narrative into the realm of pure literature. Speeches, letters and\ndocuments are reworded to be in tone with the rest of the story. It was\nhis art, in fact, which really created the Peloponnesian war out of its\nseparate parts. And yet this art was merely the language of a scientist.\nThe \"laborious task\" of which he speaks is that of consulting all\npossible evidence, and weighing conflicting accounts. It is this which\nmakes his rhetoric worth while, \"an everlasting possession, not a prize\ncompetition which is heard and forgotten.\"\n\nFrom the sublimity of Thucydides, and Xenophon's straight-forward story,\nhistory passed with Theopompus and Ephorus into the field of rhetoric. A\nrevival of the scientific instinct of investigation is discernable in\nTimaeus the Sicilian, at the end of the 4th century, but his attack upon\nhis predecessors was the text of a more crushing attack upon himself by\nPolybius, who declares him lacking in critical insight and biased by\npassion. Polybius' comments upon Timaeus reach the dignity of a treatise\nupon history. He protests against its use for controversial pamphlets\nwhich distort the truth. \"Directly a man assumes the moral attitude of\nan historian he ought to forget all considerations, such as love of\none's friends, hatred of one's enemies.... He must sometimes praise\nenemies and blame friends. For as a living creature is rendered useless\nif deprived of its eyes, so if you take truth from History, what is left\nbut an improfitable tale\" (bk. xii. 14). These are the words of a Ranke.\nUnfortunately Polybius, like most modern scientific historians, was no\nartist. His style is the very opposite of that of Isocrates and the\nrhetoricians. It is often only clear in the light of inscriptions, so\nclosely does it keep to the sources. The style found no imitator;\nhistory passed from Greece to Rome in the guise of rhetoric. In\nDionysius of Halicarnassus the rhetoric was combined with an extensive\nstudy of the sources; but the influence of the Greek rhetoricians upon\nRoman prose was deplorable from the standpoint of science. Cicero,\nalthough he said that the duty of the historian is to conceal nothing\ntrue, to say nothing false, would in practice have written the kind of\nhistory that Polybius denounced. He finds fault with those who are _non\nexornatores rerum sed tantum narratores_. History for him is the mine\nfrom which to draw argument in oratory and example in education. It is\nnot the subject of a scientific curiosity.\n\nIt should be noted before we pass to Rome that with the expansion of\nHellenism the subject of historians expanded as well. Universal history\nwas begun by Ephorus, the rhetorician, and formed the theme of Polybius\nand Deodorus. Exiled Greeks were the first to write histories of Rome\nworthy of the name. The Alexandrian Eratosthenes placed chronology upon\nthe scientific basis of astronomy, and Apollodorus drew up the most\nimportant _chronica_ of antiquity.\n\nHistory-writing in Rome,--except for the Greek writers resident\nthere,--was until the first half of the 1st century B.C. in the form of\nannals. Then came rhetorical ornamentation,--and the Ciceronian era. The\nfirst Roman historian who rose to the conception of a science and art\ncombined was Sallust, the student of Thucydides. The Augustan age\nproduced in Livy a great popular historian and natural artist and a\ntrained rhetorician (in the speeches),--but as uncritical and inaccurate\nas he was brilliant. From Livy to Tacitus the gulf is greater than from\nHerodotus to Thucydides. Tacitus is at least a consummate artist. His\nstyle ranges from the brilliancy of his youth to the sternness and\nsombre gravity of age, passing almost to poetic expression in its\nepigrammatic terseness. Yet in spite of his searching study of\nauthorities, his keen judgment of men, and his perception of underlying\nprinciples of moral law, his view was warped by the heat of faction,\nwhich glows beneath his external objectivity. After him Roman\nhistory-writing speedily degenerated. Suetonius' _Lives of the Caesars_\nis but a superior kind of journalism. But his gossip of the court became\nthe model for historians, whose works, now lost, furnish the main source\nfor the _Historia Augusta_. The importance to us of this uncritical\ncollection of biographies is sufficient comment on the decline of\nhistory-writing in the latter empire. Finally, from the 4th century the\nepitomes of Eutropius and Festus served to satisfy the lessening\ncuriosity in the past and became the handbooks for the middle ages. The\nsingle figure of Ammianus Marcellinus stands out of this age like a\nbelated disciple of Tacitus. But the world was changing from antique to\nChristian ideals just as he was writing, and with him we leave this\noutline of ancient history.\n\nThe 4th and 5th centuries saw a great revolution in the history of\nhistory. The story of the pagan past slipped out of mind, and in its\nplace was set, by the genius of Eusebius, the story of the world force\nwhich had superseded it, Christianity, and of that small fraction of\nantiquity from which it sprang,--the Jews. Christianity from the first\nhad forced thinking men to reconstruct their philosophy of history, but\nit was only after the Church's triumph that its point of view became\ndominant in historiography. Three centuries more passed before the pagan\nmodels were quite lost to sight. But from the 7th century to the\n17th--from Isidore of Seville and the English Bede for a thousand\nyears,--mankind was to look back along the line of Jewish priests and\nkings to the Creation. Egypt was of interest only as it came into\nIsraelite history, Babylon and Nineveh were to illustrate the judgments\nof Yahweh, Tyre and Sidon to reflect the glory of Solomon. The process\nby which the \"gentiles\" have been robbed of their legitimate history was\nthe inevitable result of a religion whose sacred books make them lay\nfigures for the history of the Jews. Rejected by the Yahweh who became\nthe Christian God, they have remained to the present day, in Sunday\nschools and in common opinion, not nations of living men, with the\nculture of arts and sciences, but outcasts who do not enter into the\ndivine scheme of the world's history. When a line was drawn between\npagan and Christian back to the creation of the world, it left outside\nthe pale of inquiry nearly all antiquity. But it must be remembered that\nthat antiquity was one in which the German nations had no personal\ninterest. Scipio and the Gracchi were essentially unreal to them. The\none living organization with which they came into touch was the Church.\nSo Cicero and Pompey paled before Joshua and Paul. Diocletian, the\norganizing genius, became a bloodthirsty monster, and Constantine, the\nmurderer, a saint.\n\nChristian history begins with the triumph of the Church. With Eusebius\nof Caesarea the apologetic pamphlets of the age of persecutions gave way\nto a calm review of three centuries of Christian progress. Eusebius'\nbiography of Constantine shows what distortion of fact the father of\nChurch history permitted himself, but the Ecclesiastical History was\nfortunately written for those who wanted to know what really happened,\nand remains to-day an invaluable repository of Christian antiquities.\nWith the continuations of Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, and the Latin\nmanual which Cassiodorus had woven from them (the _Historia\ntripartita_), it formed the body of Church history during all the middle\nages. An even greater influence, however, was exercised by Eusebius'\n_Chronica_. Through Jerome's translation and additions, this scheme of\nthis world's chronology became the basis for all medieval world\nchronicles. It settled until our own day the succession of years from\nthe Creation to the birth of Christ,--fitting the Old Testament story\ninto that of ancient history. Henceforth the Jewish past,--that one path\nback to the beginning of the world,--was marked out by the absolute laws\nof mathematics and revelation. Jerome had marked it out; Sulpicius\nSeverus, the biographer of St Martin, in his _Historia sacra_, adorned\nit with the attractions of romance. Sulpicius was admirably fitted to\ninterpret the miraculous Bible story to the middle ages. But there were\nfew who could write like him, and Jerome's _Chronicle_ itself, or rather\nportions of it, became, in the age which followed, a sort of universal\npreface for the monastic chronicler. For a time there were even attempts\nto continue \"imperial chronicles,\" but they were insignificant compared\nwith the influence of Eusebius and Jerome.\n\nFrom the first, Christianity had a philosophy of history. Its earliest\napologists sought to show how the world had followed a divine plan in\nits long preparation for the life of Christ. From this central fact of\nall history, mankind should continue through war and suffering until the\ndivine plan was completed at the judgment day. The fate of nations is in\nGod's hands; history is the revelation of His wisdom and power. Whether\nHe intervenes directly by miracle, or merely sets His laws in operation,\nHe is master of men's fate. This idea, which has underlain all Christian\nphilosophy of history, from the first apologists who prophesied the fall\nof the Empire and the coming of the millennium, down to our own day,\nreceived its classic statement in St Augustine's _City of God_. The\nterrestrial city, whose eternity had been the theme of pagan history,\nhad just fallen before Alaric's Goths. Augustine's explanation of its\nfall passes in review not only the calamities of Roman history--combined\nwith a pathetic perception of its greatness,--but carries the survey\nback to the origin of evil at the creation. Then over against this\n_civitas terrena_ he sets the divine city which is to be realized in\nChristendom. The Roman Empire,--the last general form of the earthly\ncity,--gives way slowly to the heavenly. This is the main thread of\nAugustine's philosophy of history. The mathematical demonstration of its\ntruth was left by Augustine for his disciple, Paulus Orosius.\n\nOrosius' _Seven Books of Histories against the Pagans_, written as a\nsupplement to the _City of God_, is the first attempt at a Christian\n\"World History.\" This manual for the middle ages arranged the rise and\nfall of empires with convincing exactness. The history of antiquity,\naccording to it, begins with Ninus. His realm was overthrown by the\nMedes in the same year in which the history of Rome began. From the\nfirst year of Ninus' reign until the rebuilding of Babylon by Semiramis\nthere were sixty-four years; the same between the first of Procas and\nthe building of Rome. Eleven hundred and sixty-four years after each\ncity was built, it was taken,--Babylon by Cyrus, Rome by Alaric, and\nCyrus' conquest took place just when Rome began the Republic. But before\nRome becomes a world empire, Macedon and Carthage intervene, guardians\nof Rome's youth (_tutor curatorque_). This scheme of the four\nworld-monarchies, which was to prevail through all the middle ages, was\ndeveloped through seven books filled with the story of war and\nsuffering. As it was Orosius' aim to show that the world had improved\nsince the coming of Christ, he used Trogus Pompeius' war history,\nwritten to exalt Roman triumphs, to show the reverse of\nvictory,--disaster and ruin. Livy, Caesar, Tacitus and Suetonius were\nplundered for the story of horrors; until finally even the Goths in\nSpain shine by contrast with the pagan heroes; and through the confusion\nof the German invasions one may look forward to Christendom,--and its\npeace.\n\nThe commonest form of medieval historical writing was the chronicle,\nwhich reaches all the way from monastic annals, mere notes on Easter\ntables, to the dignity of national monuments. Utterly lacking in\nperspective, and dominated by the idea of the miraculous, they are for\nthe most part a record of the trivial or the marvellous. Individual\nhistorians sometimes recount the story of their own times with sober\njudgment, but seldom know how to test their sources when dealing with\nthe past. Contradictions are often copied down without the writer\nnoticing them; and since the middle ages forged and falsified so many\ndocuments,--monasteries, towns and corporations gaining privileges or\ntitles of possession by the bold use of them,--the narrative of medieval\nwriters cannot be relied upon unless we can verify it by collateral\nevidence. Some historians, like Otto of Freising, Guibert of Nogent or\nBernard Gui, would have been scientific if they had had our appliances\nfor comparison. But even men like Roger Bacon, who deplored the\ninaccuracy of texts, had worked out no general method to apply in their\nrestoration. Toward the close of the middle ages the vernacular\nliteratures were adorned with Villani's and Froissart's chronicles. But\nthe merit of both lies in their journalistic qualities of contemporary\nnarrative. Neither was a history in the truest sense.\n\nThe Renaissance marked the first great gain in the historic sense, in\nthe efforts of the humanists to realize the spirit of the antique world.\nThey did not altogether succeed; antiquity to them meant largely Plato\nand Cicero. Their interests were literary, and the un-Ciceronian\ncenturies were generally ignored. Those in which the foundations of\nmodern Europe were laid, which produced parliaments, cathedrals, cities,\nDante and Chaucer, were grouped alike on one dismal level and christened\nthe middle ages. The perspective of the humanists was only one degree\nbetter than that of the middle ages. History became the servant to\nliterature, an adjunct to the classics. Thus it passed into the schools,\nwhere text-books still in use devote 200 pages to the Peloponnesian war\nand two to the Athens of Pericles.\n\nBut if the literary side of humanism has been a barrier to the progress\nof scientific history, the discovery and elucidation of texts first made\nthat progress possible. Historical criticism soon awoke. Laurentius\nValla's brilliant attack on the \"Donation of Constantine\" (1440), and\nUlrich von Hutten's rehabilitation of Henry IV. from monkish tales mark\nthe rise of the new science. One sees at a glance what an engine of\ncontroversy it was to be; yet for a while it remained but a phase of\nhumanism. It was north of the Alps that it parted company with the\ngrammarians. Classical antiquity was an Italian past, the German\nscholars turned back to the sources of their national history. Aeneas\nSylvius Piccolomini (Pius II.) had discovered Otto of Freising and\nJordanes. Maximilian I. encouraged the search for manuscripts, and\nVienna became a great humanistic centre. Conrad Celtes left his\n_Germania illustrata_ unfinished, but he had found the works of\nHroswitha. Conrad Peutinger gathered all sorts of Chronicles in his room\nin Vienna, and published several,--among them Gregory of Tours. This\nnational movement of the 15th century was not paralleled in France or\nEngland, where the classical humanities reigned. The Reformation\nmeanwhile gave another turn to the work of German scholars.\n\nThe Reformation, with its heated controversies, seems a strange\nstarting-point for science, yet it, even more than the Renaissance,\nbrought out scientific methods of historical investigation. It not only\nsobered the humanist tendency to sacrifice truth for aesthetic effect,\nit called for the documents of the Church and subjected them to the most\nhostile criticism. Luther himself challenged them. Then in the\n_Magdeburg Centuries_ (1559-1574) Protestantism tried to make good its\nattack on the medieval Church by a great collection of sources\naccompanied with much destructive criticism. This gigantic work is the\nfirst monument of modern historical research. The reply of Cardinal\nBaronius (_Annales ecclesiastici_, 1588-1697) was a still greater\ncollection, drawn from archives which till then had not been used for\nscientific history. Baronius' criticism and texts are faulty, though far\nsurpassing anything before his day, and his collection is the basis for\nmost subsequent ones,--in spite of J. J. Scaliger's refutation, which\nwas to contain an equal number of volumes of the errors in Baronius.\n\nThe movement back to the sources in Germany until the Thirty Years' War\nwas a notable one. Collections were made by Simon Schard (1535-1573),\nJohannes Pistorius (1576-1608), Marquard Freher (1565-1614), Melchior\nGoldast (1576-1635) and others. After the war Leibnitz began a new\nepoch, both by his philosophy with its law of continuity in phenomena,\nand by his systematic attempt to collect sources through an association\n(1670). His plan to have documents printed as they were, instead of\n\"correcting\" them, was a notable advance. But from Leibnitz until the\n19th century German national historiography made little\nprogress,--although church historians like Mosheim and Neander stand out\namong the greatest historians of all time.\n\nFrance had not paralleled the activity of Maximilian's Renaissance\nhistorians. The father of modern French history, or at least of\nhistorical research, was Andre Duchesne (1584-1640), whose splendid\ncollections of sources are still in use. Jean Bodin wrote the first\ntreatise on scientific history (_Methodus ad facilem historiarum\ncognitionem_, 1566), but he did not apply his own principles of\ncriticism; and it was left for the Benedictine monks of the Congregation\nof St Maur to establish definitely the new science. The place of this\nschool in the history of history is absolutely without a parallel. Few\nof those in the audiences of Moliere, returning home under the grey\nwalls of St Germain-des-Pres, knew that within that monastery the men\nwhose midnight they disturbed were laying the basis for all scientific\nhistory; and few of the later historians of that age have been any\nwiser. But when Luc d'Achery turned from exegetics to patristics and the\nlives of the saints, as a sort of Christian humanist, he led the way to\nthat vast work of collection and comparison of texts which developed\nthrough Mabillon, Montfaucon, Ruinart, Martene, Bouquet and their\nassociates, into the indispensable implements of modern historians.\nHere, as in the Reformation, controversy called out the richest product.\nJean Mabillon's treatise, _De re diplomatica_ (1681), was due to the\ncriticisms of that group of Belgian Jesuits whose _Acta Sanctorum\nquotquot toto orbe coluntur_ (1643, &c., see BOLLANDISTS) was destined\nto grow into the greatest repository of legend and biography the world\nhas seen. In reply to D. Papebroch's criticisms of the chronicle of St\nDenis, Mabillon prepared this manual for the testing of medieval\ndocuments. Its canons are the basis, indeed, almost the whole, of the\nscience of diplomatic (q.v.), the touchstone of truth for medieval\nresearch. Henceforth even the mediocre scholar had a body of technical\nrules by which to sort out the vast mass of apocrypha in medieval\ndocumentary sources. Scientific history depends upon implements.\nWithout manuals, dictionaries, and easy access to texts, we should go as\nfar astray as any medieval chronicler. The France of the Maurists\nsupplied the most essential of these instruments. The great \"glossary\"\nof Ducange is still in enlarged editions the indispensable encyclopaedia\nof the middle ages. Chronology and palaeography were placed on a new\nfooting by Dom Bernard de Montfaucon's _Palaeographia graeca_ (1708),\nthe monumental _Art de verifier les dates_ (3rd ed., 1818-1831, in 38\nvols.), and the _Nouveau Traite de diplomatique_ (1750-1765) of Dom\nTassin and Dom Toustain. The collections of texts which the Maurists\npublished are too many and too vast to be enumerated here (see C.\nLanglois, _Manuel de bibliographie historique_, pp. 293 ff.). Dom\nBouquet's _Historiens de la Gaule et de la France_--the national\nrepertory for French historians--is but one of a dozen tasks of similar\nmagnitude. During the 18th century this deep under-work of scientific\nhistory continued to advance, though for the most part unseen by the\nbrilliant writers whose untrustworthy generalities passed for history in\nthe salons of the old regime. Interrupted by the Revolution, it revived\nin the 19th century, and the roll of honour of the French Ecole des\nChartes has almost rivalled that of St Germain-des-Pres.\n\nThe father of critical history in Italy was L. A. Muratori (1672-1750),\nthe Italian counterpart of Leibnitz. His vast collection of sources\n(_Rerum Italicarum scriptores_), prepared amid every discouragement,\nremains to-day the national monument of Italian history; and it is but\none of his collections. His output is perhaps the greatest of any\nisolated worker in the whole history of historiography. The same haste,\nbut much less care, marked the work of J. D. Mansi (d. 1769), the\ncompiler of the fullest collection of the Councils. Spain, stifled by\nthe Inquisition, produced no national collection of sources during the\n17th and 18th centuries, although Nicolas Antonio (d. 1684) produced a\nnational literary history of the first rank.\n\nEngland in the 16th century kept pace with Continental historiography.\nHenry VIII.'s chaplain, John Leland, is the father of English\nantiquaries. Three of the most precious collections of medieval\nmanuscripts still in existence were then begun by Thomas Bodley (the\nBodleian at Oxford), Archbishop Matthew Parker (Corpus Christi at\nCambridge), and Robert Cotton (the Cottonian collection of the British\nMuseum). In Elizabeth's reign a serious effort was made to arrange the\nnational records, but until the end of the 18th century they were\nscattered in not less than fifteen repositories. In the 17th and 18th\ncenturies English scholarship was enriched by such monuments of research\nas William Dugdale's _Monasticon_, Thomas Madox's _History of the\nExchequer_, Wilkins's _Concilia_, and Thomas Rymer's _Foedera_. But\nthese works, important as they were, gave but little idea of the wealth\nof historical sources which the 19th century was to reveal in England.\n\nIn the 19th century the science of history underwent a sort of\nindustrial revolution. The machinery of research, invented by the genius\nof men like Mabillon, was perfected and set going in all the archives of\nEurope. Isolated workers or groups of workers grew into national or\ninternational associations, producing from archives vast collections of\nmaterial to be worked up into the artistic form of history. The result\nof this movement has been to revolutionize the whole subject. These men\nof the factory--devoting their lives to the cataloguing of archives and\nlibraries, to the publication of material, and then to the gigantic task\nof indexing what they have produced--have made it possible for the\nstudent in an American or Australian college to master in a few hours in\nhis library sources of history which baffled the long years of research\nof a Martene or Rymer. The texts themselves have mostly become as\ncorrect as they can ever be, and manuals and bibliographies guide one to\nand through them, so that no one need go astray who takes the trouble to\nmake use of the mechanism which is at his hand. For example, since the\npapal archives were opened, so many _regesta_ have appeared that soon it\nwill be possible to follow the letter-writing of the medieval popes day\nby day for century after century.\n\nThe apparatus for this research is too vast to be described here.\nArchives have been reformed, their contents catalogued or calendared;\ngovernment commissions have rescued numberless documents from oblivion\nor destruction, and learned societies have supplemented and criticized\nthis work and co-ordinated the results. Every state in Europe now has\npublished the main sources for its history. The \"Rolls\" series, the\n_Monumenta Germaniae historica_, and the _Documents inedits_ are but the\nmore notable of such national products. A series of periodicals keeps\nwatch over this enormous output. The files and indices of the _English\nHistorical Review_, _Historische Zeitschrift_, _Revue historique_, or\n_American Historical Review_ will alone reveal the strength and\ncharacter of historical research in the later 19th century.\n\nEvery science which deals with human phenomena is in a way an implement\nin this great factory system, in which the past is welded together\nagain. Psychology has been drawn upon to interpret the movements of\nrevolutions or religions, anthropology and ethnology furnish a clue to\nproblems to which the key of documents has been lost. Genealogy,\nheraldry and chronology run parallel with the wider subject. But the\nreal auxiliary sciences to history are those which deal with those\ntraces of the past that still exist, the science of language\n(philology), of writing (palaeography), of documents (diplomatic), of\nseals (sphragistics), of coins (numismatics), of weights and measures,\nand archaeology in the widest sense of the word. These sciences underlie\nthe whole development of scientific history. Dictionaries and manuals\nare the instruments of this industrial revolution. Without them the\nliterary remains of the race would still be as useless as Egyptian\ninscriptions to the fellaheen. Archaeology itself remained but a minor\nbranch of art until the machinery was perfected which enabled it to\nclassify and interpret the remains of the \"pre-historic\" age.\n\nThis is the most remarkable chapter in the whole history of history--the\nrecovery of that past which had already been lost when our literary\nhistory began. The perspective stretches out as far the other side of\nHomer as we are this. The old \"providential\" scheme of history\ndisintegrates before a new interest in the \"gentile\" nations to whose\nhigh culture Hebrew sources bore unwilling testimony. Biblical criticism\nis a part of the historic process. The Jewish texts, once the infallible\nbasis of history, are now tested by the libraries of Babylon, from which\nthey were partly drawn, and Hebrew history sinks into its proper place\nin the wide horizon of antiquity. The finding of the Rosetta stone left\nus no longer dependent upon Greek, Latin or Hebrew sources, and now\nfifty centuries of Egyptian history lie before us. The scientific\nhistorian of antiquity works on the hills of Crete, rather than in the\nquiet of a library with the classics spread out before him. There he can\nreconstruct the splendour of that Minoan age to which Homeric poems look\nback, as the Germanic epics looked back to Rome or Verona. His\ndiscoveries, co-ordinated and arranged in vast _corpora inscriptionum_,\nstand now alongside Herodotus or Livy, furnishing a basis for their\ncriticism. Medieval archaeology has, since Quicherat, revealed how men\nwere living while the monks wrote chronicles, and now cathedrals and\ncastles are studied as genuine historic documents.\n\nThe immense increase in available sources, archaeological and literary,\nhas remade historical criticism. Ranke's application of the principles\nof \"higher criticism\" to works written since the invention of printing\n(_Kritik neuerer Geschichtsschreiber_) was an epoch-making challenge of\nnarrative sources. Now they are everywhere checked by contemporary\nevidence, and a clearer sense of what constitutes a primary source has\ndiscredited much of what had been currently accepted as true. This is\ntrue not only of ancient history, where last year's book may be a\nthousand years out of date, but of the whole field. Hardly an \"old\nmaster\" remains an authoritative book of reference. Gibbon, Grote,\nGiesebrecht, Guizot stand to-day by reason of other virtues than their\ntruth. Old landmarks drop out of sight--e.g. the fall of the Western\nEmpire in 476, the coming of the Greeks to Italy in 1450, dates which\nonce enclosed the middle ages. The perspective changes--the Renaissance\ngrows less and the middle ages more; the Protestant Revolution becomes\na complex of economics and politics and religion; the French Revolution\na vast social reform in which the Terror was an incident, &c., &c. The\nresult has been a complete transformation of history since the middle of\nthe 19th century.\n\nIn the 17th century the Augustinian scheme of world history received its\nlast classic statement in Bossuet's _Histoire universelle_. Voltaire's\nreply to it in the 18th (_Essai sur les moeurs_) attacked its\nlimitations on the basis of deism, and its miraculous procedure on that\nof science. But while there are foreshadowings of the evolutionary\ntheory in this work, neither the _philosophe_ historians nor Hume nor\nGibbon arrived at a constructive principle in history which could take\nthe place of the Providence they rejected. Religion, though false, might\nbe a real historic force. History became the tragic spectacle of a game\nof dupes--the real movers being priests, kings or warriors. The pawns\nslowly acquired reason, and then would be able to regulate the moves\nthemselves. But all this failed to give a satisfactory explanation of\nthe laws which determine the direction of this evolution. Giovanni\nBattista Vico (1668-1744) was the first to ask why there is no science\nof human history. But his lonely life and unrecognized labours leave him\napart from the main movement, until his works were discovered again in\nthe 19th century. It was A. L. H. Heeren who, at the opening of the 19th\ncentury, first laid that emphasis upon the economic factors in history\nwhich is to-day slowly replacing the Augustinian explanation of its\nevolution. Heeren's own influence, however, was slight. The first half\nof the century (apart from the scientific activity of Pertz, Guizot,\n&c.) was largely dominated by the romanticists, with their exaggeration\nof the individual. Carlyle's \"great man theory of history\" is logically\nconnected with the age of Scott. It was a philosophy of history which\nlent itself to magnificent dramatic creations; but it explained nothing.\nIt substituted the work of the genius for the miraculous intervention of\nProvidence, but, apart from certain abstract formulae such as Truth and\nRight, knew nothing of why or how. It is but dealing in words to say\nthat the meaning of it all is God's revelation of Himself. Granting\nthat, what is the process? Why does it so slowly reveal the Right of the\nmiddle ages (as in slavery for instance) to be the Wrong to-day? Carlyle\nstands to Bossuet as the sage to the myth. Hegel got no closer to\nrealities. His idealistic scheme of history, which makes religion the\nkeynote of progress, and describes the function of each--Judaism to\ntypify duty, Confucianism order, Mahommedanism justice, Buddhism\npatience, and Christianity love--does not account for the facts of the\nhistory enacted by the devotees. It characterizes, not the real process\nof evolution, but an ideal which history has not realized. Besides, it\ndoes not face the question how far religion itself is a product or a\ncause, or both combined.\n\nIn the middle of the century two men sought to incorporate in their\nphilosophy the physical basis which Hegel had ignored in his\nspiritism--recognizing that life is conditioned by an environment and\nnot an abstraction for metaphysics. H. T. Buckle, in his _History of\nCivilization in England_ (1857), was the first to work out the\ninfluences of the material world upon history, developing through a\nwealth of illustration the importance of food, soil and the general\naspect of nature upon the formation of society. Buckle did not, as is\ngenerally believed, make these three factors dominate all history. He\ndistinctly stated that \"the advance of European civilization is\ncharacterized by a diminishing influence of physical laws and an\nincreasing influence of mental laws,\" and \"the measure of civilization\nis the triumph of mind over external agents.\" Yet his challenge, not\nonly to the theologian, but also to those \"historians whose indolence of\nthought\" or \"natural incapacity\" prevented them from attempting more\nthan the annalistic record of events, called out a storm of protest from\nalmost every side. Now that the controversy has cleared away, we see\nthat in spite of Buckle's too confident formulation of his laws, his\npioneer work in a great field marks him out as the Augustine of the\nscientific age. Among historians, however, Buckle's theory received but\nlittle favour for another generation. Meanwhile the economists had\nthemselves taken up the problem, and it was from them that the\nhistorians of to-day have learned it. Ten years before Buckle published\nhis history, Karl Marx had already formulated the \"economic theory of\nhistory.\" Accepting with reservation Feuerbach's attack on the Hegelian\n\"absolute idea,\" based on materialistic grounds (_Der Mensch ist, was er\nisst_), Marx was led to the conclusion that the causes of that process\nof growth which constitutes the history of society are to be found in\nthe economic conditions of existence. From this he went on to socialism,\nwhich bases its militant philosophy upon this interpretation of history.\nBut the truth or falseness of socialism does not affect the theory of\nhistory. In 1845 Marx wrote of the Young-Hegelians that to separate\nhistory from natural science and industry was like separating the soul\nfrom the body, and \"finding the birthplace of history, not in the gross\nmaterial production on earth, but in the misty cloud formation of\nheaven\" (_Die heilige Familie_, p. 238). In his _Misere de la\nphilosophie_ (1847) he lays down the principle that social relationships\nlargely depend upon modes of production, and therefore the principles,\nideas and categories which are thus evolved are no more eternal than the\nrelations they express, but are historical and transitory products. In\nthe famous _Manifesto of the Communist Party_ (1848) the theory was\napplied to show how the industrial revolution had replaced feudal with\nmodern conditions. But it had little vogue, except among Socialists,\nuntil the third volume of _Das Kapital_ was published in 1894, when its\nimportance was borne in upon continental scholars. Since then the\ncontroversy has been almost as heated as in the days of the Reformation.\nIt is an exaggeration of the theory which makes it an explanation of all\nhuman life, but the whole science of dynamic sociology rests upon the\npostulate of Marx.\n\nThe content of history always reflects the interests of the age in which\nit is written. It was so in Herodotus and in medieval chronicles. Modern\nhistorians began with politics. But as the complex nature of society\nbecame more evident in the age of democracy, the economic or\nsociological history gained ground. Histories of commerce and cities now\nrank beside those on war and kings, although there are readers still who\nprefer to follow the pennants of robber barons rather than to watch the\nslow evolution of modern conditions. The drum-and-trumpet history has\nits place like that of art, jurisprudence, science or philosophy. Only\nnow we know that no one of these is more than a single glimpse at a vast\ncomplex of phenomena, most of which lie for ever beyond our ken.\n\nThis expansion of interest has intensified specialization. Historians no\nlonger attempt to write world histories; they form associations of\nspecialists for the purpose. Each historian chooses his own epoch or\ncentury and his own subject, and spends his life mastering such traces\nof it as he can find. His work there enables him to judge of the methods\nof his fellows, but his own remains restricted by the very wealth of\nmaterial which has been accumulated on the single subject before him.\nThus the great enterprises of to-day are co-operative--the _Cambridge\nModern History_, Lavisse and Rambaud's _Histoire generale_, or Lavisse's\n_Histoire de France_, like Hunt and Poole's _Political History of\nEngland_, and Oncken's _Allgemeine Geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen_.\nBut even these vast sets cover but the merest fraction of their\nsubjects. The Cambridge history passes for the most part along the\npolitical crust of society, and seldom glances at the social forces\nwithin. This limitation of the professed historian is made up for by the\ngrowingly historical treatment of all the sciences and arts--a tendency\nnoted before, to which this edition of the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ is\nitself a notable witness. Indeed, for a definition of that limitless\nsubject which includes all the phenomena that stand the warp and stress\nof change, one might adapt a famous epitaph--_si historiam requiris,\ncircumspice_.\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY.--See Ch. V. Langlois, _Manuel de bibliographie\n historique_ (2 vols., 1904). This forms the logical bibliography of\n this article. It is a general survey of the whole apparatus of\n historical research, and is the indispensable guide to the subject.\n Similar bibliographies covering sections of history are noted with the\n articles where they properly belong, e.g. in English medieval history\n the manual of Chas. Gross, _Sources and Literature of English\n History_; in German history the _Quellenkunde_ of Dahlmann-Waitz (7th\n ed.); for France the _Bibliographie de l'histoire de France_ of G.\n Monod (antiquated, 1888), or the _Sources de l'histoire de France_ so\n ably begun by A. Molinier's volumes on the medieval period. Perhaps\n the sanest survey of the present scientific movement in history is the\n clear summary of Ch. V. Langlois and Ch. Seignobos, _Introduction to\n the Study of History_ (trans. with preface by F. York Powell, London,\n 1898). Much more ambitious is E. Bernheim's _Lehrbuch der historischen\n Methode und der Geschichtsphilosophie mit Nachweis der wichtigsten\n Quellen und Hilfsmittel zum Studium der Geschichte_ (3rd and 4th ed.,\n Leipzig, 1903). (J. T. S.*)\n\n\n\n\nHIT, a town of Asiatic Turkey, in the vilayet of Bagdad, on the west\nbank of the Euphrates, 70 m. W.N.W. of Bagdad, in 33 deg. 38' 8\" N., 42\ndeg. 52' 15\" E. It is picturesquely situated on a line of hills, partly\nnatural, but in large part certainly artificial, the accumulation of\ncenturies of former habitation, from 30 to 100 ft. in height, bordering\nthe river. The houses are built of field stones and mud. A striking\nfeature of the town is a lofty and well-proportioned minaret, which\nleans quite perceptibly. Behind and around Hit is an extensive but\nutterly barren plain, through which flow several streams of bitter\nwater, coming from mineral springs. Directly behind the town are two\nbitumen springs, one cold and one hot, within 30 ft. of one another. The\ngypsum cliffs on the edge of the plain, and the rocks which crop out\nhere and there in the plain, are full of seams of bitumen, and the whole\nplace is redolent of sulphuretted hydrogen. Across the river there are\nnaphtha springs. Indeed, the entire region is one possessing great\npotential wealth in mineral oils and the like. Hit, with its fringe of\npalms, is like an oasis in the desert occasioned by the outcrop of these\ndeposits. From time immemorial it has been the chief source of supply of\nbitumen for Babylonia, the prosperity of the town depending always upon\nits bitumen fountains, which are still the property of the government,\nbut are rented out to any one who wishes to use them. There is also a\nshipyard at Hit, where the characteristic Babylonian boats are still\nmade, smeared within and without with bitumen. Hit is the head of\nnavigation on the Euphrates. It is also the point from which the\ncamel-post starts across the desert to Damascus. About 8 m. inland from\nHit, on a bitter stream, lies the small town of Kubeitha. Hit is\nmentioned, under the name of Ist, in the Karnak inscription as paying\ntribute to Tethmosis (Thothmes) III. In the Bible (Ezra viii. 15) it is\ncalled Ahava; the original Babylonian name seems to have been _Ihi_,\nwhich becomes in the Talmud _Ihidakira_, in Ptolemy [Greek: Idikara],\nand in Zosimus and Ammianus [Greek: Dakira] and Diacira.\n\n See Geo. Rawlinson's _Herodotus_, i. 179, and note by H. C. Rawlinson;\n J. P. Peters, _Nippur_ (1897); H. V. Geere, _By Nile and Euphrates_\n (1904). (J. P. Pe.)\n\n\n\n\nHITA, GINES PEREZ DE (1544?-1605?), Spanish novelist and poet, was born\nat Mula (Murcia) about the middle of the 16th century. He served in the\ncampaign of 1569-1571 against the Moriscos, and in 1572 wrote a rhymed\nhistory of the city of Lorca which remained unpublished till 1889. He\nowes his wide celebrity to the _Historia de los bandos de Zegries y\nAbencerrajes_ (1595-1604), better known as the _Guerras civiles de\nGranada_, which purports to be a chronicle based on an Arabic original\nascribed to a certain Aben-Hamin. Aben-Hamin is a fictitious personage,\nand the _Guerras de Granada_ is in reality a historical novel, perhaps\nthe earliest example of its kind, and certainly the first historical\nnovel that attained popularity. In the first part the events which led\nto the downfall of Granada are related with uncommon brilliancy, and\nHita's sympathetic transcription of life at the Emir's court has clearly\nsuggested the conventional presentation of the picturesque, chivalrous\nMoor in the pages of Mlle de Scudery, Mme de Lafayette, Chateaubriand\nand Washington Irving. The second part is concerned with the author's\npersonal experiences, and the treatment is effective; yet, though\nCalderon's play, _Amar despues de la muerte_, is derived from it, the\nsecond part has never enjoyed the vogue or influence of the first. The\nexact date of Hita's death is unknown. His blank verse rendering of the\n_Cronica Troyana_, written in 1596, exists in manuscript.\n\n\n\n\nHITCHCOCK, EDWARD (1793-1864), American geologist, was born of poor\nparents at Deerfield, Massachusetts, on the 24th of May 1793. He owed\nhis education chiefly to his own exertions, and was preparing himself\nto enter Harvard College when he was compelled to interrupt his studies\nfrom a weakness in his eyesight. In 1815 he became principal of the\nacademy of his native town; but he resigned this office in 1818 in order\nto study for the ministry. Having been ordained in 1821 pastor of the\nCongregational church of Conway, Mass., he employed his leisure in\nmaking a scientific survey of the western counties of the state. From\n1825 to 1845 he was professor of chemistry and natural history, from\n1845 to 1864 was professor of natural theology and geology at Amherst\nCollege, and from 1845 to 1854 was president; the college owed its early\nsuccess largely to his energetic efforts, especially during the period\nof his presidency. In 1830 he was appointed state geologist of\nMassachusetts, and in 1836 was made geologist of the first district of\nthe state of New York. In 1840 he received the degree of LL.D. from\nHarvard, and in 1846 that of D.D. from Middlebury College, Vermont.\nBesides his constant labours in geology, zoology and botany, Hitchcock\ntook an active interest in agriculture, and in 1850 he was sent by the\nMassachusetts legislature to examine into the methods of the\nagricultural schools of Europe. In geology he made a detailed\nexamination and exposition of the fossil footprints from the Triassic\nsandstones of the Connecticut valley. His collection is preserved in the\nHitchcock Ichnological Museum of Amherst College, and a description of\nit was published in 1858 in his report to the Massachusetts legislature\non the ichnology of New England. The footprints were regarded as those\nof reptiles, amphibia and birds (?). In 1857 he undertook, with the aid\nof his two sons, the geological survey of Vermont, which was completed\nin 1861. As a writer on geological science, Hitchcock was largely\nconcerned in determining the connexion between it and religion, and\nemploying its results to explain and support what he regarded as the\ntruths of revelation. He died at Amherst, on the 27th of February 1864.\n\nHis son, CHARLES HENRY HITCHCOCK (1836- ), did good service in geology,\nin Vermont, New Hampshire (1868-1878), and other parts of America, and\nbecame professor of geology at Dartmouth in 1868.\n\n The following are Edward Hitchcock's principal works: _Geology of the\n Connecticut Valley_ (1823); _Catalogue of Plants growing without\n cultivation in the vicinity of Amherst_ (1829); _Reports on the\n Geology of Massachusetts_ (1833-1841); _Elementary Geology_ (1840; ed.\n 2, 1841; and later ed. with C. H. Hitchcock, 1862); _Fossil Footmarks\n in the United States_ (1848); _Outline of the Geology of the Globe and\n of the United States in particular_ (1853); _Illustrations of Surface\n Geology_ (1856); _Ichnology of New England_ (1858); _The Religion of\n Geology and its Connected Sciences_ (1851; new ed., 1869);\n _Reminiscences of Amherst College_ (1863); and various papers in the\n _American Journal of Science_, and other periodicals.\n\n\n\n\nHITCHCOCK, GEORGE (1850- ), American artist, was born at Providence,\nRhode Island, in 1850. He graduated from Brown University in 1872 and\nfrom the law school of Harvard University in 1874; then turned his\nattention to art and became a pupil of Boulanger and Lefebvre in Paris.\nHe attracted notice in the Salon of 1885 with his \"Tulip Growing,\" a\nDutch garden which he painted in Holland. He had for years a studio at\nEgmond, in the Netherlands. He became a Chevalier of the Legion of\nHonour, France; a member of the Vienna Academy of Arts, the Munich\nSecession Society, and other art bodies; and is represented in the\nDresden gallery; the imperial collection, Vienna; the Chicago Art\nInstitute, and the Detroit Museum of Fine Arts.\n\n\n\n\nHITCHCOCK, ROSWELL DWIGHT (1817-1887), American divine, was born at East\nMachias, Maine, on the 15th of August 1817, graduated at Amherst College\nin 1836, and later studied at Andover Theological Seminary, Mass. After\na visit to Germany he was a tutor at Amherst in 1839-1842, and was\nminister of the First (Congregational) Church, Exeter, New Hampshire, in\n1845-1852. He became professor of natural and revealed religion in\nBowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine, in 1852, and in 1855 professor of\nchurch history in the Union Theological Seminary in New York, of which\nhe was president in 1880-1887. He died at Somerset, Mass., on the 16th\nof June 1887.\n\n Among his works are: _Life of Edward Robinson_ (1863); _Socialism_\n (1879); _Carmina Sanctorum_ (with Z. Eddy and L. W. Mudge, 1885); and\n _Eternal Atonement_ (1888).\n\n\n\n\nHITCHIN, a market town in the Hitchin parliamentary division of\nHertfordshire, England, on the small river Hiz, 32 m. N. from London by\nthe Great Northern railway. Pop. of urban district (1901) 10,072. It is\nthe junction of the main line with the Cambridge branch, and with a\nbranch of the Midland railway to Bedford. The church of St Mary is\nPerpendicular, with a fine porch, a painting of the Adoration of the\nMagi, attributed to Rubens, a small crypt said to have been used by\nCromwell as a prison for the Royalists, and many interesting monuments.\nHitchin Priory is a mansion on the site of a Carmelite foundation of the\nearly 14th century. A Gilbertine nunnery, founded later in the same\ncentury, stood adjacent to the church, and portions of the buildings\nappear in an existing block of almshouses. The grammar school (1632) was\nreconstituted in 1889 for boys and girls. Straw-plaiting, malting,\nbrewing, and the cultivation and distillation of lavender and peppermint\nare carried on.\n\n\n\n\nHITTITES, an ancient people, alluded to frequently in the earlier\nrecords of Israel, and also, under slightly variant names, in Egyptian\nrecords of the XVIIIth, XIXth and XXth Dynasties, and in Assyrian from\nabout 1100 to 700 B.C. They appear also in the Vannic cuneiform texts,\nand are believed to be the authors of a class of monuments bearing\ninscriptions in a peculiar pictographic character, and widely\ndistributed over Asia Minor and N. Syria, around which much controversy\nhas raged during the past thirty years.\n\n1. _The Bible._--In the Old Testament the name of the race is written\n_Heth_ (with initial aspirate), members of it being _Hitti_, _Hittim_,\nwhich the Septuagint renders [Greek: chet], [Greek: chettaios], [Greek:\nchettein] or [Greek: chetteim], keeping, it will be noted, [epsilon] in\nthe stem throughout. The race appears in two connexions, (a) In\npre-Israelite Palestine, it is resident about Hebron (Gen. xxiii. 3),\nand in the central uplands (Num. xiii. 29). To Joshua (i. 4) is promised\n\"from the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the\nriver Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites.\" The term \"wilderness\"\nhere is of geographical ambiguity; but the promise is usually taken to\nmean that Palestine itself was part of the Hittite land before the\ncoming of Israel; and an apostrophe of Ezekiel (xvi. 3) to Jerusalem,\n\"thy mother (was) an Hittite,\" is quoted in confirmation. Under the\nmonarchy we hear frequently of Hittites within the borders of Israel,\nbut either as a small subject people, coupled with other petty tribes,\nor as individuals in the Jewish service (e.g. Uriah, in the time of\nDavid). It appears, therefore, that there survived in Palestine to late\ntimes a detached Hittite population, with which Hebrews sometimes\nintermarried (Judges iii. 5-6; Gen. xxvi. 34) and lived in relations now\namicable, now tyrannical (e.g. Hittites were made tributary bondsmen by\nSolomon, 1 Kings ix. 20, 21; 2 Chron. viii. 7, 8). (b) An independent\nand powerful Hittite people was domiciled N. of Palestine proper,\norganized rather as a confederacy of tribes than a single monarchy (1\nKings x. 28; 2 Kings vii. 6). Presumably it was a daughter of these\nHittites that Solomon took to wife. If the emendation of 2 Sam. xxiv.\n64, \"Tahtim-hodshi,\" based on the Septuagint version [Greek: gen\nchetteim kades] be accepted, we hear of them at Kadesh on Orontes; and\nsome minor Hittite cities are mentioned, e.g. Luz; but no one capital\ncity of the race is clearly indicated. Carchemish, on the Euphrates,\nthough mentioned three times (2 Chron. xxxv. 20; Isa. x. 9; Jer. xlvi.\n2), is not connected explicitly with Hittites, a fact which is not\nsurprising, since that city was no longer under a Hatti dynasty at the\nepoch of the Old Testament references. So far as the Old Testament goes,\ntherefore, we gather that the Hittites were a considerable people,\nwidely spread in Syria, in part subdued and to some extent assimilated\nby Israel, but in part out of reach. The latter portion was not much\nknown to the Hebrews, but was vaguely feared as a power in the early\ndays of the monarchy, though not in the later pre-Captivity period. The\nidentification of the northern and southern Hittites, however, presents\ncertain difficulties not yet fully explained; and it seems that we must\nassume Heth to have been the name both of a country in the north and of\na tribal population not confined to that country.\n\n2. _Egyptian Records._--The decipherment of the inscriptions of the\nXVIIIth Theban Dynasty led, before the middle of the 19th century, to\nthe discovery of the important part played in the Syrian campaigns of\nTethmosis (Thothmes) III. by the H-t8 (vulgarly transliterated _Kheta_,\nthough the vocalization is uncertain). The coincidence of this name,\nbeginning with an aspirate, led H. K. Brugsch to identify the Kheta with\nHeth. That identification stands, and no earlier Egyptian mention of the\nrace has been found. Tethmosis III. found the Kheta (\"Great\" and\n\"Little\") in N. Syria, not apparently at Kadesh, but at Carchemish,\nthough they had not been in possession of the latter place long (not in\nthe epoch of Tethmosis I.'s Syrian campaign). They were a power strong\nenough to give the Pharaoh cause to vaunt his success (see also EGYPT:\n_Ancient History_, S \"The New Empire\"). Though he says he levied tribute\nupon them, his successors in the dynasty nearly all record fresh wars\nwith the Kheta who appear as the northernmost of Pharaoh's enemies, and\nAmenophis or Amenhotep III. saw fit to take to wife Gilukhipa, a Syrian\nprincess, who may or may not have been a Hittite. This queen is by some\nsupposed to have introduced into Egypt certain exotic ideas which\nblossomed in the reign of Amenophis IV. The first Pharaoh of the\nsucceeding dynasty, Rameses I., came to terms with a Kheta king called\nSaplel or Saparura; but Seti I. again attacked the Kheta (1366 B.C.),\nwho had apparently pushed southwards. Forced back by Seti, the Kheta\nreturned and were found holding Kadesh by Rameses II., who, in his fifth\nyear, there fought against them and a large body of allies, drawn\nprobably in part from beyond Taurus, the battle which occasioned the\nmonumental poem of Pentaur. After long struggles, a treaty was concluded\nin Rameses's twenty-first year, between Pharaoh and \"Khetasar\" (i.e.\nKheta-king), of which we possess an Egyptian copy. The discovery of a\ncuneiform tablet containing a copy of this same treaty, in the\nBabylonian language, was reported from Boghaz Keui in Cappadocia by H.\nWinckler in 1907. It argues the Kheta a people of considerable\ncivilization. The Kheta king subsequently visited Pharaoh and gave him\nhis daughter to wife. Rameses' successor, Mineptah, remained on terms\nwith the Kheta folk; but in the reign of Rameses III. (Dyn. XX.) the\nlatter seem to have joined in the great raid of northern tribes on Egypt\nwhich was checked by the battle of Pelusium. From this point (c. 1150\nB.C.)--the point at which (roughly) the monarchic history of Israel in\nPalestine opens--Egyptian records cease to mention Kheta; and as we know\nfrom other sources that the latter continued powerful in Carchemish for\nsome centuries to come, we must presume that the rise of the Israelite\nstate interposed an effective political barrier.\n\n3. _Assyrian Records._--In an inscription of Tiglath Pileser I. (about\n1100 B.C.), first deciphered in 1857, a people called _Khatti_ is\nmentioned as powerful in Girgamish on Euphrates (i.e. Carchemish); and\nin other records of the same monarch, subsequently read, much mention is\nmade of this and of other N. Syrian names. These Khatti appear again in\nthe inscriptions of Assur-nazir-pal (early 9th century B.C.), in whose\ntime Carchemish was very wealthy, and the Khatti power extended far over\nN. Syria and even into Mesopotamia. Shalmaneser II. (d. 825 B.C.) raided\nthe Khatti and their allies year after year; and at last Sargon III., in\n717 B.C., relates that he captured Carchemish and its king, Pisiris, and\nput an end to its independence. We hear no more of it thenceforward.\nThese _Khatti_, there is no reasonable doubt, are identical with\n_Kheta_. (For the chronology see further under BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.)\n\n4. _Other Cuneiform Records._--The name of the race appears in certain\nof the Tel-el-Amarna letters, tablets written in Babylonian script to\nAmenophis (Amenhotep) IV. and found in 1892 on the site of his capital.\nSome of his governors in Syrian districts (e.g. one Aziru of Phoenicia)\nreport movements of the Hittites, who were then pursuing an aggressive\npolicy (about 1400 B.C.). There are also other letters from rulers of\nprincipalities in N. Syria (Mitanni) and E. Asia Minor (Arzawa), who\nwrite in non-Semitic tongues and are supposed to have been Hittites.\n\nCertain _Khate_ or _Khati_ are mentioned in the Vannic inscriptions\n(deciphered partially by A. H. Sayce and others) as attacked by kings\nof Bianas (Van), and apparently domiciled on the middle Euphrates N. of\nTaurus in the 9th century B.C. This name again may safely be identified\nwith _Khatti-Kheta_.\n\nThe Khatti also appear on a \"prophecy-tablet,\" referring ostensibly to\nthe time of Sargon of Agade (middle of 4th millennium B.C.); but the\ndocument is probably of very much later date. Lastly, a fragmentary\nchronicle of the 1st Babylonian Dynasty mentions an invasion of Akkad by\nthem about 1800 B.C.\n\nFrom all these various sources we should gather that the Hittites were\namong the more important racial elements in N. Syria and S.E. Asia Minor\nfor at least a thousand years. The limits at each end, however, are very\nill defined, the superior falling not later than 2000 B.C. and the\ninferior not earlier than 600 B.C. This people was militant, aggressive\nand unsettled in the earlier part of that time; commercial, wealthy and\nenervated in the latter. A memorial of its trading long remained in Asia\nin the shape of the weight-measure called in cuneiform records the\n_maneh_ \"of Carchemish.\" These Hittites had close relations with other\nAsia Minor peoples, and at times headed a confederacy. During the later\npart of their history they were in continual contact with Assyria, and,\nas a Syrian power, and perhaps also as a Cappadocian one, they finally\nsuccumbed to Assyrian pressure.\n\n_The \"Hittite\" Monuments._--It remains to consider in the light of the\nforegoing evidence a class of monuments to which attention began to be\ncalled about 1870. In that year two Americans, Consul J. A. Johnson and\nthe Rev. S. Jessup, rediscovered, at Hamah (Hamath) on Orontes, five\nbasaltic blocks bearing pictographic inscriptions in relief, one of\nwhich had been reported by J. L. Burckhardt in 1812. In spite of their\nefforts and subsequent attempts made by Tyrwhitt Drake and Richard\nBurton, when consul at Damascus, proper copies could not be obtained;\nand it was not till the end of 1872 that, thanks to W. Wright of Beirut,\ncasts were taken and the stones themselves sent to Constantinople by\nSubhi Pasha of Damascus. As usually happens when a new class of\nantiquities is announced, it was soon found that the \"Hamathite\"\ninscriptions did not stand alone. A monument in the same script had been\nseen in Aleppo by Tyrwhitt Drake and George Smith in 1872. It still\nexists, built into a mosque on the western wall of the city. Certain\nclay sealings, eight of which bore pictographic signs, found by A. H.\nLayard in the palace of Assur-bani-pal at Kuyunjik (Nineveh), as long\nago as 1851 and noticed then as in a \"doubtful character,\" were compared\nby Hayes Ward and found to be of the Hamathite class. A new copy of the\nlong known rock-sculpture at Ivriz[1] in S.W. Cappadocia was published\nby E. J. Davis in 1876, and clearly showed Hamathite characters\naccompanying the figures. Davis also reported, but did not see, a\nsimilar inscription at Bulgar Maden, not far away. Sculptures seen by W.\nSkene and George Smith at Jerablus, on the middle Euphrates, led to\nexcavations being undertaken there, in 1878, by the British Museum, and\nto the discovery of certain Hamathite inscriptions accompanying\nsculptures, a few of which were brought to London. The conduct of these\nexcavations, owing to the death of George Smith, devolved on Consul\nHenderson of Aleppo, and was not satisfactorily carried out. Meanwhile\nWright, Ward and Sayce had all suggested \"Hittite\" as a substitute for\n\"Hamathite,\" because no other N. Syrian people loomed so large in\nancient records as did the Hittites, and the suggestion began to find\nacceptance. Jerablus was confidently identified with Carchemish (but\nwithout positive proof to this day), and the occurrence of Hamathite\nmonuments there was held to confirm the Hittite theory.\n\nIn 1876 Sayce pointed out the resemblance between certain Hittite signs\nand characters in the lately deciphered Cypriote syllabary, and\nsuggested that the comparison might lead to a beginning of decipherment;\nbut the hope has proved vain. To this scholar, however, is owed the\nnext great step ahead. In 1879 it first occurred to him to compare the\nrock-monuments at Boghaz Keui (see PTERIA) and Euyuk in N. Cappadocia,\ndiscovered by Texier and Hamilton in 1835 and subsequently explored by\nG. Perrot and E. Guillaume. These, he now saw, bore Hittite pictographs.\nOther rock-sculptures at Giaur Kalessi, in Galatia, and in the Karabel\npass near Smyrna, he suspected of belonging to the same class[2]; and\nvisiting the last-named locality in the autumn, he found Hittite\npictographs accompanying one of the two figures.[3] He announced his\ndiscoveries in 1880, and proclaimed the fact that a great Hittite\nempire, extending from Kadesh to Smyrna, had risen from the dead. A\nmonth later he had the good fortune to recover copies of a silver boss,\nor hilt-top, offered to various museums about 1860, but rejected by them\nas a meaningless forgery and for a long time lost again to sight. Round\nthe rim was a cuneiform legend, and in the field a Hittite figure with\nsix Hittite symbols engraved twice over on either hand of it. Reading\nthe cuneiform as _Tarqu-dimme sar mat Erme_ (i.e. \"T. king of the\ncountry E.\"), Sayce distributed phonetic values, corresponding to the\nsyllables of the two proper names, among four of the Hittite characters,\nreserving two as \"ideograms\" of \"king\" and \"country,\" and launched into\nthe field of decipherment. But he subsequently recognized that this was\na false start, and began afresh from another basis. Since then a number\nof other monuments have been found, some on new sites, others on sites\nalready known to be Hittite, the distribution of which can be seen by\nreference to the accompanying map. It will be observed that, so far as\nat present known, they cluster most closely in Commagene, Cappadocia and\nS. Phrygia.\n\n The following notes supplement the map:--\n\n A. WEST ASIA MINOR.--\"_Niobe_\" (_Suratlu Tash_) and _Karabel_ (two);\n rock-cut figures with much defaced hieroglyphs in relief. Remains of\n buildings, not yet explored, lie near the \"Niobe\" figure. Nothing\n purely Hittite has been found at Sardis or in any W. Asian excavation;\n but small Hittite objects have been sold in Smyrna and Aidin.\n\n B. PHRYGIA.--_Giaur-Kalessi_; rock-cut figures and remains of a\n stronghold, but no inscriptions. _Doghanludere_ and _Beikeui_ in the\n Phrygian rock-monument country; at the first is a sculptured\n rock-panel with a few pictographs in relief; at the latter a fragment\n of an inscription in relief was disinterred from a mound. _Kolitolu\n Yaila_, near Ilghin; block inscribed in relief, disinterred from\n mounds apparently marking a camp or palace-enclosure. _Eflatun Bunar_\n (= Plato's Spring), W. of Konia; megalithic building with rude and\n greatly defaced reliefs, not certainly Hittite: no inscription.\n Fassiler, W. of Konia; gigantic _stela_, or composite statue (figure\n on animals), not certainly Hittite; no inscription. _Konia_; relief of\n warrior, drawn by Texier in 1835 and since lost; of very doubtful\n Hittite character. A gold inscribed Hittite ring, now at Oxford, was\n bought there in 1903. _Emirghazi_ (anc. _Ardistama_?); three\n inscriptions in relief (two on altars) and large mounds. Evidently an\n important Hittite site. _Kara-Dagh_; hill-sanctuary with incised\n carving of seated figure and inscriptions, found by Miss G. L. Bell\n and Sir W. M. Ramsay in 1907 (see their _Thousand and One Churches_,\n 1909).\n\n C. NORTH CAPPADOCIA.--_Boghaz Keui_ (see PTERIA); large city with\n remains of palace, citadel, walls, &c. Long rock-cut inscription of\n ten lines in relief, two short relief inscriptions cut on blocks, and\n also cuneiform tablets in Babylonian and also in a native language,\n first found in situ in 1893, and showing the site to be the capital of\n Arzawa, whence came two of the Tell el-Amarna letters. Near the site\n are the rock reliefs of _Yasili Kaya_ in two hypaethral galleries,\n showing, in the one, two processions composed of over sixty figures\n meeting at the head of the gallery; in the other, isolated groups of\n figures, fifteen in number (see for detailed description _Murray's\n Guide to Asia Minor_, 1895, pp. 23 ff.). Pictographs accompany many of\n the figures. The whole makes the most extensive group of Hittite\n remains yet known. Boghaz Keui was never thoroughly explored until\n 1907, the survey of Perrot and Guillaume having been superficial only\n and the excavations of E. Chantre (1894) very slight. In 1906 a German\n expedition under Professor H. Winckler undertook the work, and great\n numbers of cuneiform tablets were found. These refer to the reigns of\n at least four kings from Subbiluliuma (= Saplel, see above) to\n Hattusil II. or Khartusil (= Khetasar, see above). The latter was an\n ally of Katashmanturgu of Babylon, and powerful enough to write to\n the Babylonian court as a sovereign of equal standing. His letter\n shows that he considered the rise of Assyria a menace to himself.\n Winckler claims to read _Hatti_ as the name of the possessors of\n Boghaz Keui, and to find in this name the proof of the Hittite\n character of Syro-Cappadocian power and of the imperial predominance\n of the city. But it remains to be proved whether these tablets were\n written there, and not rather, being in a foreign script, abroad, like\n most of the Tell el-Amarna archives. O. Puchstein has cleared and\n studied important architectural remains. _Euyuk_; large mound with\n remains of palace entered between sphinxes. Sculptured wall-dados, but\n no Hittite inscriptions. Cuneiform tablets; some Babylonian, others in\n a native language. Also inscriptions in early Phrygian character and\n language, found in 1894. The most famous of Hittite reliefs is here--a\n double-headed eagle \"displayed\" on the flank of one of the gateway\n sphinxes. This is supposed to have suggested to the Seljuks of Konia\n their heraldic device adopted in the 13th century, which, brought to\n Europe by the Crusaders, became the emblem of Teutonic empire in 1345.\n This derivation must be taken, however, _cum grano_, proof of its\n successive steps being wanting. Kara-Euyuk; a mound near Dedik,\n partially excavated by E. Chantre in 1894. Cuneiform tablets and small\n objects possibly, but not certainly, Hittite. A colossal eagle was\n found on a deserted site near _Yamuli_ on the middle Halys, in 1907 by\n W. Attmore Robinson.\n\n [Illustration: Map of Hittite remains.]\n\n D. SOUTH CAPPADOCIA.--_Karaburna_; long, incised rock-inscription.\n _Bogja_, eight hours west of Kaisariye; four-sided _stela_ with\n incised inscription. _Assarjik_, on the side of Mt. Argaeus; incised\n rock-inscription. _Ekrek_; a fragmentary inscription in relief and an\n incised inscription on a _stela_ of very late appearance. _Fraktin_ or\n _Farakdin_ (probably anc. _Das-tarkon_); sculptured rock-panel showing\n two groups of figures in act of cult, with hieroglyphs in relief.\n _Arslan Tash_, near Comana (Cappadocia), on the Soghan Dagh; two\n colossal lions, one with incised inscription. _Tashji_ in the Zamanti\n valley; rock-relief with rudely incised inscription. _Andaval_ and\n _Bor_; inscriptions incised on sculptured _stelae_ of kings (?),\n probably from Tyana (_Ekuzli Hissar_). All are now in Constantinople.\n A silver seal with hieroglyphs, now at Oxford, came also from Bor.\n _Nigdeh_; basalt drum or altar with incised inscription. _Ivriz_;\n rock-sculpture of king adoring god, with three inscriptions in relief.\n A second sculpture, similar in subject but smaller and much defaced,\n was found hard by in 1906. _Bulgar Maden_; long incised rock\n inscription, near silver-mines. _Gorun_ (Gurun); two rock-inscriptions\n in relief, much damaged. _Arslan-Tepe_, near Ordasu (two hours from\n Malatia); large mound whence two sculptured _stelae_ or wall-blocks\n with inscriptions in relief have been unearthed (now in Constantinople\n and the Louvre). Four other reliefs, reported found near Malatia and\n published by J. Garstang in _Annals Arch. and Anthrop._, 1908,\n probably came also from Arslan Tepe. _Palanga_; lower aniconic half of\n draped statue with incised inscription, now in Constantinople. Also a\n small basalt lion. _Arslan Tash_, near Palanga; two rude gateway\n lions, uninscribed. _Yapalak_; defaced inscription, reported by J. S.\n Sterrett but never copied. _Izgin_; obelisk with long inscription in\n relief on all four faces, now in Constantinople. These last four\n places seem to lie on a main road leading from Cappadocia to Marash\n and the Syrian sites. The expedition sent out by Cornell University in\n 1907 found several Hittite inscriptions on rocks near _Darende_ in the\n valley of the Tokhma Su.\n\n E. NORTH SYRIA.--_Marash_; several monuments (_stelae_, wall-blocks\n and two lions) with inscriptions, both in relief and incised (part are\n now at Constantinople, part in Berlin and America); evidently one of\n the most important of Hittite sites. _Karaburshlu_, _Arbistan_,\n _Gerchin_, _Sinjerli_; mounds about the head-waters of the Kara Su.\n The last-named mound, brought to O. Puchstein's notice in 1882 by the\n chance discovery of sculptured wall-dados, now in Constantinople, was\n the scene of extensive German excavations in 1893-1894, directed by F.\n v. Luschan and K. Koldewey, and was found to cover a walled town with\n central fortified palace. Hittite, cuneiform and old Aramaean\n monuments were found with many small objects, most of which have been\n taken to Berlin; but no Hittite inscriptions came to light.\n _Sakchegeuzu_ (Sakchegozu), a site with several mounds between\n Sinjerli and Aintab; series of reliefs, once wall-dados, now in Berlin\n and Constantinople. This site is in process of excavation by Professor\n J. Garstang of the University of Liverpool. A sculptured portico has\n come to light in the smallest of the five mounds, and much pottery,\n with incised and painted decoration, has been recovered. _Aintab_;\n fragment of relief inscription. _Samsat_ (Samosata); sculptured stela\n with incised inscription much defaced. _Jerablus_; see above. Several\n Hittite objects sent from Birejik and Aintab to Europe probably came\n from Jerablus, others from _Tell Bashar_ on the Sajur. _Kellekli_,\n near Jerablus; two _stelae_, one with relief inscription. _Iskanderun_\n (Alexandretta); source of a long inscription cut on both sides of a\n spheroidal object of unknown origin. _Kirchoglu_, a site on the Afrin,\n whence a fragmentary draped statue with incised inscription was sent\n to Berlin. _Aleppo_; inscription in relief (see above). _Tell Ahmar_\n (on left bank of Euphrates); large _stela_ with sculpture and long\n relief inscription, found in 1908 with several sculptured slabs and\n two gateway lions, inscribed in cuneiform. Two hours south, a lion and\n a fragment of a relief inscription were found in 1909 by Miss G. L.\n Bell. _Tell Halaf_ in Mid-Mesopotamia, near Ras el-Ain; sculptures on\n portico of a temple or palace; cuneiform inscriptions and large\n mounds, explored in 1902 by Oppenheim. _Hamah_; five blocks inscribed\n in relief (see above).\n\n F. OUTLYING SITES.--_Erzerum_; source of an incised inscription,\n perhaps not originally found there. _Kedabeg_; metal boss or hilt-top\n with pictographs, found in a tomb and stated by F. Hommel to be\n Hittite, but doubtful. _Toprak Kaleh_; bronze fragments with two\n pictographs; doubtful if Hittite. _Nineveh_; sealings, see above.\n Babylon; a bowl and a stela of storm-god, both with incised\n inscriptions; doubtless spoil of war or tribute brought from Syria.\n The bowl is inscribed round the outside, the _stela_ on the back.\n\n (For a detailed description of the subjects of the reliefs, &c., with\n the necessary illustrations, see the works indicated in the\n bibliography.)\n\n_Structures._--The structural remains found as yet on Hittite sites are\nfew, scanty and far between. They consist of: (a) Ground plans of a\npalatial building and three temples and fortifications with sculptured\ngate at Boghaz Keui. The palace was built round a central court, flanked\nby passages and entered by a doorway of three _battants_ hung on two\ncolumns. The whole plan bears more than a superficial resemblance to\nthose of Cretan palaces in the later Minoan period. Only the rough core\nof the walls is standing to a height of about 3 ft. The fortifications\nof the citadel have an elaborate double gate with flanking towers, (b)\nFortifications, palace, &c., at Sinjerli. The gates here are more\nelaborate than at Boghaz Keui, but planned with the same idea--that of\nentrapping in an enclosed space, barred by a second door, an enemy who\nmay have forced the first door, while flanking towers would add to his\ndiscomfiture. The palace plan is again rectangular, with a central\npillared hall, and very similar in plan to that of Boghaz Keui. The\nmassive walls are also of similar construction. Dados of\nrelief-sculpture run round the inner walls; this feature seems to have\nbeen common to Hittite buildings of a sumptuous kind, and accounts for\nmost of the sculptured blocks that have been found, e.g. at Jerablus,\nSakhchegeuzu, Euyuk, Arslan Tepe, &c. Columns, probably of wood, rested\non bases carved as winged lions, (c) Gate with sculptured approach at\nEuyuk. The ground plan of the gate is practically the same in idea as\nthat at Sinjerli. Structures were found at Jerablus, but never properly\nuncovered or planned, (d) Sculptured porticoes of temples or palaces\nuncovered at Sakchegeuzu and Tell Halaf (see above). On other sites,\ne.g. Arslan Tepe (Ordasu), Arbistan, Marash (above the modern town and\nnear the springs), Beikeui, mounds, doubtless covering structures, may\nbe seen, and sculptured slabs have been recovered. The mounds, probably\nHittite, in N. Syria alone are to be counted by hundreds. No tombs\ncertainly Hittite have been found,[4] though it is possible that some of\nthe reliefs (e.g. at Fraktin) are of funerary character.\n\n_Sculptures and other Objects of Art._--The sculptures hitherto found\nconsist of reliefs on rocks and on _stelae_, either honorific or\nfunerary; reliefs on blocks forming parts of wall-dados; and a few\nfigures more or less in the round, though most of these (e.g. the\nsphinxes of Euyuk and the lions of Arslan Tash and Marash) are not\ncompletely disengaged from the block. The most considerable sculptured\nrock-panels are at Boghaz Keui (see Pteria); the others (Ivriz, Fraktin,\nKarabel, Giaur Kalessi, Doghanludere), it should be observed, all lie N.\nof Taurus--a fact of some bearing on the problem of the origin and local\ndomicile of the art, since rock-reliefs, at any rate, cannot be\notherwise than _in situ_. Sculptured _stelae_, honorific or funerary,\nall with pyramidal or slightly rounded upper ends, and showing a single\nregal or divine figure or two figures, have come to light at Bor,\nMarash, Sinjerli, Jerablus, Babylon, &c. These, like most of the\nrock-panels, are all marked as Hittite by accompanying pictographic\ninscriptions. The wall-blocks are seldom inscribed, the exceptions (e.g.\nthe Arslan Tepe lion-hunt and certain blocks from Marash and Jerablus)\nbeing not more certainly wall-dados than _stelae_. The only fairly\ncomplete anthropoid statue known is the much-defaced \"Niobe\" at Suratlu\nTash, engaged in the rock behind. The aniconic lower part of an\ninscribed statue wholly in the round was found at Palanga, and parts of\nothers at Kirchoglu and Marash. Despite considerable differences in\nexecution and details, all these sculptures show one general type of\nart, a type which recalls now Babylonian, now Assyrian, now Egyptian,\nnow archaic Ionian, style, but is always individual and easily\ndistinguishable from the actual products of those peoples. The figures,\nwhether of men or beasts, are of a squat, heavy order, with internal\nfeatures (e.g. bones, muscles, &c.) shown as if external, as in some\nMesopotamian sculptures. The human type is always very brachycephalic,\nwith brow receding sharply and long nose making almost one line with the\nsloping forehead. In the sculptures of the Commagene and the Tyana\ndistricts, the nose has a long curving tip, of very Jewish appearance,\nbut not unlike the outline given to Kheta warriors in Egyptian scenes.\nThe lips are full and the chin short and shaven. The whole physiognomy\nis fleshy and markedly distinct from that of other Syrians. At Boghaz\nKeui, Euyuk and Jerablus, the facial type is very markedly non-Semitic.\nBut not much stress can be laid on these differences owing to (1) great\nvariety of execution in different sculptures, which argues artists of\nvery unequal capacity; (2) doubt whether individual portraits are\nintended in some cases and not in others. The hair of males is\nsometimes, but not always, worn in pigtail. The fashions of\nhead-covering and clothes are very various, but several of them--e.g.\nthe horned cap of the Ivriz god; the conical hat at Boghaz Keui,\nFraktin, &c; the \"jockey-cap\" on the Tarkudimme boss; the broad-bordered\nover-robe, and the upturned shoes--are not found on other Asiatic\nmonuments, except where Hittites are portrayed. Animals in profile are\nrepresented more naturalistically than human beings, e.g. at Yasili\nKaya, and especially in some pictographic symbols in relief (e.g. at\nHamah). This, however, is a feature common to Mesopotamian and Egyptian,\nand perhaps to all primitive art.\n\nThe subjects depicted are processions of figures, human and divine\n(Yasili Kaya, Euyuk, Giaur Kalessi); scenes of sacrifice or adoration,\nor other cult-practice (Yasili Kaya, Euyuk, Fraktin, Ivriz, and perhaps\nthe figures seated beside tables at Marash Sakchegeuzu, Sinjerli, &c.);\nof the chase (Arslan Tepe, Sakchegeuzu); but not, as known at present,\nof battle. Both at Euyuk and Yasili Kaya reliefs in one and the same\nseries are widely separated in artistic conception and execution, some\nshowing the utmost _naivete_, others expressing both outline and motion\nwith fair success. The fact warns us against drawing hasty inductions as\nto relative dates from style and execution.\n\nBesides sculptures, well assured, Hittite art-products include a few\nsmall objects in metal (e.g. heavy, inscribed gold ring bought by Sir W.\nM. Ramsay at Konia; base silver seal, supported on three lions' claws,\nbought by D. G. Hogarth at Bor; inscribed silver boss of \"Tarkudimme,\"\nmentioned above, &c. &c.); many intaglios in various stones (chiefly in\nsteatite), mostly either spheroidal or gable-shaped, but a few\nscarabaeoid, conical or cylindrical, bearing sometimes pictographic\nsymbols, sometimes divine, human or animal figures. The best collection\nis at Oxford. The majority are of very rude workmanship, bodies and\nlimbs being represented by mere skeleton lines or unfilled outlines; a\nfew vessels (e.g. inscribed basalt bowl found at Babylon) and fragments\nof ware painted with dark ornament on light body-clay, or in polychrome\non a cream-white slip, or black burnished, found on N. Cappadocian\nsites, &c. The bronzes hitherto claimed as Hittite have been bought on\nthe Syrian coast or come from not certainly Hittite sites in Cappadocia\n(see E. Chantre, _Mission en Cappadocie_). A great many small objects\nwere found in the excavations at Sinjerli, including carved ivories,\nseals, toilet-instruments, implements, &c., but these have not been\npublished. Nor, except provisionally, has the pottery, found at\nSakchegeuzu.\n\n_Inscriptions._--These, now almost sixty in number (excluding seals),\nare all in a pictographic character which employed symbols somewhat\nelaborately depicted in relief, but reduced to conventional and\n\"shorthand\" representations in the incised texts. So far, the majority\nof our Hittite inscriptions, like those first found at Hamah, are in\nrelief (cameo); but the incised characters, first observed in the Tyana\ndistrict, have since been shown, by discoveries at Marash, Babylon, &c.,\nto have had a wider range. It has usually been assumed that the incised\ninscriptions, being the more conventionalized, are all of later date\nthan those in relief; but comparison of Egyptian inscriptions, wherein\nboth incised and cameo characters coexisted back to very early times,\nsuggests that this assumption is not necessarily correct. The Hittite\nsymbols at present known show about two hundred varieties; but new\ninscriptions continually add to the list, and great uncertainty remains\nas to the distinction of many symbols (i.e. whether mere variants or\nnot), and as to many others which are defaced or broken in our texts.\nThe objects represented by these symbols have been certainly identified\nin only a few instances. A certain number are heads (human and animal)\ndetached from bodies, in a manner not known in the Egyptian hieroglyphic\nsystem, with which some of the other symbols show obvious analogies.\nArticles of dress, weapons, tools, &c., also appear. The longer\ninscriptions are disposed in horizontal zones or panels, divided by\nlines, and, it seems, they were to be read _boustrophedon_, not only as\nregards the lines (which begin right to left) but also the words, which\nare written in columnar fashion, syllable _below_ syllable, and read\ndownwards and upwards alternately. The direction of reading is towards\nany faces which may be shown among the pictographs. The words are\nperhaps distinguished in some texts by punctuation marks.\n\nLong and patient efforts have been made to decipher this script, ever\nsince it was first restored to our knowledge; and among the would-be\ndecipherers honourable mention must be made, for persistence and\ncourage, of Professor A. H. Sayce and of Professor P. Jensen. Other\ninterpretations have been put forward by F. E. Peiser (based on\nconjectures as to the names on the Nineveh sealings), C. R. Conder\n(based largely on Cypriote comparisons and phonetic values transferred\nfrom these) and C. J. Ball (based on Hittite names recorded on Egyptian\nand Assyrian monuments, and applied to word-groups on the Hittite\nmonuments). These, however, as having arbitrary and inadequate\nfoundations, and for other reasons, have not been accepted. F. Hommel,\nJ. Halevy and J. Menant have done useful work in distinguishing\nword-groups, and have essayed partial interpretations. No other\ndecipherers call for mention. A. H. Sayce and P. Jensen alone have\nenlisted any large body of adherents; and the former, who has worked\nupon his system for thirty years and published in the _Proceedings of\nthe Society for Biblical Archaeology_ for 1907 a summary of his method\nand results, has proceeded on the more scientific plan. His system,\nhowever, like all others, is built in the main upon hypotheses incapable\nat present of quite satisfactory verification, such, for example, as the\nconjectural reading \"Gargamish\" for a group of symbols which recurs in\ninscriptions from Jerablus and elsewhere. In this case, to add to the\nother obvious elements of uncertainty, it must be borne in mind that the\nlocation of Carchemish at Jerablus is not proved, though it is very\nprobable. Other conjectural identifications of groups of symbols with\nthe place-names Hamath, Marash, Tyana are bases of Sayce's system.\nJensen's system may be said to have been effectually demolished by L.\nMesserschmidt in his _Bemerkungen_ (1898); but Sayce's system, which has\nbeen approved by Hommel and others, is probably in its main lines\ncorrect. Its frequent explanation, however, of incompatible symbols by\nthe doctrines of phonetic variation and interchange, or by alternative\nvalues of the same symbol used as ideograph, determinative or phonetic\ncomplement, and the occasional use of circular argument in the process\nof \"verification,\" do not inspire confidence in other than its broader\nresults. Sayce's phonetic values and interpretations of determinatives\nare his best assured achievements. But the words thus arrived at\nrepresent a language on which other known tongues throw little or no\nlight, and their meaning is usually to be guessed only. In some\nsignificant cases, however, the Boghaz Keui tablets appear to give\nstriking confirmation of Sayce's conjectures.\n\nWriting in 1903 L. Messerschmidt, editor of the best collection of\nHittite texts up to date, made a _tabula rasa_ of all systems of\ndecipherment, asserting that only one sign out of two hundred--the\nbisected oval, determinative of divinity--had been interpreted with any\ncertainty; and in view of this opinion, coupled with the steady refusal\nof historians to apply the results of any Hittite decipherment, and the\nobvious lack of satisfactory verification, without which the piling of\nhypothesis on hypothesis may only lead further from probability, there\nis no choice but to suspend judgment for some time longer as to the\ninscriptions and all deductions drawn from them.\n\n_Are the Monuments Hittite?_--It is time to ask this question, although\na perfectly satisfactory answer can only be expected when the\ninscriptions themselves have been deciphered. Almost all \"Hittitologues\"\nassume a connexion between the monuments and the Kheta-Khatti-Hittites,\nbut in various degrees; e.g. while Sayce has said roundly that common\nsense demands the acceptance of all as the work of the Hittites, who\nwere the dominant caste throughout a loosely-knit empire extending at\none time from the Orontes to the Aegean, Messerschmidt has stated with\nequal dogmatism that the Hittites proper were only one people out of\nmany[5] in N. Syria and Asia Minor who shared a common civilization, and\nthat therefore they were authors of a part of the monuments\nonly--presumably the N. Syrian, Commagenian and Cataonian groups. O.\nPuchstein[6] has denied to the Hittites some of the N. Syrian monuments,\nholding these of too late a date (judged by their Assyrian analogies)\nfor the flourishing period of the Kheta-Khatti, as known from Egyptian\nand Assyrian records. He would ascribe them to the Kummukh\n(Commagenians), who seem to have succeeded the Khatti as the strongest\nopponents of Assyria in these parts. He was possibly right as regards\nthe Sinjerli and Sakchegeuzu sculptures, which are of provincial\nappearance. The following considerations, however, may be stated in\nfavour of the ascription of the monuments to the Hittites:--\n\n(1) The monuments in question are found frequently whereever, from other\nrecords, we know the Hittites to have been domiciled at some period,\ni.e. throughout N. Syria and in Cataonia. (2) It was under the Khatti\nthat Carchemish was a flourishing commercial city; and if Jerablus be\nreally Carchemish, it is significant that apparently the most numerous\nand most artistic of the monuments occur there. (3) Among all the early\npeoples of N. Syria and Asia Minor known to us from Egyptian and\nAssyrian records, the Kheta-Khatti alone appear frequently as leading to\nwar peoples from far beyond Taurus. (4) The Kheta certainly had a system\nof writing and a glyptic art in the time of Rameses II., or else the\nEgyptian account of their copy of the treaty would be baseless. (5) The\nphysiognomy given to Kheta warriors by Egyptian artists is fairly\nrepresentative of the prevailing type shown in the Hittite sculptures.\n\nFurthermore, the Boghaz Keui tablets, though only partially deciphered\nas yet, go far to settle the question. They show that whether Boghaz\nKeui was actually the capital of the Hatti or not, it was a great city\nof the Hatti, and that the latter were an important element in\nCappadocia from very early times. Before the middle of the 16th century\nB.C. the Cappadocian Hatti were already in relations, generally more or\nless hostile, with a rival power in Syria, that of Mitanni; and\nSubbiluliuma (= Saplel or Saparura), king of these Hatti, a contemporary\nof Amenophis IV. and Rameses I., seems to have obtained lasting dominion\nin Syria by subduing Dushratta of Mitanni. Carchemish thenceforward\nbecame a Hatti city and the southern capital of Cappadocian power. Since\nall the Syrian monuments of the Hittite class, so far known, seem\ncomparatively late (most show such strong Assyrian, influence that they\nmust fall after 1100 B.C. and probably even considerably later), while\nthe North Cappadocian monuments (as Sayce, Ramsay, Perrot and others saw\nlong ago) are the earlier in style, we are bound to ascribe the origin\nof the civilization which they represent to the Cappadocian Hatti.\n\nWhether the Mitanni had shared in that civilization while independent,\nand whether they were racially kin to the Hatti, cannot be determined at\npresent. Winckler has adduced evidence from names of local gods to show\nthat there was an Indo-European racial element in Mitanni; but none for\na similar element in the Hatti, whose chief god was Teshub. The majority\nof scholars has always regarded the Hittites proper as, at any rate,\nnon-Semitic, and some leading authorities have called them\nproto-Armenian, and believed that they have modern descendants in the\nCaucasus. This racial question can hardly be determined till those Hatti\nrecords, whether in cuneiform or pictographic script, which are couched\nin a native tongue, not in Babylonian, are read. In the meantime we have\nproper names to argue from; and these give us at least the significant\nindication that the Hittite nominative ended in _s_ and the accusative\nin _m_. In any case the connexion of the Hatti with the peculiar class\nof monuments which we have been describing, can hardly be further\nquestioned; and it has become more than probable that the Hatti of\nCappadocia were responsible in the beginning for the art and script of\nthose monuments and for the civilization of which they are memorials.\nOther peoples of north Syria and Asia Minor (e.g. the Kummukh or\nCommagenians and the Muski or Phrygians) came no doubt under the\ninfluence of this civilization and imitated its monuments, while subject\nto or federated with the Hatti. Through Phrygia and Lydia (q.v.)\ninfluences of this same Cappadocian civilization passed towards the\nwest; and indeed, before the Greek colonization of Asia Minor, a loosely\nknit Hatti empire may have stretched even to the Aegean. The Nymphi\n(Kara Bel) and Niobe sculptures near Smyrna are probably memorials of\nthat extension. Certainly some inland Anatolian power seems to have kept\nAegean settlers and culture away from the Ionian coast during the Bronze\nAge, and that power was in all likelihood the Hatti kingdom of\nCappadocia. Owing perhaps to Assyrian aggression, this power seems to\nhave begun to suffer decay about 1000 B.C. and thereafter to have shrunk\ninwards, leaving the coasts open. The powers of Phrygia and Lydia rose\nsuccessively out of its ruins, and continued to offer westward passage\nto influences of Mesopotamian culture till well into historic times. The\nGreeks came too late to Asia to have had any contact with Hatti power\nobscured from their view by the intermediate and secondary state of\nPhrygia. Their earliest writers regarded the latter as the seat of the\noldest and most godlike of mankind. Only one Greek author, Herodotus,\nalludes to the pre-historic Cappadocian power and only at the latest\nmoment of its long decline. At the same time, some of the Greek legends\nseem to show that peoples, with whom the Greeks came into early contact,\nhad vivid memories of the Hatti. Such are the Amazon stories, whose\nlocal range was very extensive, and the myths of Memnon and Pelops. The\nreal reference of these stories, however, was forgotten, and it has been\nreserved to our own generation to rediscover the records of a power and\na civilization which once dominated Asia Minor and north Syria and\noccupied all the continental roads of communication between the East and\nthe West of the ancient world. The credit of having been the first to\ndivine this importance of the Hittites should always be ascribed to\nSayce.\n\nThe history of the Hatti and their civilization, then, would appear to\nhave been, very briefly, this. They belonged to an ethnic scattered\nwidely over Eastern Asia Minor and Syria at an early period (Khatti\ninvaded Akkad about 1800 B.C. in the reign of Samsuditana); but they\nfirst formed a strong state in Cappadocia late in the 16th century B.C.\nSubbiluliuma became their first great king, though he had at least one\ndynastic predecessor of the name of Hattusil. The Hatti now pushed\nsouthwards in force, overcame the kingdom of Mitanni and proceeded\npartly to occupy and partly to make tributary both north Syria and\nwestern Mesopotamia where some of their congeners were already settled.\nThey came early into collision with Egypt, and at the height of their\npower under Hattusil II. fought the battle of Kadesh with Rameses II.,\non at least equal terms. Both now and previously the diplomatic\ncorrespondence of the Hatti monarchs shows that they treated on terms\nof practical equality with both the Babylonian and the Egyptian courts;\nand that they waged constant wars in Syria, mainly with the Amorite\ntribes. At this time the Hatti empire or confederacy probably included,\non the west, both Phrygia and Lydia. The Boghaz Keui correspondence\nceases to be important with the generation following Hattusil II., and\nin the Assyrian records, which begin about a couple of centuries later,\nwe find Carchemish the chief Hatti city and N. Syria called the\nHatti-land. It is possible therefore that a change of imperial centre\ntook place after the Hatti had ceased to fear Egypt in north Syria. If\nso, the continuation of Hittite history will have to be sought among the\nremains at Jerablus and other middle Euphratean sites, rather than in\nthose at Boghaz Keui. The establishment of the Hatti at Carchemish not\nonly made them a commercial people and probably sapped their highland\nvigour, but also brought them into closer proximity to the rising North\nSemitic power of Assyria, whose advent had been regarded with\napprehension by Hattusil II. (see above). One of his successors,\nArnaunta (late 13th century?), was already feeling the effect of\nAssyrian pressure, and with the accession of Tiglath Pileser I., about a\ncentury later, a long but often interrupted series of Assyrian efforts\nto break up the Hatti power began. A succession of Ninevite armies\nraided north Syria and even south-east Asia Minor, and gradually reduced\nthe Hatti. But the resistance of the latter was sturdy and prolonged.\nThey remained the strongest power in Syria and eastern Asia Minor till\nwell into the first millennium B.C., and their Syrian seat was not lost\nfinally till after the great extension of Assyrian power which took\nplace in the latter part of the 9th century. What had been happening to\ntheir Cappadocian province meanwhile we do not yet know; but the\npresence of Phrygian inscriptions at Euyuk and Tyana, ancient seats of\ntheir power, suggests that the client monarchy in the Sangarius valley\nshook itself free during the early part of the Hittite struggle with\nAssyria, and in the day of Hatti weakness extended its dominion over the\nhome territory of its former suzerain. \"White Syrians,\" however, were\nstill in Cappadocia even after the Cimmerians had destroyed the Phrygian\nmonarchy, allowing Lydia to become independent under the Mermnad\ndynasty. Croesus found them centred at Pteria in the 6th century and\ndealt them a final blow. But much of their secular or religious custom\nlived on to be recorded by Greek writers, and regarded by modern\nscholars as typically \"Anatolian.\"\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY.--General summaries: L. Messerschmidt, _The Hittites_\n (\"Ancient East\" series, vi., 1903); A. H. Sayce, _The Hittites_\n (\"Bypaths of Biblical Knowledge\" series, xii., 2nd ed. 1892); G.\n Perrot and C. Chipiez, _History of Art in Sardinia, Judaea, Syria and\n Asia Minor_ (Eng. trans., vol. ii., 1890); L. Lantsheere, _De la race\n et de la langue des Heteens_ (1891); P. Jensen, _Hittiter und\n Armenier_ (1898); M. Jastrow, final chapter in H. V. Hilprecht,\n _Exploration in Bible Lands_ (1903); W. Wright, _Empire of the\n Hittites_ (1884); F. Hommel, _Hettiter und Skythen_ (1898); D. G.\n Hogarth, _Ionia and the East_ (1909); W. Max Muller, _Asien und\n Europa_, chap. xxv. (1893). See also authorities for Egyptian and\n Assyrian history.\n\n Inscriptions: L. Messerschmidt, \"Corpus inscr. Hettiticarum,\"\n _Zeitsch. d. d. morgenland. Gesellschaft_ (1900, 1902, 1906, &c.), and\n \"Bemerkungen zu d. Heth. Inschriften,\" _Mitteil. d. vorderasiat.\n Gesellschaft_ (1898); P. Jensen, \"Grundlagen fur eine Entzifferung der\n (Hat. oder) Cilicischen Inschriften,\" _Zeitschr. d. d. morgenland.\n Gesellschaft_ (1894); F. E. Peiser, _Die Hettitischen Inschriften_\n (1892); A. H. Sayce, \"Decipherment of the Hittite Inscriptions,\"\n _Proc. Soc. of Bibl. Archaeology_ (1903), and \"Hittite Inscriptions,\n translated and annotated,\" ibid. (1905, 1907); J. Menant, \"Etudes\n Heteennes,\" _Recueil de travaux rel. a la philologie, &c._, and _Mem.\n de l'Acad. Inscr._, vol. xxxiv. (1890); J. Halevy in _Revue\n semitique_, vol. i. Also divers articles by A. H. Sayce, F. Hommel and\n others in _Proc._ and _Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ since 1876, and in\n _Recueil de travaux, &c._, since its beginning.\n\n Exploration: G. Perrot and E. Guillaume, _Exploration arch. de la\n Galatie_, &c. (1862-1872); E. Chantre, _Mission en Cappadocie_ (1898);\n Sir W. M. Ramsay, \"Syro-Cappadocian Monuments,\" in _Athen.\n Mitteilungen_ (1889), with D. G. Hogarth, \"Pre-Hellenic Monuments of\n Cappadocia,\" in _Recueil de travaux_, &c. (1892-1895); and with Miss\n Gertrude Bell, _The Thousand and One Churches_ (1909); C. Humann and\n O. Puchstein, _Reisen in Nord-Syrien_, &c. (1890). J. Garstang in\n _Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology_, i. (1908) and following\n numbers. Reports on excavations at Sinjerli in _Berl. Philol.\n Wochenschrift_ (1891), pp. 803, 951; and F. von Luschan, and others,\n \"Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli\" in _Mitteil. Orient-Sammlungen_ (Berlin\n Museum, 1893 ff.); and on excavations at Boghaz-Keui, H. Winckler in\n _Orient. Literaturzeitung_ (Berlin, 1907); _Mitteil.\n Orient-Gesellschaft_ (Dec. 1907). See also s.v. PTERIA. (D. G. H.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [1] First described by the Turk, Hajji Khalifa, in the 17th century;\n first seen by the Swedish traveller Otter in 1736, and first\n published in 1840 in Ritter's _Erdkunde_, iii., after a drawing by\n Major Fischer, made in 1837.\n\n [2] The \"Niobe\" statue near Manisa was not definitely known for\n \"Hittite\" till 1882, when G. Dennis detected pictographs near it.\n\n [3] The \"pseudo-Sesostres\" of Herodotus, already demonstrated\n non-Egyptian by Rosellini. The second figure was unknown, till found\n by Dr Beddoe in 1856.\n\n [4] Five intramural graves were explored at Sinjerli, but whether of\n the Hittite or of the Assyrian occupation is doubtful.\n\n [5] The Assyrian records, as well as the Egyptian, distinguish many\n peoples in both areas from the Kheta-Khatti; and the most we can\n infer from these records is that there was an occasional league\n formed under the Hittites, not any imperial subjection or even a\n continuous federation.\n\n [6] _Pseudo-Hethitische Kunst_ (Berlin, 1890).\n\n\n\n\nHITTORFF, JACQUES IGNACE (1792-1867), French architect, was born at\nCologne on the 20th of August 1792. After serving an apprenticeship to a\nmason in his native town, he went in 1810 to Paris, and studied for some\nyears at the Academy of Fine Arts, where he was a favourite pupil of\nBelanger, the government architect, who in 1814 appointed him his\nprincipal inspector. Succeeding Belanger as government architect in\n1818, he designed many important public and private buildings in Paris\nand also in the south of France. From 1819 to 1830 in collaboration with\nle Cointe he directed the royal fetes and ceremonials. After making\narchitectural tours in Germany, England, Italy and Sicily, he published\nthe result of his observations in the latter country in the work\n_Architecture antique de la Sicile_ (3 vols., 1826-1830; new edition,\n1866-1867), and also in _Architecture moderne de la Sicile_ (1826-1835).\nOne of his important discoveries was that colour had been made use of in\nancient Greek architecture, a subject which he especially discussed in\n_Architecture polychrome chez les Grecs_ (1830) and in _Restitution du\ntemple d'Empedocle a Selinunte_ (1851); and in accordance with the\ndoctrines enunciated in these works he was in the habit of making colour\nan important feature in most of his architectural designs. His principal\nbuilding is the church of St Vincent de Paul in the basilica style,\nwhich was constructed between 1830 and 1844. He also designed the two\nfountains in the Place de la Concorde, the Circus of the Empress, the\nRotunda of the panoramas, many cafes and restaurants of the Champs\nElysees, the houses forming the circle round the Arc de Triomphe de\nl'Etoile, besides many embellishments of the Bois de Boulogne and other\nplaces. In 1833 he was elected a member of the Academy of Fine Arts. He\ndied in Paris on the 25th of March 1867.\n\n\n\n\nHITZACKER, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hanover at the\ninflux of the Jeetze into the Elbe, 33 m. N.E. of Luneburg by the\nrailway to Wittenberge. Pop. (1905) 1106. It has an Evangelical church\nand an old castle and numerous medieval remains. There are chalybeate\nsprings and a hydropathic establishment in the town. The famous library\nnow in Wolfenbuttel was originally founded here by Augustus, duke of\nBrunswick (d. 1666) and was removed to its present habitation in 1643.\n\n\n\n\nHITZIG, FERDINAND (1807-1875), German biblical critic, was born at\nHauingen, Baden, where his father was a pastor, on the 23rd of June\n1807. He studied theology at Heidelberg under H. E. G. Paulus, at Halle\nunder Wilhelm Gesenius and at Gottingen under Ewald. Returning to\nHeidelberg he became _Privatdozent_ in theology in 1829, and in 1831\npublished his _Begriff der Kritik am Alten Testamente praktisch\nerortert_, a study of Old Testament criticism in which he explained the\ncritical principles of the grammatico-historical school, and his _Des\nPropheten Jonas Orakel uber Moab_, an exposition of the 15th and 16th\nchapters of the book of Isaiah attributed by him to the prophet Jonah\nmentioned in 2 Kings xiv. 25. In 1833 he was called to the university of\nZurich as professor ordinarius of theology. His next work was a\ncommentary on Isaiah with a translation (_Ubersetzung u. Auslegung des\nPropheten Jesajas_), which he dedicated to Heinrich Ewald, and which\nHermann Hupfeld (1796-1866), well known as a commentator on the Psalms\n(1855-1861), pronounced to be his best exegetical work. At Zurich he\nlaboured for a period of twenty-eight years, during which, besides\ncommentaries on _The Psalms_ (1835-1836; 2nd ed., 1863-1865), _The Minor\nProphets_ (1838; 3rd ed., 1863), _Jeremiah_ (1841; 2nd ed., 1866),\n_Ezekiel_ (1847), _Daniel_ (1850), _Ecclesiastes_ (1847), _Canticles_\n(1855), and _Proverbs_ (1858), he published a monograph, _Uber Johannes\nMarkus u. seine Schriften_ (1843), in which he maintained the\nchronological priority of the second gospel, and sought to prove that\nthe Apocalypse was written by the same author. He also published various\ntreatises of archaeological interest, of which the most important are\n_Die Erfindung des Alphabets_ (1840), _Urgeschichte u. Mythologie der\nPhilistaer_ (1845), and _Die Grabschrift des Eschmunezar_(1855). After\nthe death of Friedrich Umbreit (1795-1860), one of the founders of the\nwell-known _Studien und Kritiken_, he was called in 1861 to succeed him\nas professor of theology at Heidelberg. Here he wrote his _Geschichte\ndes Volkes Israel_ (1869-1870), in two parts, extending respectively to\nthe end of the Persian domination and to the fall of Masada, A.D. 72, as\nwell as a work on the Pauline epistles, _Zur Kritik Paulinischer Briefe_\n(1870), on the Moabite Stone, _Die Inschrift des Mescha_ (1870), and on\nAssyrian, _Sprache u. Sprachen Assyriens_ (1871), besides revising the\ncommentary on Job by Ludwig Hirzel (1801-1841), which was first\npublished in 1839. He was also a contributor to the _Monatsschrift des\nwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Zurich_, the _Zeitschrift der deutschen\nmorgenlandischen Gesellschaft_, the _Theologische Studien u. Kritiken_,\nEduard Zeller's _Theologische Jahrbucher_, and Adolf Hilgenfeld's\n_Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie_. Hitzig died at Heidelberg\non the 22nd of January 1875. As a Hebrew philologist he holds high rank;\nand as a constructive critic he is remarkable for acuteness and\nsagacity. As a historian, however, some of his speculations have been\nconsidered fanciful. \"He places the cradle of the Israelites in the\nsouth of Arabia, and, like many other critics, makes the historical\ntimes begin only with Moses\" (F. Lichtenberger, _History of German\nTheology_, p. 569).\n\n His lectures on biblical theology (_Vorlesungen uber biblische\n Theologie u. messianische Weissagungen_) were published in 1880 after\n his death, along with a portrait and biographical sketch by his pupil,\n J. J. Kneucker (b. 1840), professor of theology at Heidelberg. See\n Heinrich Steiner, _Ferdinand Hitzig_ (1882); and Adolf Kamphausen's\n article in Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyklopadie_.\n\n\n\n\nHIUNG-NU, HIONG-NU, HEUNG-NU, a people who about the end of the 3rd\ncentury B.C. formed, according to Chinese records, a powerful empire\nfrom the Great Wall of China to the Caspian. Their ethnical affinities\nhave been much discussed; but it is most probable that they were of the\nTurki stock, as were the Huns, their later western representatives. They\nare the first Turkish people mentioned by the Chinese. A theory which\nseems plausible is that which assumes them to have been a heterogenous\ncollection of Mongol, Tungus, Turki and perhaps even Finnish hordes\nunder a Mongol military caste, though the Mongolo-Tungus element\nprobably predominated. Towards the close of the 1st century of the\nChristian era the Hiung-nu empire broke up. Their subsequent history is\nobscure. Some of them seem to have gone westward and settled on the Ural\nriver. These, de Guiques suggests, were the ancestors of the Huns, and\nmany ethnologists hold that the Hiung-nu were the ancestors of the\nmodern Turks.\n\n See _Journal Anthropological Institute_ for 1874; Sir H. H. Howorth,\n _History of the Mongols_ (1876-1880); 6th Congress of Orientalists,\n Leiden, 1883 (_Actes_, part iv. pp. 177-195); de Guiques, _Histoire\n generale des Huns, des Turcs, des Mongoles, et des autres Tartares\n occidentaux_ (1756-1758).\n\n\n\n\nHIVITES, an ancient tribe of Palestine driven out by the invading\nIsraelites. In Josh. ix. 7, xi. 19 they are connected with Gibeon. The\nmeaning of the name is uncertain; Wellhausen derives it from [Hebrew:\nHava] \"Eve,\" or \"serpent,\" in which case the Hivites were originally the\nsnake clan; others explain it from the Arabic _hayy_, \"family,\" as\nmeaning \"dwellers in (Bedouin) encampments.\" (See PALESTINE; JEWS.)\n\n\n\n\nHJORRING, an ancient town of Denmark, capital of the _amt_ (county) of\nits name, in the northern insular part of the peninsula of Jutland. Pop.\n(1901) 7901. It lies 7 m. inland from the shore of Jammer Bay, a stretch\nof coast notoriously dangerous to shipping. On the coast is Lonstrup, a\nfavoured seaside resort. In this neighbourhood as well as to the\nsouth-east of Hjorring, slight elevations are seen, deserving the name\nof hills in this low-lying district. Hjorring is on the northern railway\nof Jutland, which here turns eastward to the Cattegat part of\nFrederikshavn (23 m.), a harbour of refuge.\n\n\n\n\nHKAMTI LONG (called Kantigyi by the Burmese, and Bor Hkampti by the\npeoples on the Assam side), a collection of seven Shan states\nsubordinate to Burma, but at present beyond the administrative border.\nEstimated area, 900 sq. m.; estimated pop. 11,000. It lies between 27\ndeg. and 28 deg. N. and 97 deg. and 98 deg. E., and is bordered by the\nMishmi country on the N., by the Patkai range on the W., by the Hukawng\nvalley on the S. and E., and indeed all round by various Chingpaw or\nKachin communities. The country is little known. It was visited by T. T.\nCooper, the Chinese traveller and political agent at Bhamo, where he was\nmurdered; by General Woodthorpe and Colonel Macgregor in 1884, by Mr\nErrol Grey in the following year, and by Prince Henry of Orleans in\n1895. All of these, however, limited their explorations to the valley of\nthe Mali-hka, the western branch of the Irrawaddy river. Hkamti has\nshrunk very much from its old size. It was no doubt the northernmost\nprovince of the Shan kingdom, founded at Mogaung by Sam Long-hpa, the\nbrother of the ruler of Kambawsa, when that empire had reached its\ngreatest extension. The irruption of Kachins or Chingpaw from the north\nhas now completely hemmed the state in. Prince Henry of Orleans\ndescribed it as \"a splendid territory, fertile in soil and abundant in\nwater, where tropical and temperate culture flourish side by side, and\nthe inhabitants are protected on three fronts by mountains.\" According\nto him the Kiutze, the people of the hills between the Irrawaddy and the\nSalween, call it the kingdom of Moam.\n\n\n\n\nHLOTHHERE, king of Kent, succeeded his brother Ecgberht in 673, and\nappears for a time to have reigned jointly with his nephew Eadric, son\nof Ecgberht, as a code of laws still extant was issued under both names.\nNeither is mentioned in the account of the invasion of Aethelred in 676.\nIn 685 Eadric, who seems to have quarrelled with Hlothhere, went into\nexile and led the South Saxons against him. Hlothhere was defeated and\ndied of his wounds.\n\n See Bede, _Hist. eccl._ (Plummer), iv. 5, 17, 26, v. 24; _Saxon\n Chronicle_ (Earle and Plummer), s.a. 685; Schmid, _Gesetze_, pp. 10\n sqq.; Thorpe, _Ancient Laws_, i. 26 sqq.\n\n\n\n\nHOACTZIN, or HOATZIN, a bird of tropical South America, thought by\nBuffon to be that indicated by Hernandez or Fernandez under these names,\nthe _Opisthocomus hoazin_ or _O. cristatus_ of modern ornithologists--a\nvery curious and remarkable form, which has long exercised the ingenuity\nof classifiers. Placed by Buffon among his \"_Hoccos_\" (Curassows), and\nthen by P. L. S. Muller and J. F. Gmelin in the Linnaean genus\n_Phasianus_, some of its many peculiarities were recognized by J. K. W.\nIlliger in 1811 as sufficient to establish it as a distinct genus,\n_Opisthocomus_; but various positions were assigned to it by subsequent\nsystematic authors. L'Herminier was the first to give any account of its\nanatomy (_Comptes rendus_, 1837, v. 433), and from his time our\nknowledge of it has been successively increased by Johannes Muller\n(_Ber. Akad. Wissensch. Berlin_, 1841, p. 177), Deville (_Rev. et mag.\nde zoologie_, 1852, p. 217), Gervais (Castelnau, _Exped. Amerique du\nSud, zoologie, anatomie_, p. 66), Huxley (_Proc. Zool. Society_, 1868,\np. 304), Perrin (_Trans. Zool. Society_, ix. p. 353), and A. H. Garrod\n(_Proc. Zool. Society_, 1879, p. 109). After a minute description of the\nskeleton of _Opisthocomus_, with the especial object of determining its\naffinities, Huxley declared that it \"resembles the ordinary gallinaceous\nbirds and pigeons more than it does any others, and that when it\ndiverges from them it is either sui generis or approaches the\n_Musophagidae_.\" He accordingly regarded it as the type and sole member\nof a group, named by him _Heteromorphae_, which sprang from the great\nCarinate stem later than the _Tinamomorphae_, _Turnicomorphae_, or\n_Charadriomorphae_, but before the _Peristeromorphae_, _Pteroclomorphae_\nor _Alectoromorphae_. This conclusion is substantially the same as that\nat which A. H. Garrod subsequently arrived after closely examining and\ndissecting specimens preserved in spirit; but the latter has gone\nfurther and endeavoured to trace more particularly the descent of this\npeculiar form and some others, remarking that the ancestor of\n_Opisthocomus_ must have left the parent stem very shortly before the\ntrue _Gallinae_ first appeared, and at about the same time as the\nindependent pedigree of the _Cuculidae_ and _Musophagidae_\ncommenced--these two groups being, he believed, very closely related,\nand _Opisthocomus_ serving to fill the gap between them.\n\nThe first thing that strikes the observer of its skeleton is the\nextraordinary structure of the sternal apparatus, which is wholly unlike\nthat of any other bird known. The keel is only developed on the\nposterior part of the sternum--the fore part being, as it were, cut\naway, while the short furcula at its symphysis meets the manubrium, with\nwhich it is firmly consolidated by means of a prolonged and straight\nhypocleidium, and anteriorly ossifies with the coracoids. This unique\narrangement seems to be correlated with the enormously capacious crop,\nwhich rests upon the furcula and fore part of the sternum, and is also\nreceived in a cavity formed on the surface of each of the great pectoral\nmuscles. Furthermore this crop is extremely muscular, so as more to\nresemble a gizzard, and consists of two portions divided by a partial\nconstriction, after a fashion of which no other example is known among\nbirds. The true gizzard is greatly reduced.\n\n[Illustration: Hoactzin.]\n\nThe hoactzin appears to be about the size of a small pheasant, but is\nreally a much smaller bird. The beak is strong, curiously denticulated\nalong the margin of the maxilla near the base, and is beset by diverging\nbristles. The eyes, placed in the middle of a patch of bare skin, are\nfurnished with bristly lashes, resembling those of horn-bills and some\nfew other birds. The head bears a long pendant crest of loose yellowish\nfeathers. The body is olive-coloured, varied with white above, and\nbeneath is of a dull bay. The wings are short and rounded. The tail is\nlong and tipped with yellow. The legs are rather short, the feet stout,\nthe tarsi reticulated, and the toes scutellated; the claws long and\nslightly curved. According to all who have observed the habits of this\nbird, it lives in bands on the lower trees and bushes bordering the\nstreams and lagoons, feeding on leaves and various wild fruits,\nespecially, says H. W. Bates (_Naturalist on the River Amazons_, i. 120),\nthose of a species of _Psidium_, and it is also credited with eating\nthose of an arum (_Caladium arborescens_), which grows plentifully in its\nhaunts. \"Its voice is a harsh, grating hiss,\" continues the same\ntraveller, and \"it makes the noise when alarmed, all the individuals\nsibilating as they fly heavily away from tree to tree, when disturbed by\npassing canoes.\" It exhales a very strong odour--wherefore it is known in\nBritish Guiana as the \"stink-bird\"--compared by Bates to \"musk combined\nwith wet hides,\" and by Deville to that of a cow-house. The species is\nsaid to be polygamous; the nest is built on trees, of sticks placed above\none another, and softer materials atop. Therein the hen lays her eggs to\nthe number of three or four, of a dull-yellowish white, somewhat\nprofusely marked with reddish blotches and spots, so as to resemble those\nof some of the _Rallidae_ (_Proc. Zool. Society_, 1867, pl. xv. fig. 7.\np. 164). The young are covered only with very scanty hair, like down, and\nhave well-developed claws on the first and second fingers of the wing,\nwhich they use in clambering about the twigs in a quadrupedal manner; if\nplaced in the water they swim and dive well, although the adults seem to\nbe not at all aquatic. (A. N.)\n\n\n\n\nHOADLY, BENJAMIN (1676-1761), English divine, was born at Westerham,\nKent, on the 14th of November 1676. In 1691 he entered Catharine Hall,\nCambridge, where he graduated M.A. and was for two years tutor, after\nwhich he held from 1701 to 1711 the lectureship of St Mildred in the\nPoultry, and along with it from 1704 the rectory of St Peter-le-Poer,\nLondon. His first important appearance as a controversialist was against\nEdmund Calamy \"the younger\" in reference to conformity (1703-1707), and\nafter this he came into conflict with Francis Atterbury, first on the\ninterpretation of certain texts and then on the whole Anglican doctrine\nof non-resistance. His principal treatises on this subject were the\n_Measures of Submission to the Civil Magistrate_ and _The Origin and\nInstitution of Civil Government discussed_; and his part in the\ndiscussion was so much appreciated by the Commons that in 1709 they\npresented an address to the queen praying her to \"bestow some dignity in\nthe church on Mr Hoadly for his eminent services both to church and\nstate.\" The queen returned a favourable answer, but the dignity was not\nconferred. In 1710 he was presented by a private patron to the rectory\nof Streatham in Surrey. In 1715 he was appointed chaplain to the king,\nand the same year he obtained the bishopric of Bangor. He held the see\nfor six years, but never visited the diocese. In 1716, in reply to\nGeorge Hickes (q.v.), he published a _Preservative against the\nPrinciples and Practices of Nonjurors in Church and State_, and in the\nfollowing year preached before the king his famous sermon on the\n_Kingdom of Christ_, which was immediately published by royal command.\nThese works were attacks on the divine authority of kings and of the\nclergy, but as the sermon dealt more specifically and distinctly with\nthe power of the church, its publication caused an ecclesiastical\nferment which in certain aspects has no parallel in religious history.\nIt was at once resolved to proceed against him in convocation, but this\nwas prevented by the king proroguing the assembly, a step which had\nconsequences of vital bearing on the history of the Church of England,\nsince from that period the great Anglican council ceased to transact\nbusiness of a more than formal nature. The restrained sentiments of the\ncouncil in regard to Hoadly found expression in a war of pamphlets known\nas the Bangorian Controversy, which, partly from a want of clearness in\nthe statements of Hoadly, partly from the disingenuousness of his\nopponents and the confusion resulting from exasperated feelings,\ndeveloped into an intricate and bewildering maze of side discussions in\nwhich the main issues of the dispute were concealed almost beyond the\npossibility of discovery. But however vague and uncertain might be the\nmeaning of Hoadly in regard to several of the important bearings of the\nquestions around which he aroused discussion, he was explicit in denying\nthe power of the Church over the conscience, and its right to determine\nthe condition of men in relation to the favour of God. The most able of\nhis opponents was William Law; others were Andrew Snape, provost of\nEton, and Thomas Sherlock, dean of Chichester. So exercised was the mind\nof the religious world over the dispute that in July 1717 as many as\nseventy-four pamphlets made their appearance; and at one period the\ncrisis became so serious that the business of London was for some days\nvirtually at a stand-still. Hoadly, being not unskilled in the art of\nflattery, was translated in 1721 to the see of Hereford, in 1723 to\nSalisbury and in 1734 to Winchester. He died at his palace at Chelsea on\nthe 17th of April 1761. His controversial writings are vigorous if\nprolix and his theological essays have little merit. He must have been a\nmuch hated man, for his latitudinarianism offended the high church party\nand his rationalism the other sections. He was an intimate friend of Dr\nSamuel Clarke, of whom he wrote a life.\n\nHoadly's brother, JOHN HOADLY (1678-1746), was archbishop of Dublin from\n1730 to 1742 and archbishop of Armagh from the latter date until his\ndeath on the 19th of July 1746. In early life the archbishop was very\nintimate with Gilbert Burnet, then bishop of Salisbury, and in later\nlife he was a prominent figure in Irish politics.\n\n The works of Benjamin Hoadly were collected and published by his son\n John in 3 vols. (1773). To the first volume was prefixed the article\n \"Hoadly\" from the supplement to the _Biographia Britannica_. See also\n L. Stephen, _English Thought in the 18th Century_.\n\n\n\n\nHOAR, SAMUEL (1778--1856), American lawyer, was born in Lincoln,\nMassachusetts, on the 18th of May 1778. He was the son of Samuel Hoar,\nan officer in the American army during the War of Independence, for many\nyears a member of the Massachusetts General Court, and a member in\n1820-1821 of the state Constitutional Convention. The son graduated at\nHarvard in 1802, was admitted to the Massachusetts bar in 1805 and began\npractice at Concord. His success in his profession was immediate, and\nfor a half-century he was one of the leading lawyers of Massachusetts.\nHe was in early life a Federalist and was later an ardent Whig in\npolitics. He was a member of the state senate in 1825, 1832 and 1833,\nand of the national house of representatives in 1835-1837, during which\ntime he made a notable speech in favour of the constitutional right of\ncongress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. In November\n1844, having retired from active legal practice some years before, he\nwent to Charleston, S.C., at the request of Governor George Nixon Briggs\n(1796-1861), to test in the courts of South Carolina the\nconstitutionality of the state law which provided that \"it shall not be\nlawful for any free negro, or person of color, to come into this state\non board any vessel, as a cook, steward or mariner, or in any other\nemployment,\" and that such free negroes should be seized and locked up\nuntil the vessels on which they had come were ready for sea, when they\nshould be returned to such vessels. His visit aroused great excitment,\nhe was threatened with personal injury, the state legislature passed\nresolutions calling for his expulsion, and he was compelled to leave\nearly in December. In 1848 he was prominent in the Free Soil movement in\nMassachusetts, and subsequently assisted in the organization of the\nRepublican Party. In 1850 he served in the Massachusetts house of\nrepresentatives. He married a daughter of Roger Sherman of Connecticut.\nHe died at Concord, Massachusetts, on the 2nd of November 1856.\n\n See a memoir by his son G. F. Hoar in _Memorial Biographies of the New\n England Historic Genealogical Society_, vol. iii. (Boston, 1883); the\n estimate by R. W. Emerson in _Lectures and Biographical Sketches_\n (Boston, 1903); and \"Samuel Hoar's Expulsion from Charleston,\" _Old\n South Leaflets_, vol. vi. No. 140.\n\nHis son, EBENEZER ROCKWOOD HOAR (1816-1895), was born at Concord,\nMassachusetts, on the 21st of February 1816. He graduated at Harvard in\n1835 and at the Harvard Law School in 1839, and was admitted to the\nMassachusetts bar in 1840. From 1849 to 1855 he was a judge of the\nMassachusetts court of common pleas, from 1859 to 1869 a judge of the\nstate supreme court, and in 1869-1870 attorney-general of the United\nStates in the cabinet of President Grant, and in that position fought\nunmerited \"machine\" appointments to offices in the civil service until\nat the pressure of the \"machine\" Grant asked for his resignation from\nthe cabinet. The Senate had already shown its disapproval of Hoar's\npolicy of civil service reform by its failure in 1870 to confirm the\nPresident's nomination of Hoar as associate-justice of the supreme\ncourt. In 1871 he was a member of the Joint High Commission which drew\nup the Treaty of Washington. In 1872 he was a presidential elector on\nthe Republican ticket, and in 1873-1875 was a representative in\nCongress. He was a member of the Board of Overseers of Harvard\nUniversity from 1868 to 1880 and from 1881 to 1887, and was president of\nthe Board in 1878-1880 and in 1881-1887. He was also prominent in the\naffairs of the Unitarian church. He was a man of high character and\nbrilliant wit. He died at Concord on the 31st of January 1895.\n\nAnother son, GEORGE FRISBIE HOAR (1826-1904), was born in Concord,\nMassachusetts, on the 29th of August 1826. He graduated at Harvard in\n1846 and at the Harvard Law School in 1849. He settled in the practice\nof law in Worcester, Massachusetts, where in 1852 he became a partner of\nEmory Washburn (1800-1877). In 1852 he was elected as a Free-Soiler to\nthe Massachusetts House of Representatives, and during his single term\nof service became the leader of his party in that body. He was active in\nthe organization of the Republican party in Massachusetts, and in 1857\nwas elected to the State senate, but declined a re-election. During\n1856-1857 he was active in behalf of the Free-State cause in Kansas. He\nwas a member of the National House of Representatives from 1869 until\n1877, and in this body took high rank as a ready debater and a\nconscientious committee worker. He was prominent as a defender and\nsupporter of the Freedman's Bureau, took a leading part in the later\nreconstruction legislation and in the investigation of the Credit\nMobilier scandal, and in 1876 was one of the House managers of the\nimpeachment of General W. W. Belknap, Grant's secretary of war. In 1877\nhe was a member of the Electoral Commission which settled the disputed\nHayes-Tilden election. From 1877 until his death he was a member of the\nUnited States senate. In the senate almost from the start he took rank\nas one of the most influential leaders of the Republican party; he was a\nmember from 1882 until his death of the important Judiciary Committee,\nof which he was chairman in 1891-1893 and in 1895-1904. His most\nimportant piece of legislation was the Presidential Succession Act of\n1886. He was a delegate to every Republican National Convention from\n1876 to 1904, and presided over that at Chicago in 1880. He was a\nconservative by birth and training, and although he did not leave his\nparty he disagreed with its policy in regard to the Philippines, and\nspoke and voted against the ratification of the Spanish Treaty. He was\nregent of the Smithsonian Institution in 1880-1881, and long served as\nan overseer of Harvard University (1896-1904) and as president of its\nalumni association. He was also president of the American Historical\nAssociation (1894-1895) and of the American Antiquarian Society\n(1884-1887). Like his brother, he was a leading Unitarian, and was\npresident of its National Conference from 1894 to 1902. He died at\nWorcester, Massachusetts, on the 30th of September 1904. A memorial\nstatue has been erected there.\n\n See his _Recollections of Seventy Years_ (New York, 1903).\n\n\n\n\nHOARE, SIR RICHARD COLT, BART. (1758-1838), English antiquary, was the\neldest son of Richard Hoare, who was created a baronet in 1786, and was\nborn on the 9th of December 1758. He was descended from Sir Richard\nHoare (1648-1718), lord mayor of London, the founder of the family\nbanking business. An ample allowance from his grandfather, Henry Hoare,\nenabled him to pursue the archaeological studies for which he had\nalready shown an inclination. In 1783 he married Hester, daughter of\nWilliam Henry, Lord Lyttelton, and after her death in 1785 he paid a\nprolonged visit to France, Italy and Switzerland. He succeeded to the\nbaronetcy in 1787, and in 1788 made a second continental tour, the\nrecord of his travels appearing in 1819 under the title _A Classical\nTour through Italy and Sicily_. A journey through Wales was followed by\na translation of the _Itinerarium Cambriae_ and of the _Descriptio\nCambriae of_ Giraldus Cambrensis, Hoare adding notes and a life of\nGiraldus to the translation. This was first published in 1804, and has\nbeen revised by T. Wright (London, 1863). Sir Richard died at Stourhead,\nWiltshire, on the 19th of May 1838, being succeeded in the baronetcy by\nhis half-brother, Henry Hugh Hoare. Hoare's most important work was his\n_Ancient History of North and South Wiltshire_ (1812-1819); he also did\nsome work on the large _History of Modern Wiltshire_ (1822-1844).\n\n For notices of him and a list of his works, many of which were printed\n privately, see the _Gentleman's Magazine_ for July 1838, and the\n _Dict. Nat. Biog._ vol. xxvii. (1891). See also E. Hoare, _History of\n the Hoare Family_ (1883).\n\n\n\n\nHOBART, GARRET AUGUSTUS (1844-1899), Vice-President of the United States\n1897-1899, was born at Long Branch, N.J., on the 3rd of June 1844. He\ngraduated at Rutgers College in 1863, was admitted to the bar in 1869,\npractised law at Paterson, N.J., and rose to prominence in the State. He\nwas long conspicuous in the State Republican organization, was chairman\nof the New Jersey State Republican Committee from 1880 to 1890, became a\nmember in 1884 of the Republican National Committee, and was the\ndelegate-at-large from New Jersey to five successive Republican national\nnominating conventions. He served in the New Jersey Assembly in\n1873-1874, and in the New Jersey Senate in 1877-1882, and was speaker of\nthe Assembly in 1874 and president of the Senate in 1881 and 1882. He\nwas also prominent and successful in business and accumulated a large\nfortune. He accepted the nomination as Vice-President in 1896, on the\nticket with President McKinley, and was elected; but while still in\noffice he died at Paterson, N.J., on the 21st of November 1899.\n\n See the _Life_ (New York, 1910) by David Magie.\n\n\n\n\nHOBART, JOHN HENRY (1775-1830), American Protestant Episcopal bishop,\nwas born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the 14th of September 1775,\nbeing fifth in direct descent from Edmund Hobart, a founder of Hingham,\nMassachusetts. He was educated at the Philadelphia Latin School, the\nCollege of Philadelphia (now the University of Pennsylvania), and\nPrinceton, where he graduated in 1793. After studying theology under\nBishop William White at Philadelphia, he was ordained deacon in 1798,\nand priest two years later. He was elected assistant bishop of New York,\nwith the right of succession, in 1811, and was acting diocesan from that\ndate because of the ill-health of Bishop Benjamin Moore, whom he\nformally succeeded on the latter's death in February 1816. He was one of\nthe founders of the General Theological Seminary, became its professor\nof pastoral theology in 1821, and as bishop was its governor. In his\nzeal for the historic episcopacy he published in 1807 _An Apology for\nApostolic Order and its Advocates_, a series of letters to Rev. John M.\nMason, who, in _The Christian's Magazine_, of which he was editor, had\nattacked the Episcopacy in general and in particular Hobart's\n_Collection of Essays on the Subject of Episcopacy_ (1806). Hobart's\nzeal for the General Seminary and the General Convention led him to\noppose the plan of Philander Chase, bishop of Ohio, for an Episcopal\nseminary in that diocese; but the Ohio seminary was made directly\nresponsible to the House of Bishops, and Hobart approved the plan. His\nstrong opposition to \"dissenting churches\" was nowhere so clearly shown\nas in a pamphlet published in 1816 to dissuade all Episcopalians from\njoining the American Bible Society, which he thought the Protestant\nEpiscopal Church had not the numerical or the financial strength to\ncontrol. In 1818, to counterbalance the influence of the Bible Society\nand especially of Scott's _Commentaries_, he began to edit with selected\nnotes the _Family Bible_ of the Society for Promoting Christian\nKnowledge. He delivered episcopal charges to the clergy of Connecticut\nand New York entitled _The Churchman_ (1819) and _The High Churchman\nVindicated_ (1826), in which he accepted the name \"high churchman,\" and\nstated and explained his principles \"in distinction from the corruptions\nof the Church of Rome and from the Errors of Certain Protestant Sects.\"\nHe exerted himself greatly in building up his diocese, attempting to\nmake an annual visit to every parish. His failing health led him to\nvisit Europe in 1823-1825. Upon his return he preached a characteristic\nsermon entitled _The United States of America compared with some\nEuropean Countries, particularly England_ (published 1826), in which,\nalthough there was some praise for the English church, he so boldly\ncriticized the establishment, state patronage, cabinet appointment of\nbishops, lax discipline, and the low requirements of theological\neducation, as to rouse much hostility in England, where he had been\nhighly praised for two volumes of _Sermons on the Principal Events and\nTruths of Redemption_ (1824). He died at Auburn, New York, on the 12th\nof September 1830. He was able, impetuous, frank, perfectly fearless in\ncontroversy, a speaker and preacher of much eloquence, a supporter of\nmissions to the Oneida Indians in his diocese, and the compiler of the\nfollowing devotional works: _A Companion for the Altar_ (1804),\n_Festivals and Fasts_ (1804), _A Companion to the Book of Common Prayer_\n(1805), and _A Clergyman's Companion_ (1805).\n\n See _Memorial of Bishop Hobart_, containing a _Memoir_ (New York,\n 1831); John McVickar, _The Early Life and Professional Years of Bishop\n Hobart_ (New York, 1834), and _The Closing Years of Bishop Hobart_\n (New York, 1836).\n\n\n\n\nHOBART PASHA, AUGUSTUS CHARLES HOBART-HAMPDEN (1822-1886), English naval\ncaptain and Turkish admiral, was born in Leicestershire on the 1st of\nApril 1822, being the third son of the 6th Earl of Buckinghamshire. In\n1835 he entered the Royal Navy and served as a midshipman on the coast\nof Brazil in the suppression of the slave trade, displaying much\ngallantry in the operations. In 1855 he took part, as captain of the\n\"Driver,\" in the Baltic Expedition, and was actively engaged at\nBomarsund and Abo. In 1862 he retired from the navy with the rank of\npost-captain; but his love of adventure led him, during the American\nCivil War, to take the command of a blockade-runner. He had the good\nfortune to run the blockade eighteen times, conveying war material to\nCharleston and returning with a cargo of cotton. In 1867 Hobart entered\nthe Turkish service, and was immediately nominated to the command of\nthat fleet, with the rank of \"Bahrie Limassi\" (rear-admiral). In this\ncapacity he performed splendid service in helping to suppress the\ninsurrection in Crete, and was rewarded by the Sultan with the title of\nPasha (1869). In 1874 Hobart, whose name had, on representations made by\nGreece, been removed from the British Navy List, was reinstated; his\nrestoration did not, however, last long, for on the outbreak of the\nRusso-Turkish war he again entered Turkish service. In command of the\nTurkish squadron he completely dominated the Black Sea, blockading the\nports of South Russia and the mouths of the Danube, and paralysing the\naction of the Russian fleet. On the conclusion of peace Hobart still\nremained in the Turkish service, and in 1881 was appointed Mushir, or\nmarshal, being the first Christian to hold that high office. His\nachievements as a blockade-runner, his blockade of Crete, and his\nhandling of the Turkish fleet against the torpedo-lined coasts of\nRussia, showed him to be a daring, resourceful, and skilful commander,\nworthy to be ranked among the illustrious names of British naval heroes.\nHe died at Milan on the 19th of June 1886.\n\n See his _Sketches of My Life_ (1886), which must, however, be used\n with caution, since it contains many proved inaccuracies.\n\n\n\n\nHOBART, the capital of Tasmania, in the county of Buckingham, on the\nsouthern coast of the island. It occupies a site of great beauty,\nstanding on a series of low hills at the foot of Mount Wellington, a\nlofty peak (4166 ft.) which is snow-clad for many months in the year.\nThe town fronts Sullivan's Cove, a picturesque bay opening into the\nestuary of the river Derwent, and is nearly square in form, laid out\nwith wide streets intersecting at right angles, the chief of which are\nserved by electric tramways. It is the seat of the Anglican bishop of\nTasmania, and of the Roman Catholic archbishop of Hobart. The Anglican\ncathedral of St David dates from 1873, though its foundations were laid\nas early as 1817. St Mary's Roman Catholic cathedral is a beautiful\nbuilding; but perhaps the most notable ecclesiastical building in Hobart\nis the great Baptist tabernacle in Upper Elizabeth Street. The most\nprominent public buildings are the Houses of Parliament, to which an\nexcellent library is attached; the town hall, a beautiful building of\nbrown and white Tasmanian freestone in Italian style; the museum and\nnational art gallery, and the general post office (1904) with its lofty\nclock-tower. Government House, the residence of the governor of\nTasmania, a handsome castellated building, stands in its domain on the\nbanks of the Derwent, to the north of the town. The botanical gardens\nadjoin. Of the parks and public gardens, the most extensive is the\nQueen's Domain, covering an area of about 700 acres, while the most\ncentral is Franklin Square, adorned with a statue of Sir John Franklin,\nthe famous Arctic explorer, who was governor of Tasmania from 1837 to\n1843. The university of Tasmania, established in 1890, and opened in\n1893, has its headquarters at Hobart. The town is celebrated for its\ninvigorating climate, and its annual regatta on the Derwent attracts\nnumerous visitors. The harbour is easy of access, well sheltered and\ndeep, with wharf accommodation for vessels of the largest tonnage. It is\na regular port of call for several intercolonial lines from Sydney and\nMelbourne, and for lines from London to New Zealand. The exports, of an\naverage value of L850,000 annually, consist mainly of fruit, hops,\ngrain, timber and wool. The industries comprise brewing, saw-milling,\niron-founding, flour-milling, tanning, and the manufacture of pottery\nand woollen goods. Hobart is the centre of a large fruit-growing\ndistrict, the produce of which, for the most part, is exported to London\nand Sydney. The city was founded in 1804 and takes its name from Lord\nHobart (see BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, EARLS OF), then secretary of state for the\ncolonies. It was created a municipality in 1853, and a city in 1857; and\nin 1881 its name was changed from Hobart Town to the present form. The\nchief suburbs are Newton, Sandy Bay, Wellington, Risdon, Glenorchy,\nBellerive and Beltana. The population of the city proper in 1901 was\n24,652, or including suburbs, 34,182.\n\n\n\n\nHOBBEMA, MEYNDERT (c. 1638-1709), the greatest landscape painter of the\nDutch school after Ruysdael, lived at Amsterdam in the second half of\nthe 17th century. The facts of his life are somewhat obscure. Nothing is\nmore disappointing than to find that in Hobbema's case chronology and\nsigned pictures substantially contradict each other. According to the\nlatter his practice lasted from 1650 to 1689; according to the former\nhis birth occurred in 1638, his death as late as 1709. If the\nmasterpiece formerly in the Bredel collection, called \"A Wooded Stream,\"\nhonestly bears the date of 1650, or \"The Cottages under Trees\" of the\nFord collection the date of 1652, the painter of these canvases cannot\nbe Hobbema, whose birth took place in 1638, unless indeed we admit that\nHobbema painted some of his finest works at the age of twelve or\nfourteen. For a considerable period it was profitable to pass Hobbemas\nas Ruysdaels, and the name of the lesser master was probably erased from\nseveral of his productions. When Hobbema's talent was recognized, the\ncontrary process was followed, and in this way the name, and perhaps\nfictitious dates, reappeared by fraud. An experienced eye will note the\ndifferences which occur in Hobbema's signatures in such well-known\nexamples as adorn the galleries of London and Rotterdam, or the\nGrosvenor and van der Hoop collections. Meanwhile, we must be content to\nknow that, if the question of dates could be brought into accordance\nwith records and chronology, the facts of Hobbema's life would be as\nfollows.\n\nMeyndert Hobbema was married at the age of thirty to Eeltije Vinck of\nGorcum, in the Oudekerk or old church at Amsterdam, on the 2nd of\nNovember 1668. Witnesses to the marriage were the bride's brother\nCornelius Vinck and Jacob Ruysdael. We might suppose from this that\nHobbema and Ruysdael, the two great masters of landscape, were united at\nthis time by ties of friendship, and accept the belief that the former\nwas the pupil of the latter. Yet even this is denied to us, since\nrecords tell us that there were two Jacob Ruysdaels, cousins and\ncontemporaries, at Amsterdam in the middle of the 17th century--one a\nframemaker, the son of Solomon, the other a painter, the son of Isaac\nRuysdael. Of Hobbema's marriage there came between 1668 and 1673 four\nchildren. In 1704 Eeltije died, and was buried in the pauper section of\nthe Leiden cemetery at Amsterdam. Hobbema himself survived till December\n1709, receiving burial on the 14th of that month in the pauper section\nof the Westerkerk cemetery at Amsterdam. Husband and wife had lived\nduring their lifetime in the Rozengracht, at no great distance from\nRembrandt, who also dwelt there in his later and impoverished days.\nRembrandt, Hals, Jacob Ruysdael, and Hobbema were in one respect alike.\nThey all died in misery, insufficiently rewarded perhaps for their toil,\nimprudent perhaps in the use of the means derived from their labours.\nPosterity has recognized that Hobbema and Ruysdael together represent\nthe final development of landscape art in Holland. Their style is so\nrelated that we cannot suppose the first to have been unconnected with\nthe second. Still their works differ in certain ways, and their\ncharacter is generally so marked that we shall find little difficulty in\ndistinguishing them, nor indeed shall we hesitate in separating those of\nHobbema from the feebler productions of his imitators and\npredecessors--Isaac Ruysdael, Rontbouts, de Vries, Dekker, Looten,\nVerboom, du Bois, van Kessel, van der Hagen, even Philip de Koningk. In\nthe exercise of his craft Hobbema was patient beyond all conception. It\nis doubtful whether any one ever so completely mastered as he did the\nstill life of woods and hedges, or mills and pools. Nor can we believe\nthat he obtained this mastery otherwise than by constantly dwelling in\nthe same neighbourhood, say in Guelders or on the Dutch Westphalian\nborder, where day after day he might study the branching and foliage of\ntrees and underwood embowering cottages and mills, under every variety\nof light, in every shade of transparency, in all changes produced by the\nseasons. Though his landscapes are severely and moderately toned,\ngenerally in an olive key, and often attuned to a puritanical grey or\nrusset, they surprise us, not only by the variety of their leafage, but\nby the finish of their detail as well as the boldness of their touch.\nWith astonishing subtlety light is shown penetrating cloud, and\nilluminating, sometimes transiently, sometimes steadily, different\nportions of the ground, shining through leaves upon other leaves, and\nmultiplying in an endless way the transparency of the picture. If the\nchance be given him he mirrors all these things in the still pool near a\ncottage, the reaches of a sluggish river, or the swirl of the stream\nthat feeds a busy mill. The same spot will furnish him with several\npictures. One mill gives him repeated opportunities of charming our eye;\nand this wonderful artist, who is only second to Ruysdael because he had\nnot Ruysdael's versatility and did not extend his study equally to downs\nand rocky eminences, or torrents and estuaries--this is the man who\nlived penuriously, died poor, and left no trace in the artistic annals\nof his country! It has been said that Hobbema did not paint his own\nfigures, but transferred that duty to Adrian van de Velde, Lingelbach,\nBarendt Gael, and Abraham Storck. As to this much is conjecture.\n\n The best of Hobbema's dated pictures are those of the years 1663 to\n 1667. Of the former, several in the galleries of Brussels and St\n Petersburg, and one in the Holford collection, are celebrated. Of 1665\n fine specimens are at Grosvenor House and the Wallace collection. Of\n seven pieces in the National Gallery, including the \"Avenue at\n Middelharnis,\" which some assign to 1689, and the \"Ruins of Breberode\n Castle,\" two are dated 1667. A sample of the last of these years is\n also in the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge. Amongst the masterpieces\n in private hands in England may be noticed two landscapes in\n Buckingham Palace, two at Bridgewater House, and one belonging to Mr\n Walter of Bearwood. On the continent are a \"Wooded Landscape\" in the\n Berlin gallery, a \"Forest\" belonging to the duchess of Sagan in Paris,\n and a \"Glade\" in the Louvre. There are other fine Hobbemas in the\n Antwerp Museum, the Arenberg gallery at Brussels, and the Belvedere at\n Vienna. (J. A. C.)\n\n\n\n\nHOBBES, THOMAS (1588-1679), English philosopher, second son of Thomas\nHobbes, was born at Westport (now part of Malmesbury, Wiltshire) on the\n5th of April 1588. His father, vicar of Charlton and Westport, an\nilliterate and choleric man, quarrelled, it is said, with a brother\nclergyman at the church door, and was forced to decamp, leaving his\nthree children to the care of an elder brother Francis, a flourishing\nglover at Malmesbury. Thomas Hobbes was put to school at Westport church\nat the age of four, passed to the Malmesbury school at eight, and was\ntaught again in Westport later at a private school kept by a young man\nnamed Robert Latimer, fresh from Oxford and \"a good Grecian.\" He had\nbegun Latin and Greek early, and under Latimer made such progress as to\nbe able to translate the _Medea_ of Euripides into Latin iambic verse\nbefore he was fourteen. About the age of fifteen he was sent to Oxford\nand entered at Magdalen Hall. During his residence, the first principal\nof Magdalen Hall, John Hussee, was succeeded by John Wilkinson, who\nruled in the interest of the Calvinistic party in the university. Thus\nearly was he brought into contact with the aggressive Puritan spirit.\nApart from this, Hobbes owed little to his university training, which\nwas based on the scholastic logic then prevalent. We have from himself a\nlively record of his student life (_Vit. carm. exp._ p. lxxxv.), which,\nthough penned in extreme old age, may be taken as trustworthy. He tells\nhow, when he had slowly taken in the doctrine of logical figures and\nmoods, he put it aside and would prove things only in his own way; how\nhe then heard about bodies as consisting of matter and form, as throwing\noff species of themselves for perception, and as moved by sympathies and\nantipathies, with much else of a like sort, all beyond his\ncomprehension; and how he therefore turned to his old books again, fed\nhis mind on maps and charts of earth and sky, traced the sun in his\npath, followed Drake and Cavendish girdling the main, and gazed with\ndelight upon pictured haunts of men and wonders of unknown lands. Very\ncharacteristic is the interest in men and things, and the disposition to\ncut through questions in the schools after a trenchant fashion of his\nown. He was little attracted by the scholastic learning, though it would\nbe wrong to take his words as evidence of a precocious insight into its\nweakness. The truth probably is that he took no interest in studies\nwhich there was no risk in neglecting, and thought as little of\nrejecting as of accepting the traditional doctrines. He adds that he\ntook his degree at the proper time; but in fact, upon any computation\nand from whatever cause, he remained at Magdalen Hall five, instead of\nthe required four, years, not being admitted as bachelor till the 5th of\nFebruary 1608.\n\n\n Translation of Thucydides.\n\nIn the same year Hobbes was recommended by Wilkinson as tutor to the son\nof William Cavendish, baron of Hardwick (afterwards 2nd earl of\nDevonshire), and thus began a lifelong connexion with a great and\npowerful family. Twice it was loosened--once, for a short time, after\ntwenty years, and again, for a longer period, during the Civil War--but\nit never was broken. Hobbes spoke of the first years of his tutorship as\nthe happiest of his life. Young Cavendish was hardly younger than\nHobbes, and had been married, a few months before, at the instance of\nthe king, to Christiana, the only daughter of Edward, Lord Bruce of\nKinloss, though by reason of the bride's age, which was only twelve\nyears, the pair had no establishment for some time. Hobbes was his\ncompanion rather than tutor (before becoming secretary); and, growing\ngreatly attached to each other, they were sent abroad together on the\ngrand tour in 1610. During this journey, the duration of which cannot be\nprecisely stated, Hobbes acquired some knowledge of French and Italian,\nand also made the important discovery that the scholastic philosophy\nwhich he had learned in Oxford was almost universally neglected in\nfavour of the scientific and critical methods of Galileo, Kepler and\nMontaigne. Unable at first to cope with their unfamiliar ideas, he\ndetermined to become a scholar, and until 1628 was engaged in a careful\nstudy of Greek and Latin authors, the outcome of which was his great\ntranslation of Thucydides. But when he had finished his work he kept it\nlying by him for years, being no longer so sure of finding appreciative\nreaders; and when he did send it forth, in 1628, he was fain to be\ncontent with \"the few and better sort.\"[1] That he was finally\ndetermined to publication by the political troubles of the year 1628 may\nbe regarded as certain, not only from his own express declaration at a\nlater time (_Vit. carm. exp._), but also from unmistakable hints in the\naccount of the life and work of his author prefixed to the translation\non its appearance. This was the year of the Petition of Right, extorted\nfrom the king in the third parliament he had tried within three years of\nhis accession; and, in view of Hobbes's later activity, it is\nsignificant that he came forward just then, at the mature age of forty,\nwith his version of the story of the Athenian democracy as the first\nproduction of his pen. Nothing else is known of his doings before 1628,\nexcept that through his connexion with young Cavendish he had relations\nwith literary men of note like Ben Jonson, and also with Bacon and Lord\nHerbert of Cherbury. If he never had any sympathy with Herbert's\nintuitionalist principles in philosophy, he was no less eager, as he\nafterwards showed, than Herbert to rationalize in matters of religious\ndoctrine, so that he may be called the second of the English deists, as\nHerbert has been called the first. With Bacon he was so intimate\n(Aubrey's _Lives_, pp. 222, 602) that some writers have described him as\na disciple. The facts that he used to walk with Bacon at Gorhambury, and\nwould jot down with exceptional intelligence the eager thinker's sudden\n\"notions,\" and that he was employed to make the Latin version of some of\nthe _Essays_, prove nothing when weighed against his own disregard of\nall Bacon's principles, and the other evidence that the impulse to\nindependent thinking came to him not from Bacon, and not till some time\nafter Bacon's death in 1626.[2]\n\n\n Philosophic Inquiry.\n\nSo far as we have any positive evidence, it was not before the year 1629\nthat Hobbes entered on philosophical inquiry. Meanwhile a great change\nhad been wrought in his circumstances. His friend and master, after\nabout two years' tenure of the earldom of Devonshire, died of the plague\nin June 1628, and the affairs of the family were so disordered\nfinancially that the widowed countess was left with the task of righting\nthem in the boyhood of the third earl. Hobbes went on for a time living\nin the household; but his services were no longer in demand, and,\nremaining inconsolable under his personal bereavement, he sought\ndistraction, in 1629, in another engagement which took him abroad as\ntutor to the son of Sir Gervase Clifton, of an old Nottinghamshire\nfamily. This, his second, sojourn abroad appears to have been spent\nchiefly in Paris, and the one important fact recorded of it is that he\nthen first began to look into Euclid. The engagement came to an end in\n1631, when he was recalled to train the young earl of Devonshire, now\nthirteen years old, son of his previous pupil. In the course of the next\nseven years in Derbyshire and abroad, Hobbes took his pupil over\nrhetoric,[3] logic, astronomy, and the principles of law, with other\nsubjects. His mind was now full of the thought of motion in nature, and\non the continent he sought out the philosophical speculators or\nscientific workers. In Florence in 1636 he saw Galileo, for whom he ever\nretained the warmest admiration, and spent eight months in daily\nconverse with the members of a scientific circle in Paris, held together\nby Marin Mersenne (q.v.). From that time (the winter of 1636-1637) he\ntoo, as he tells us, was numbered among philosophers.\n\n His introduction to Euclid took place accidentally in 1629 (Aubrey's\n _Lives_, p. 604). Euclid's manner of proof became the model for his\n own way of thinking upon all subjects. It is less easy to determine\n when he awoke to an interest in the physical doctrine of motion. The\n story told by himself (_Vit._ p. xx.) is that, hearing the question\n asked \"What is sense?\" he fell to thinking often on the subject, till\n it suddenly occurred to him that if bodies and their internal parts\n were at rest, or were always in the same state of motion, there could\n be no distinction of anything, and consequently no sense; the cause of\n all things must therefore be sought in diversity of movements.\n Starting from this principle he was driven to geometry for insight\n into the ground and modes of motion. The biographies we possess do not\n tell us where or when this great change of interest occurred. Nothing\n is said, however, which contradicts a statement that on his third\n journey in Europe he began to study the doctrine of motion more\n seriously, being interested in it before; and as he claims more than\n once (_L.W._ v. 303; _E.W._ vii. 468) to have explained light and\n sound by a mechanical hypothesis as far back as 1630, the inspiration\n may be assigned to the time of the second journey. But it was not till\n the third journey that the new interest became an overpowering\n passion, and the \"philosopher\" was on his way home before he had\n advanced so far as to conceive the scheme of a system of thought to\n the elaboration of which his life should henceforth be devoted.\n\n Hobbes was able to carry out his plan in some twenty years or more\n from the time of its conception, but the execution was so broken in\n upon by political events, and so complicated with other labours, that\n its stages can hardly be followed without some previous understanding\n of the relations of the parts of the scheme, as there is reason to\n believe they were sketched out from the beginning. His scheme was\n first to work out, in a separate treatise _De corpore_, a systematic\n doctrine of Body, showing how physical phenomena were universally\n explicable in terms of motion, as motion or mechanical action was then\n (through Galileo and others) understood--the theory of motion being\n applied in the light of mathematical science, after quantity, the\n subject-matter of mathematics, had been duly considered in its place\n among the fundamental conceptions of philosophy, and a clear\n indication had been given, at first starting, of the logical ground\n and method of all philosophical inquiry. He would then single out Man\n from the realm of nature, and, in a treatise _De homine_, show what\n specific bodily motions were involved in the production of the\n peculiar phenomena of sensation and knowledge, as also of the\n affections and passions thence resulting, whereby man came into\n relation with man. Finally he would consider, in a crowning treatise\n _De cive_, how men, being naturally rivals or foes, were moved to\n enter into the better relation of Society, and demonstrate how this\n grand product of human wit must be regulated if men were not to fall\n back into brutishness and misery. Thus he proposed to unite in one\n coherent whole the separate phenomena of Body, Man and the State.\n\nHobbes came home, in 1637, to a country seething with discontent. The\nreign of \"Thorough\" was collapsing, and the forces pent up since 1629\nwere soon to rend the fabric of the state. By these events Hobbes was\ndistracted from the orderly execution of his philosophic plan. The Short\nParliament, as he tells us at a later time (_E.W._ iv. 414), was not\ndissolved before he had ready \"a little treatise in English,\" in which\nhe sought to prove that the points of the royal prerogative which the\nmembers were determined to dispute before granting supplies \"were\ninseparably annexed to the sovereignty which they did not then deny to\nbe in the king.\" Now it can be proved that at this time he had written\nnot only his _Human Nature_ but also his _De corpore politico_, the two\ntreatises (though published separately ten years later) having been\ncomposed as parts of one work;[4] and there cannot be the least question\nthat together they make \"the little treatise\" just mentioned. We are\ntherefore to understand, first, that he wrote the earliest draft of his\npolitical theory some years before the outbreak of the Civil War, and,\nsecondly, that this earliest draft was not written till, in accordance\nwith his philosophical conception, he had established the grounds of\npolity in human nature. The first point is to be noted, because it has\noften been supposed that Hobbes's political doctrine took its peculiar\ncomplexion from his revulsion against the state of anarchy before his\neyes, as he wrote during the progress of the Civil War. The second point\nmust be maintained against his own implied, if not express, statement\nsome years later, when publishing his _De cive_ (_L.W._ ii. 151), that\nhe wrote this third part of his system before he had been able to set\ndown any finished representation of the fundamental doctrines which it\npresupposed. In the beginning of 1640, therefore, he had written out his\ndoctrine of Man at least, with almost as much elaboration as it ever\nreceived from him.\n\n\n In Paris.\n\nIn November 1640 the Long Parliament succeeded to the Short, and sent\nLaud and Strafford to the Tower, and Hobbes, who had become, or thought\nhe had become, a marked man by the circulation of his treatise (of\nwhich, \"though not printed, many gentlemen had copies\"), hastened to\nParis, \"the first of all that fled.\" He was now for the fourth and last\ntime abroad, and did not return for eleven years. Apparently he remained\nthe greater part of the time in or about Paris. He was welcomed back\ninto the scientific coterie about Mersenne, and forthwith had the task\nassigned him of criticizing the _Meditations_ of Descartes, which had\nbeen sent from Holland, before publication, to Mersenne with the\nauthor's request for criticism from the most different points of view.\nHobbes was soon ready with the remarks that were printed as \"Third\"\namong the six (later seven) sets of \"Objections\" appended, with\n\"Replies\" from Descartes, to the _Meditations_, when published shortly\nafterwards in 1641 (reprinted in _L.W._ v. 249-274). About the same time\nalso Mersenne sent to Descartes, as if they came from a friend in\nEngland, another set of objections which Hobbes had to offer on various\npoints in the scientific treatises, especially the _Dioptrics_, appended\nby Descartes to his _Discourse on Method_ in 1637; to which Descartes\nreplied without suspecting the common authorship of the two sets. The\nresult was to keep the two thinkers apart rather than bring them\ntogether. Hobbes was more eager to bring forward his own philosophical\nand physical ideas than careful to enter into the full meaning of\nanother's thought; and Descartes was too jealous, and too confident in\nhis conclusions to bear with this kind of criticism. He was very curt in\nhis replies to Hobbes's philosophical objections, and broke off all\ncorrespondence on the physical questions, writing privately to Mersenne\nthat he had grave doubts of the Englishman's good faith in drawing him\ninto controversy (_L.W._ v. 277-307).\n\nMeanwhile Hobbes had his thoughts too full of the political theory which\nthe events of the last years had ripened within him to settle, even in\nParis, to the orderly composition of his works. Though connected in his\nown mind with his view of human nature and of nature generally, the\npolitical theory, as he always declared, could stand by itself. Also,\nwhile he may have hoped at this time to be able to add much (though he\nnever did) to the sketch of his doctrine of Man contained in the\nunpublished \"little treatise,\" he might extend, but could hardly\notherwise modify, the sketch he had there given of his carefully\narticulated theory of Body Politic. Possibly, indeed, before that sketch\nwas written early in 1640, he may, under pressure of the political\nexcitement, have advanced no small way in the actual composition of the\ntreatise _De Cive_, the third section of his projected system. In any\ncase, it was upon this section, before the others, that he set to work\nin Paris; and before the end of 1641 the book, as we know from the date\nof the dedication (November 1), was finished. Though it was forthwith\nprinted in the course of the year 1642, he was content to circulate a\nlimited number of copies privately[5]; and when he found his work\nreceived with applause (it was praised even by Descartes), he seems to\nhave taken this recognition of his philosophical achievement as an\nadditional reason for deferring publication till the earlier works of\nthe system were completed. Accordingly, for the next three or four\nyears, he remained steadily at work, and nothing appeared from him in\npublic except a short treatise on optics (_Tractatus opticus, L.W._ v.\n217-248) included in the collection of scientific tracts published by\nMersenne under the title _Cogitata physico-mathematica_ in 1644, and a\nhighly compressed statement of his psychological application of the\ndoctrine of motion (_L.W._ v. 309-318), incorporated with Mersenne's\n_Ballistica_, published in the same year. Thus or otherwise he had\nbecome sufficiently known by 1645 to be chosen as a referee, with\nDescartes, Roberval and others, in the famous controversy between John\nPell (q.v.) and the Dane Longomontanus (q.v.) over that problem of the\nsquaring of the circle which was seen later on to have such a fatal\ncharm for himself. But though about this time he had got ready all or\nmost of the materials for his fundamental work on Body, not even now was\nhe able to make way with its composition, and when he returned to it\nafter a number of years, he returned a different man.\n\n\n Leviathan.\n\nThe Civil War had broken out in 1642, and the royalist cause began to\ndecline from the time of the defeat at Marston Moor, in the middle of\n1644. Then commenced an exodus of the king's friends. Newcastle himself,\nwho was a cousin of Hobbes's late patron and to whom he dedicated the\n\"little treatise\" of 1640, found his way to Paris, and was followed by a\nstream of fugitives, many of whom were known to Hobbes. The sight of\nthese exiles made the political interest once more predominant in\nHobbes, and before long the revived feeling issued in the formation of a\nnew and important design. It first showed itself in the publication of\nthe _De cive_, of which the fame, but only the fame, had extended beyond\nthe inner circle of friends and critics who had copies of the original\nimpression. Hobbes now entrusted it, early in 1646, to his admirer, the\nFrenchman Samuel de Sorbiere, by whom it was seen through the Elzevir\npress at Amsterdam in 1647--having previously inserted a number of notes\nin reply to objections, and also a striking preface, in the course of\nwhich he explained its relation to the other parts of the system not yet\nforthcoming, and the (political) occasion of its having been composed\nand being now published before them.[6] So hopeless, meanwhile, was he\ngrowing of being able to return home that, later on in the year, he was\non the point of leaving Paris to take up his abode in the south with a\nFrench friend,[7] when he was engaged \"by the month\" as mathematical\ninstructor to the young prince of Wales, who had come over from Jersey\nabout the month of July. This engagement lasted nominally from 1646 to\n1648 when Charles went to Holland. Thus thrown more than ever into the\ncompany of the exiled royalists, it was then, if not earlier, that he\nconceived his new design of bringing all his powers of thought and\nexpression to bear upon the production of an English book that should\nset forth his whole theory of civil government in relation to the\npolitical crisis resulting from the war. The _De cive_, presently to be\npublished, was written in Latin for the learned, and gave the political\ntheory without its foundation in human nature. The unpublished treatise\nof 1640 contained all or nearly all that he had to tell concerning human\nnature, but was written before the terrible events of the last years had\ndisclosed how men might still be urged by their anti-social passions\nback into the abyss of anarchy. There was need of an exposition at once\ncomprehensive, incisive and popular. The State, it now seemed to Hobbes,\nmight be regarded as a great artificial man or monster (_Leviathan_),\ncomposed of men, with a life that might be traced from its generation\nthrough human reason under pressure of human needs to its dissolution\nthrough civil strife proceeding from human passions. This, we may\nsuppose, was the presiding conception from the first, but the design may\nhave been variously modified in the three or four years of its\nexecution. Before the end, in 1650-1651, it is plain that he wrote in\ndirect reference to the greatly changed aspect of affairs in England.\nThe king being dead, and the royalist cause appearing to be hopelessly\nlost, he did not scruple, in closing the work with a general \"Review and\nConclusion,\" to raise the question of the subject's right to change\nallegiance when a former sovereign's power to protect was irrecoverably\ngone. Also he took advantage of the rule of the Commonwealth to indulge\nmuch more freely than he might have otherwise dared in rationalistic\ncriticism of religious doctrines; while, amid the turmoil of sects, he\ncould the more forcibly urge that the preservation of social order, when\nagain firmly restored, must depend on the assumption by the civil power\nof the right to wield all sanctions, supernatural as well as natural,\nagainst the pretensions of any clergy, Catholic, Anglican or\nPresbyterian, to the exercise of an _imperium in imperio_.\n\nWe know the _Leviathan_ only as it finally emerged from Hobbes's pen.\nDuring the years of its composition he remained in or near Paris, at\nfirst in attendance on his royal pupil, with whom he became a great\nfavourite. In 1647 Hobbes was overtaken by a serious illness which\ndisabled him for six months. Mersenne begged him not to die outside the\nRoman Catholic Church, but Hobbes said that he had already considered\nthe matter sufficiently and afterwards took the sacrament according to\nthe rites of the Church of England. On recovering from this illness,\nwhich nearly proved fatal, he resumed his literary task, and carried it\nsteadily forward to completion by the year 1650, having also within the\nsame time translated into English, with characteristic force of\nexpression, his Latin treatise. Otherwise the only thing known (from one\nor two letters) of his life in those years is that from the year 1648 he\nhad begun to think of returning home; he was then sixty and might well\nbe weary of exile. When 1650 came, as if to prepare the way for the\nreception of his _magnum opus_, he allowed the publication of his\nearliest treatise, divided into two separate small volumes (_Human\nNature, or the Fundamental Elements of Policy, E.W._ iv. 1-76, and _De\nCorpore Politico, or the Elements of Law, Moral and Politic_, pp.\n77-228).[8] In 1651[9] he published his translation of the De Cive under\nthe title of _Philosophical Rudiments concerning Government and Society_\n(_E.W._ ii.). Meanwhile the printing of the greater work was proceeding,\nand finally it appeared about the middle of the same year, 1651, under\nthe title of _Leviathan, or the Matter, Form and Power of a\nCommonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil_ (_E.W._ iii.), with a quaint\nfrontispiece in which, from behind hills overlooking a fair landscape of\ntown and country, there towered the body (above the waist) of a crowned\ngiant, made up of tiny figures of human beings and bearing sword and\ncrozier in the two hands. It appeared, and soon its author was more\nlauded and decried than any other thinker of his time; but the first\neffect of its publication was to sever his connexion with the exiled\nroyalist party, and to throw him for protection on the revolutionary\nGovernment. No sooner did copies of the book reach Paris than he found\nhimself shunned by his former associates, and though he was himself so\nlittle conscious of disloyalty that he was forward to present a\nmanuscript copy \"engrossed in vellum in a marvellous fair hand\"[10] to\nthe young king of the Scots (who, after the defeat at Worcester, escaped\nto Paris about the end of October), he was denied the royal presence\nwhen he sought it shortly afterwards. Straightway, then, he saw himself\nexposed to a double peril. The exiles had among them desperadoes who\ncould slay; and, besides exciting the enmity of the Anglican clergy\nabout the king, who bitterly resented the secularist spirit of his book,\nhe had compromised himself with the French authorities by his elaborate\nattack on the papal system. In the circumstances, no resource was left\nhim but secret flight. Travelling with what speed he could in the depths\nof a severe winter and under the effects of a recent (second) illness,\nhe managed to reach London, where, sending in his submission to the\ncouncil of state, he was allowed to subside into private life.\n\n\n Return to London.\n\n Controversy with Bramhall.\n\nThough Hobbes came back, after his eleven years' absence, without having\nas yet publicly proved his title to rank with the natural philosophers\nof the age, he was sufficiently conscious of what he had been able to\nachieve in _Leviathan_; and it was in no humble mood that he now, at\nthe age of sixty-four, turned to complete the fundamental treatise of\nhis philosophical system. Neither those whom his masterpiece soon roused\nto enthusiasm, nor those whom it moved to indignation, were likely to be\nindifferent to anything he should now write, whether it lay near to or\nfar from the region of practice. Taking up his abode in Fetter Lane,\nLondon, on his return, and continuing to reside there for the sake of\nintellectual society, even after renewing his old ties with the earl of\nDevonshire, who lived in the country till the Restoration,[11] he worked\nso steadily as to be printing the _De corpore_ in the year 1654.\nCircumstances (of which more presently), however, kept the book back\ntill the following year, and meanwhile the readers of _Leviathan_ had a\ndifferent excitement. In 1654 a small treatise, \"Of Liberty and\nNecessity\" (_E.W._ iv. 229-278), issued from the press, claiming to be\nan answer to a discourse on the same subject by Bishop Bramhall of\nLondonderry (afterwards archbishop of Armagh, d. 1663), addressed by\nHobbes to the marquis of Newcastle.[12] It had grown out of an oral\ndiscussion between Hobbes and Bramhall in the marquis's presence at\nParis in 1646. Bramhall, a strong Arminian, had afterwards written down\nhis views and sent them to Newcastle to be answered in this form by\nHobbes. Hobbes duly replied, but not for publication, because he thought\nthe subject a delicate one. But it happened that Hobbes had allowed a\nFrench acquaintance to have a private translation of his reply made by a\nyoung Englishman, who secretly took a copy of the original for himself;\nand now it was this unnamed purloiner who, in 1654, when Hobbes had\nbecome famous and feared, gave it to the world of his own motion, with\nan extravagantly laudatory epistle to the reader in its front. Upon\nHobbes himself the publication came as a surprise, but, after his plain\nspeaking in _Leviathan_, there was nothing in the piece that he need\nscruple to have made known, and he seems to have condoned the act. On\nthe other hand, Bramhall, supposing Hobbes privy to the publication,\nresented the manner of it, especially as no mention was made of his\nrejoinder. Accordingly, in 1655, he printed everything that had passed\nbetween them (under the title of _A Defence of the True Liberty of Human\nActions from Antecedent or Extrinsic Necessity_), with loud complaint\nagainst the treatment he had received, and the promise added that, in\ndefault of others, he himself would stand forward to expose the deadly\nprinciples of _Leviathan_. About this time Hobbes had begun to be hard\npressed by other foes, and, being never more sure of himself than upon\nthe question of the will, he appears to have welcomed the opportunity\nthus given him of showing his strength. By 1656 he was ready with his\n_Questions concerning Liberty, Necessity and Chance_ (_E.W._ v.), in\nwhich he replied with astonishing force to the bishop's rejoinder point\nby point, besides explaining the occasion and circumstances of the whole\ndebate, and reproducing (as Bramhall had done) all the pieces from the\nbeginning. As perhaps the first clear exposition and defence of the\n_psychological_ doctrine of determinism, Hobbes's own two pieces must\never retain a classical importance in the history of the free-will\ncontroversy; while Bramhall's are still worth study as specimens of\nscholastic fence. The bishop, it should be added, returned to the charge\nin 1658 with ponderous _Castigations of Mr Hobbes's Animadversions_, and\nalso made good his previous threat in a bulky appendix entitled _The\nCatching of Leviathan the Great Whale_. Hobbes never took any notice of\nthe _Castigations_, but ten years later replied to the charges of\natheism, &c., made in the non-political part of the appendix, of which\nhe says he then heard for the first time (_E.W._ iv. 279-384). This\n_Answer_ was first published after Hobbes's death.[13]\n\n\n Controversy with Wallis and Ward.\n\n We may now follow out the more troublesome conflict, or rather series\n of conflicts, in which Hobbes became entangled from the time of\n publishing his _De corpore_ in 1655, and which checkered all his\n remaining years. In _Leviathan_ he had vehemently assailed the system\n of the universities, as originally founded for the support of the\n papal against the civil authority, and as still working social\n mischief by adherence to the old learning. The attack was duly noted\n at Oxford, where under the Commonwealth a new spirit of scientific\n activity had begun to stir. In 1654 Seth Ward (1617-1689), the\n Savilian professor of astronomy, replying in his _Vindiciae\n academiarum_ to some other assaults (especially against John Webster's\n _Examen of Academies_) on the academic system, retorted upon Hobbes\n that, so far from the universities being now what he had known them in\n his youth, he would find his geometrical pieces, when they appeared,\n better understood there than he should like. This was said in\n reference to the boasts in which Hobbes seems to have been freely\n indulging of having squared the circle and accomplished other such\n feats; and, when a year later the _De corpore_ (_L.W._ i.) finally\n appeared, it was seen how the thrust had gone home. In the chapter\n (xx.) of that work where Hobbes dealt with the famous problem whose\n solution he thought he had found, there were left expressions against\n Vindex (Ward) at a time when the solutions still seemed to him good;\n but the solutions themselves, as printed, were allowed to be all in\n different ways halting, as he naively confessed he had discovered only\n when he had been driven by the insults of malevolent men to examine\n them more closely with the help of his friends. A strange conclusion\n this, and reached by a path not less strange, as was now to be\n disclosed by a relentless hand. Ward's colleague, the more famous John\n Wallis (q.v.), Savilian professor of geometry from 1649, had been\n privy to the challenge thrown out in 1654, and it was arranged that\n they should critically dispose of the _De corpore_ between them. Ward\n was to occupy himself with the philosophical and physical sections,\n which he did in leisurely fashion, bringing out his criticism in the\n course of next year (_In Th. Hobbii philosophiam exercitatio\n epistolica_). Wallis was to confine himself to the mathematical\n chapters, and set to work at once with characteristic energy.\n Obtaining an unbound copy of the _De corpore_, he saw by the mutilated\n appearance of the sheets that Hobbes had repeatedly altered his\n demonstrations before he issued them at last in their actual form,\n grotesque as it was, rather than delay the book longer. Obtaining also\n a copy of the work as it had been printed before Hobbes had any doubt\n of the validity of his solutions, Wallis was able to track his whole\n course from the time of Ward's provocation--his passage from\n exultation to doubt, from doubt to confessed impotence, yet still\n without abandoning the old assumption of confident strength; and all\n his turnings and windings were now laid bare in one of the most\n trenchant pieces of controversial writing ever penned. Wallis's\n _Elenchus geometriae Hobbianae_, published in 1655 about three months\n after the _De corpore_, contained also an elaborate criticism of\n Hobbes's whole attempt to relay the foundations of mathematical\n science in its place within the general body of reasoned knowledge--a\n criticism which, if it failed to allow for the merit of the\n conception, exposed only too effectually the utter inadequacy of the\n result. Taking up mathematics when not only his mind was already\n formed but his thoughts were crystallizing into a philosophical\n system, Hobbes had, in fact, never put himself to school and sought to\n work up gradually to the best knowledge of the time, but had been more\n anxious from the first to become himself an innovator with whatever\n insufficient means. The consequence was that, when not spending\n himself in vain attempts to solve the impossible problems that have\n always waylaid the fancy of self-sufficient beginners, he took an\n interest only in the elements of geometry, and never had any notion of\n the full scope of mathematical science, undergoing as it then was (and\n not least at the hands of Wallis) the extraordinary development which\n made it before the end of the century the potent instrument of\n physical discovery which it became in the hands of Newton. He was even\n unable, in dealing with the elementary conceptions of geometry, to\n work out with any consistency the few original thoughts he had, and\n thus became the easy sport of Wallis. At his advanced age, however,\n and with the sense he had of his powers, he was not likely to be\n brought to a better mind by so insulting an opponent. He did indeed,\n before allowing an English translation of the _De corpore_ (_E.W._\n i.) to appear in 1656, take care to remove some of the worst mistakes\n exposed by Wallis, and, while leaving out all the references to\n Vindex, now profess to make, in altered form, a series of mere\n \"attempts\" at quadrature; but he was far from yielding the ground to\n the enemy. With the translation,[14] in the spring of 1656, he had\n ready _Six Lessons to the Professors of Mathematics, one of Geometry,\n the other of Astronomy, in the University of Oxford_ (_E.W._ vii.\n 181-356), in which, after reasserting his view of the principles of\n geometry in opposition to Euclid's, he proceeded to repel Wallis's\n objections with no lack of dialectical skill, and with an unreserve\n equal to Wallis's own. He did not scruple, in the ardour of conflict,\n even to maintain positions that he had resigned in the translation,\n and he was not afraid to assume the offensive by a counter criticism\n of three of Wallis's works then published. When he had thus disposed\n of the \"Paralogisms\" of his more formidable antagonist in the first\n five lessons, he ended with a lesson on \"Manners\" to the two\n professors together, and set himself gravely at the close to show that\n he too could be abusive. In this particular part of his task, it must\n be allowed, he succeeded very well; his criticism of Wallis's works,\n especially the great treatise _Arithmetica infinitorum_ (1655), only\n showed how little able he was to enter into the meaning of the modern\n analysis. Wallis, on his side, was not less ready to keep up the game\n in English than he had been to begin it in Latin. Swift as before to\n strike, in three months' time he had deftly turned his own word\n against the would-be master by administering _Due Correction for Mr\n Hobbes, or School Discipline for not saying his Lessons right_, in a\n piece that differed from the _Elenchus_ only in being more biting and\n unrestrained. Having an easy task in defending himself against\n Hobbes's trivial criticism, he seized the opportunity given him by the\n English translation of the _De corpore_ to track Hobbes again step by\n step over the whole course, and now to confront him with his\n incredible inconsistencies multiplied by every new utterance. But it\n was no longer a fight over mathematical questions only. Wallis having\n been betrayed originally by his fatal cleverness into the pettiest\n carping at words, Hobbes had retorted in kind, and then it became a\n high duty in the other to defend his Latin with great parade of\n learning and give fresh provocation. One of Wallis's rough sallies in\n this kind suggested to Hobbes the title of the next rejoinder with\n which, in 1657, he sought to close the unseemly wrangle. Arguing in\n the _Lessons_ that a mathematical point must have quantity, though\n this were not reckoned, he had explained the Greek word [Greek:\n stigme], used for a point, to mean a visible mark made with a hot\n iron; whereupon he was charged by Wallis with gross ignorance for\n confounding [Greek: stigme] and [Greek: stigma]. Hence the title of\n his new piece: [Greek: Stigmai ageometrias, agroikias, antipoliteias,\n amatheias], or _Marks of the Absurd Geometry, Rural Language, Scottish\n Church Politics, and Barbarisms of John Wallis, Professor of Geometry\n and Doctor of Divinity_ (_E.W._ vii. 357-400). He now attacked more in\n detail but not more happily than before Wallis's great work, while\n hardly attempting any further defence of his own positions; also he\n repelled with some force and dignity the insults that had been heaped\n upon him, and fought the verbal points, but could not leave the field\n without making political insinuations against his adversary, quite\n irrelevant in themselves and only noteworthy as evidence of his own\n resignation to Cromwell's rule. The thrusts were easily and nimbly\n parried by Wallis in a reply (_Hobbiani puncti dispunctio_, 1657)\n occupied mainly with the verbal questions. Irritating as it was, it\n did not avail to shake Hobbes's determination to remain silent; and\n thus at last there was peace for a time.\n\n Before the strife flamed up again, Hobbes had published, in 1658, the\n outstanding section of his philosophical system, and thus completed,\n after a fashion, the scheme he had planned more than twenty years\n before. So far as the treatise _De homine_ (_L.W._ ii. 11-32) was\n concerned, the completion was more in name than in fact. It consisted\n for the most part of an elaborate theory of vision which, though very\n creditable to Hobbes's scientific insight, was out of place, or at\n least out of proportion, in a philosophical consideration of human\n nature generally. The remainder of the treatise, dealing cursorily\n with some of the topics more fully treated in the _Human Nature_ and\n the _Leviathan_, has all the appearance of having been tagged in haste\n to the optical chapters (composed years before)[15] as a makeshift\n for the proper transition required in the system from questions of\n Body Natural to questions of Body Politic. Hobbes had in fact spent\n himself in his earlier constructive efforts, and at the age of\n seventy, having nothing to add to his doctrine of Man as it was\n already in one form or another before the world, was content with\n anything that might stand for the fulfilment of his philosophical\n purpose. But he had still in him more than twenty years of vigorous\n vitality, and, not conscious to himself of any shortcoming, looked\n forward, now his hands were free, to doing battle for his doctrines.\n Rather than remain quiet, on finding no notice taken of his latest\n production, he would himself force on a new conflict with the enemy.\n Wallis having meanwhile published other works and especially a\n comprehensive treatise on the general principles of calculus\n (_Mathesis universalis_, 1657), he might take this occasion of\n exposing afresh the new-fangled methods of mathematical analysis and\n reasserting his own earlier positions. Accordingly, by the spring of\n 1660, he had managed to put his criticism and assertions into five\n dialogues under the title _Examinatio et emendatio mathematicae\n hodiernae qualis explicatur in libris Johannis Wallisii_, with a sixth\n dialogue so called, consisting almost entirely of seventy or more\n propositions on the circle and cycloid.[16] Wallis, however, would not\n take the bait. Hobbes then tried another tack. Next year, having\n solved, as he thought, another ancient _crux_, the duplication of the\n cube, he had his solution brought out anonymously at Paris in French,\n so as to put Wallis and other critics off the scent and extort a\n judgment that might be withheld from a work of his. The artifice was\n successful, and no sooner had Wallis publicly refuted the solution\n than Hobbes claimed the credit of it, and went more wonderfully than\n ever astray in its defence. He presently republished it (in modified\n form), with his remarks, at the end of a new Latin dialogue which he\n had meanwhile written in defence of another part of his philosophical\n doctrine. This was the _Dialogus physicus, sive De natura aeris_\n (_L.W._ iv. 233-296), fulminated in 1661 against Boyle and other\n friends of Wallis who, as he fancied, under the influence of that\n malevolent spirit, were now in London, after the Restoration, forming\n themselves into a society (incorporated as the Royal Society in 1662)\n for experimental research, to the exclusion of himself personally, and\n in direct contravention of the method of physical inquiry enjoined in\n the _De corpore_.[17] All the laborious manipulation recorded in\n Boyle's _New Experiments touching the Spring of the Air_ (1660), which\n Hobbes chose, without the least warrant, to take as the manifesto of\n the new \"academicians,\" seemed to him only to confirm the conclusions\n he had reasoned out years before from speculative principles, and he\n warned them that if they were not content to begin where he had left\n off their work would come to nought. To as much of this diatribe as\n concerned himself Boyle quickly replied with force and dignity, but it\n was from Hobbes's old enemy that retribution came, in the scathing\n satire _Hobbius heauton-timorumenos_ (1662). Wallis, who had deftly\n steered his course amid all the political changes of the previous\n years, managing ever to be on the side of the ruling power, was now\n apparently stung to fury by a wanton allusion in Hobbes's latest\n dialogue to a passage of his former life (his deciphering for the\n parliament the king's papers taken at Naseby), whereof he had once\n boasted but after the Restoration could not speak or hear too little.\n The revenge he took was crushing. Professing to be roused by the\n attack on his friend Boyle, when he had scorned to lift a finger in\n defence of himself against the earlier dialogues, he tore them all to\n shreds with an art of which no general description can give an idea.\n He got, however, upon more dangerous ground when, passing wholly by\n the political insinuation against himself, he roundly charged Hobbes\n with having written _Leviathan_ in support of Oliver's title, and\n deserted his royal master in distress. Hobbes seems to have been\n fairly bewildered by the rush and whirl of sarcasm with which Wallis\n drove him anew from every mathematical position he had ever taken up,\n and did not venture forth into the field of scientific controversy\n again for some years, when he had once followed up the physical\n dialogue of 1661 by seven shorter ones, with the inevitable appendix,\n entitled _Problemata physica, una cum magnitudine circuli_ (_L.W._ iv.\n 297-384), in 1662.[18] But all the more eagerly did he take advantage\n of Wallis's loose calumny to strike where he felt himself safe. His\n answer to the personal charges took the form of a letter about himself\n in the third person addressed to Wallis in 1662, under the title of\n _Considerations upon the Reputation, Loyalty, Manners and Religion of\n Thomas Hobbes_ (_E.W._ iv. 409-440). In this piece, which is of great\n biographical value, he told his own and Wallis's \"little stories\n during the time of the late rebellion\" with such effect that Wallis,\n like a wise man, attempted no further reply. Thus ended the second\n bout.\n\n After a time Hobbes took heart again and began a third period of\n controversial activity, which did not end, on his side, till his\n ninetieth year. Little need be added to the simple catalogue of the\n untiring old man's labours in this last stage of his life. The first\n piece, published in 1666, _De principiis et ratiocinatione\n geometrarum_ (_L.W._ iv. 385-484), was designed, as the sub-title\n declared, to lower the pride of geometrical professors by showing that\n there was no less uncertainty and error in their works than in those\n of physical or ethical writers. Wallis replied shortly in the\n _Philosophical Transactions_ (August 1666). Three years later he\n brought his three great achievements together in compendious form,\n _Quadratura circuli, Cubatio sphaerae, Duplicatio cubi_, and as soon\n as they were once more refuted by Wallis, reprinted them with an\n answer to the objections, in compliment to the grand-duke of Tuscany,\n who paid him attentions on a visit to England in 1669 (_L.W._ iv.\n 485-522). Wallis, who had promised to leave him alone henceforward,\n refuted him again before the year was out. In 1671 he worked up his\n propositions over again in _Rosetum geometricum_ (_L.W._ v. 1-50), as\n a fragrant offering to the geometrical reader, appending a criticism\n (_Censura brevis_, pp. 50-88) on the first part of Wallis's treatise\n _De motu_, published in 1669; also he sent _Three Papers_ to the Royal\n Society on selected points treated very briefly, and when Wallis,\n still not weary of confuting, shortly replied, published them\n separately with triumphant _Considerations on Dr Wallis's Answer to\n them_ (_E.W._ vii. 429-448). Next year (1672), having now, as he\n believed, established himself with the Royal Society, he proceeded to\n complete the discomfiture of Wallis by a public address to the Society\n on all the points at issue between them from the beginning, _Lux\n Mathematica excussa collisionibus Johannis Wallisii et Thomae\n Hobbesii_ (_L.W._ v. 89-150), the light, as the author R. R. (Roseti\n Repertor) added, being here \"increased by many very brilliant rays.\"\n Wallis replied in the _Transactions_, and then finally held his hand.\n Hobbes's energy was not yet exhausted. In 1674, at the age of\n eighty-six, he published his _Principia et problemata aliquot\n geometrica, ante desperata nunc breviter explicata et demonstrata_\n (_L.W._ v. 150-214), containing in the chapters dealing with questions\n of principle not a few striking observations, which ought not to be\n overlooked in the study of his philosophy. His last piece of all,\n _Decameron physiologicum_ (_E.W._ vii. 69-180), in 1678, was a new set\n of dialogues on physical questions, most of which he had treated in a\n similar fashion before; but now, in dealing with gravitation, he was\n able to fire a parting shot at Wallis; and one more demonstration of\n the equality of a straight line to the arc of a circle, thrown in at\n the end, appropriately closed the strangest warfare in which perverse\n thinker ever engaged.[19]\n\n\n Later Years.\n\nWe must now turn back to trace the fortunes of Hobbes and his other\ndoings in the last twenty years of his life. All these controversial\nwritings on mathematics and physics represent but one half of his\nactivity after the age of seventy; though, as regards the other half, it\nis not possible, for a reason that will be seen, to say as definitely in\nwhat order the works belonging to the period were produced. From the\ntime of the Restoration he acquired a new prominence in the public eye.\nNo year had passed since the appearance of _Leviathan_ without some\nindignant protest against the influence which its trenchant doctrine was\ncalculated to produce upon minds longing above everything for civil\nrepose; but after the Restoration \"Hobbism\" became a fashionable creed,\nwhich it was the duty of every lover of true morality and religion to\ndenounce. Two or three days after Charles's arrival in London, Hobbes\ndrew in the street the notice of his former pupil, and was at once\nreceived into favour. The young king, if he had ever himself resented\nthe apparent disloyalty of the \"Conclusion\" of _Leviathan_, had not\nretained the feeling long, and could appreciate the principles of the\ngreat book when the application of them happened, as now, to be turned\nin his own favour. He had, besides, a relish for Hobbes's wit (as he\nused to say, \"Here comes the bear to be baited\"), and did not like the\nold man the less because his presence at court scandalized the bishops\nor the prim virtue of Chancellor Hyde. He even went the length of\nbestowing on Hobbes (but not always paying) a pension of L100, and had\nhis portrait hung up in the royal closet. These marks of favour,\nnaturally, did not lessen Hobbes's self-esteem, and perhaps they\nexplain, in his later writings, a certain slavishness toward the regal\nauthority, which is wholly absent from his rational demonstration of\nabsolutism in the earlier works. At all events Hobbes was satisfied with\nthe rule of a king who had appreciated the author of _Leviathan_, and\nprotected him when, after a time, protection in a very real sense became\nnecessary. His eagerness to defend himself against Wallis's imputation\nof disloyalty, and his apologetic dedication of the _Problemata physica_\nto the king, are evidence of the hostility with which he was being\npressed as early as 1662; but it was not till 1666 that he felt himself\nseriously in danger. In that year the Great Fire of London, following on\nthe Great Plague, roused the superstitious fears of the people, and the\nHouse of Commons embodied the general feeling in a bill against atheism\nand profaneness. On the 17th of October it was ordered that the\ncommittee to which the bill was referred \"should be empowered to receive\ninformation touching such books as tend to atheism, blasphemy and\nprofaneness, or against the essence and attributes of God, and in\nparticular the book published in the name of one White,[20] and the book\nof Mr Hobbes called the _Leviathan_, and to report the matter with their\nopinion to the House.\" Hobbes, then verging upon eighty, was terrified\nat the prospect of being treated as a heretic, and proceeded to burn\nsuch of his papers as he thought might compromise him. At the same time\nhe set himself, with a very characteristic determination, to inquire\ninto the actual state of the law of heresy. The results of his\ninvestigation were first announced in three short Dialogues added (in\nplace of the old \"Review and Conclusion,\" for which the day had passed)\nas an Appendix to his Latin translation of _Leviathan_ (_L.W._ iii.),\nincluded with the general collection of his works published at Amsterdam\nin 1668. In this appendix, as also in the posthumous tract, published in\n1680, _An Historical Narration concerning Heresy and the Punishment\nthereof_ (_E.W._ iv. 385-408), he aimed at showing that, since the High\nCourt of Commission had been put down, there remained no court of heresy\nat all to which he was amenable, and that even when it stood nothing was\nto be declared heresy but what was at variance with the Nicene Creed, as\nhe maintained the doctrine of _Leviathan_ was not.\n\nThe only consequence that came of the parliamentary scare was that\nHobbes could never afterwards get permission to print anything on\nsubjects relating to human conduct. The collected edition of his Latin\nworks (in two quarto volumes) appeared at Amsterdam in 1668, because he\ncould not obtain the censor's licence for its publication at London,\nOxford or Cambridge. Other writings which he had finished, or on which\nhe must have been engaged about this time, were not made public till\nafter his death--the king apparently having made it the price of his\nprotection that no fresh provocation should be offered to the popular\nsentiment. The most important of the works composed towards 1670, and\nthus kept back, is the extremely spirited dialogue to which he gave the\ntitle _Behemoth: the History of the Causes of the Civil Wars of England\nand of the Counsels and Artifices by which they were carried on from the\nyear 1640 to the year 1660_.[21] To the same period probably belongs the\nunfinished _Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common\nLaws of England_ (_E.W._ vi. 1-160), a trenchant criticism of the\nconstitutional theory of English government as upheld by Coke. Aubrey\ntakes credit for having tried to induce Hobbes to write upon the subject\nin 1664 by presenting him with a copy of Bacon's _Elements of the Laws\nof England_, and though the attempt was then unsuccessful, Hobbes later\non took to studying the statute-book, with _Coke upon Littleton_. One\nother posthumous production also (besides the tract on Heresy before\nmentioned) may be referred to this, if not, as Aubrey suggests, an\nearlier time--the two thousand and odd elegiac verses in which he gave\nhis view of ecclesiastical encroachment on the civil power; the quaint\nverses, disposed in his now favourite dialogue-form, were first\npublished, nine years after his death, under the title _Historia\necclesiastica_ (_L.W._ v. 341-408), with a preface by Thomas Rymer.\n\nFor some time Hobbes was not even allowed to utter a word of protest,\nwhatever might be the occasion that his enemies took to triumph over\nhim. In 1669 an unworthy follower--Daniel Scargil by name, a fellow of\nCorpus Christi College, Cambridge--had to recant publicly and confess\nthat his evil life had been the result of Hobbist doctrines. In 1674\nJohn Fell, the dean of Christ Church, who bore the charges of the Latin\ntranslation of Anthony Wood's _History and Antiquities of the University\nof Oxford_ (1670), struck out all the complimentary epithets in the\naccount of his life, and substituted very different ones; but this time\nthe king did suffer him to defend himself by publishing a dignified\nletter (_Vit. Auct._ pp. xlvii.-l.), to which Fell replied by adding to\nthe translation when it appeared a note full of the grossest insults.\nAnd, amid all his troubles, Hobbes was not without his consolations. No\nEnglishman of that day stood in the same repute abroad, and foreigners,\nnoble or learned, who came to England, never forgot to pay their\nrespects to the old man, whose vigour and freshness of intellect no\nprogress of the years seemed able to quench. Among these was the\ngrand-duke of Tuscany (Ferdinand II.), who took away some works and a\nportrait to adorn the Medicean library.\n\nHis pastimes in the latest years were as singular as his labours. The\nautobiography in Latin verse, with its playful humour, occasional pathos\nand sublime self-complacency, was thrown off at the age of eighty-four.\nAt eighty-five, in the year 1673, he sent forth a translation of four\nbooks of the _Odyssey_ (ix.-xii.) in rugged but not seldom happily\nturned English rhymes; and, when he found this _Voyage of Ulysses_\neagerly received, he had ready by 1675 a complete translation of both\n_Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ (_E.W._ x.), prefaced by a lively dissertation\n\"Concerning the Virtues of an Heroic Poem,\" showing his unabated\ninterest in questions of literary style. After 1675, he passed his time\nat his patron's seats in Derbyshire, occupied to the last with\nintellectual work in the early morning and in the afternoon hours, which\nit had long been his habit to devote to thinking and to writing. Even as\nlate as August 1679 he was promising his publisher \"somewhat to print in\nEnglish.\" The end came very soon afterwards. A suppression of urine in\nOctober, in spite of which he insisted upon being conveyed with the\nfamily from Chatsworth to Hardwick Hall towards the end of November, was\nfollowed by a paralytic stroke, under which he sank on the 4th of\nDecember, in his ninety-second year. He lies buried in the neighbouring\nchurch of Ault Hucknall.\n\n\n Personal characteristics.\n\nHe was tall and erect in figure, and lived on the whole a temperate\nlife, though he used to say that he had been drunk about a hundred\ntimes. His favourite exercise was tennis, which he played regularly even\nafter the age of seventy. Socially he was genial and courteous, though\nin argument he occasionally lost his temper. As a friend he was generous\nand loyal. Intellectually bold in the extreme, he was curiously timid in\nordinary life, and is said to have had a horror of ghosts. He read\nlittle, and often boasted that he would have known as little as other\nmen if he had read as much. He appears to have had an illegitimate\ndaughter for whom he made generous provision. In the National Portrait\nGallery there is a portrait of him by J. M. Wright, and two others are\nin the possession of the Royal Society.\n\n\n Place in English thought.\n\nAs already suggested, it cannot be allowed that Hobbes falls into any\nregular succession from Bacon; neither can it be said that he handed on\nthe torch to Locke. He was the one English thinker of the first rank in\nthe long period of two generations separating Locke from Bacon, but,\nsave in the chronological sense, there is no true relation of succession\namong the three. It would be difficult even to prove any ground of\naffinity among them beyond a desposition to take sense as a prime factor\nin the account of subjective experience: their common interest in\nphysical science was shared equally by rationalist thinkers of the\nCartesian school, and was indeed begotten of the time. Backwards,\nHobbes's relations are rather with Galileo and the other inquirers who,\nfrom the beginning of the 17th century, occupied themselves with the\nphysical world in the manner that has come later to be distinguished by\nthe name of science in opposition to philosophy. But even more than in\nexternal nature, Hobbes was interested in the phenomena of social life,\npresenting themselves so impressively in an age of political revolution.\nSo it came to pass that, while he was unable, by reason of imperfect\ntraining and too tardy development, with all his pains, to make any\ncontribution to physical science or to mathematics as instrumental in\nphysical research, he attempted a task which no other adherent of the\nnew \"mechanical philosophy\" conceived--nothing less than such a\nuniversal construction of human knowledge as would bring Society and Man\n(at once the matter and maker of Society) within the same principles of\nscientific explanation as were found applicable to the world of Nature.\nThe construction was, of course, utterly premature, even supposing it\nwere inherently possible; but it is Hobbes's distinction, in his\ncentury, to have conceived it, and he is thereby lifted from among the\nscientific workers with whom he associated to the rank of those\nphilosophical thinkers who have sought to order the whole domain of\nhuman knowledge. The effects of his philosophical endeavour may be\ntraced on a variety of lines. Upon every subject that came within the\nsweep of his system, except mathematics and physics, his thoughts have\nbeen productive of thought. When the first storm of opposition from\nsmaller men had begun to die down, thinkers of real weight, beginning\nwith Cumberland and Cudworth, were moved by their aversion to his\nanalysis of the moral nature of man to probe anew the question of the\nnatural springs and the rational grounds of human action; and thus it\nmay be said that Hobbes gave the first impulse to the whole of that\nmovement of ethical speculation that, in modern times, has been carried\non with such remarkable continuity in England. In politics the revulsion\nfrom his particular conclusions did not prevent the more clear-sighted\nof his opponents from recognizing the force of his supreme demonstration\nof the practical irresponsibility of the sovereign power, wherever\nseated, in the state; and, when in a later age the foundations of a\npositive theory of legislation were laid in England, the school of\nBentham--James Mill, Grote, Molesworth--brought again into general\nnotice the writings of the great publicist of the 17th century, who,\nhowever he might, by the force of temperament, himself prefer the rule\nof one, based his whole political system upon a rational regard to the\ncommon weal. Finally, the psychology of Hobbes, though too undeveloped\nto guide the thoughts or even perhaps arrest the attention of Locke,\nwhen essaying the scientific analysis of knowledge, came in course of\ntime (chiefly through James Mill) to be connected with the theory of\nassociationism developed from within the school of Locke, in different\nways, by Hartley and Hume; nor is it surprising that the later\nassociationists, finding their principle more distinctly formulated in\nthe earlier thinker, should sometimes have been betrayed into\naffiliating themselves to Hobbes rather than to Locke. For his ethical\ntheories see Ethics.\n\n Sufficient information is given in the _Vitae Hobbianae auctarium_\n (_L.W._ i. p. lxv. ff.) concerning the frequent early editions of\n Hobbes's separate works, and also concerning the works of those who\n wrote against him, to the end of the 17th century. In the 18th\n century, after Clarke's _Boyle Lectures_ of 1704-1705, the opposition\n was less express. In 1750 _The Moral and Political Works_ were\n collected, with life, &c., by Dr Campbell, in a folio edition,\n including in order, _Human Nature_, _De corpore politico_,\n _Leviathan_, _Answer to Bramhall's Catching of the Leviathan_,\n _Narration concerning Heresy_, _Of Liberty and Necessity_, _Behemoth_,\n _Dialogue of the Common Laws_, the Introduction to the _Thucydides_,\n _Letter to Davenant and two others_, the Preface to the _Homer_, _De\n mirabilibus Pecci_ (with English translation), _Considerations on the\n Reputation, &., of T. H._ In 1812 the _Human Nature_ and the _Liberty\n and Necessity_ (with supplementary extracts from the _Questions_ of\n 1656) were reprinted in a small edition of 250 copies, with a\n meritorious memoir (based on Campbell) and dedication to Horne Tooke,\n by Philip Mallet. Molesworth's edition (1839-1845), dedicated to\n Grote, has been referred to in a former note. Of translations may be\n mentioned _Les Elemens philosophiques du citoyen_ (1649) and _Le Corps\n politique_ (1652), both by S. de Sorbiere, conjoined with _Le Traite\n de la nature humaine_, by d'Holbach, in 1787, under the general title\n _Les Oeuvres philosophiques et politiques de Thomas Hobbes_; a\n translation of the first section, \"Computatio sive logica,\" of the _De\n corpore_, included by Destutt de Tracy with his _Elemens d'ideologie_\n (1804); a translation of _Leviathan_ into Dutch in 1678, and another\n (anonymous) into German--_Des Englanders Thomas Hobbes Leviathan oder\n der kirchliche und burgerliche Staat_ (Halle, 1794, 2 vols.); a\n translation of the _De cive_ by J. H. v. Kirchmann--_T. Hobbes:\n Abhandlung uber den Burger, &c._ (Leipzig, 1873). Important later\n editions are those of Ferdinand Tonnies, _Behemoth_ (1889), on which\n see Croom Robertson's _Philosophical Remains_ (1894), p. 451;\n _Elements of Law_ (1889).\n\n _Biographical and Critical Works._--There are three accounts of\n Hobbes's life, first published together in 1681, two years after his\n death, by R. B. (Richard Blackbourne, a friend of Hobbes's admirer,\n John Aubrey), and reprinted, with complimentary verses by Cowley and\n others, at the beginning of Sir W. Molesworth's collection of the\n _Latin Works_: (1) _T. H. Malmesb. vita_ (pp. xiii.-xxi.), written by\n Hobbes himself, or (as also reported) by T. Rymer, at his dictation;\n (2) _Vitae Hobbianae auctarium_ (pp. xxii.-lxxx.), turned into Latin\n from Aubrey's English; (3) _T. H. Malmesb. vita carmine expressa_ (pp.\n lxxxi.-xcix.), written by Hobbes at the age of eighty-four (first\n published by itself in 1680). The _Life of Mr T. H. of Malmesburie_,\n printed among the _Lives of Eminent Men_, in 1813, from Aubrey's\n papers in the Bodleian, &c. (vol. ii. pt. ii. pp. 593-637), contains\n some interesting particulars not found in the _Auctarium_. All that is\n of any importance for Hobbes's life is contained in G. Croom\n Robertson's _Hobbes_ (1886) in Blackwood's Philosophical Classics, and\n Sir Leslie Stephen's _Hobbes_ (1904) in the \"English Men of Letters\"\n series, both of which deal fully with his philosophy also. See also F.\n Tonnies, _Hobbes Leben und Lehre_ (1896), _Hobbes-Analekten_ (1904\n foll.); G. Zart, _Einfluss der englischen Philosophie seit Bacon auf\n die deutsche Philosophie des 18ten Jahrh._ (Berlin, 1881); G. Brandt,\n _Thomas Hobbes: Grundlinien seiner Philosophie_ (1895); G. Lyon, _La\n Philos. de Hobbes_ (1893); J. M. Robertson, _Pioneer Humanists_\n (1907); J. Rickaby, _Free Will and Four English Philosophers_ (1906),\n pp. 1-72; J. Watson, _Hedonistic Theories_ (1895); W. Graham, _English\n Political Philosophy from Hobbes to Maine_ (1899); W. J. H. Campion,\n _Outlines of Lectures on Political Science_ (1895). (G. C. R.; X.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [1] The translation, under the title _Eight Books of the\n Peloponnesian War, written by Thucydides the son of Olorus,\n interpreted with faith and diligence immediately out of the Greek by\n Thomas Hobbes, secretary to the late Earl of Devonshire_, appeared in\n 1628 (or 1629), after the death of the earl, to whom touching\n reference is made in the dedication. It reappeared in 1634, with the\n date of the dedication altered, as if then newly written. Though\n Hobbes claims to have performed his work \"with much more diligence\n than elegance,\" his version is remarkable as a piece of English\n writing, but is by no means accurate. It fills vols. viii. and ix. in\n Molesworth's collection (11 vols., including index vol.) of Hobbes's\n _English Works_ (London, Bohn, 1839-1845). The volumes of this\n collection will here be cited as E. W. Molesworth's collection of the\n Latin _Opera philosophica_ (5 vols., 1839-1845) will be cited as\n _L.W._ The five hundred and odd Latin hexameters under the title _De\n mirabilibus Pecci_ (_L.W._ v. 323-340), giving an account of a short\n excursion from Chatsworth to view the seven wonders of the Derbyshire\n Peak, were written before 1628 (in 1626 or 1627), though not\n published till 1636. It was a New Year's present to his patron, who\n gave him L5 in return. A later edition, in 1678, included an English\n version by another hand.\n\n [2] Hobbes, in minor works dealing with physical questions (L.W. iv.\n 316; _E.W._ vii. 112), makes two incidental references to Bacon's\n writings, but never mentions Bacon as he mentions Galileo, Kepler,\n Harvey, and others (_De corpore_, ep. ded.), among the lights of the\n century. The word \"Induction,\" which occurs in only three or four\n passages throughout all his works (and these again minor ones), is\n never used by him with the faintest reminiscence of the import\n assigned to it by Bacon; and, as will be seen, he had nothing but\n scorn for experimental work in physics.\n\n [3] The free English abstract of Aristotle's _Rhetoric_, published in\n 1681, after Hobbes's death, as _The Whole Art of Rhetoric_ (_E.W._\n vi. 423-510), corresponds with a Latin version dictated to his young\n pupil. Among Hobbes's papers preserved at Hardwick, where he died,\n there remains the boy's dictation-book, interspersed with headings,\n examples, &c. in Hobbes's hand.\n\n [4] Among the Hardwick papers there is preserved a MS. copy of the\n work, under the title _Elementes of Law Naturall and Politique_, with\n the dedication to the earl of Newcastle, written in Hobbes's own\n hand, and dated May 9, 1640. This dedication was prefixed to the\n first thirteen chapters of the work when printed by themselves, under\n the title _Human Nature_ in 1650.\n\n [5] The book, of which the copies are rare (one in Dr Williams's\n library in London and one in the Bodleian), was printed in quarto\n size (Paris, 1642), with a pictorial title-page (not afterwards\n reproduced) of scenes and figures illustrating its three divisions,\n \"Libertas,\" \"Imperium,\" \"Religio.\" The title _Elementorum\n philosophiae sectio tertia, De Cive_, expresses its relation to the\n unwritten sections, which also comes out in one or two\n back-references in the text.\n\n [6] _L.W._ ii. 133-134. In this first public edition (12mo), the\n title was changed to _Elementa philosophica de cive_, the references\n in the text to the previous sections being omitted. The date of the\n dedication to the young earl of Devonshire was altered from 1641 to\n 1646.\n\n [7] Described as \"nobilis Languedocianus\" in _Vit._; doubtless the\n same with the \"Dominus Verdusius, nobilis Aquitanus,\" to whom was\n dedicated the _Exam. et emend. math. hod._ (_L.W._ iv.) in 1660. Du\n Verdus was one of Hobbes's profoundest admirers and most frequent\n correspondents in later years; there are many of his letters among\n Hobbes's papers at Hardwick.\n\n [8] _The Human Nature_ corresponds with cc. i.-xiii. of the first\n part of the original treatise. The remaining six chapters of the part\n stand now as Part I. of the _De Corpore Politico_. Part II. of the\n _D.C.P._ corresponds with the original second part of the whole work.\n\n [9] At the beginning of this year he wrote and published in Paris a\n letter on the nature and conditions of poetry, chiefly epic, in\n answer to an appeal to his judgment made in the preface to Sir W.\n Davenant's heroic poem, _Gondibert_ (_E.W._ iv. 441-458). The letter\n is dated Jan. 10, 1650 (1650/1).\n\n [10] This presentation copy, so described by Clarendon (_Survey of\n the Leviathan_, 1676, p. 8), is doubtless the beautifully written and\n finely bound MS. now to be found in the British Museum (Egerton MSS.\n 1910).\n\n [11] During all the time he was abroad he had continued to receive\n from his patron a yearly pension of L80, and they remained in steady,\n correspondence. The earl, having sided with the king in 1642, was\n declared unfit to sit in the House of Peers, and though, by\n submission to Parliament, he recovered his estates when they were\n sequestered later on, he did not sit again till 1660. Among Hobbes's\n friends at this time are specially mentioned John Selden and William\n Harvey, who left him a legacy of L10. According to Aubrey, Selden\n left him an equal bequest, but this seems to be a mistake. Harvey\n (not Bacon) is the only Englishman he mentions in the dedicatory\n epistle prefixed to the _De corpore_, among the founders, before\n himself, of the new natural philosophy.\n\n [12] The treatise bore the date, \"Rouen, Aug. 20, 1652,\" but it\n should have been 1646, as afterwards explained by Hobbes himself\n (_E.W._ v. 25).\n\n [13] \"The _Vit. auct._ refers to 1676, a 'Letter to William duke of\n Newcastle on the Controversy about Liberty and Necessity, held with\n Benjamin Laney, bishop of Ely.' In that year there did appear a\n (confused) little tract written by Laney against Hobbes's concluding\n statement of his own 'Opinion' in the 'Liberty and Necessity' of 1654\n (1646), but I can find no trace of any further writing by Hobbes on\n the subject\" (G. Croom Robertson, _Hobbes_, p. 202).\n\n [14] This translation, _Concerning Body_, though not made by Hobbes,\n was revised by him; but it is far from accurate, and not seldom, at\n critical places (e.g. c. vi. S 2), quite misleading. Philosophical\n citations from the _De corpore_ should always be made in the original\n Latin. Molesworth reprints the Latin, not from the first edition of\n 1655, but from the modified edition of 1668--modified, in the\n mathematical chapters, in general (not exact) keeping with the\n English edition of 1656. The Vindex episode, referred to in the _Six\n Lessons_, becomes intelligible only by going beyond Molesworth to the\n original Latin edition of 1655.\n\n [15] They were composed originally, in a somewhat different and\n rather more extended form, as the second part of an English treatise\n on Optics, completed by the year 1646. Of this treatise, preserved in\n Harleian MSS. 3360, Molesworth otherwise prints the dedication to the\n marquis of Newcastle, and the concluding paragraphs (_E.W._ vii.\n 467-471).\n\n [16] _L.W._ iv. 1-232. The propositions on the circle, forty-six in\n number (shattered by Wallis in 1662), were omitted by Hobbes when he\n republished the _Dialogues_ in 1668, in the collected edition of his\n Latin works from which Molesworth reprints. In the part omitted, at\n p. 154 of the original edition, Hobbes refers to his first\n introduction to Euclid, in a way that confirms the story in Aubrey\n quoted in an earlier paragraph.\n\n [17] Remaining at Oxford, Wallis, in fact, took no active part in the\n constitution of the new society, but he had been, from 1645, one of\n the originators of an earlier association in London, thus continued\n or revived. This earlier society had been continued also at Oxford\n after the year 1649, when Wallis and others of its members received\n appointments there.\n\n [18] The _Problemata physica_ was at the same time put into English\n (with some changes and omission of part of the mathematical\n appendix), and presented to the king, to whom the work was dedicated\n in a remarkable letter apologizing for _Leviathan_. In its English\n form, as _Seven Philosophical Problems and Two Propositions of\n Geometry_ (_E.W._ vii. 1-68), the work was first published in 1682,\n after Hobbes's death.\n\n [19] Wallis's pieces were excluded from the collected edition of his\n works (1693-1697), and have become extremely rare.\n\n [20] The De medio animarum statu of Thomas White, a heterodox\n Catholic priest, who contested the natural immortality of the soul.\n White (who died 1676) and Hobbes were friends.\n\n [21] _E.W._ vi. 161-418. Though _Behemoth_ was kept back at the\n king's express desire, it saw the light, without Hobbes's leave, in\n 1679, before his death.\n\n\n\n\nHOBBY, a small horse, probably from early quotations, of Irish breed,\ntrained to an easy gait so that riding was not fatiguing. The common use\nof the word is for a favourite pursuit or occupation, with the idea\neither of excessive devotion or of absence of ulterior motive or of\nprofit, &c., outside the occupation itself. This use is probably not\nderived from the easy ambling gait of the Irish \"hobby,\" but from the\n\"hobby-horse,\" the mock horse of the old morris-dances, made of a\npainted wooden horse's head and tail, with a framework casing for an\nactor's body, his legs being covered by a cloth made to represent the\n\"housings\" of the medieval tilting-horse. A hobby or hobby-horse is thus\na toy, a diversion. The O. Fr. _hobin_, or _hobi_, Mod. _aubin_, and\nItal. _ubina_ are probably adaptations of the English, according to the\n_New English Dictionary_. The O. Fr. hober, to move, which is often\ntaken to be the origin of all these words, is the source of a use of\n\"hobby\" for a small kind of falcon, _falco subbuteo_, used in hawking.\n\n\n\n\nHOBHOUSE, ARTHUR HOBHOUSE, 1ST BARON (1819-1904), English judge, fourth\nson of Henry Hobhouse, permanent under-secretary of state in the Home\nOffice, was born at Hadspen, Somerset, on the 10th of November 1819.\nEducated at Eton and Balliol, he was called to the bar at Lincoln's Inn\nin 1845, and rapidly acquired a large practice as a conveyancer and\nequity draftsman; he became Q.C. in 1862, and practised in the Rolls\nCourt, retiring in 1866. He was an active member of the charity\ncommission and urged the appropriation of pious bequests to educational\nand other purposes. In 1872 he began a five years' term of service as\nlegal member of the council of the governor-general of India, his\nservices being acknowledged by a K.C.S.I.; and in 1881 he was appointed\na member of the judicial committee of the privy council, on which he\nserved for twenty years. He was made a peer in 1885, and consistently\nsupported the Liberal party in the House of Lords. He died on the 6th of\nDecember 1904, leaving no heir to the barony.\n\n His papers read before the Social Science Association on the subject\n of property were collected in 1880 under the title of _The Dead Hand_.\n\n\n\n\nHOBOKEN, a small town of Belgium on the right bank of the Scheldt about\n4 m. above Antwerp. It is only important on account of the shipbuilding\nyard which the Cockerill firm of Seraing has established at Hoboken.\nMany wealthy Antwerp merchants have villas here, and it is the\nheadquarters of several of the leading rowing clubs on the Scheldt. Pop.\n(1904) 12,816.\n\n\n\n\nHOBOKEN, a city of Hudson county, New Jersey, U.S.A., on the Hudson\nriver, adjoining Jersey City on the S. and W. and opposite New York\ncity, with which it is connected by ferries and by two subway lines\nthrough tunnels under the river. Pop. (1890) 43,648; (1900) 59,364, of\nwhom 21,380 were foreign-born, 10,843 being natives of Germany; (1910\ncensus) 70,324. Of the total population in 1900, 48,349 had either one\nor both parents foreign-born, German being the principal racial element.\nThe city is served by the West Shore, and the Delaware, Lackawanna &\nWestern railways, being the eastern terminus of the latter, and is\nconnected by electric railway with the neighbouring cities of\nnorth-eastern New Jersey. In Hoboken are the piers of the North German\nLloyd, the Hamburg American, the Netherlands American, the Scandinavian\nand the Phoenix steamship lines. Hoboken occupies a little more than 1\nsq. m. and lies near the foot of the New Jersey Palisades, which rise\nboth on the W. and N. to a height of nearly 200 ft. Much of its surface\nhas had to be filled in to raise it above high tide, but Castle Point,\nin the N.E., rises from the generally low level about 100 ft. On this\nPoint are the residence and private estate of the founder of the city,\nJohn Stevens (1749-1838), Hudson Park, and facing it the Stevens\nInstitute of Technology, an excellent school of mechanical engineering\nendowed by Edwin A. Stevens (1795-1868), son of John Stevens, opened in\n1871, and having in 1909-1910 34 instructors and 390 students. The\ninstitute owes much to its first president, Henry Morton (1836-1902), a\ndistinguished scientist, whose aim was \"to offer a course of instruction\nin which theory and practice were carefully balanced and thoroughly\ncombined,\" and who gave to the institute sums aggregating $175,000 (see\n_Morton Memorial, History of Stevens Institute_, ed. by Furman, 1905).\nIn connexion with the institute there is a preparatory department, the\nStevens School (1870). The city maintains a teachers' training school.\nAmong the city's prominent buildings are the Delaware, Lackawanna &\nWestern station, the Hoboken Academy (1860), founded by German\nAmericans, and the public library. The city has an extensive coal trade\nand numerous manufactures, among which are lead pencils, leather goods,\nsilk goods, wall-paper and caskets. The value of the manufactured\nproduct increased from $7,151,391 in 1890 to $12,092,872 in 1900, or\n69.1%. The factory product in 1905 was valued at $14,077,305, an\nincrease of 34.3% over that for 1900. The site of Hoboken (originally\n\"Hobocanhackingh,\" the place of the tobacco pipe) was occupied about\n1640 as a Dutch farm, but in 1643 the stock and all the buildings except\na brew-house were destroyed by the Indians. In 1711 title to the place\nwas acquired by Samuel Bayard, a New York merchant, who built on Castle\nPoint his summer residence. During the War of Independence his\ndescendant, William Bayard, was a loyalist, and his home was burned and\nhis estate confiscated. In 1784 the property was purchased by John\nStevens, the inventor, who in 1804 laid it out as a town. For the next\nthirty-five years its \"Elysian Fields\" were a famous pleasure resort of\nNew York City. Hoboken was incorporated as a town in 1849 and as a city\nin 1855. On the 30th of June 1900 the wharves of the North German Lloyd\nSteamship Company and three of its ocean liners were almost completely\ndestroyed by a fire, which caused a loss of more than 200 lives and over\n$5,000,000.\n\n\n\n\nHOBSON'S CHOICE, i.e. \"this or nothing,\" an expression that arose from\nthe fact that the Cambridge-London carrier, Thomas Hobson (1544-1630),\nrefused, when letting his horses on hire, to allow any animal to leave\nthe stable out of its turn. Among other bequests made by Hobson, and\ncommemorated by Milton, was a conduit for the Cambridge market-place,\nfor which he provided the perpetual maintenance. See _Spectator_, No.\n509 (14th of October 1712).\n\n\n\n\nHOBY, SIR THOMAS (1530-1566), English diplomatist and translator, son of\nWilliam Hoby of Leominster, was born in 1530. He entered St John's\nCollege, Cambridge, in 1545, but in 1547 he went to Strassburg, where he\nwas the guest of Martin Bucer, whose _Gratulation ... unto the Church of\nEnglande for the restitution of Christes Religion_ he translated into\nEnglish. He then proceeded to Italy, visiting Padua and Venice, Florence\nand Siena, and in May 1550 he had settled at Rome, when he was summoned\nby his half-brother, Sir Philip Hoby (1505-1558), then ambassador at the\nemperor's court, to Augsburg. The brothers returned to England at the\nend of the year, and Thomas attached himself to the service of the\nmarquis of Northampton, whom he accompanied to France on an embassy to\narrange a marriage between Edward VI. and the princess Elizabeth.\nShortly after he returned to England he started once more for Paris, and\nin 1552 he was engaged on his translation of _The Courtyer of Count\nBaldessar Castilio_. His work was probably completed in 1554, and the\nfreedom of the allusions to the Roman church probably accounts for the\nfact that it was withheld from publication until 1561. The _Cortegiano_\nof Baldassare Castiglione, which Dr Johnson called \"the best book that\never was written upon good breeding,\" is a book as entirely typical of\nthe Italian Renaissance as Machiavelli's _Prince_ in another direction.\nIt exercised an immense influence on the standards of chivalry\nthroughout Europe, and was long the recognized authority for the\neducation of a nobleman. The accession of Mary made it desirable for the\nHobys to remain abroad, and they were in Italy until the end of 1555.\nThomas Hoby married in 1558 Elizabeth, the learned daughter of Sir\nAnthony Cook, who wrote a Latin epitaph on her husband. He was knighted\nin 1566 by Elizabeth, and was sent to France as English ambassador. He\ndied on the 13th of July in the same year in Paris, and was buried in\nBisham Church.\n\nHis son, SIR EDWARD HOBY (1560-1617), enjoyed Elizabeth's favour, and he\nwas employed on various confidential missions. He was constable of\nQueenborough Castle, Kent, where he died on the 1st of March 1617. He\ntook part in the religious controversies of the time, publishing many\npamphlets against Theophilus Higgons and John Fludd or Floyd. He\ntranslated, from the French of Mathieu Coignet, _Politique Discourses on\nTrueth and Lying_ (1586).\n\n The authority for Thomas Hoby's biography is a MS. \"Booke of the\n Travaile and lief of me Thomas Hoby, with diverse things worth the\n noting.\" This was edited for the Royal Historical Society by Edgar\n Powell in 1902. Hoby's translation of _The Courtyer_ was edited (1900)\n by Professor Walter Raleigh for the \"Tudor Translations\" series.\n\n\n\n\nHOCHE, LAZARE (1768-1797), French general, was born of poor parents near\nVersailles on the 24th of June 1768. At sixteen years of age he enlisted\nas a private soldier in the _Gardes francaises_. He spent his entire\nleisure in earning extra pay by civil work, his object being to provide\nhimself with books, and this love of study, which was combined with a\nstrong sense of duty and personal courage, soon led to his promotion.\nWhen the _Gardes francaises_ were broken up in 1789 he was a corporal,\nand thereafter he served in various line regiments up to the time of his\nreceiving a commission in 1792. In the defence of Thionville in that\nyear Hoche earned further promotion, and he served with credit in the\noperations of 1792-1793 on the northern frontier of France. At the\nbattle of Neerwinden he was aide-de-camp to General le Veneur, and when\nDumouriez deserted to the Austrians, Hoche, along with le Veneur and\nothers, fell under suspicion of treason; but after being kept under\narrest and unemployed for some months he took part in the defence of\nDunkirk, and in the same year (1793) he was promoted successively _chef\nde brigade_, general of brigade, and general of division. In October\n1793 he was provisionally appointed to command the Army of the Moselle,\nand within a few weeks he was in the field at the head of his army in\nLorraine. His first battle was that of Kaiserslautern (28th-30th of\nNovember) against Prussians. The French were defeated, but even in the\nmidst of the Terror the Committee of Public Safety continued Hoche in\nhis command. Pertinacity and fiery energy in their eyes outweighed\neverything else, and Hoche soon showed that he possessed these\nqualities. On the 22nd of December he stormed the lines of Froschweiler,\nand the representatives of the Convention with his army at once added\nthe Army of the Rhine to his sphere of command. On the 26th of December\nthe French carried by assault the famous lines of Weissenburg, and\nHoche pursued his success, sweeping the enemy before him to the middle\nRhine in four days. He then put his troops into winter quarters. Before\nthe following campaign opened, he married Anne Adelaide Dechaux at\nThionville (March 11th, 1794). But ten days later he was suddenly\narrested, charges of treason having been preferred by Pichegru, the\ndisplaced commander of the Army of the Rhine, and by his friends. Hoche\nescaped execution, however, though imprisoned in Paris until the fall of\nRobespierre. Shortly after his release he was appointed to command\nagainst the Vendeans (21st of August 1794). He completed the work of his\npredecessors in a few months by the peace of Jaunaye (15th of February\n1795), but soon afterwards the war was renewed by the Royalists. Hoche\nshowed himself equal to the crisis and inflicted a crushing blow on the\nRoyalist cause by defeating and capturing de Sombreuil's expedition at\nQuiberon and Penthievre (16th-21st of July 1795). Thereafter, by means\nof mobile columns (which he kept under good discipline) he succeeded\nbefore the summer of 1796 in pacifying the whole of the west, which had\nfor more than three years been the scene of a pitiless civil war. After\nthis he was appointed to organize and command the troops destined for\nthe invasion of Ireland, and he started on this enterprise in December\n1796. A tempest, however, separated Hoche from the expedition, and after\nvarious adventures the whole fleet returned to Brest without having\neffected its purpose. Hoche was at once transferred to the Rhine\nfrontier, where he defeated the Austrians at Neuwied (April), though\noperations were soon afterwards brought to an end by the Preliminaries\nof Leoben. Later in 1797 he was minister of war for a short period, but\nin this position he was surrounded by obscure political intrigues, and,\nfinding himself the dupe of Barras and technically guilty of violating\nthe constitution, he quickly laid down his office, returning to his\ncommand on the Rhine frontier. But his health grew rapidly worse, and he\ndied at Wetzlar on the 19th of September 1797 of consumption. The belief\nwas widely spread that he had been poisoned, but the suspicion seems to\nhave been without foundation. He was buried by the side of his friend\nMarceau in a fort on the Rhine, amidst the mourning not only of his army\nbut of all France.\n\n See Privat, _Notions historiques sur la vie morale, politique et\n militaire du general Hoche_ (Strassburg, 1798); Daunou, _Eloge du\n general Hoche_ (1798), delivered on behalf of the Institut at Hoche's\n funeral; Rousselin, _Vie de Lazare Hoche, general des armees de la\n republique francaise_ (Paris, 1798; this work was printed at the\n public expense and distributed to the schools); Dubroca, _Eloge\n funebre du general Hoche_ (Paris, 1800); _Vie et pensees du general\n Hoche_ (Bern); Champrobert, _Notice historique sur Lazare Hoche, le\n pacificateur de la Vendee_ (Paris, 1840); Dourille, _Histoire de\n Lazare Hoche_ (Paris, 1844); Desprez, _Lazare Hoche d'apres sa\n correspondance_ (Paris, 1858; new ed., 1880); Bergounioux, _Essai sur\n la vie de Lazare Hoche_ (1852); E. de Bonnechose, _Lazare Hoche_\n (1867); H. Martin, _Hoche et Bonaparte_ (1875); Dutemple, _Vie\n politique et militaire du general Hoche_ (1879); Escaude, _Hoche en\n Irlande_ (1888); Cuneo d'Ornano, _Hoche_ (1892); A. Chuquet, _Hoche et\n la lutte pour l'Alsace_ (a volume of this author's series on the\n campaigns of the Revolution, 1893); E. Charavaray, _Le General Hoche_\n (1893); A. Duruy, _Hoche et Marceau_ (1885).\n\n\n\n\nHOCHHEIM, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau,\nsituated on an elevation not far from the right bank of the Main, 3 m.\nabove its influx into the Rhine and 3 m. E. of Mainz by the railway from\nCassel to Frankfort-on-Main. Pop. (1905) 3779. It has an Evangelical and\na Roman Catholic church, and carries on an extensive trade in wine, the\nEnglish word \"Hock,\" the generic term for Rhine wine, being derived from\nits name. Hochheim is mentioned in the chronicles as early as the 7th\ncentury. It is also memorable as the scene of a victory gained here, on\nthe 7th of November 1813 by the Austrians over the French.\n\n See Schuler, _Geschichte der Stadt Hochheim am Main_ (Hochheim, 1888).\n\n\n\n\nHOCHST, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau on\nthe Main, 6 m. by rail W. of Frankfort-on-Main. Pop. (1905) 14,121. It\nis a busy industrial town with large dye-works and manufactures of\nmachinery, snuff, tobacco, waxcloth, gelatine, furniture and biscuits.\nBrewing is carried on and there is a considerable river trade. The\nRoman Catholic church of St Justinus is a fine basilica originally built\nin the 9th century; it has been restored several times, and a Gothic\nchoir was added in the 15th century. The town has also an Evangelical\nchurch and a synagogue, and a statue of Bismarck by Alois Mayer. Hochst\nbelonged formerly to the electors of Mainz who had a palace here; this\nwas destroyed in 1634 with the exception of one fine tower which still\nremains. In 1622 Christian, duke of Brunswick, was defeated here by\nCount Tilly, and in 1795 the Austrians gained a victory here over the\nFrench.\n\nHochst is also the name of a small town in Hesse. This has some\nmanufactures, and was formerly the seat of a Benedictine monastery.\n\n\n\n\nHOCHSTADT, a town of Bavaria, Germany, in the district of Swabia, on the\nleft bank of the Danube, 34 m. N.E. of Ulm by rail. Pop. (1905) 2305. It\nhas three Roman Catholic churches, a castle flanked by walls and towers\nand some small industries, including malting and brewing. Hochstadt,\nwhich came into the possession of Bavaria in 1266, has been a place of\nbattles. Here Frederick of Hohenstaufen, vicegerent of the Empire for\nHenry IV., was defeated by Henry's rival, Hermann of Luxemburg, in 1081;\nin 1703 the Imperialists were routed here by Marshal Villars in command\nof the French; in August 1704 Marlborough and Prince Eugene defeated the\nFrench and Bavarians commanded by Max Emanuel, the elector of Bavaria\nand Marshal Tallard, this battle being usually known as that of\nBlenheim; and in June 1800 an engagement took place here between the\nAustrians and the French.\n\nThere is another small town in Bavaria named Hochstadt. Pop. 2000. This\nis on the river Aisch, not far from Bamberg, to which bishopric it\nbelonged from 1157 to 1802, when it was ceded to Bavaria.\n\n\n\n\nHOCHSTETTER, FERDINAND CHRISTIAN VON, BARON (1829-1884), Austrian\ngeologist, was born at Esslingen, Wurtemberg, on the 30th of April 1829.\nHe was the son of Christian Ferdinand Hochstetter (1787-1860), a\nclergyman and professor at Brunn, who was also a botanist and\nmineralogist. Having received his early education at the evangelical\nseminary at Maulbronn, he proceeded to the university of Tubingen; there\nunder F. A. Quenstedt the interest he already felt in geology became\npermanently fixed, and there he obtained his doctor's degree and a\ntravelling scholarship. In 1852 he joined the staff of the Imperial\nGeological Survey of Austria and was engaged until 1856 in parts of\nBohemia, especially in the Bohmerwald, and in the Fichtel and Karlsbad\nmountains. His excellent reports established his reputation. Thus he\ncame to be chosen as geologist to the Novara expedition (1857-1859), and\nmade numerous valuable observations in the voyage round the world. In\n1859 he was engaged by the government of New Zealand to make a rapid\ngeological survey of the islands. On his return he was appointed in 1860\nprofessor of mineralogy and geology at the Imperial Polytechnic\nInstitute in Vienna, and in 1876 he was made superintendent of the\nImperial Natural History Museum. In these later years he explored\nportions of Turkey and eastern Russia, and he published papers on a\nvariety of geological, palaeontological and mineralogical subjects. He\ndied at Vienna on the 18th of July 1884.\n\n PUBLICATIONS.--_Karlsbad, seine geognostischen Verhaltnisse und seine\n Quellen_ (1858); _Neu-Seeland_ (1863); _Geological and Topographical\n Atlas of New Zealand_ (1864); _Leitfaden der Mineralogie und Geologie_\n (with A. Bisching) (1876, ed. 8, 1890).\n\n\n\n\nHOCKEY (possibly derived from the \"hooked\" stick with which it is\nplayed; cf. O. Fr. _hoquet_, shepherd's crook), a game played with a\nball or some similar object by two opposing sides, using hooked or bent\nsticks, with which each side attempts to drive it into the other's goal.\nIn one or more of its variations Hockey was known to most northern\npeoples in both Europe and Asia, and the Romans possessed a game of\nsimilar nature. It was played indiscriminately on the frozen ground or\nthe ice in winter. In Scotland it was called \"shinty,\" and in Ireland\n\"hurley,\" and was usually played on the hard, sandy sea-shore with\nnumerous players on each side. The rules were simple and the play very\nrough.\n\nModern Hockey, properly so called, is played during the cold season on\nthe hard turf, and owes its recent vogue to the formation of \"The Men's\nHockey Association\" in England in 1875. The rules drawn up by the\nWimbledon Club in 1883 still obtain in all essentials. Since 1895\n\"international\" matches at hockey have been played annually between\nEngland, Scotland, Ireland and Wales; and in 1907 a match was played\nbetween England and France, won by England by 14 goals to nil. In 1890\nDivisional Association matches (North, South, West, Midlands) and\ninter-university matches (Oxford and Cambridge) were inaugurated, and\nhave since been played annually. County matches are also now regularly\nplayed in England, twenty-six counties competing in 1907. Of other\nhockey clubs playing regular matches in 1907, there were eighty-one in\nthe London district, and fifty-nine in the provinces.\n\n[Illustration: Diagram of Hockey Field.\n\n G, Goal. RW, Right Wing.\n RB, Right Back. RI, Inside Right.\n LB, Left Back. CF, Centre Forward.\n RH, Right Half. LI, Inside Left.\n CH, Centre Half. LW, Left Wing.]\n LH, Left Half.\n\n The game is played by teams of eleven players on a ground 100 yds.\n long and 50 to 60 yds. wide. The goals are in the centre of each\n end-line, and consist of two uprights 7 ft. high surmounted by a\n horizontal bar, enclosing a space 12 ft. wide. In front of each goal\n is a space enclosed by a curved line, its greatest diameter from the\n goal-line being 15 ft., called the _striking-circle_. The positions of\n the players on each side may be seen on the accompanying diagram. Two\n umpires, one on each side of the centre-line, officiate.\n\n The ball is an ordinary cricket-ball painted white. The stick has a\n hard-wood curved head, and a handle of cork or wrapped cane. It must\n not exceed 2 in. in diameter nor 28 oz. in weight. At the start of the\n game, which consists of two thirty or thirty-five minute periods, the\n two centre-forwards \"bully off\" the ball in the middle of the field.\n In \"bullying off\" each centre must strike the ground on his own side\n of the ball three times with his stick and strike his opponent's stick\n three times alternately; after which either may strike the ball. Each\n side then endeavours, by means of striking, passing and dribbling, to\n drive the ball into its opponents' goal. A player is \"off side\" if he\n is nearer the enemy's goal than one of his own side who strikes the\n ball, and he may not strike the ball himself until it has been touched\n by one of the opposing side. The ball may be caught (but not held) or\n stopped by any part of the body, but may not be picked up, carried,\n kicked, thrown or knocked except with the stick. An opponent's stick\n may be hooked, but not an opponent's person, which may not be\n obstructed in any way. No left-handed play is allowed. Penalties for\n infringing rules are of two classes; \"free hits\" and \"penalty\n bullies,\" to be taken where the foul occurred. For flagrant fouls\n penalty goals may also be awarded. A \"corner\" occurs when the ball\n goes behind the goal-line, but not into goal. If it is hit by the\n attacking side, or unintentionally by the defenders, it must be\n brought out 25 yds., in a direction at right angles to the goal-line\n from the point where it crossed the line, and there \"bullied.\" But if\n the ball is driven from within the 25-yd. line unintentionally behind\n the goal-line by the defenders, a member of the attacking side is\n given a free hit from a point within 3 yds. of a corner flag, the\n members of the defending side remaining behind their goal-line. If the\n ball is hit intentionally behind the goal-line by the attacking side,\n the free hit is taken from the point where the ball went over. No goal\n can be scored from a free hit directly.\n\n_Ice Hockey_ (or _Bandy_, to give it its original name) is far more\npopular than ordinary Hockey in countries where there is much ice; in\nfact in America \"Hockey\" means Ice Hockey, while the land game is called\nField Hockey. Ice Hockey in its simplest form of driving a ball across a\ngiven limit with a stick or club has been played for centuries in\nnorthern Europe, attaining its greatest popularity in the Low Countries,\nand there are many 16th- and 17th-century paintings extant which\nrepresent games of Bandy, the players using an implement formed much\nlike a golf club.\n\n In England Bandy is controlled by the \"National Bandy Association.\" A\n team consists of eleven players, wearing skates, and the proper space\n for play is 200 yds. by 100 yds. in extent. The ball is of solid\n india-rubber, between 2(1/4) and 2(3/4) in. in diameter. The bandies\n are 2 in. in diameter and about 4 ft. long. The goals, placed in the\n centre of each goal-line, consist of two upright posts 7 ft. high and\n 12 ft. apart, connected by a lath. A match is begun by the referee\n throwing up the ball in the centre of the field, after which it must\n not be touched other than with the bandy until a goal is scored or the\n ball passes the boundaries of the course, in which case it is hit into\n the field in any direction excepting forward from the point where it\n went out by the player who touched it last. If the ball is hit across\n the goal-line but not into a goal, it is hit out by one of the\n defenders from the point where it went over, the opponents not being\n allowed to approach nearer than 25 yds. from the goal-line while the\n hit is made.\n\n [Illustration: Hockey Stick.]\n\n In America the development of the modern game is due to the Victoria\n Hockey Club and McGill University (Montreal). About 1881 the secretary\n of the former club made the first efforts towards drawing up a\n recognized code of laws, and for some time afterwards playing rules\n were agreed upon from time to time whenever an important match was\n played, the chief teams being, besides those already mentioned, the\n Ottawa, Quebec, Crystal and Montreal Hockey Clubs, the first general\n tournament taking place in 1884. Three years later the \"Amateur Hockey\n Association of Canada\" was formed, and a definite code of rules drawn\n up. Soon afterwards, in consequence of exhibitions given by the best\n Canadian teams in some of the larger cities of the United States, the\n new game was taken up by American schools, colleges and athletic\n clubs, and became nearly as popular in the northern states as in the\n Dominion. The rules differ widely from those of English Bandy. The\n rink must be at least 112 ft. long by 58 ft. wide, and seven players\n form a side. The goals are 6 ft. wide and 4 ft. high and are provided\n with goal-nets. Instead of the English painted cricket-ball a puck is\n used, made of vulcanized rubber in the form of a draught-stone, 1 in.\n thick, and 3 in. in diameter. The sticks are made of one piece of hard\n wood, and may not be more than 3 in. wide at any part. The game is\n played for two half-hour or twenty-minute periods with an intermission\n of ten minutes. At the beginning of a match, and also when a goal has\n been made, the puck is _faced_, i.e. it is placed in the middle of the\n rink between the sticks of the two left-centres, and the referee calls\n \"play.\" Whichever side then secures the ball endeavours by means of\n passing and dribbling to get the puck into a position from which a\n goal may be _shot_. The puck may be stopped by any part of the person\n but not carried or knocked except with the stick. No stick may be\n raised above the shoulder except when actually striking the puck. When\n the puck is driven off the rink or behind the goal, or a foul has been\n made behind the goal, it is faced 5 yds. inside the rink. The\n goal-keeper must maintain a standing position.\n\n There are a number of Hockey organizations in America, all under the\n jurisdiction of the \"American Amateur Hockey League\" in the United\n States and the \"Canadian Amateur Athletic League\" in Canada.\n\n _Ice Polo_, a winter sport similar to Ice Hockey, is almost\n exclusively played in the New England states. A rubber-covered ball is\n used and the stick is heavier than that used in Ice Hockey. The\n radical difference between the two games is that, in Ice Polo, there\n is no strict off-side rule, so that passes and shots at goal may come\n from any and often the most unexpected direction. Five men constitute\n a team: a goal-tend, a half-back, a centre and two rushers. The\n rushers must be rapid skaters, adepts in dribbling and passing and\n good goal shots. The centre supports the rushers, passing the ball to\n them or trying for goal himself. The half-back is the first defence\n and the goal-tend the last. The rink is 150 ft. long.\n\n _Ring Hockey_ may be played on the floor of any gymnasium or large\n room by teams of six, comprising a goal-keeper, a quarter, three\n forwards and a centre. The goals consist of two uprights 3 ft. high\n and 4 ft. apart. The ring, which takes the place of the ball or puck,\n is made of flexible rubber, and is 5 in. in diameter with a 3-in.\n opening through the centre. It weighs between 12 and 16 oz. The stick\n is a wand of light but tough wood, between 36 and 40 in. long, about\n 3/4 in. in diameter, provided with a 5-in. guard 20 in. from the lower\n end. The method of shooting is to insert the end of the stick in the\n hole of the ring and drive it towards the goal. A goal shot from the\n field counts one point, a goal from a foul 1/2 point. When a foul is\n called by the referee a player of the opposing side is allowed a free\n shot for goal from any point on the quarter line.\n\n _Roller Polo_, played extensively during the winter months in the\n United States, is practically Ice Polo adapted to the floors of\n gymnasiums and halls, the players, five on a side, wearing\n roller-skates. The first professional league was organized in 1883.\n\n\n\n\nHOCK-TIDE, an ancient general holiday in England, celebrated on the\nsecond Monday and Tuesday after Easter Sunday. Hock-Tuesday was an\nimportant term day, rents being then payable, for with Michaelmas it\ndivided the rural year into its winter and summer halves. The derivation\nof the word is disputed: any analogy with Ger. _hoch_, \"high,\" being\ngenerally denied. No trace of the word is found in Old English, and\n\"hock-day,\" its earliest use in composition, appears first in the 12th\ncentury. The characteristic pastime of hock-tide was called binding. On\nMonday the women, on Tuesday the men, stopped all passers of the\nopposite sex and bound them with ropes till they bought their release\nwith a small payment, or a rope was stretched across the highroads, and\nthe passers were obliged to pay toll. The money thus collected seems to\nhave gone towards parish expenses. Many entries are found in parish\nregisters under \"Hocktyde money.\" The hock-tide celebration became\nobsolete in the beginning of the 18th century. At Coventry there was a\nplay called \"The Old Coventry Play of Hock Tuesday.\" This, suppressed at\nthe Reformation owing to the incidental disorder, and revived as part of\nthe festivities on Queen Elizabeth's visit to Kenilworth in July 1575,\ndepicted the struggle between Saxons and Danes, and has given colour to\nthe suggestion that hock-tide was originally a commemoration of the\nmassacre of the Danes on St Brice's Day, the 13th of November A.D. 1002,\nor of the rejoicings at the death of Hardicanute on the 8th of June 1042\nand the expulsion of the Danes. But the dates of these anniversaries do\nnot bear this out.\n\n\n\n\nHOCUS, a shortened form of \"hocus pocus,\" used in the 17th century in\nthe sense of \"to play a trick on any one,\" to \"hoax,\" which is generally\ntaken to be a derivative. \"Hocus pocus\" appears to have been a mock\nLatin expression first used as the name of a juggler or conjurer. Thus\nin Ady's _Candle in the Dark_ (1655), quoted in the _New English\nDictionary_, \"I will speak of one man ... that went about in King James\nhis time ... who called himself, The Kings Majesties most excellent\nHocus Pocus, and so was called, because that at the playing of every\nTrick, he used to say, _Hocus pocus, tontus talontus, vade celeriter\njubeo_, a dark composure of words, to blinde the eyes of the beholders,\nto make his Trick pass the more currantly without discovery.\"\nTillotson's guess (_Sermons_, xxvi.) that the phrase was a corruption of\n_hoc est corpus_ and alluded to the words of the Eucharist, \"in\nridiculous imitation of the priests of the Church of Rome in their trick\nof Transubstantiation,\" has frequently been accepted as a serious\nderivation, but has no foundation. A connexion with a supposed demon of\nScandinavian mythology, called \"Ochus Bochus,\" is equally unwarranted.\n\"Hocus\" is used as a verb, meaning to drug, stupefy with opium, &c., for\na criminal purpose. This use dates from the beginning of the 19th\ncentury.\n\n\n\n\nHODDEN (a word of unknown origin), a coarse kind of cloth made of undyed\nwool, formerly much worn by the peasantry of Scotland. It was usually\nmade on small hand-looms by the peasants themselves. Grey hodden was\nmade by mixing black and white fleeces together in the proportion of one\nto twelve when weaving.\n\n\n\n\nHODDESDON, an urban district in the Hertford parliamentary division of\nHertfordshire, England, near the river Lea, 17 m. N. from London by the\nGreat Eastern railway (Broxbourne and Hoddesdon station on the Cambridge\nline). Pop. (1901), 4711. This is the northernmost of a series of\npopulous townships extending from the suburbs of London along the Lea\nvalley as far as its junction with the Stort, which is close to\nHoddesdon. They are in the main residential. Hoddesdon was a famous\ncoaching station on the Old North Road; and the Bull posting-house is\nmentioned in Matthew Prior's \"Down Hall.\" The Lea has been a favourite\nresort of anglers (mainly for coarse fish in this part) from the time of\nIzaak Walton, in whose book Hoddesdon is specifically named. The church\nof St Augustine, Broxbourne, is a fine example of Perpendicular work,\nand contains interesting monuments, including an altar tomb with\nenamelled brasses of 1473. Hoddesdon probably covers the site of a\nRomano-British village.\n\n\n\n\nHODEDA (_Hodeida_, _Hadeda_), a town in Arabia situated on the Red Sea\ncoast 14 deg. 48' N. and 42 deg. 57' E. It lies on a beach of muddy sand\nexposed to the southerly and westerly winds. Steamers anchor more than a\nmile from shore, and merchandize has to be transhipped by means of\n_sambuks_ or native boats. But Hodeda has become the chief centre of the\nmaritime trade of Turkish Yemen, and has superseded Mokha as the great\nport of export of South Arabian coffee. The town is composed of\nstone-built houses of several storeys, and is surrounded, except on the\nsea face, by a fortified enceinte. The population is estimated at\n33,000, and contains, besides the Arab inhabitants and the Turkish\nofficials and garrison, a considerable foreign element, Greeks, Indians\nand African traders from the opposite coast. There are consulates of\nGreat Britain, United States, France, Germany, Italy and Greece. The\nsteam tonnage entering and clearing the port in 1904 amounted to 78,700\ntons, the highest hitherto recorded. Regular services are maintained\nwith Aden, and with Suez, Massowa and the other Red Sea ports. Large\ndhows bring dates from the Persian Gulf, and occasional steamers from\nBombay call on their way to Jidda with cargoes of grain. The imports for\n1904 amounted in value to L467,000, the chief items being piece goods,\nfood grains and sugar; the exports amounted to L451,000, including\ncoffee valued at L229,000.\n\n\n\n\nHODENING, an ancient Christmas custom still surviving in Wales, Kent,\nLancashire and elsewhere. A horse's skull or a wooden imitation on a\npole is carried round by a party of youths, one of whom conceals himself\nunder a white cloth to simulate the horse's body, holding a lighted\ncandle in the skull. They make a house-to-house visitation, begging\ngratuities. The \"Penitential\" of Archbishop Theodore (d. 690) speaks of\n\"any who, on the kalands of January, clothe themselves with the skins of\ncattle and carry heads of animals.\" This, coupled with the fact that\namong the primitive Scandinavians the horse was often the sacrifice made\nat the winter solstice to Odin for success in battle, has been thought\nto justify the theory that hodening is a corruption of Odining.\n\n\n\n\nHODGE, CHARLES (1797-1878), American theologian, was born in\nPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania, on the 28th of December 1797. He graduated\nat the College of New Jersey (now Princeton) in 1815, and in 1819 at the\nPrinceton Theological seminary, where he became an instructor in 1820,\nand the first professor of Oriental and Biblical literature in 1822.\nMeanwhile, in 1821, he had been ordained as a Presbyterian minister.\nFrom 1826 to 1828 he studied under de Sacy in Paris, under Gesenius and\nTholuck in Halle, and under Hengstenberg, Neander and Humboldt in\nBerlin. In 1840 he was transferred to the chair of exegetical and\ndidactic theology, to which subjects that of polemic theology was added\nin 1854, and this office he held until his death. In 1825 he established\nthe quarterly _Biblical Repertory_, the title of which was changed to\n_Biblical Repertory and Theological Review_ in 1830 and to _Biblical\nRepertory and Princeton Review_ in 1837. With it, in 1840, was merged\nthe _Literary and Theological Review_ of New York, and in 1872 the\nAmerican Presbyterian Review of New York, the title becoming\n_Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review_ in 1872 and _Princeton\nReview_ in 1877. He secured for it the position of theological organ of\nthe Old School division of the Presbyterian church, and continued its\nprincipal editor and contributor until 1868, when the Rev. Lyman H.\nAtwater became his colleague. His more important essays were republished\nunder the titles _Essays and Reviews_ (1857), _Princeton Theological\nEssays, and Discussions in Church Polity_ (1878). He was moderator of\nthe General Assembly (O.S.) in 1846, a member of the committee to revise\nthe _Book of Discipline_ of the Presbyterian church in 1858, and\npresident of the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions in 1868-1870.\nThe 24th of April 1872, the fiftieth anniversary of his election to his\nprofessorship, was observed in Princeton as his jubilee by between 400\nand 500 representatives of his 2700 pupils, and $50,000 was raised for\nthe endowment of his chair. He died at Princeton on the 19th of June\n1878. Hodge was one of the greatest of American theologians.\n\n Besides his articles in the _Princeton Review_, he published a\n _Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans_ (1835, abridged 1836,\n rewritten and enlarged 1864, new ed. 1886), _Constitutional History of\n the Presbyterian Church in the United States_ (2 vols., 1839-1840);\n _The Way of Life_ (1841); _Commentaries on Ephesians_ (1856); 1\n _Corinthians_ (1857); 2 _Corinthians_ (1859); _Systematic Theology_ (3\n vols., 2200 pp., 1871-1873), probably the best of all modern\n expositions of Calvinistic dogmatic; and _What is Darwinism?_ (1874),\n in which he opposed \"Atheistic Evolutionism.\" After his death a volume\n of _Conference Papers_ (1879) was published. His life, by his son, was\n published in 1880.\n\nHis son, ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER HODGE (1823-1886), also famous as a\nPresbyterian theologian, was born at Princeton on the 18th of July 1823.\nHe graduated at the College of New Jersey in 1841, and at the Princeton\nTheological seminary in 1846, and was ordained in 1847. From 1847 to\n1850 he was a missionary at Allahabad, India, and was then pastor of\nchurches successively at Lower West Nottingham, Maryland (1851-1855); at\nFredericksburg, Virginia (1855-1861), and at Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania\n(1861-1864). From 1864 to 1877 he was professor of didactic and\npolemical theology in the Allegheny Theological seminary at Allegheny,\nPennsylvania, where he was also from 1866 to 1877 pastor of the North\nChurch (Presbyterian). In 1878 he succeeded his father as professor of\ndidactic theology at the Princeton seminary. He died on the 11th of\nNovember 1886. Besides writing the biography of his father, he was the\nauthor of _Outlines of Theology_ (1860, new ed. 1875; enlarged, 1879);\n_The Atonement_ (1867); _Exposition of the Confession of Faith_ (1869);\nand _Popular Lectures on Theological Themes_ (1887).\n\n See C. A. Salmond's _Charles and A. A. Hodge_ (New York, 1888).\n\n\n\n\nHODGKIN, THOMAS (1831- ), British historian, son of John Hodgkin\n(1800-1875), barrister, was born in London on the 29th of July 1831.\nHaving been educated as a member of the Society of Friends and taken the\ndegree of B.A. at London University, he became a partner in the banking\nhouse of Hodgkin, Barnett & Co., Newcastle-on-Tyne, a firm afterwards\namalgamated with Lloyds' Bank. While continuing in business as a banker,\nHodgkin devoted a good deal of time to historical study, and soon became\na leading authority on the history of the early middle ages, his books\nbeing indispensable to all students of this period. His chief works are,\n_Italy and her Invaders_ (8 vols., Oxford, 1880-1899); _The Dynasty of\nTheodosius_ (Oxford, 1889); _Theodoric the Goth_ (London, 1891); and an\nintroduction to the _Letters_ of Cassiodorus (London, 1886). He also\nwrote a _Life of Charles the Great_ (London, 1897); _Life of George Fox_\n(Boston, 1896); and the opening volume of Longman's _Political History\nof England_ (London, 1906).\n\n\n\n\nHODGKINSON, EATON (1789-1861), English engineer, the son of a farmer,\nwas born at Anderton near Northwich, Cheshire, on the 26th of February\n1789. After attending school at Northwich, he began to help his widowed\nmother on the farm, but to escape from that uncongenial occupation he\npersuaded her in 1811 to remove to Manchester and start a pawnbroking\nbusiness. There he made the acquaintance of John Dalton, and began those\ninquiries into the strength of materials which formed the work of his\nlife. He was associated with Sir William Fairbairn in an important\nseries of experiments on cast iron, and his help was sought by Robert\nStephenson in regard to the forms and dimensions of the tubes for the\nBritannia bridge. A paper which he communicated to the Royal Society on\n\"Experimental Researches on the Strength of Pillars of Cast Iron and\nother Materials,\" in 1840 gained him a Royal medal in 1841, and he was\nalso elected a fellow. In 1847 he was appointed professor of the\nmechanical principles of engineering in University College, London, and\nat the same time he was employed as a member of the Royal Commission\nappointed to inquire into the application of iron to railway structures.\nIn 1848 he was chosen president of the Manchester Philosophical Society,\nof which he had been a member since 1826, and to which, both previously\nand subsequently, he contributed many of the more important results of\nhis discoveries. For several years he took an active part in the\ndiscussions of the Institution of Civil Engineers, of which he was\nelected an honorary member in 1851. He died at Eaglesfield House, near\nManchester, on the 18th of June 1861.\n\n\n\n\nHODGSON, BRIAN HOUGHTON (1800-1894), English administrator, ethnologist\nand naturalist, was born at Lower Beech, Prestbury, Cheshire, on the 1st\nof February 1800. His father, Brian Hodgson, came of a family of country\ngentlemen, and his mother was a daughter of William Houghton of\nManchester. In 1816 he obtained an East Indian writership. After passing\nthrough the usual course at Haileybury, he went out to India in 1818,\nand after a brief service at Kumaon as assistant-commissioner was in\n1820 appointed assistant to the Resident at Katmandu, the capital of\nNepal. In 1823 he obtained an under-secretaryship in the foreign\ndepartment at Calcutta, but his health failed, and in 1824 he returned\nto Nepal, to which the whole of his life, whether in or out of India,\nmay be said to have been thenceforth given. He devoted himself\nparticularly to the collection of Sanskrit MSS. relating to Buddhism,\nand hardly less so to the natural history and antiquities of the\ncountry, and by 1839 had contributed eighty-nine papers to the\n_Transactions_ of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. His investigations of\nthe ethnology of the aboriginal tribes were especially important. In\n1833 he became Resident in Nepal, and passed many stormy years in\nconflict with the cruel and faithless court to which he was accredited.\nHe succeeded, nevertheless, in concluding a satisfactory treaty in 1839;\nbut in 1842 his policy, which involved an imperious attitude towards the\nnative government, was upset by the interference of Lord Ellenborough,\nbut just arrived in India and not unnaturally anxious to avoid trouble\nin Nepal during the conflict in Afghanistan. Hodgson took upon himself\nto disobey his instructions, a breach of discipline justified to his own\nmind by his superior knowledge of the situation, but which the\ngovernor-general could hardly be expected to overlook. He was,\nnevertheless, continued in office for a time, but was recalled in 1843,\nand resigned the service. In 1845 he returned to India and settled at\nDarjeeling, where he devoted himself entirely to his favourite pursuits,\nbecoming the greatest authority on the Buddhist religion and on the\nflora of the Himalayas. It was he who early suggested the recruiting of\nGurkhas for the Indian army, and who influenced Sir Jung Bahadur to lend\nhis assistance to the British during the mutiny in 1857. In 1858 he\nreturned to England, and lived successively in Cheshire and\nGloucestershire, occupied with his studies to the last. He died at his\nseat at Alderley Grange in the Cotswold Hills on the 23rd of May 1894.\nNo man has done so much to throw light on Buddhism as it exists in\nNepal, and his collections of Sanskrit manuscripts, presented to the\nEast India Office, and of natural history, presented to the British\nMuseum, are unique as gatherings from a single country. He wrote\naltogether 184 philological and ethnological and 127 scientific papers,\nas well as some valuable pamphlets on native education, in which he took\ngreat interest. His principal work, _Illustrations of the Literature and\nReligion of Buddhists_ (1841), was republished with the most important\nof his other writings in 1872-1880.\n\n His life was written by Sir W. W. Hunter in 1896.\n\n\n\n\nHODMEZO-VASARHELY, a town of Hungary, in the county of Csongrad, 135 m.\nS.E. of Budapest by rail. Pop. (1900) 60,824 of which about two-thirds\nare Protestants. The town, situated on Lake Hod, not far from the right\nbank of the Tisza, has a modern aspect. The soil of the surrounding\ncountry, of which 383 sq. m. belong to the municipality, is exceedingly\nfertile, the chief products being wheat, mangcorn, barley, oats, millet,\nmaize and various descriptions of fruit, especially melons. Extensive\nvineyards, yielding large quantities of both white and red grapes,\nskirt the town, and the horned cattle and horses of Hodmezo-Vasarhely\nhave a good reputation; sheep and pigs are also extensively reared. The\ncommune is protected from inundations of the Tisza by an enormous dike,\nbut the town, nevertheless, sometimes suffers considerable damage during\nthe spring floods.\n\n\n\n\nHODOGRAPH (Gr. [Greek: hodos], a way, and [Greek: graphein], to write),\na curve of which the radius vector is proportional to the velocity of a\nmoving particle. It appears to have been used by James Bradley, but for\nits practical development we are mainly indebted to Sir William Rowan\nHamilton, who published an account of it in the _Proceedings of the\nRoyal Irish Academy_, 1846. If a point be in motion in any orbit and\nwith any velocity, and if, at each instant, a line be drawn from a fixed\npoint parallel and equal to the velocity of the moving point at that\ninstant, the extremities of these lines will lie on a curve called the\nhodograph. Let PP1P2 be the path of the moving point, and let OT, OT1,\nOT2, be drawn from the fixed point O parallel and equal to the\nvelocities at P, P1, P2 respectively, then the locus of T is the\nhodograph of the orbits described by P (see figure). From this\ndefinition we have the following important fundamental property which\nbelongs to all hodographs, viz. that at any point the tangent to the\nhodograph is parallel to the direction, and the velocity in the\nhodograph equal to the magnitude of the resultant acceleration at the\ncorresponding point of the orbit. This will be evident if we consider\nthat, since radii vectores of the hodograph represent velocities in the\norbit, the elementary arc between two consecutive radii vectores of the\nhodograph represents the velocity which must be compounded with the\nvelocity of the moving point at the beginning of any short interval of\ntime to get the velocity at the end of that interval, that is to say,\nrepresents the change of velocity for that interval. Hence the\nelementary arc divided by the element of time is the rate of change of\nvelocity of the moving-point, or in other words, the velocity in the\nhodograph is the acceleration in the orbit.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n Analytically thus (Thomson and Tait, _Nat. Phil._):--Let x, y, z be\n the coordinates of P in the orbit, [xi], [eta], [zeta] those of the\n corresponding point T in the hodograph, then\n\n [xi] = dx/dt, [eta] = dy/dt, [zeta] = dz/dt;\n\n therefore\n\n d[xi] d[eta] d[zeta]\n ---------- = ----------- = ----------- (1).\n (d^2x/dt^2) (d^2y/dt^2) (d^2z/dt^2)\n\n Also, if s be the arc of the hodograph,\n\n ds / /d[xi]\\^2 /d[eta]\\^2 /d[zeta]\\^2\n -- = v = / ( ----- ) + ( ------ ) + ( ------- )\n dt \\/ \\ dt / \\ dt / \\ dt /\n\n / /d^2x\\^2 /d^2y\\^2 /d^2z\\^2\n = / ( --- ) + ( --- ) + ( --- ) (2).\n \\/ \\dt^2/ \\dt^2/ \\dt^2/\n\n Equation (1) shows that the tangent to the hodograph is parallel to\n the line of resultant acceleration, and (2) that the velocity in the\n hodograph is equal to the acceleration.\n\n Every orbit must clearly have a hodograph, and, conversely, every\n hodograph a corresponding orbit; and, theoretically speaking, it is\n possible to deduce the one from the other, having given the other\n circumstances of the motion.\n\n For applications of the hodograph to the solution of kinematical\n problems see MECHANICS.\n\n\n\n\nHODSON, WILLIAM STEPHEN RAIKES (1821-1858), known as \"Hodson of Hodson's\nHorse,\" British leader of light cavalry during the Indian Mutiny, third\nson of the Rev. George Hodson, afterwards archdeacon of Stafford and\ncanon of Lichfield, was born on the 19th of March 1821 at Maisemore\nCourt, near Gloucester. He was educated at Rugby and Cambridge, and\naccepted a cadetship in the Indian army at the advanced age for those\ndays of twenty-three. Joining the 2nd Bengal Grenadiers he went through\nthe first Sikh War, and was present at the battles of Moodkee,\nFerozeshah and Sobraon. In one of his letters home at this period he\ncalls the campaign a \"tissue of mismanagement, blunders, errors,\nignorance and arrogance\", and outspoken criticism such as this brought\nhim many bitter enemies throughout his career, who made the most of\nundeniable faults of character. In 1847, through the influence of Sir\nHenry Lawrence, he was appointed adjutant of the corps of Guides, and in\n1852 was promoted to the command of the Guides with the civil charge of\nYusafzai. But his brusque and haughty demeanour to his equals made him\nmany enemies. In 1855 two separate charges were brought against him. The\nfirst was that he had arbitrarily imprisoned a Pathan chief named Khadar\nKhan, on suspicion of being concerned in the murder of Colonel Mackeson.\nThe man was acquitted, and Lord Dalhousie removed Hodson from his civil\nfunctions and remanded him to his regiment on account of his lack of\njudgment. The second charge was more serious, amounting to an accusation\nof malversation in the funds of his regiment. He was tried by a court of\ninquiry, who found that his conduct to natives had been \"unjustifiable\nand oppressive,\" that he had used abusive language to his native\nofficers and personal violence to his men, and that his system of\naccounts was \"calculated to screen peculation and fraud.\" Subsequently\nanother inquiry was carried out by Major Reynell Taylor, which dealt\nsimply with Hodson's accounts and found them to be \"an honest and\ncorrect record ... irregularly kept.\" At this time the Guides were split\nup into numerous detachments, and there was a system of advances which\nmade the accounts very complicated. The verdicts of the two inquiries\nmay be set against each other, and this particular charge declared \"not\nproven.\" It is possible that Hodson was careless and extravagant in\nmoney matters rather than actually dishonest; but there were several\nsimilar charges against him. During a tour through Kashmir with Sir\nHenry Lawrence he kept the purse and Sir Henry could never obtain an\naccount from him; subsequently Sir George Lawrence accused him of\nembezzling the funds of the Lawrence Asylum at Kasauli; while Sir\nNeville Chamberlain in a published letter says of the third brother,\nLord Lawrence, \"I am bound to say that Lord Lawrence had no opinion of\nHodson's integrity in money matters. He has often discussed Hodson's\ncharacter in talking to me, and it was to him a regret that a man\npossessing so many fine gifts should have been wanting in a moral\nquality which made him untrustworthy.\" Finally, on one occasion Hodson\nspent L500 of the pay due to Lieutenant Godby, and under threat of\nexposure was obliged to borrow the money from a native banker through\none of his officers named Bisharat Ali.\n\nIt was just at the time when Hodson's career seemed ruined that the\nIndian Mutiny broke out, and he obtained the opportunity of\nrehabilitating himself. At the very outset of the campaign he made his\nname by riding with despatches from General Anson at Karnal to Meerut\nand back again, a distance of 152 m. in all, in seventy-two hours,\nthrough a country swarming with the rebel cavalry. This feat so pleased\nthe commander-in-chief that he empowered him to raise a regiment of 2000\nirregular horse, which became known to fame as Hodson's Horse, and\nplaced him at the head of the Intelligence Department. In his double\nrole of cavalry leader and intelligence officer, Hodson played a large\npart in the reduction of Delhi and consequently in saving India for the\nBritish empire. He was the finest swordsman in the army, and possessed\nthat daring recklessness which is the most useful quality of leadership\nagainst Asiatics. In explanation of the fact that he never received the\nVictoria Cross it was said of him that it was because he earned it every\nday of his life. But he also had the defects of his qualities, and could\ndisplay on occasion a certain cruelty and callousness of disposition.\nReference has already been made to Bisharat Ali, who had lent Hodson\nmoney. During the siege of Delhi another native, said to be an enemy of\nBisharat Ali's, informed Hodson that he had turned rebel and had just\nreached Khurkhouda, a village near Delhi. Hodson thereupon took out a\nbody of his sowars, attacked the village, and shot Bisharat Ali and\nseveral of his relatives. General Crawford Chamberlain states that this\nwas Hodson's way of wiping out the debt. Again, after the fall of Delhi,\nHodson obtained from General Wilson permission to ride out with fifty\nhorsemen to Humayun's tomb, 6 m. out of Delhi, and bring in Bahadur\nShah, the last of the Moguls. This he did with safety in the face of a\nlarge and threatening crowd, and thus dealt the mutineers a heavy blow.\nOn the following day with 100 horsemen he went out to the same tomb and\nobtained the unconditional surrender of the three princes, who had been\nleft behind on the previous occasion. A crowd of 6000 persons gathered,\nand Hodson with marvellous coolness ordered them to disarm, which they\nproceeded to do. He sent the princes on with an escort of ten men, while\nwith the remaining ninety he collected the arms of the crowd. On\ngalloping after the princes he found the crowd once more pressing on the\nescort and threatening an attack; and fearing that he would be unable to\nbring his prisoners into Delhi he shot them with his own hand. This is\nthe most bitterly criticized action in his career, but no one but the\nman on the spot can judge how it is necessary to handle a crowd; and in\naddition one of the princes, Abu Bukt, heir-apparent to the throne, had\nmade himself notorious for cutting off the arms and legs of English\nchildren and pouring the blood into their mothers' mouths. Considering\nthe circumstances of the moment, Hodson's act at the worst was one of\nirregular justice. A more unpleasant side to the question is that he\ngave the king a safe conduct, which was afterwards seen by Sir Donald\nStewart, before he left the palace, and presumably for a bribe; and he\ntook an armlet and rings from the bodies of the princes. He was freely\naccused of looting at the time, and though this charge, like that of\npeculation, is matter for controversy, it is very strongly supported.\nGeneral Pelham Burn said that he saw loot in Hodson's boxes when he\naccompanied him from Fatehgarh to take part in the siege of Lucknow, and\nSir Henry Daly said that he found \"loads of loot\" in Hodson's boxes\nafter his death, and also a file of documents relating to the Guides\ncase, which had been stolen from him and of which Hodson denied all\nknowledge. On the other hand the Rev. G. Hodson states in his book that\nhe obtained the inventory of his brother's possessions made by the\nCommittee of Adjustment and it contained no articles of loot, and Sir\nCharles Gough, president of the committee, confirmed this evidence. This\nstatement is totally incompatible with Sir Henry Daly's and is only one\nof many contradictions in the case. Sir Henry Norman stated that to his\npersonal knowledge Hodson remitted several thousand pounds to Calcutta\nwhich could only have been obtained by looting. On the other hand,\nagain, Hodson died a poor man, his effects were sold for L170, his widow\nwas dependent on charity for her passage home, was given apartments by\nthe queen at Hampton Court, and left only L400 at her death.\n\nHodson was killed on the 11th of March 1858 in the attack on the Begum\nKotee at Lucknow. He had just arrived on the spot and met a man going to\nfetch powder to blow in a door; instead Hodson, with his usual\nrecklessness, rushed into the doorway and was shot. On the whole, it can\nhardly be doubted that he was somewhat unscrupulous in his private\ncharacter, but he was a splendid soldier, and rendered inestimable\nservices to the empire.\n\n The controversy relating to Hodson's moral character is very\n complicated and unpleasant. Upon Hodson's side see Rev. G. Hodson,\n _Hodson of Hodson's Horse_ (1883), and L. J. Trotter, _A Leader of\n Light Horse_ (1901); against him, R. Bosworth Smith, _Life of Lord\n Lawrence_, appendix to the 6th edition of 1885; T. R. E. Holmes,\n _History of the Indian Mutiny_, appendix N to the 5th edition of 1898,\n and _Four Famous Soldiers_ by the same author, 1889; and General Sir\n Crawford Chamberlain, _Remarks on Captain Trotter's Biography of Major\n W. S. R. Hodson_ (1901).\n\n\n\n\nHODY, HUMPHREY (1659-1707), English divine, was born at Odcombe in\nSomersetshire in 1659. In 1676 he entered Wadham College, Oxford, of\nwhich he became fellow in 1685. In 1684 he published _Contra historiam\nAristeae de LXX. interpretibus dissertatio_, in which he showed that the\nso-called letter of Aristeas, containing an account of the production of\nthe Septuagint, was the late forgery of a Hellenist Jew originally\ncirculated to lend authority to that version. The dissertation was\ngenerally regarded as conclusive, although Isaac Vossius published an\nangry and scurrilous reply to it in the appendix to his edition of\nPomponius Mela. In 1689 Hody wrote the _Prolegomena_ to the Greek\nchronicle of John Malalas, published at Oxford in 1691. The following\nyear he became chaplain to Edward Stillingfleet, bishop of Worcester,\nand for his support of the ruling party in a controversy with Henry\nDodwell regarding the non-juring bishops he was appointed chaplain to\nArchbishop Tillotson, an office which he continued to hold under\nTenison. In 1698 he was appointed regius professor of Greek at Oxford,\nand in 1704 was made archdeacon of Oxford. In 1701 he published _A\nHistory of English Councils and Convocations_, and in 1703 in four\nvolumes _De Bibliorum textis originalibus_, in which he included a\nrevision of his work on the Septuagint, and published a reply to\nVossius. He died on the 20th of January 1707.\n\n A work, _De Graecis Illustribus_, which he left in manuscript, was\n published in 1742 by Samuel Jebb, who prefixed to it a Latin life of\n the author.\n\n\n\n\nHOE, RICHARD MARCH (1812-1886), American inventor, was born in New York\nCity on the 12th of September 1812. He was the son of Robert Hoe\n(1784-1833), an English-born American mechanic, who with his\nbrothers-in-law, Peter and Matthew Smith, established in New York City a\nmanufactory of printing presses, and used steam to run his machinery.\nRichard entered his father's manufactory at the age of fifteen and\nbecame head of the firm (Robert Hoe & Company) on his father's death. He\nhad considerable inventive genius and set himself to secure greater\nspeed for printing presses. He discarded the old flat-bed model and\nplaced the type on a revolving cylinder, a model later developed into\nthe well-known Hoe rotary or \"lightning\" press, patented in 1846, and\nfurther improved under the name of the Hoe web perfecting press (see\nPRINTING). He died in Florence, Italy, on the 7th of June 1886.\n\n See _A Short History of the Printing Press_ (New York, 1902) by his\n nephew Robert Hoe (1839-1909), who was responsible for further\n improvements in printing, and was an indefatigable worker in support\n of the New York Metropolitan Museum.\n\n\n\n\nHOE (through Fr. _houe_ from O.H.G. _houwa_, mod. Ger. _Haue_; the root\nis seen in \"hew,\" to cut, cleave; the word must be distinguished from\n\"hoe,\" promontory, tongue of land, seen in place names, e.g. Morthoe,\nLuton Hoo, the Hoe at Plymouth, &c.; this is the same as Northern\nEnglish \"heugh\" and is connected with \"hang\"), an agricultural and\ngardening implement used for extirpating weeds, for stirring the\nsurface-soil in order to break the capillary channels and so prevent the\nevaporation of moisture, for singling out turnips and other root-crops\nand similar purposes. Among common forms of hoe are the ordinary\ngarden-hoe (numbered _1_ in fig. 1), which consists of a flat blade set\ntransversely in a long wooden handle; the Dutch or thrust-hoe (_2_),\nwhich has the blade set into the handle after the fashion of a spade;\nand the swan-neck hoe (_3_), the best manual hoe for agricultural\npurposes, which has a long curved neck to attach the blade to the\nhandle; the soil falls back over this, blocking is thus avoided and a\nlonger stroke obtained. Several types of horse-drawn hoe capable of\nworking one or more rows at a time are used among root and grain crops.\nThe illustrations show two forms of the implement, the blades of which\ndiffer in shape from those of the garden-hoe. Fig. 2 is in ordinary use\nfor hoeing between two lines of beans or turnips or other \"roots.\" Fig.\n3 is adapted for the narrow rows of grain crops and is also convertible\ninto a root-hoe. In the lever-hoe, which is largely used in grain crops,\nthe blades may be raised and lowered by means of a lever. The\nhorse-drawn hoe is steered by means of handles in the rear, but its\nsuccessful working depends on accurate drilling of the seed, because\nunless the rows are parallel the roots of the plants are liable to be\ncut and the foliage injured. Thus Jethro Tull (17th century), with whose\nname the beginning of the practice of horse-hoeing is principally\nconnected, used the drill which he invented as an essential adjunct in\nthe so-called \"Horse-hoeing Husbandry\" (see AGRICULTURE).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 1.--Three Forms of Manual Hoe.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 2.--Martin's One-Row Horse Hoe.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 3.--Martin's General Purpose Steerage Horse Hoe.]\n\n\n\n\nHOEFNAGEL, JORIS (1545-1601), Dutch painter and engraver, the son of a\ndiamond merchant, was born at Antwerp. He travelled abroad, making\ndrawings from archaeological subjects, and was a pupil of Jan Bol at\nMechlin. He was afterwards patronized by the elector of Bavaria at\nMunich, where he stayed eight years, and by the Emperor Rudolph at\nPrague. He died at Vienna in 1601. He is famous for his miniature work,\nespecially on a missal in the imperial library at Vienna; he painted\nanimals and plants to illustrate works on natural history; and his\nengravings (especially for Braun's _Civitates orbis terrarum_, 1572, and\nOrtelius's _Theatrum orbis terrarum_, 1570) give him an interesting\nplace among early topographical draughtsmen.\n\n\n\n\nHOF, a town of Germany, in the Bavarian province of Upper Franconia,\nbeautifully situated on the Saale, on the north-eastern spurs of the\nFichtelgebirge, 103 m. S.W. of Leipzig on the main line of railway to\nRegensburg and Munich. Pop. (1885) 22,257; (1905) 36,348. It has one\nRoman Catholic and three Protestant churches (among the latter that of\nSt Michael, which was restored in 1884), a town hall of 1563, a\ngymnasium with an extensive library, a commercial school and a hospital\nfounded in 1262. It is the seat of various flourishing industries,\nnotably woollen, cotton and jute spinning, jute weaving, and the\nmanufacture of cotton and half-woollen fabrics. It has also dye-works,\nflour-mills, saw-mills, breweries, iron-works, and manufactures of\nmachinery, iron and tin wares, chemicals and sugar. In the neighbourhood\nthere are large marble quarries and extensive iron mines. Hof,\noriginally called Regnitzhof, was built about 1080. It was held for some\ntime by the dukes of Meran, and was sold in 1373 to the burgraves of\nNuremberg. The cloth manufacture introduced into it in the 15th century,\nand the manufacture of veils begun in the 16th century, greatly promoted\nits prosperity, but it suffered severely in the Albertine and Hussite\nwars as well as in the Thirty Years' War. In 1792 it came into the\npossession of Prussia; in 1806 it fell to France; and in 1810 it was\nincorporated with Bavaria. In 1823 the greater part of the town was\ndestroyed by fire.\n\n See Ernst, _Geschichte und Beschreibung des Bezirks und der Stadt Hof_\n (1866); Tillmann, _Die Stadt Hof und ihre Umgebung_ (Hof, 1899), and\n C. Meyer, _Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Hof_ (1894-1896).\n\n\n\n\nHOFER, ANDREAS (1767-1810), Tirolese patriot, was born on the 22nd of\nNovember 1767 at St Leonhard, in the Passeier valley. There his father\nkept an inn known as \"am Sand,\" which Hofer inherited, and on that\naccount he was popularly known as the \"Sandwirth.\" In addition to this\nhe carried on a trade in wine and horses with the north of Italy,\nacquiring a high reputation for intelligence and honesty. In the wars\nagainst the French from 1796 to 1805 he took part, first as a\nsharp-shooter and afterwards as a captain of militia. By the treaty of\nPressburg (1805) Tirol was transferred from Austria to Bavaria, and\nHofer, who was almost fanatically devoted to the Austrian house, became\nconspicuous as a leader of the agitation against Bavarian rule. In 1808\nhe formed one of a deputation who went to Vienna, at the invitation of\nthe archduke John, to concert a rising; and when in April 1809 the\nTirolese rose in arms, Hofer was chosen commander of the contingent from\nhis native valley, and inflicted an overwhelming defeat on the Bavarians\nat Sterzing (April 11). This victory, which resulted in the temporary\nreoccupation of Innsbruck by the Austrians, made Hofer the most\nconspicuous of the insurgent leaders. The rapid advance of Napoleon,\nindeed, and the defeat of the main Austrian army under the archduke\nCharles, once more exposed Tirol to the French and Bavarians, who\nreoccupied Innsbruck. The withdrawal of the bulk of the troops, however,\ngave the Tirolese their chance again; after two battles fought on the\nIselberg (May 25 and 29) the Bavarians were again forced to evacuate the\ncountry, and Hofer entered Innsbruck in triumph. An autograph letter of\nthe emperor Francis (May 29) assured him that no peace would be\nconcluded by which Tirol would again be separated from the Austrian\nmonarchy, and Hofer, believing his work accomplished, returned to his\nhome. Then came the news of the armistice of Znaim (July 12), by which\nTirol and Vorarlberg were surrendered by Austria unconditionally and\ngiven up to the vengeance of the French. The country was now again\ninvaded by 40,000 French and Bavarian troops, and Innsbruck fell; but\nthe Tirolese once more organized resistance to the French \"atheists and\nfreemasons,\" and, after a temporary hesitation, Hofer--on whose head a\nprice had been placed--threw himself into the movement. On the 13th of\nAugust, in another battle on the Iselberg, the French under Marshal\nLefebvre were routed by the Tirolese peasants, and Hofer once more\nentered Innsbruck, which he had some difficulty in saving from sack.\nHofer was now elected _Oberkommandant_ of Tirol, took up his quarters in\nthe Hofburg at Innsbruck, and for two months ruled the country in the\nemperor's name. He preserved the habits of a simple peasant, and his\nadministration was characterized in part by the peasant's shrewd common\nsense, but yet more by a pious solicitude for the minutest details of\nfaith and morals. On the 29th of September Hofer received from the\nemperor a chain and medal of honour, which encouraged him in the belief\nthat Austria did not intend again to desert him; the news of the\nconclusion of the treaty of Schonbrunn (October 14), by which Tirol was\nagain ceded to Bavaria, came upon him as an overwhelming surprise. The\nFrench in overpowering force at once pushed into the country, and, an\namnesty having been stipulated in the treaty, Hofer and his companions,\nafter some hesitation, gave in their submission. On the 12th of\nNovember, however, urged on by the hotter heads among the peasant\nleaders and deceived by false reports of Austrian victories, Hofer again\nissued a proclamation calling the mountaineers to arms. The summons met\nwith little response; the enemy advanced in irresistible force, and\nHofer, a price once more set on his head, had to take refuge in the\nmountains. His hiding-place was betrayed by one of his neighbours, named\nJosef Raffl, and on the 27th of January 1810 he was captured by Italian\ntroops and sent in chains to Mantua. There he was tried by\ncourt-martial, and on the 20th of February was shot, twenty-four hours\nafter his condemnation. This crime, which was believed to be due to\nNapoleon's direct orders, caused an immense sensation throughout Germany\nand did much to inflame popular sentiment against the French. At the\ncourt of Austria, too, which was accused of having cynically sacrificed\nthe hero, it produced a painful impression, and Metternich, when he\nvisited Paris on the occasion of the marriage of the archduchess Marie\nLouise to Napoleon, was charged to remonstrate with the emperor.\nNapoleon expressed his regret, stating that the execution had been\ncarried out against his wishes, having been hurried on by the zeal of\nhis generals. In 1823 Hofer's remains were removed from Mantua to\nInnsbruck, where they were interred in the Franciscan church, and in\n1834 a marble statue was erected over his tomb. In 1893 a bronze statue\nof him was also set up on the Iselberg. At Meran his patriotic deeds of\nheroism are the subject of a festival play celebrated annually in the\nopen air. In 1818 the patent of nobility bestowed upon him by the\nAustrian emperor in 1809 was conferred upon his family.\n\n See _Leben und Thaten des ehemaligen Tyroler Insurgenten-Chefs Andr.\n Hofer_ (Berlin, 1810); _Andr. Hofer und die Tyroler Insurrection im\n Jahre 1809_ (Munich, 1811); Hormayr, _Geschichte Andr. Hofer's\n Sandwirths auf Passeyr_ (Leipzig, 1845); B. Weber, _Das Thal Passeyr\n und seine Bewohner mit besonderer Rucksicht auf Andreas Hofer und das\n Jahr 1809_ (Innsbruck, 1851); Rapp, _Tirol im Jahr 1809_ (Innsbruck,\n 1852); Weidinger, _Andreas Hofer und seine Kampfgenossen_ (3rd ed.,\n Leipzig, 1861); Heigel, _Andreas Hofer_ (Munich, 1874); Stampfer,\n _Sandwirt Andreas Hofer_ (Freiburg, 1874); Schmolze, _Andreas Hofer\n und seine Kampfgenossen_ (Innsbruck, 1900). His history has supplied\n the materials for tragedies to B. Auerbach and Immermann, and for\n numerous ballads, of which some remain very popular in Germany (see\n Franke, _Andreas Hofer im Liede_, Innsbruck, 1884).\n\n\n\n\nHOFFDING, HARALD (1843- ), Danish philosopher, was born and educated in\nCopenhagen. He became a schoolmaster, and ultimately in 1883 professor\nin the university of Copenhagen. He was much influenced by Soren\nKierkegaard in the early development of his thought, but later became a\npositivist, retaining, however, and combining with it the spirit and\nmethod of practical psychology and the critical school. His best-known\nwork is perhaps his _Den nyere Filosofis Historie_ (1894), translated\ninto English from the German edition (1895) by B. E. Meyer as _History\nof Modern Philosophy_ (2 vols., 1900), a work intended by him to\nsupplement and correct that of Hans Brochner, to whom it is dedicated.\nHis _Psychology, the Problems of Philosophy_ (1905) and _Philosophy of\nReligion_ (1906) also have appeared in English.\n\n Among Hoffding's other writings, practically all of which have been\n translated into German, are: _Den engelske Filosofi i vor Tid_ (1874);\n _Etik_ (1876; ed. 1879); _Psychologi i Omrids paa Grundlag of\n Erfaring_ (ed. 1892); _Psykologiske Undersogelser_ (1889); _Charles\n Darwin_ (1889); _Kontinuiteten i Kants filosofiske Udviklingsgang_\n (1893); _Det psykologiske Grundlag for logiske Domme_ (1899);\n _Rousseau und seine Philosophie_ (1901); _Mindre Arbejder_ (1899).\n\n\n\n\nHOFFMANN, AUGUST HEINRICH (1798-1874), known as HOFFMANN VON\nFALLERSLEBEN, German poet, philologist and historian of literature, was\nborn at Fallersleben in the duchy of Luneburg, Hanover, on the 2nd of\nApril 1798, the son of the mayor of the town. He was educated at the\nclassical schools of Helmstedt and Brunswick, and afterwards at the\nuniversities of Gottingen and Bonn. His original intention was to study\ntheology, but he soon devoted himself entirely to literature. In 1823 he\nwas appointed custodian of the university library at Breslau, a post\nwhich he held till 1838. He was also made extraordinary professor of the\nGerman language and literature at that university in 1830, and ordinary\nprofessor in 1835; but he was deprived of his chair in 1842 in\nconsequence of his _Unpolitische Lieder_ (1840-1841), which gave much\noffence to the authorities in Prussia. He then travelled in Germany,\nSwitzerland and Italy, and lived for two or three years in Mecklenburg,\nof which he became a naturalized citizen. After the revolution of 1848\nhe was enabled to return to Prussia, where he was restored to his\nrights, and received the _Wartegeld_--the salary attached to a promised\noffice not yet vacant. He married in 1849, and during the next ten years\nlived first in Bingerbruck, afterwards in Neuwied, and then in Weimar,\nwhere together with Oskar Schade (1826-1906) he edited the _Weimarische\nJahrbuch_ (1854-1857). In 1860 he was appointed librarian to the Duke of\nRatibor at the monasterial castle of Corvey near Hoxter on the Weser,\nwhere he died on the 19th of January 1874. Fallersleben was one of the\nbest popular poets of modern Germany. In politics he ardently\nsympathized with the progressive tendencies of his time, and he was\namong the earliest and most effective of the political poets who\nprepared the way for the outbreak of 1848. As a poet, however, he\nacquired distinction chiefly by the ease, simplicity and grace with\nwhich he gave expression to the passions and aspirations of daily life.\nAlthough he had not been scientifically trained in music, he composed\nmelodies for many of his songs, and a considerable number of them are\nsung by all classes in every part of Germany. Among the best known is\nthe patriotic _Deutschland, Deutschland uber Alles_, composed in 1841 on\nthe island of Heligoland, where a monument was erected in 1891 to his\nmemory (subsequently destroyed).\n\n The best of his poetical writings is his _Gedichte_ (1827; 9th ed.,\n Berlin, 1887); but there is great merit also in his _Alemannische\n Lieder_ (1826; 5th ed., 1843), _Soldatenlieder_ (1851),\n _Soldatenleben_ (1852), _Rheinleben_ (1865), and in his _Funfzig\n Kinderlieder_, _Funfzig neue Kinderlieder_, and _Alte und neue\n Kinderlieder_. His _Unpolitische Lieder_, _Deutsche Lieder aus der\n Schweiz_ and _Streiflichter_ are not without poetical value, but they\n are mainly interesting in relation to the movements of the age in\n which they were written. As a student of ancient Teutonic literature\n Hoffmann von Fallersleben ranks among the most persevering and\n cultivated of German scholars, some of the chief results of his\n labours being embodied in his _Horae Belgicae_, _Fundgruben fur\n Geschichte deutscher Sprache und Literatur_, _Altdeutsche Blatter_,\n _Spenden zur deutschen Literaturgeschichte_ and _Findlinge_. Among his\n editions of particular works may be named _Reineke Vos_, _Monumenta\n Elnonensia_ and _Theophilus_. _Die deutsche Philologie im Grundriss_\n (1836) was at the time of its publication a valuable contribution to\n philological research, and historians of German literature still\n attach importance to his _Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenliedes bis\n auf Luther_ (1832; 3rd ed., 1861), _Unsere volkstumlichen Lieder_ (3rd\n ed., 1869) and _Die deutschen Gesellschaftslieder des 16. und 17.\n Jahrh._ (2nd ed., 1860). In 1868-1870 Hoffmann published in 6 vols. an\n autobiography, _Mein Leben: Aufzeichnungen und Erinnerungen_ (an\n abbreviated ed. in 2 vols., 1894). His _Gesammelte Werke_ were edited\n by H. Gerstenberg in 8 vols. (1891-1894); his _Ausgewahlte Werke_ by\n H. Benzmann (1905, 4 vols.). See also _Briefe von Hoffmann von\n Fallersleben und Moritz Haupt an Ferdinand Wolf_ (1874); J. M. Wagner,\n _Hoffmann von Fallersleben, 1818-1868_ (1869-1870), and R. von\n Gottschall, _Portrats und Studien_ (vol. v., 1876).\n\n\n\n\nHOFFMANN, ERNST THEODOR WILHELM (1776-1822), German romance-writer, was\nborn at Konigsberg on the 24th of January 1776. For the name Wilhelm he\nhimself substituted Amadeus in homage to Mozart. His parents lived\nunhappily together, and when the child was only three they separated.\nHis bringing up was left to an uncle who had neither understanding nor\nsympathy for his dreamy and wayward temperament. Hoffmann showed more\ntalent for music and drawing than for books. In 1792, when little over\nsixteen years old, he entered the university of Konigsberg, with a view\nto preparing himself for a legal career. The chief features of interest\nin his student years were an intimate friendship for Theodor Gottlieb\nvon Hippel (1775-1843), a nephew of the novelist Hippel, and an unhappy\npassion for a lady to whom he gave music lessons; the latter found its\noutlet, not merely in music, but also in two novels, neither of which he\nwas able to have published. In the summer of 1795 he began his practical\ncareer as a jurist in Konigsberg, but his mother's death and the\ncomplications in which his love-affair threatened to involve him made\nhim decide to leave his native town and continue his legal\napprenticeship in Glogau. In the autumn of 1798 he was transferred to\nBerlin, where the beginnings of the new Romantic movement were in the\nair. Music, however, had still the first place in his heart, and the\nBerlin opera house was the chief centre of his interests.\n\nIn 1800 further promotion brought him to Posen, where he gave himself up\nentirely to the pleasures of the hour. Unfortunately, however, his\nbrilliant powers of caricature brought him into ill odour, and instead\nof receiving the hoped-for preferment in Posen itself, he found himself\nvirtually banished to the little town of Plozk on the Vistula. Before\nleaving Posen he married, and his domestic happiness alleviated to some\nextent the monotony of the two years' exile. His leisure was spent in\nliterary studies and musical composition. In 1804 he was transferred to\nWarsaw, where, through J. E. Hitzig (1780-1849), he was introduced to\nZacharias Werner, and began to take an interest in the later Romantic\nliterature; now, for the first time, he discovered how writers like\nNovalis, Tieck, and especially Wackenroder, had spoken out of his own\nheart. But in spite of this literary stimulus, his leisure in Warsaw was\nmainly occupied by composition; he wrote music to Brentano's _Lustige\nMusikanten_ and Werner's _Kreuz an der Ostsee_, and also an opera _Liebe\nund Eifersucht_, based on Calderon's drama _La Banda y la Flor_.\n\nThe arrival of the French in Warsaw and the consequent political changes\nput an end to Hoffmann's congenial life there, and a time of tribulation\nfollowed. A position which he obtained in 1808 as musical director of a\nnew theatre in Bamberg availed him little, as within a very short time\nthe theatre was bankrupt and Hoffmann again reduced to destitution. But\nthese misfortunes induced him to turn to literature in order to eke out\nthe miserable livelihood he earned by composing and giving music\nlessons. The editor of the _Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung_ expressed\nhis willingness to accept contributions from Hoffmann, and here appeared\nfor the first time some of the musical sketches which ultimately passed\nover into the _Phantasiestucke in Callots Manier_. This work appeared in\nfour volumes in 1814 and laid the foundation of his fame as a writer.\nMeanwhile, Hoffmann had again been for some time attached, in the\ncapacity of musical director, to a theatrical company, whose\nheadquarters were at Dresden. In 1814 he gladly embraced the opportunity\nthat was offered him of resuming his legal profession in Berlin, and two\nyears later he was appointed councillor of the Court of Appeal\n(_Kammergericht_). Hoffmann had the reputation of being an excellent\njurist and a conscientious official; he had leisure for literary\npursuits and was on the best of terms with the circle of Romantic poets\nand novelists who gathered round Fouque, Chamisso and his old friend\nHitzig. Unfortunately, however, the habits of intemperance which, in\nearlier years, had thrown a shadow over his life, grew upon him, and his\nhealth was speedily undermined by the nights he spent in the wine-house,\nin company unworthy of him. He was struck down by locomotor ataxy, and\ndied on the 24th of July 1822.\n\nThe _Phantasiestucke_, which had been published with a commendatory\npreface by Jean Paul, were followed in 1816 by the gruesome novel--to\nsome extent inspired by Lewis's _Monk--Die Elixiere des Teufels_, and\nthe even more gruesome and grotesque stories which make up the\n_Nachtstucke_ (1817, 2 vols.). The full range of Hoffmann's powers is\nfirst clearly displayed in the collection of stories (4 vols.,\n1819-1821) _Die Serapionsbruder_, this being the name of a small club of\nHoffmann's more intimate literary friends. _Die Serapionsbruder_\nincludes not merely stories in which Hoffmann's love for the mysterious\nand the supernatural is to be seen, but novels in which he draws on his\nown early reminiscences (_Rat Krespel_, _Fermate_), finely outlined\npictures of old German life (_Der Artushof_, _Meister Martin der Kufner\nund seine Gesellen_), and vivid and picturesque incidents from Italian\nand French history (_Doge und Dogaressa_, the story of Marino Faliero,\nand _Das Fraulein von Scuderi_). The last-mentioned story is usually\nregarded as Hoffmann's masterpiece. Two longer works also belong to\nHoffmann's later years and display to advantage his powers as a\nhumorist; these are _Klein Zaches, genannt Zinnober_ (1819), and\n_Lebensansichten des Katers Murr, nebst fragmentarischer Biographie des\nKapellmeisters Johannes Kreisler_ (1821-1822).\n\nHoffmann is one of the master novelists of the Romantic movement in\nGermany. He combined with a humour that reminds us of Jean Paul the warm\nsympathy for the artist's standpoint towards life, which was enunciated\nby early Romantic leaders like Tieck and Wackenroder; but he was\nsuperior to all in the almost clairvoyant powers of his imagination. His\nworks abound in grotesque and gruesome scenes--in this respect they mark\na descent from the high ideals of the Romantic school; but the gruesome\nwas only one outlet for Hoffmann's genius, and even here the secret of\nhis power lay not in his choice of subjects, but in the wonderfully\nvivid and realistic presentation of them. Every line he wrote leaves the\nimpression behind it that it expresses something felt or experienced;\nevery scene, vision or character he described seems to have been real\nand living to him. It is this realism, in the best sense of the word,\nthat made him the great artist he was, and gave him so extraordinary a\npower over his contemporaries.\n\n The first collected edition of Hoffmann's works appeared in ten\n volumes (_Ausgewahlte Schriften_, 1827-1828); to these his widow added\n five volumes in 1839 (including the 3rd edition of J. E. Hitzig's _Aus\n Hoffmanns Leben und Nachlass_, 1823). Other editions of his works\n appeared in 1844-1845, 1871-1873, 1879-1883, and, most complete of\n all, _Samtliche Werke_, edited by E. Grisebach, in 15 vols. (1900).\n There are many editions of selections, as well as cheap reprints of\n the more popular stories. All Hoffmann's important works--except\n _Klein Zaches_ and _Kater Murr_--have been translated into English:\n _The Devil's Elixir_ (1824), _The Golden Pot_ by Carlyle (in _German\n Romance_, 1827), _The Serapion Brethren_ by A. Ewing (1886-1892), &c.\n In France Hoffmann was even more popular than in England. Cp. G.\n Thurau, _Hoffmanns Erzahlungen in Frankreich_ (1896). An edition of\n his _Oeuvres completes_ appeared in 12 vols. in Paris in 1830. The\n best monograph on Hoffmann is by G. Ellinger, _E. T. A. Hoffmann_\n (1894); see also O. Klinke, _Hoffmanns Leben und Werke vom Standpunkte\n eines Irrenarztes_ (1903); and the exhaustive bibliography in\n Goedeke's _Grundriss zur Geschichte der deutschen Dichtung_, 2nd ed.,\n vol. viii. pp. 468 ff. (1905). (J. G. R.)\n\n\n\n\nHOFFMANN, FRANCOIS BENOIT (1760-1828), French dramatist and critic, was\nborn at Nancy on the 11th of July 1760. He studied law at the university\nof Strassburg, but a slight hesitation in his speech precluded success\nat the bar, and he entered a regiment on service in Corsica. He served,\nhowever, for a very short time, and, returning to Nancy, he wrote some\npoems which brought him into notice at the little court of Luneville\nover which the marquise de Boufflers then presided. In 1784 he went to\nParis, and two years later produced the opera _Phedre_. His opera\n_Adrien_ (1792) was objected to by the government on political grounds,\nand Hoffmann, who refused to make the changes proposed to him, ran\nconsiderable risk under the revolutionary government. His later operas,\nwhich were numerous, were produced at the Opera Comique. In 1807 he was\ninvited by Etienne to contribute to the _Journal de l'Empire_\n(afterwards the _Journal des debats_). Hoffmann's wide reading qualified\nhim to write on all sorts of subjects, and he turned, apparently with no\ndifficulty, from reviewing books on medicine to violent attacks on the\nJesuits. His severe criticism of Chateaubriand's _Martyrs_ led the\nauthor to make some changes in a later edition. He had the reputation of\nbeing an absolutely conscientious and incorruptible critic and thus\nexercised wide influence. Hoffmann died in Paris on the 25th of April\n1828. Among his numerous plays should be mentioned an excellent one-act\ncomedy, _Le Roman d'une heure_ (1803), and an amusing one-act opera _Les\nRendez-vous bourgeois_.\n\n See Sainte-Beuve, \"M. de Feletz et la critique litteraire sous\n l'Empire\" in _Causeries du lundi_, vol. i.\n\n\n\n\nHOFFMANN, FRIEDRICH (1660-1742), German physician, a member of a family\nthat had been connected with medicine for 200 years before him, was born\nat Halle on the 19th of February 1660. At the gymnasium of his native\ntown he acquired that taste for and skill in mathematics to which he\nattributed much of his after success. At the age of eighteen he went to\nstudy medicine at Jena, whence in 1680 he passed to Erfurt, in order to\nattend Kasper Cramer's lectures on chemistry. Next year, returning to\nJena, he received his doctor's diploma, and, after publishing a thesis,\nwas permitted to teach. Constant study then began to tell on his\nhealth, and in 1682, leaving his already numerous pupils, he proceeded\nto Minden in Westphalia to recruit himself, at the request of a relative\nwho held a high position in that town. After practising at Minden for\ntwo years, Hoffmann made a journey to Holland and England, where he\nformed the acquaintance of many illustrious chemists and physicians.\nTowards the end of 1684 he returned to Minden, and during the next three\nyears he received many flattering appointments. In 1688 he removed to\nthe more promising sphere of Halberstadt, with the title of physician to\nthe principality of Halberstadt; and on the founding of Halle university\nin 1693, his reputation, which had been steadily increasing, procured\nfor him the primarius chair of medicine, while at the same time he was\ncharged with the responsible duty of framing the statutes for the new\nmedical faculty. He filled also the chair of natural philosophy. With\nthe exception of four years (1708-1712), which he passed at Berlin in\nthe capacity of royal physician, Hoffmann spent the rest of his life at\nHalle in instruction, practice and study, interrupted now and again by\nvisits to different courts of Germany, where his services procured him\nhonours and rewards. His fame became European. He was enrolled a member\nof many learned societies in different foreign countries, while in his\nown he became privy councillor. He died at Halle on the 12th of November\n1742.\n\n Of his numerous writings a catalogue is to be found in Haller's\n _Bibliotheca medicinae practicae_. The chief is _Medicina rationalis\n systematica_, undertaken at the age of sixty, and published in 1730.\n It was translated into French in 1739, under the title of _Medecine\n raisonnee d'Hoffmann_. A complete edition of Hoffmann's works, with a\n life of the author, was published at Geneva in 1740, to which\n supplements were added in 1753 and 1760. Editions appeared also at\n Venice in 1745 and at Naples in 1753 and 1793. (See also MEDICINE.)\n\n\n\n\nHOFFMANN, JOHANN JOSEPH (1805-1878), German scholar, was born at\nWurzburg on the 16th of February 1805. After studying at Wurzburg he\nwent on the stage in 1825; but owing to an accidental meeting with the\nGerman traveller, Dr Philipp Franz von Siebold (1796-1866), in July\n1830, his interest was diverted to Oriental philology. From Siebold he\nacquired the rudiments of Japanese, and in order to take advantage of\nthe instructions of Ko-ching-chang, a Chinese teacher whom Siebold had\nbrought home with him, he made himself acquainted with Malay, the only\nlanguage except Chinese which the Chinaman could understand. In a few\nyears he was able to supply the translations for Siebold's _Nippon_; and\nthe high character of his work soon attracted the attention of older\nscholars. Stanislas Julien invited him to Paris; and he would probably\nhave accepted the invitation, as a disagreement had broken out between\nhim and Siebold, had not M. Baud, the Dutch colonial minister, appointed\nhim Japanese translator with a salary of 1800 florins (L150). The Dutch\nauthorities were slow in giving him further recognition; and he was too\nmodest a man successfully to urge his claims. It was not till after he\nhad received the offer of the professorship of Chinese in King's\nCollege, London, that the authorities made him professor at Leiden and\nthe king allowed him a yearly pension. In 1875 he was decorated with the\norder of the Netherlands Lion, and in 1877 he was elected corresponding\nmember of the Berlin Academy. He died at the Hague on the 23rd of\nJanuary 1878.\n\n Hoffmann's chief work was his unfinished Japanese Dictionary, begun in\n 1839 and afterwards continued by L. Serrurier. Unable at first to\n procure the necessary type, he set himself to the cutting of punches,\n and even when the proper founts were obtained he had to act as his own\n compositor as far as Chinese and Japanese were concerned. His Japanese\n grammar (_Japanische Sprachlehre_) was published in Dutch and English\n in 1867, and in English and German in 1876. Of his miscellaneous\n productions it is enough to mention \"Japans Bezuge mit der koraischen\n Halbinsel und mit Schina\" in _Nippon_, vii.; _Yo-San-fi-Rok_, _L'Art\n d'elever les vers a soie au Japon, par Ouckaki Mourikouni_ (Paris,\n 1848); \"Die Heilkunde in Japan\" in _Mittheil. d. deutsch. Gesellsch.\n fur Natur- und Volkerk. Ost-Asiens_ (1873-1874); and _Japanische\n Studien_ (1878).\n\n\n\n\nHOFMANN, AUGUST WILHELM VON (1818-1892), German chemist, was born at\nGiessen on the 8th of April 1818. Not intending originally to devote\nhimself to physical science, he first took up the study of law and\nphilology at Gottingen, and the general culture he thus gained stood him\nin good stead when he turned to chemistry, the study of which he began\nunder Liebig. When, in 1845, a school of practical chemistry was started\nin London, under the style of the Royal College of Chemistry, Hofmann,\nlargely through the influence of the Prince Consort, was appointed its\nfirst director. It was with some natural hesitation that he, then a\n_Privatdozent_ at Bonn, accepted the position, which may well have\nseemed rather a precarious one; but the difficulty was removed by his\nappointment as extraordinary professor at Bonn, with leave of absence\nfor two years, so that he could resume his career in Germany if his\nEnglish one proved unsatisfactory. Fortunately the college was more or\nless successful, owing largely to his enthusiasm and energy, and many of\nthe men who were trained there subsequently made their mark in chemical\nhistory. But in 1864 he returned to Bonn, and in the succeeding year he\nwas selected to succeed E. Mitscherlich as professor of chemistry and\ndirector of the laboratory in Berlin University. In leaving England, of\nwhich he used to speak as his adopted country, Hofmann was probably\ninfluenced by a combination of causes. The public support extended to\nthe college of chemistry had been dwindling for some years, and before\nhe left it had ceased to have an independent existence and had been\nabsorbed into the School of Mines. This event he must have looked upon\nas a curtailment of its possibilities of usefulness. But, in addition,\nthere is only too much reason to suppose that he was disappointed at the\ngeneral apathy with which his science was regarded in England. No man\never realized more fully than he how entirely dependent on the advance\nof scientific knowledge is the continuation of a country's material\nprosperity, and no single chemist ever exercised a greater or more\ndirect influence upon industrial development. In England, however,\npeople cared for none of these things, and were blind to the commercial\npotentialities of scientific research. The college to which Hofmann\ndevoted nearly twenty of the best years of his life was starved; the\ncoal-tar industry, which was really brought into existence by his work\nand that of his pupils under his direction at that college, and which\nwith a little intelligent forethought might have been retained in\nEngland, was allowed to slip into the hands of Germany, where it is now\nworth millions of pounds annually; and Hofmann himself was compelled to\nreturn to his native land to find due appreciation as one of the\nforemost chemists of his time. The rest of his life was spent in Berlin,\nand there he died on the 5th of May 1892. That city possesses a\npermanent memorial to his name in Hofmann House, the home of the German\nChemical Society (of which he was the founder), which was formally\nopened in 1900, appropriately enough with an account of that great\ntriumph of German chemical enterprise, the industrial manufacture of\nsynthetical indigo.\n\nHofmann's work covered a wide range of organic chemistry, though with\ninorganic bodies he did but little. His first research, carried out in\nLiebig's laboratory at Giessen, was on coal-tar, and his investigation\nof the organic bases in coal-gas naphtha established the nature of\naniline. This substance he used to refer to as his first love, and it\nwas a love to which he remained faithful throughout his life. His\nperception of the analogy between it and ammonia led to his famous work\non the amines and ammonium bases and the allied organic phosphorus\ncompounds, while his researches on rosaniline, which he first prepared\nin 1858, formed the first of a series of investigations on colouring\nmatters which only ended with quinoline red in 1887. But in addition to\nthese and numberless other investigations for which he was responsible\nthe influence he exercised through his pupils must also be taken into\naccount. As a teacher, besides the power of accurately gauging the\ncharacter and capabilities of those who studied under him, he had the\nfaculty of infecting them with his own enthusiasm, and thus of\nstimulating them to put forward their best efforts. In the lecture-room\nhe laid great stress on the importance of experimental demonstrations,\npaying particular attention to their selection and arrangement, though,\nsince he himself was a somewhat clumsy manipulator, their actual\nexhibition was generally entrusted to his assistants. He was the\npossessor of a clear and graceful, if somewhat florid, style, which\nshowed to special advantage in his numerous obituary notices or\nencomiums (collected and published in three volumes _Zur Erinnerung an\nvorangegangene Freunde_, 1888). He also excelled as a speaker,\nparticularly at gatherings of an international character, for in\naddition to his native German he could speak English, French and Italian\nwith fluency.\n\n See _Memorial Lectures delivered before the Chemical Society,\n 1893-1900_ (London, 1901).\n\n\n\n\nHOFMANN, JOHANN CHRISTIAN KONRAD VON (1810-1877), Lutheran theologian\nand historian, was born on the 21st of December 1810 at Nuremberg, and\nstudied theology and history at the university of Erlangen. In 1829 he\nwent to Berlin, where Schleiermacher, Hengstenberg, Neander, Ranke and\nRaumer were among his teachers. In 1833 he received an appointment to\nteach Hebrew and history in the gymnasium of Erlangen. In 1835 he became\n_Repetent_, in 1838 _Privatdozent_ and in 1841 _professor\nextraordinarius_ in the theological faculty at Erlangen. In 1842 he\nbecame _professor ordinarius_ at Rostock, but in 1845 returned once more\nto Erlangen as the successor of Gottlieb Christoph Adolf von Harless\n(1806-1879), founder of the _Zeitschrift fur Protestantismus und\nKirche_, of which Hofmann became one of the editors in 1846, J. F.\nHofling (1802-1853) and Gottfried Thomasius (1802-1875) being his\ncollaborators. He was a conservative in theology, but an enthusiastic\nadherent of the progressive party in politics, and sat as member for\nErlangen and Furth in the Bavarian second chamber from 1863 to 1868. He\ndied on the 20th of December 1877.\n\nHe wrote _Die siebzig Jahre des Jeremias u. die siebzig Jahrwochen des\nDaniel_ (1836); _Geschichte des Aufruhrs in den Cevennen_ (1837);\n_Lehrbuch der Weltgeschichte fur Gymnasien_ (1839), which became a\ntext-book in the Protestant gymnasia of Bavaria; _Weissagung u.\nErfullung im alten u. neuen Testamente_ (1841-1844; 2nd ed., 1857-1860);\n_Der Schriftbeweis_ (1852-1856; 2nd ed., 1857-1860); _Die heilige\nSchrift des neuen Testaments zusammenhangend untersucht_ (1862-1875);\n_Schutzschriften_ (1856-1859), in which he defends himself against the\ncharge of denying the Atonement; and _Theologische Ethik_ (1878). His\nmost important works are the five last named. In theology, as in\necclesiastical polity, Hofmann was a Lutheran of an extreme type,\nalthough the strongly marked individuality of some of his opinions laid\nhim open to repeated accusations of heterodoxy. He was the head of what\nhas been called the Erlangen School, and \"in his day he was\nunquestionably the chief glory of the University of Erlangen\"\n(Lichtenberger).\n\n See the articles in Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyklopadie_ and the\n _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_; and cf. F. Lichtenberger, _History\n of German Theology in the Nineteenth Century_ (1889) pp. 446-458.\n\n\n\n\nHOFMANN, MELCHIOR (c. 1498-1543-4), anabaptist, was born at Hall, in\nSwabia, before 1500 (Zur Linden suggests 1498). His biographers usually\ngive his surname as above; in his printed works it is Hoffman, in his\nmanuscripts Hoffmann. He was without scholarly training, and first\nappears as a furrier at Livland. Attracted by Luther's doctrine, he came\nforward as a lay preacher, combining business travels with a religious\nmission. Accompanied by Melchior Rinck, also a skinner or furrier, and a\nreligious enthusiast, he made his way to Sweden. Joined by Bernard\nKnipperdolling, the party reached Stockholm in the autumn of 1524. Their\nfervid attacks on image worship led to their expulsion. By way of\nLivonia, Hofmann arrived at Dorpat in November 1524, but was driven\nthence in the following January. Making his way to Riga, and thence to\nWittenberg, he found favour with Luther; his letter of the 22nd of June\n1525 appears in a tract by Luther of that year. He was again at Dorpat\nin May 1526; later at Magdeburg. Returning to Wittenberg, he was coldly\nreceived; he wrote there his exposition of Daniel xii. (1527). Repairing\nto Holstein, he got into the good graces of Frederick I. of Denmark, and\nwas appointed by royal ordinance to preach the Gospel at Kiel. He was\nextravagant in denunciation, and developed a Zwinglian view of the\nEucharist. Luther was alarmed. At a colloquy of preachers in Flensburg\n(8th April 1529) Hofmann, John Campanus and others were put on their\ndefence. Hofmann maintained (against the \"magic\" of the Lutherans) that\nthe function of the Eucharist, like that of preaching, is an appeal for\nspiritual union with Christ. Refusing to retract, he was banished. At\nStrassburg to which he now turned, he was well received (1529) till his\nanabaptist development became apparent. He was in relations with\nSchwenkfeld and with Carlstadt, but assumed a prophetic role of his own.\nJourneying to East Friesland, (1530) he founded a community at Emden\n(1532), securing a large following of artisans. Despite the warning of\nJohn Trypmaker, who prophesied for him \"six months\" in prison, he\nreturned in the spring of 1533 to Strassburg, where we hear of his wife\nand child. He gathered from the Apocalypse a vision of \"resurrections\"\nof apostolic Christianity, first under John Hus, and now under himself.\nThe year 1533 was to inaugurate the new era; Strassburg was to be the\nseat of the New Jerusalem. In May 1533 he and others were arrested.\nUnder examination, he denied that he had made common cause with the\nanabaptists and claimed to be no prophet, a mere witness of the Most\nHigh, but refused the articles of faith proposed to him by the\nprovincial synod. Hofmann and Claus Frey, an anabaptist, were detained\nin prison, a measure due to the terror excited by the Munster episode of\n1533-1534. The synod, in 1539, made further effort to reclaim him. The\nlast notice of his imprisonment is on the 19th of November 1543; he\nprobably died soon after.\n\nTwo of his publications, with similar titles, in 1530, are noteworthy as\nhaving influenced Menno Simons and David Joris (_Weissagung vsz heiliger\ngotlicher geschrifft_, and _Prophecey oder Weissagung vsz warer heiliger\ngotlicher schrifft_). Bock treats him as an antitrinitarian, on grounds\nwhich Wallace rightly deems inconclusive. With better reason Trechsel\nincludes him among pioneers of some of the positions of Servetus. His\nChristology was Valentinian. While all are elected to salvation, only\nthe regenerate may receive baptism, and those who sin after regeneration\nsin against the Holy Ghost, and cannot be saved. His followers were\nknown as Hofmannites or Melchiorites.\n\n See G. Herrmann, _Essai sur la vie et les ecrits de M. Hofmann_\n (1852); F. O. zur Linden, _M. Hofmann, ein Prophet der Wiedertaufer_\n (1885); H. Holtzmann, in _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_ (1880);\n Hegler in Hauck's _Realencyklopadie_ (1900); Bock, _Hist. Antitrin._\n (1776), ii.; Wallace, _Antitrin. Biography_ (1850) iii., app. iii.;\n Trechsel, _Prot. Antitrin. vor F. Socin_ (1839) i.; Barclay, _Inner\n Life of Rel. Societies_ (1876). An alleged portrait, from an engraving\n of 1608, is reproduced in the appendix to A. Ross, _Pansebeia_ (1655).\n (A. Go.*)\n\n\n\n\nHOFMEISTER, WILHELM FRIEDRICH BENEDICT (1824-1877), German botanist, was\nborn at Leipzig on the 18th of May 1824. He came of a family engaged in\ntrade, and after being educated at the _Realschule_ of Leipzig he\nentered business as a music-dealer. Much of his botanical work was done\nwhile he was so employed, till in 1863 he was nominated, without\nintermediate academic steps, to the chair in Heidelberg; thence he was\ntransferred in 1872 to Tubingen, in succession to H. von Mohl. His first\nwork was on the distribution of the Coniferae in the Himalaya, but his\nattention was very soon devoted to studying the sexuality and origin of\nthe embryo of Phanerogams. His contributions on this subject extended\nfrom 1847 till 1860, and they finally settled the question of the origin\nof the embryo from an ovum, as against the prevalent pollen-tube theory\nof M. J. Schleiden, for he showed that the pollen-tube does not itself\nproduce the embryo, but only stimulates the ovum already present in the\novule. He soon turned his attention to the embryology of Bryophytes and\nPteridophytes, and gave continuous accounts of the germination of the\nspores and fertilization in _Pilularia_, _Salvinia_, _Selaginella_. Some\nof the main facts of the life of ferns and mosses were already known;\nthese, together with his own wider observations, were worked into that\ngreat general pronouncement published in 1851 under the title,\n_Vergleichende Untersuchungen der Keimung, Entfaltung und Fruchtbildung\nkoherer Kryptogamen und der Samenbildung der Coniferen_. This work will\nalways stand in the first rank of botanical books. It antedated the\n_Origin of Species_ by eight years, but contained facts and comparisons\nwhich could only become intelligible on some theory of descent. The plan\nof life-story common to them all, involving two alternating generations,\nwas demonstrated for Liverworts, Mosses, Ferns, Equiseta, Rhizocarps,\nLycopodiaceae, and even Gymnosperms, with a completeness and certainty\nwhich must still surprise those who know the botanical literature of the\nauthor's time. The conclusions of Hofmeister remain in their broad\noutlines unshaken, but rather strengthened by later-acquired details. In\nthe light of the theory of descent the common plan of life-history in\nplants apparently so diverse as those named acquires a special\nsignificance; but it is one of the remarkable features of this great\nwork that the writer himself does not theorize--with an unerring insight\nhe points out his comparisons and states his homologies, but does not\nindulge in explanatory surmises. It is the typical work of an heroic age\nof plant-morphology. From 1857 till 1862 Hofmeister wrote occasionally\non physiological subjects, such as the ascent of sap, and curvatures of\ngrowing parts, but it was in morphology that he found his natural\nsphere. In 1861, in conjunction with other botanists, a plan was drawn\nup of a handbook of physiological botany, of which Hofmeister was to be\neditor. Though the original scheme was never completed, the editor\nhimself contributed two notable parts, _Die Lehre von der Pflanzenzelle_\n(1867) and _Allgemeine Morphologie der Gewachse_ (1868). The former\ngives an excellent summary of the structure and relations of the\nvegetable cell as then known, but it did not greatly modify current\nviews. The latter was notable for its refutation of the spiral theory of\nleaf arrangement in plants, founded by C. F. Schimper and A. Braun.\nHofmeister transferred the discussion from the mere study of mature form\nto the observation of the development of the parts, and substituted for\nthe \"spiral tendency\" a mechanical theory based upon the observed fact\nthat new branchings appear over the widest gaps which exist between next\nolder branchings of like nature. With this important work Hofmeister's\nperiod of active production closed; he fell into ill-health, and retired\nfrom his academic duties some time before his death at Lindenau, near\nLeipzig, on the 12th of January 1877. (F. O. B.)\n\n\n\n\nHOFMEYR, JAN HENDRIK (1845-1909), South African politician, was born at\nCape Town on the 4th of July 1845. He was educated at the South African\nCollege, and at an early age turned his attention to politics, first as\na journalist. He was editor of the _Zuid Afrikaan_ till its\nincorporation with _Ons Land_, and of the _Zuid Afrikaansche\nTijdschrift_. By birth, education and sympathies a typical Dutch\nAfrikander, he set himself to organize the political power of his\nfellow-countrymen. This he did very effectively, and when in 1879 he\nentered the Cape parliament as member for Stellenbosch, he became the\nreal leader of the Dutch party. Yet he only held office for six\nmonths--as minister without portfolio in the Scanlen ministry from May\nto November 1881. He held no subsequent official post in the colony,\nthough he shared with Sir Thomas Upington and Sir Charles Mills the\nhonour of representing the Cape at the intercolonial conference of 1887.\nHere he supported the proposal for entrusting the defence of Simon's\nTown to Cape Colony, leaving only the armament to be provided by the\nimperial government, opposed trans-oceanic penny postage, and moved a\nresolution in favour of an imperial customs union. At the colonial\nconference of 1894 at Ottawa he was again one of the Cape\nrepresentatives. In 1888 and in 1889 he was a member of the South\nAfrican customs conference.\n\nHis chief importance as a public man was, however, derived from his\npower over the Dutch in Cape Colony, and his control of the Afrikander\nBond. In 1878 he had himself founded the \"Farmers' Association,\" and as\nthe Cape farmers were almost entirely Dutch the Association became a\ncentre of Dutch influence. When the Bond was formed in 1882, with purely\npolitical aims, Hofmeyr made haste to obtain control of it, and in 1883\namalgamated the Farmers' Association with it. Under his direction the\nconstitution of the Bond was modified by the elimination of the\nprovisions inconsistent with loyalty to the British crown. But it\nremained an organization for obtaining the political supremacy of the\nCape Dutch. (See CAPE COLONY: _History_.) His control over the Bond\nenabled him for many years, while free from the responsibilities of\noffice, to make and unmake ministers at his will, and earned for him the\nname of \"Cabinet-maker of South Africa.\" Although officially the term\n\"Afrikander\" was explained by Hofmeyr to include white men of whatever\nrace, yet in practice the influence of the Bond was always exerted in\nfavour of the Dutch, and its power was drawn from the Dutch districts of\nCape Colony. The sympathies of the Bond were thus always strongly with\nthe Transvaal, as the chief centre of Dutch influence in South Africa;\nand Hofmeyr's position might in many respects be compared with that of\nParnell at the head of the Irish Nationalist party in Great Britain. In\nthe Bechuanaland difficulty of 1884 Hofmeyr threw all the influence of\nthe Bond into the scale in favour of the Transvaal. But in the course of\nthe next few years he began to drift away from President Kruger. He\nresented the reckless disregard of Cape interests involved in Kruger's\nfiscal policy; he feared that the Transvaal, after its sudden leap into\nprosperity upon the gold discoveries of 1886, might overshadow all other\nDutch influences in South Africa; above all he was convinced, as he\nshowed by his action at the London conference, that the protection of\nthe British navy was indispensable to South Africa, and he set his face\nagainst Kruger's intrigues with Germany, and his avowed intention of\nacquiring an outlet to the sea in order to get into touch with foreign\npowers.\n\nIn 1890 Hofmeyr joined forces with Cecil Rhodes, who became premier of\nCape Colony with the support of the Bond. Hofmeyr's influence was a\npowerful factor in the conclusion of the Swaziland convention of 1890,\nas well as in stopping the \"trek\" to Banyailand (Rhodesia) in 1891--a\nnotable reversal of the policy he had pursued seven years before. But\nthe reactionary elements in the Bond grew alarmed at Rhodes's\nimperialism, and in 1895 Hofmeyr resigned his seat in parliament and the\npresidency of the Bond. Then came the Jameson Raid, and in its wake\nthere rolled over South Africa a wave of Dutch and anti-British feeling\nsuch as had not been known since the days of Majuba. (The proclamation\nissued by Sir Hercules Robinson disavowing Jameson was suggested by\nHofmeyr, who helped to draw up its terms.) Once more Hofmeyr became\npresident of the Bond. By an alteration of the provincial constitution,\nall power in the Cape branch of the Bond was vested in the hands of a\nvigilance committee of three, of whom Hofmeyr and his brother were two.\nAs the recognized leader of the Cape Dutch, he protested against such\nabuses as the dynamite monopoly in the Transvaal, and urged Kruger even\nat the eleventh hour to grant reasonable concessions rather than plunge\ninto a war that might involve Cape Afrikanderdom and the Transvaal in a\ncommon ruin. In July 1899 he journeyed to Pretoria, and vainly supported\nthe proposal of a satisfactory franchise law, combined with a limited\nrepresentation of the Uitlanders in the Volksraad, and in September\nurged the Transvaal to accede to the proposed joint inquiry. During the\nnegotiations of 1899, and after the outbreak of war, the official organ\nof the Bond, _Ons Land_, was conspicuous for its anti-British attitude,\nand its violence forced Lord Roberts to suppress it in the Cape Colony\ndistrict under martial law. Hofmeyr never associated himself publicly\nwith the opinions expressed by _Ons Land_, but neither did he repudiate\nthem. The tide of race sympathy among his Dutch supporters made his\nposition one of great difficulty, and shortly after the outbreak of war\nhe withdrew to Europe, and refused to act as a member of the\n\"Conciliation Committee\" which came to England in 1901 in the interests\nof the Boer republics.\n\nTowards the close of the war Hofmeyr returned to South Africa and\norganized the Bond forces for the general election held in Cape Colony\nat the beginning of 1904, which resulted in the defeat of the Bond\nparty. Hofmeyr retained his ascendancy over the Cape Dutch, but now\nbegan to find himself somewhat out of sympathy with the larger outlook\non South African affairs taken by the younger leaders of the Boers in\nthe Transvaal. During 1906 he gave offence to the extreme section of the\nBond by some criticisms of the _taal_ and his use of English in public\nspeeches. At the general election in 1908 the Bond, still largely under\nhis direction, gained a victory at the polls, but Hofmeyr himself was\nnot a candidate. In the renewed movement for the closer union of the\nSouth African colonies he advocated federation as opposed to\nunification. When, however, the unification proposals were ratified by\nthe Cape parliament, Hofmeyr procured his nomination as one of the Cape\ndelegates to England in the summer of 1909 to submit the draft act of\nunion to the imperial government. He attended the conferences with the\nofficials of the Colonial Office for the preparation of the draft act,\nand after the bill had become law went to Germany for a \"cure.\" He\nreturned to London in October 1909, where he died on the 16th of that\nmonth. His body was taken to Cape Town for burial.\n\n\n\n\nHOFSTEDE DE GROOT, PETRUS (1802-1886), Dutch theologian, was born at\nLeer in East Friesland, Prussia, on the 8th of October 1802, and was\neducated at the Gymnasium and university of Groningen. For three years\n(1826-1829) he was pastor of the Reformed Church at Ulrum, and then\nentered upon his lifelong duties as professor of theology at Groningen.\nWith his colleagues L. G. Pareau, J. F. van Vordt, and W. Muurling he\nedited from 1837 to 1872 the _Waarheid in Liefde_. In this review and in\nhis numerous books he vigorously upheld the orthodox faith against the\nDutch \"modern theology\" movement. Many of his works were written in\nLatin, including _Disputatio, qua ep. ad Hebraeos cum Paulin. epistolis\ncomparatur_ (1826), _Institutiones historiae ecclesiae_ (1835),\n_Institutio theologiae naturalis_ (1842), _Encyclopaedia theologi\nchristiani_ (1844). Others, in Dutch, were: _The Divine Education of\nHumanity up to the Coming of Jesus Christ_ (3 vols., 1846), _The Nature\nof the Gospel Ministry_ (1858), _The \"Modern Theology\" of the\nNetherlands_ (1869), _The Old Catholic Movement_ (1877). He became\nprofessor emeritus in 1872, and died at Groningen on the 5th of December\n1886.\n\n\n\n\nHOGARTH, WILLIAM (1697-1764), the great English painter and pictorial\nsatirist, was born at Bartholomew Close in London on the 10th of\nNovember 1697, and baptized on the 28th in the church of St Bartholomew\nthe Great. He had two younger sisters, Mary, born in 1699, and Ann, born\nin 1701. His father, Richard Hogarth, who died in 1718, was a\nschoolmaster and literary hack, who had come to the metropolis to seek\nthat fortune which had been denied to him in his native Westmorland. The\nson seems to have been early distinguished by a talent for drawing and\nan active perceptive faculty rather than by any close attention to the\nlearning which he was soon shrewd enough to see had not made his parent\nprosper. \"Shows of all sorts gave me uncommon pleasure when an infant,\"\nhe says, \"and mimicry, common to all children, was remarkable in me....\nMy exercises when at school were more remarkable for the ornaments which\nadorned them than for the exercise itself.\" This being the case, it is\nno wonder that, by his own desire, he was apprenticed to a silver-plate\nengraver, Mr Ellis Gamble, at the sign of the \"Golden Angel\" in\nCranbourne Street or Alley, Leicester Fields. For this master he\nengraved a shop-card which is still extant. When his apprenticeship\nbegan is not recorded; but it must have been concluded before the\nbeginning of 1720, for in April of that year he appears to have set up\nas engraver on his own account. His desires, however, were not limited\nto silver-plate engraving. \"Engraving on copper was, at twenty years of\nage, my utmost ambition.\" For this he lacked the needful skill as a\ndraughtsman; and his account of the means which he took to supply this\nwant, without too much interfering with his pleasure, is thoroughly\ncharacteristic, though it can scarcely be recommended as an example.\n\"Laying it down,\" he says, \"first as an axiom, that he who could by any\nmeans acquire and retain in his memory, perfect ideas of the subjects he\nmeant to draw, would have as clear a knowledge of the figure as a man\nwho can write freely hath of the twenty-four letters of the alphabet and\ntheir infinite combinations (each of these being composed of lines),\nand would consequently be an accurate designer, ... I therefore\nendeavoured to habituate myself to the exercise of a sort of technical\nmemory, and by repeating in my own mind, the parts of which objects were\ncomposed, I could by degrees combine and put them down with my pencil.\"\nThis account, it is possible, has something of the complacency of the\nold age in which it was written; but there is little doubt that his\nmarvellous power of seizing expression owed less to patient academical\nstudy than to his unexampled eye-memory and tenacity of minor detail.\nBut he was not entirely without technical training, since, by his own\nshowing, he occasionally \"took the life\" to correct his memories, and is\nknown to have studied at Sir James Thornhill's then recently opened art\nschool.\n\n\"His first employment\" (i.e. after he set up for himself) \"seems,\" says\nJohn Nichols, in his _Anecdotes_, \"to have been the engraving of arms\nand shop bills.\" After this he was employed in designing \"plates for\nbooksellers.\" Of these early and mostly insignificant works we may pass\nover \"The Lottery, an Emblematic Print on the South Sea Scheme,\" and\nsome book illustrations, to pause at \"Masquerades and Operas\" (1724),\nthe first plate he published on his own account. This is a clever little\nsatire on contemporary follies, such as the masquerades of the Swiss\nadventurer Heidegger, the popular Italian opera-singers, Rich's\npantomimes at Lincoln's Inn Fields, and last, but by no means least, the\nexaggerated popularity of Lord Burlington's protege, the architect\npainter William Kent, who is here represented on the summit of\nBurlington Gate, with Raphael and Michelangelo for supporters. This\nworthy, Hogarth had doubtless not learned to despise less in the school\nof his rival Sir James Thornhill. Indeed almost the next of Hogarth's\nimportant prints was aimed at Kent alone, being that memorable burlesque\nof the unfortunate altarpiece designed by the latter for St Clement\nDanes, which, in deference to the ridicule of the parishioners, Bishop\nGibson took down in 1725. Hogarth's squib, which appeared subsequently,\nexhibits it as a very masterpiece of confusion and bad drawing. In 1726\nhe prepared twelve large engravings for Butler's _Hudibras_. These he\nhimself valued highly, and they are the best of his book illustrations.\nBut he was far too individual to be the patient interpreter of other\nmen's thoughts, and it is not in this direction that his successes are\nto be sought.\n\nTo 1727-1728 belongs one of those rare occurrences which have survived\nas contributions to his biography. He was engaged by Joshua Morris, a\ntapestry worker, to prepare a design for the \"Element of Earth.\" Morris,\nhowever, having heard that he was \"an engraver, and no painter,\"\ndeclined the work when completed, and Hogarth accordingly sued him for\nthe money in the Westminster Court, where, on the 28th of May 1728, the\ncase was decided in his (Hogarth's) favour. It may have been the\naspersion thus early cast on his skill as a painter (coupled perhaps\nwith the unsatisfactory state of print-selling, owing to the\nuncontrolled circulation of piratical copies) that induced him about\nthis time to turn his attention to the production of \"small conversation\npieces\" (i.e. groups in oil of full-length portraits from 12 to 15 in.\nhigh), many of which are still preserved in different collections.\n\"This,\" he says, \"having novelty, succeeded for a few years.\" Among his\nother efforts in oil between 1728 and 1732 were \"The Wanstead\nConversation,\" \"The House of Commons examining Bambridge,\" an infamous\nwarden of the Fleet, and several pictures of the chief actors in Gay's\npopular _Beggar's Opera_.\n\nOn the 23rd of March 1729 he was married at old Paddington church to\nJane Thornhill, the only daughter of Kent's rival above mentioned. The\nmatch was a clandestine one, although Lady Thornhill appears to have\nfavoured it. We next hear of him in \"lodgings at South Lambeth,\" where\nhe rendered some assistance to the then well-known Jonathan Tyers, who\nopened Vauxhall in 1732 with an entertainment styled a _ridotto al\nfresco_. For these gardens Hogarth painted a poor picture of Henry VIII.\nand Anne Boleyn, and he also permitted Hayman to make copies of the\nlater series of the \"Four Times of the Day.\" In return, the grateful\nTyers presented him with a gold pass ticket \"_In perpetuam Beneficii\nMemoriam_.\" It was long thought that Hogarth designed this himself. Mr\nWarwick Wroth (_Numismatic Chronicle_, vol. xviii.) doubts this,\nalthough he thinks it probable that Hogarth designed some of the silver\nVauxhall passes which are figured in Wilkinson's _Londina illustrata_.\nThe only engravings between 1726 and 1732 which need be referred to are\nthe \"Large Masquerade Ticket\" (1727), another satire on masquerades, and\nthe print of \"Burlington Gate\" (1731), evoked by Pope's _Epistle to Lord\nBurlington_, and defending Lord Chandos, who is therein satirized. This\nprint gave great offence, and was, it is said, suppressed.\n\nBy 1731 Hogarth must have completed the earliest of the series of moral\nworks which first gave him his position as a great and original genius.\nThis was \"A Harlot's Progress,\" the paintings for which, if we may trust\nthe date in the last of the pictures, were finished in that year. Almost\nimmediately afterwards he must have begun to engrave them--a task he had\nat first intended to leave to others. From an advertisement in the\n_Country Journal; or, the Craftsman_, 29th of January 1732, the pictures\nwere then being engraved, and from later announcements it seems clear\nthat they were delivered to the subscribers early in the following\nApril, on the 21st of which month an unauthorized prose description of\nthem was published. We have no record of the particular train of thought\nwhich prompted these story-pictures; but it may perhaps be fairly\nassumed that the necessity for creating some link of interest between\nthe personages of the little \"conversation pieces\" above referred to,\nled to the further idea of connecting several groups or scenes so as to\nform a sequent narrative. \"I wished,\" says Hogarth, \"to compose pictures\non canvas, similar to representations on the stage.\" \"I have\nendeavoured,\" he says again, \"to treat my subject as a dramatic writer;\nmy picture is my stage, and men and women my players, who by means of\ncertain actions and gestures are to exhibit _a dumb show_.\" There was\nnever a more eloquent dumb show than this of the \"Harlot's Progress.\" In\nsix scenes the miserable career of a woman of the town is traced out\nremorselessly from its first facile beginning to its shameful and\ndegraded end. Nothing of the detail is softened or abated; the whole is\nacted out _coram populo_, with the hard, uncompassionate morality of the\nage the painter lived in, while the introduction here and there of one\nor two well-known characters such as Colonel Charteris and Justice\nGonson give a vivid reality to the satire. It had an immediate success.\nTo say nothing of the fact that the talent of the paintings completely\nreconciled Sir James Thornhill to the son-in-law he had hitherto refused\nto acknowledge, more than twelve hundred names of subscribers to the\nengravings were entered in the artist's book. On the appearance of plate\niii. the lords of the treasury trooped to the print shop for Sir John\nGonson's portrait which it contained. The story was made into a\npantomime by Theophilus Cibber, and by some one else into a ballad\nopera; and it gave rise to numerous pamphlets and poems. It was painted\non fan-mounts and transferred to cups and saucers. Lastly, it was freely\npirated. There could be no surer testimony to its popularity.\n\nFrom the MSS. of George Vertue in the British Museum (Add. MSS.\n23069-98) it seems that during the progress of the plates, Hogarth was\ndomiciled with his father-in-law, Sir James Thornhill, in the Middle\nPiazza, Covent Garden (the \"second house eastward from James Street\"),\nand it must have been thence that set out the historical expedition from\nLondon to Sheerness of which the original record still exists at the\nBritish Museum. This is an oblong MS. volume entitled _An Account of\nwhat seem'd most Remarkable in the Five Days' Peregrination of the Five\nFollowing Persons, vizt., Messieurs Tothall, Scott, Hogarth, Thornhill\nand Forrest. Begun on Saturday May 27th 1732 and Finish'd On the 31st of\nthe Same Month. Abi tu et fac similiter. Inscription on Dulwich College\nPorch_. The journal, which is written by Ebenezer, the father of\nGarrick's friend Theodosius Forrest, gives a good idea of what a\n\"frisk\"--as Johnson called it--was in those days, while the\nillustrations were by Hogarth and Samuel Scott the landscape painter.\nJohn Thornhill, Sir James's son, made the map. This version (in prose)\nwas subsequently run into rhyme by one of Hogarth's friends, the Rev.\nWm. Gostling of Canterbury, and after the artist's death both versions\nwere published. In the absence of other biographical detail, they are of\nconsiderable interest to the student of Hogarth. In 1733 Hogarth moved\ninto the \"Golden Head\" in Leicester Fields, which, with occasional\nabsences at Chiswick, he continued to occupy until his death. By\nDecember of this year he was already engaged upon the engravings of a\nsecond Progress, that of a Rake. It was not as successful as its\npredecessor. It was in eight plates in lieu of six. The story is\nunequal; but there is nothing finer than the figure of the desperate\nhero in the Covent Garden gaming-house, or the admirable scenes in the\nFleet prison and Bedlam, where at last his headlong career comes to its\ntragic termination. The plates abound with allusive suggestion and\ncovert humour; but it is impossible to attempt any detailed description\nof them here.\n\n\"A Rake's Progress\" was dated June 25, 1735, and the engravings bear the\nwords \"according to Act of Parliament.\" This was an act (8 Geo. II. cap.\n13) which Hogarth had been instrumental in obtaining from the\nlegislature, being stirred thereto by the shameless piracies of rival\nprintsellers. Although loosely drawn, it served its purpose; and the\npainter commemorated his success by a long inscription on the plate\nentitled \"Crowns, Mitres, &c.,\" afterwards used as a subscription ticket\nto the Election series. These subscription tickets to his engravings,\nlet us add, are among the brightest and most vivacious of the artist's\nproductions. That to the \"Harlot's Progress\" was entitled \"Boys peeping\nat Nature,\" while the Rake's Progress was heralded by the delightful\netching known as \"A Pleased Audience at a Play, or The Laughing\nAudience.\"\n\nWe must pass more briefly over the prints which followed the two\nProgresses, noting first \"A Modern Midnight Conversation,\" an admirable\ndrinking scene which comes between them in 1733, and the bright little\nplate of \"Southwark Fair,\" which, although dated 1733, was published\nwith \"A Rake's Progress\" in 1735. Between these and \"Marriage _a la\nmode_,\" upon the pictures of which the painter must have been not long\nafter at work, come the small prints of the \"Consultation of Physicians\"\nand \"Sleeping Congregation\" (1736), the \"Scholars at a Lecture\" (1737);\nthe \"Four Times of the Day\" (1738), a series of pictures of 18th century\nlife, the earlier designs for which have been already referred to; the\n\"Strolling Actresses dressing in a Barn\" (1738), which Walpole held to\nbe, \"for wit and imagination, without any other end, the best of all the\npainter's works\"; and finally the admirable plates of the Distrest Poet\npainfully composing a poem on \"Riches\" in a garret, and the Enraged\nMusician fulminating from his parlour window upon a discordant orchestra\nof knife-grinders, milk-girls, ballad-singers and the rest upon the\npavement outside. These are dated respectively 1736 and 1741. To this\nperiod also (i.e. the period preceding the production of the plates of\n\"Marriage _a la mode_\") belong two of those history pictures to which,\nin emulation of the Haymans and Thornhills, the artist was continually\nattracted. \"The Pool of Bethesda\" and the \"Good Samaritan,\" \"with\nfigures seven feet high,\" were painted _circa_ 1736, and presented by\nthe artist to St Bartholomew's Hospital, where they remain. They were\nnot masterpieces; and it is pleasanter to think of his connexion with\nCaptain Coram's recently established Foundling Hospital (1739), which he\naided with his money, his graver and his brush, and for which he painted\nthat admirable portrait of the good old philanthropist which is still,\nand deservedly, one of its chief ornaments.\n\nIn \"A Harlot's Progress\" Hogarth had not strayed much beyond the lower\nwalks of society, and although, in \"A Rake's Progress,\" his hero was\ntaken from the middle classes, he can scarcely be said to have quitted\nthose fields of observation which are common to every spectator. It is\ntherefore more remarkable, looking to his education and antecedents,\nthat his masterpiece, \"Marriage _a la mode_,\" should successfully\ndepict, as the advertisement has it, \"a variety of modern occurrences in\nhigh life.\" Yet, as an accurate delineation of upper class 18th century\nsociety, his \"Marriage _a la mode_\" has never, we believe, been\nseriously assailed. The countess's bedroom, the earl's apartment with\nits lavish coronets and old masters, the grand saloon with its marble\npillars and grotesque ornaments, are fully as true to nature as the\nfrowsy chamber in the \"Turk's Head Bagnio,\" the quack-doctor's museum in\nSt Martin's Lane, or the mean opulence of the merchant's house in the\ncity. And what story could be more vividly, more perspicuously, more\npowerfully told than this godless alliance of _sacs et parchemins_--this\nmiserable tragedy of an ill-assorted marriage? There is no defect of\ninvention, no superfluity of detail, no purposeless stroke. It has the\nmerit of a work by a great master of fiction, with the additional\nadvantages which result from the pictorial fashion of the narrative; and\nit is matter for congratulation that it is still to be seen by all the\nworld in the National Gallery in London, where it can tell its own tale\nbetter than pages of commentary. The engravings of \"Marriage _a la\nmode_\" were dated April 1745. Although by this time the painter found a\nready market for his engravings, he does not appear to have been equally\nsuccessful in selling his pictures. The people bought his prints; but\nthe richer and not numerous connoisseurs who purchased pictures were\nwholly in the hands of the importers and manufacturers of \"old masters.\"\nIn February 1745 the original oil paintings of the two Progresses, the\n\"Four Times of the Day\" and the \"Strolling Actresses\" were still unsold.\nOn the last day of that month Hogarth disposed of them by an ill-devised\nkind of auction, the details of which may be read in Nichols's\n_Anecdotes_, for the paltry sum of L427, 7s. No better fate attended\n\"Marriage _a la mode_,\" which six years later became the property of Mr\nLane of Hillingdon for 120 guineas, being then in Carlo Maratti frames\nwhich had cost the artist four guineas a piece. Something of this was no\ndoubt due to Hogarth's impracticable arrangements, but the fact shows\nconclusively how completely blind his contemporaries were to his merits\nas a painter, and how hopelessly in bondage to the all-powerful\npicture-dealers. Of these latter the painter himself gave a graphic\npicture in a letter addressed by him under the pseudonym of \"Britophil\"\nto the _St James's Evening Post_, in June 1737.\n\nBut if Hogarth was not successful with his dramas on canvas, he\noccasionally shared with his contemporaries in the popularity of\nportrait painting. For a picture, executed in 1746, of Garrick as\nRichard III. he was paid L200, \"which was more,\" says he, \"than any\nEnglish artist ever received for a single portrait.\" In the same year a\nsketch of Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat, afterwards beheaded on Tower Hill,\nhad an exceptional success.\n\nWe must content ourselves with a brief enumeration of the most important\nof his remaining works. These are \"The Stage Coach or Country Inn Yard\"\n(1747); the series of twelve plates entitled \"Industry and Idleness\"\n(1747), depicting the career of two London apprentices; the \"Gate of\nCalais\" (1749), which had its origin in a rather unfortunate visit paid\nto France by the painter after the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle; the \"March\nto Finchley\" (1750); \"Beer Street,\" \"Gin Lane\" and the \"Four Stages of\nCruelty\" (1751); the admirable representations of election humours in\nthe days of Sir Robert Walpole, entitled \"Four Prints of an Election\"\n(1755-1758); and the plate of \"Credulity, Superstition and Fanaticism, a\nMedley\" (1762), adapted from an earlier unpublished design called\n\"Enthusiasm Delineated.\" Besides these must be chronicled three more\nessays in the \"great style of history painting,\" viz. \"Paul before\nFelix,\" \"Moses brought to Pharaoh's Daughter\" and the Altarpiece for St\nMary Redcliffe at Bristol. The first two were engraved in 1751-1752, the\nlast in 1794. A subscription ticket to the earlier pictures, entitled\n\"Paul before Felix Burlesqued,\" had a popularity far greater than that\nof the prints themselves.\n\nIn 1745 Hogarth painted that admirable portrait of himself with his dog\nTrump, which is now in the National Gallery. In a corner of this he had\ndrawn on a palette a serpentine curve with the words \"The Line of\nBeauty.\" Much inquiry ensued as to the meaning of this hieroglyphic; and\nin an unpropitious hour the painter resolved to explain himself in\nwriting. The result was the well-known _Analysis of Beauty_ (1753), a\ntreatise to fix \"the fluctuating ideas of Taste,\" otherwise a desultory\nessay having for pretext the precept attributed to Michelangelo that a\nfigure should be always \"Pyramidall, Serpent like and multiplied by one\ntwo and three.\" The fate of the book was what might have been expected.\nBy the painter's adherents it was praised as a final deliverance upon\naesthetics; by his enemies and professional rivals, its obscurities, and\nthe minor errors which, notwithstanding the benevolent efforts of\nliterary friends, the work had not escaped, were made the subject of\nendless ridicule and caricature. It added little to its author's fame,\nand it is perhaps to be regretted that he ever undertook it. Moreover,\nthere were further humiliations in store for him. In 1759 the success of\na little picture called \"The Lady's Last Stake,\" painted for Lord\nCharlemont, procured him a commission from Sir Richard Grosvenor to\npaint another picture \"upon the same terms.\" Unhappily on this occasion\nhe deserted his own field of genre and social satire, to select the\nstory from Boccaccio (or rather Dryden) of Sigismunda weeping over the\nheart of her murdered lover Guiscardo, being the subject of a picture in\nSir Luke Schaub's collection by Furini which had recently been sold for\nL400. The picture, over which he spent much time and patience, was not\nregarded as a success; and Sir Richard rather meanly shuffled out of his\nbargain upon the plea that \"the constantly having it before one's eyes,\nwould be too often occasioning melancholy ideas to arise in one's mind.\"\nSigismunda, therefore, much to the artist's mortification, and the\ndelight of the malicious, remained upon his hands. As, by her husband's\ndesire, his widow valued it at L500, it found no purchaser until after\nher death, when the Boydells bought it for 56 guineas. It was exhibited,\nwith others of Hogarth's pictures, at the Spring Gardens exhibition of\n1761, for the catalogue of which Hogarth engraved a Head-piece and a\nTail-piece which are still the delight of collectors; and finally, by\nthe bequest of Mr J. H. Anderdon, it passed in 1879 to the National\nGallery, where, in spite of theatrical treatment and a repulsive theme,\nit still commands admiration for its colour, drawing and expression.\n\nIn 1761 Hogarth was sixty-five years of age, and he had but three years\nmore to live. These three years were embittered by an unhappy quarrel\nwith his quondam friends, John Wilkes and Churchill the poet, over which\nmost of his biographers are contented to pass rapidly. Having succeeded\nJohn Thornhill in 1757 as serjeant painter (to which post he was\nreappointed at the accession of George III.), an evil genius prompted\nhim in 1762 to do some \"timed\" thing in the ministerial interest, and he\naccordingly published the indifferent satire of \"The Times, plate i.\"\nThis at once brought him into collision with Wilkes and Churchill, and\nthe immediate result was a violent attack upon him, both as a man and an\nartist, in the opposition _North Briton_, No. 17. The alleged decay of\nhis powers, the miscarriage of Sigismunda, the cobbled composition of\nthe _Analysis_, were all discussed with scurrilous malignity by those\nwho had known his domestic life and learned his weaknesses. The old\nartist was deeply wounded, and his health was failing. Early in the next\nyear, however, he replied by that portrait of Wilkes which will for ever\ncarry his squinting features to posterity. Churchill retaliated in July\nby a savage _Epistle to William Hogarth_, to which the artist rejoined\nby a print of Churchill as a bear, in torn bands and ruffles, not the\nmost successful of his works. \"The pleasure, and pecuniary advantage,\"\nwrites Hogarth manfully, \"which I derived from these two engravings\" (of\nWilkes and Churchill), \"together with occasionally riding on horseback,\nrestored me to as much health as can be expected at my time of life.\" He\nproduced but one more print, that of \"Finis, or The Bathos,\" March 1764,\na strange jumble of \"fag ends,\" intended as a tail-piece to his\ncollected prints; and on the 26th October of the same year he died of an\naneurism at his house in Leicester Square. His wife, to whom he left his\nplates as a chief source of income, survived him until 1789. He was\nburied in Chiswick churchyard, where a tomb was erected to him by his\nfriends in 1771, with an epitaph by Garrick. Not far off, on the road\nto Chiswick Gardens, still stands the little red-brick Georgian villa\nin which from September 1749 until his death he spent the summer\nseasons. After many vicissitudes and changes of ownership it was\npurchased in 1902 by Lieut.-Colonel Shipway of Chiswick, who turned it\ninto a Hogarth museum and preserved it to the nation.\n\nFrom such records of him as survive, Hogarth appears to have been much\nwhat from his portrait one might suppose him to have been--a blue-eyed,\nhonest, combative little man, thoroughly insular in his prejudices and\nantipathies, fond of flattery, sensitive like most satirists, a good\nfriend, an intractable enemy, ambitious, as he somewhere says, in all\nthings to be singular, and not always accurately estimating the extent\nof his powers. With the art connoisseurship of his day he was wholly at\nwar, because, as he believed, it favoured foreign mediocrity at the\nexpense of native talent; and in the heat of argument he would probably,\nas he admits, often come \"to utter blasphemous expressions against the\ndivinity even of Raphael Urbino, Correggio and Michelangelo.\" But it was\nrather against the third-rate copies of third-rate artists--the\n\"ship-loads of dead Christs, Holy Families and Madonnas\"--that his\nindignation was directed; and in speaking of his attitude with regard to\nthe great masters of art, it is well to remember his words to Mrs\nPiozzi:--\"The connoisseurs and I are at war, you know; and because I\nhate _them_, they think I hate _Titian_--and let them!\"\n\nBut no doubt it was in a measure owing to this hostile attitude of his\ntowards the all-powerful picture-brokers that his contemporaries failed\nto recognize adequately his merits as a painter, and persisted in\nregarding him as an ingenious humorist alone. Time has reversed that\nunjust sentence. He is now held to have been a splendid painter, pure\nand harmonious in his colouring, wonderfully dexterous and direct in his\nhandling, and in his composition leaving little or nothing to be\ndesired. As an engraver his work is more conspicuous for its vigour,\nspirit and intelligibility than for finish and beauty of line. He\ndesired that it should tell its own tale plainly, and bear the distinct\nimpress of his individuality, and in this he thoroughly succeeded. As a\ndraughtsman his skill has sometimes been debated, and his work at times\nundoubtedly bears marks of haste, and even carelessness. If, however, he\nis judged by his best instead of his worst, he will not be found wanting\nin this respect. But it is not after all as a draughtsman, an engraver\nor a painter that he claims his unique position among English\nartists--it is as a humorist and a satirist upon canvas. Regarded in\nthis light he has never been equalled, whether for his vigour of realism\nand dramatic power, his fancy and invention in the decoration of his\nstory, or his merciless anatomy and exposure of folly and wickedness. If\nwe regard him--as he loved to regard himself--as \"author\" rather than\n\"artist,\" his place is with the great masters of literature--with the\nThackerays and Fieldings, the Cervantes and Molieres.\n\n AUTHORITIES.--The main body of Hogarth literature is to be found in\n the autobiographical _Memoranda_ published by John Ireland in 1798,\n and in the successive _Anecdotes_ of the antiquary John Nichols. Much\n minute information has also been collected in F. G. Stephens's\n _Catalogue of the Satirical Prints and Drawings in the British\n Museum_. But a copious bibliography of books, pamphlets, &c., relating\n to Hogarth, together with detailed catalogues of his paintings and\n prints, will be found in the _Memoir_ of Hogarth by Austin Dobson.\n First issued in 1879, this was reprinted and expanded in 1891, 1897,\n 1902 and finally in 1907. Pictures by Hogarth from private collections\n are constantly to be found at the annual exhibitions of the Old\n Masters at Burlington House; but most of the best-known works have\n permanent homes in public galleries. \"Marriage _a la mode_.\"\n \"Sigismunda,\" \"Lavinia Fenton,\" the \"Shrimp Girl,\" the \"Gate of\n Calais,\" the portraits of himself, his sister and his servants, are\n all in the National Gallery; the \"Rake's Progress\" and the Election\n Series, in the Soane Museum; and the \"March to Finchley\" and \"Captain\n Coram\" in the Foundling. There are also notable pictures in the\n Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge and the National Portrait Gallery. At\n the Print Room in the British Museum there is also a very interesting\n set of sixteen designs for the series called \"Industry and Idleness,\"\n the majority of which formerly belonged to Horace Walpole. (A. D.)\n\n\n\n\nHOGG, JAMES (1770-1835), Scottish poet, known as the \"Ettrick Shepherd,\"\nwas baptized at Ettrick in Selkirkshire on the 9th of December 1770.\nHis ancestors had been shepherds for centuries. He received hardly any\nschool training, and seems to have had difficulty in getting books to\nread. After spending his early years herding sheep for different\nmasters, he was engaged as shepherd by Mr Laidlaw, tenant of Blackhouse,\nin the parish of Yarrow, from 1790 till 1799. He was treated with great\nkindness, and had access to a large collection of books. When this was\nexhausted he subscribed to a circulating library in Peebles. While\nattending to his flock, he spent a great deal of time in reading. He\nprofited by the company of his master's sons, of whom William Laidlaw is\nknown as the friend of Scott and the author of _Lucy's Flittin'_. Hogg's\nfirst printed piece was \"The Mistakes of a Night\" in the _Scots\nMagazine_ for October 1794, and in 1801 he published his _Scottish\nPastorals_. In 1802 Hogg became acquainted with Sir Walter Scott, who\nwas then collecting materials for his _Border Minstrelsy_. On Scott's\nrecommendation Constable published Hogg's miscellaneous poems (_The\nMountain Bard_) in 1807. By this work, and by _The Shepherd's Guide,\nbeing a Practical Treatise on the Diseases of Sheep_, Hogg realized\nabout L300. With this money he unfortunately embarked in farming in\nDumfriesshire, and in three years was utterly ruined, having to abandon\nall his effects to his creditors. He returned to Ettrick, only to find\nthat he could not even obtain employment as a shepherd; so he set off in\nFebruary 1810 to push his fortune in Edinburgh as a literary adventurer.\nIn the same year he published a collection of songs, _The Forest\nMinstrel_, to which he was the largest contributor. This book, being\ndedicated to the countess of Dalkeith (afterwards duchess of Buccleuch),\nand recommended to her notice by Scott, was rewarded with a present of\n100 guineas. He then began a weekly periodical, _The Spy_, which he\ncontinued from September 1810 till August 1811. The appearance of _The\nQueen's Wake_ in 1813 established Hogg's reputation as a poet; Byron\nrecommended it to John Murray, who brought out an English edition. The\nscene of the poem is laid in 1561; the queen is Mary Stuart; and the\n\"wake\" provides a simple framework for seventeen poems sung by rival\nbards. It was followed by the _Pilgrims of the Sun_ (1815), and _Mador\nof the Moor_ (1816). The duchess of Buccleuch, on her death-bed (1814),\nhad asked her husband to do something for the Ettrick bard; and the duke\ngave him a lease for life of the farm of Altrive in Yarrow, consisting\nof about 70 acres of moorland, on which the poet built a house and spent\nthe last years of his life. In order to obtain money to stock his farm\nHogg asked various poets to contribute to a volume of verse which should\nbe a kind of poetic \"benefit\" for himself. Failing in his applications\nhe wrote a volume of parodies, published in 1816, as _The Poetic Mirror,\nor the Living Bards of Great Britain_. He took possession of his farm in\n1817; but his literary exertions were never relaxed. Before 1820 he had\nwritten the prose tales of _The Brownie of Bodsbeck_ (1818) and two\nvolumes of _Winter Evening Tales_ (1820), besides collecting, editing\nand writing part of two volumes of _The Jacobite Relics of Scotland_\n(1819-1821), and contributing largely to _Blackwood's Magazine_. \"The\nChaldee MS.,\" which appeared in _Blackwood's Magazine_ (October 1817),\nand gave such offence that it was immediately withdrawn, was largely\nHogg's work.\n\nIn 1820 he married Margaret Phillips, a lady of a good Annandale family,\nand found himself possessed of about L1000, a good house and a\nwell-stocked farm. Hogg's connexion with _Blackwood's Magazine_ kept him\ncontinually before the public; his contributions, which include the best\nof his prose works, were collected in the _Shepherd's Calendar_ (1829).\nThe wit and mischief of some of his literary friends made free with his\nname as the \"Shepherd\" of the _Noctes Ambrosianae_, and represented him\nin ludicrous and grotesque aspects; but the effect of the whole was\nfavourable to his popularity. \"Whatever may be the merits of the picture\nof the Shepherd [in the _Noctes Ambrosianae_]--and no one will deny its\npower and genius,\" writes Professor Veitch--\"it is true, all the same,\nthat this Shepherd was not the Shepherd of Ettrick or the man James\nHogg. He was neither a Socrates nor a Falstaff, neither to be credited\nwith the wisdom and lofty idealizings of the one, nor with the\ncharacteristic humour and coarseness of the other.\" _The Three Perils of\nWoman_ (1820), and _The Three Perils of Man_ (1822), were followed in\n1825 by an epic poem, _Queen Hynde_, which was unfavourably received. He\nvisited London in 1832, and was much lionized. On his return a public\ndinner was given to him in Peebles,--Professor Wilson in the chair,--and\nhe acknowledged that he had at last \"found fame.\" His health, however,\nwas seriously impaired. With his pen in his hand to the last, Hogg in\n1834 published a volume of _Lay Sermons_, and _The Domestic Manners and\nPrivate Life of Sir Walter Scott_, a book which Lockhart regarded as an\ninfringement on his rights. In 1835 appeared three volumes of _Tales of\nthe Wars of Montrose_. Hogg died on the 21st of November 1835, and was\nburied in the churchyard of his native parish Ettrick. His fame had\nseemed to fill the whole district, and was brightest at its close; his\npresence was associated with all the border sports and festivities; and\nas a man James Hogg was ever frank, joyous and charitable. It is mainly\nas a great peasant poet that he lives in literature. Some of his lyrics\nand minor poems--his \"Skylark,\" \"When the Kye comes Hame,\" his verses on\nthe \"Comet\" and \"Evening Star,\" and his \"Address to Lady Ann Scott\"--are\nexquisite. _The Queen's Wake_ unites his characteristic excellences--his\ncommand of the old romantic ballad style, his graceful fairy mythology\nand his aerial flights of imagination. In the fairy story of Kilmeny in\nthis work Hogg seems completely transformed; he is absorbed in the ideal\nand supernatural, and writes under direct and immediate inspiration.\n\n See Hogg's \"Memoir of the Author's Life, written by himself,\" prefixed\n to the 3rd edition (1821) of _The Mountain Bard_, also _Memorials of\n James Hogg, the Ettrick Shepherd_, edited by his daughter, Mrs M. G.\n Garden (enlarged edition with preface by Professor Veitch, 1903), and\n Sir G. B. S. Douglas, _James Hogg_ (1899) in the \"Famous Scots\"\n series; also _The Poems of James Hogg_, selected by William Wallace\n (1903). John Wilson (\"Christopher North\") had a real affection for\n Hogg, but for some reason or other made no use of the materials placed\n in his hands for a biography of the poet. The memoir mentioned on the\n title-page of the _Works_ (1838-1840) never appeared, and the memoir\n prefixed to the edition of Hogg's works published by Blackie & Co.\n (1865) was written by the Rev. Thomas Thompson. See also Wilson's\n _Noctes Ambrosianae_; Mrs Oliphant's _Annals of a Publishing House_,\n vol. i. chap. vii.; Gilfillan's _First Gallery of Literary Portraits_;\n Cunningham's _Biog. and Crit. Hist. of Lit._; and the general index to\n _Blackwood's Magazine_. A collected edition of Hogg's Tales appeared\n in 1837 in 6 vols., and a second in 1851; his _Poetical Works_ were\n published in 1822, 1838-1840 and 1865-1866. For an admirable account\n of the social entertainments Hogg used to give in Edinburgh, see\n _Memoir of Robert Chambers_ (1874), by Dr William Chambers, pp.\n 263-270.\n\n\n\n\nHOGG, THOMAS JEFFERSON (1792-1862), English man of letters, was born at\nNorton, Durham, on the 24th of May 1792. He was educated at Durham\ngrammar school and at University College, Oxford. Here he became the\nintimate friend of the poet Shelley, with whom in 1811 he was expelled\nfrom the university for refusing to disclaim connexion with the\nauthorship of the pamphlet _The Necessity for Atheism_. He was then sent\nto study law at York, where he remained for six months. Hogg's behaviour\nto Harriet Shelley interrupted his relations with her husband for some\ntime, but in 1813 the friendship was renewed in London. In 1817 Hogg was\ncalled to the bar, and became later a revising barrister. In 1844 he\ninherited L2000 under Shelley's will, and in 1855, in accordance with\nthe wishes of the poet's family, began to write Shelley's biography. The\nfirst two volumes of it were published in 1858, but they proved to be\nfar more an autobiography than a biography, and Shelley's\nrepresentatives refused Hogg further access to the materials necessary\nfor its completion. Hogg died on the 27th of August 1862.\n\n\n\n\nHOGMANAY, the name in Scotland and some parts of the north of England\nfor New Year's Eve, as also for the cake then given to the children. On\nthe morning of the 31st of December the children in small bands go from\ndoor to door singing:\n\n \"Hogmanay\n Trollolay\n Gie's o' your white bread and nane o' your grey\";\n\n\nand begging for small gifts or alms. These usually take the form of an\noaten cake. The derivation of the term has been much disputed. Cotgrave\n(1611) says: \"It is the voice of the country folks begging small\npresents or New Year's gifts ... an ancient term of rejoicing derived\nfrom the Druids, who were wont the first of each January to go into the\nwoods, where, having sacrificed and banquetted together, they gathered\nmistletoe, esteeming it excellent to make beasts fruitful and most\nsoverayne against all poyson.\" And he connects the word, through such\nNorman French forms as _hoguinane_, with the old French _aguilanneuf_,\nwhich he explains as _au gui-l'an-neuf_, \"to the mistletoe! the New\nYear!\"--this being (on his interpretation) the Druidical salutation to\nthe coming year as the revellers issued from the woods armed with boughs\nof mistletoe. But though this explanation may be accepted as containing\nthe truth in referring the word to a French original, Cotgrave's\ndetailed etymology is now repudiated by scientific philologists, and the\nidentical French _aguilanneuf_ remains, like it, in obscurity.\n\n\n\n\nHOGSHEAD, a cask for holding liquor or other commodities, such as\ntobacco, sugar, molasses, &c.; also a liquid measure of capacity,\nvarying with the contents. As a measure for beer, cider, &c., it equals\n54 gallons. A statute of Richard III. (1483) fixed the hogshead of wine\nat 63 wine-gallons, i.e. 52(1/2) imperial gallons. The etymology of the\nword has been much discussed. According to Skeat, the origin is to be\nfound in the name for a cask or liquid measure appearing in various\nforms in several Teutonic languages, in Dutch _oxhooft_ (modern\n_okshoofd_), Dan. _oxehoved_, O. Swed. _oxhufvod_, &c. The word should\ntherefore be \"oxhead,\" and \"hogshead\" is a mere corruption. It has been\nsuggested that the name arose from the branding of such a measure with\nthe head of an ox (see _Notes and Queries_, series iv. 2, 46, note by H.\nTiedeman). The _New English Dictionary_ does not attempt any explanation\nof the term, and takes \"hogshead\" as the original form, from which the\nforms in other languages have been corrupted. The earlier Dutch forms\n_hukeshovet_ and _hoekshoot_ are nearer to the English form, and,\nfurther, the Dutch for \"ox\" is os.\n\n\n\n\nHOHENASPERG, an ancient fortress of Germany, in the kingdom of\nWurttemberg, 10 m. N. of Stuttgart, is situated on a conical hill, 1100\nft. high, overlooking the town of Asperg. It was formerly strongly\nfortified and was long the state prison of the kingdom of Wurttemberg.\nAmong the many who have been interned here may be mentioned the\nnotorious Jew financier, Joseph Suss-Oppenheimer (1692-1738) and the\npoet C. F. D. Schubart (1739-1791). It is now a reformatory. Hohenasperg\noriginally belonged to the counts of Calw; it next passed to the counts\npalatine of Tubingen and from them was acquired in 1308 by Wurttemberg.\nIn 1535 the fortifications were extended and strengthened, and in 1635\nthe town was taken by the Imperialists, who occupied it until 1649.\n\n See Schon, _Die Staatsgefangenen von Hohenasperg_ (Stuttgart, 1899);\n and Biffart, _Geschichte der Wurttembergischen Feste Hohenasperg_\n (Stuttgart, 1858).\n\n\n\n\nHOHENFRIEDBERG, or HOHENFRIEDEBERG, a village of Silesia, about 6 m.\nfrom the small town of Striegau. It gives its name to a battle (also\ncalled the battle of Striegau) in the War of the Austrian Succession,\nfought on the 3rd of June 1745 between the Prussians under Frederick the\nGreat and the Austrians and Saxons commanded by Prince Charles of\nLorraine. In May the king, whose army had occupied extended winter\nquarters in Silesia, had drawn it together into a position about Neisse\nwhence he could manoeuvre against the Austrians, whether they invaded\nSilesia by Troppau or Glatz, or joined their allies (who, under the duke\nof Weissenfels, were on the upper Elbe), and made their advance on\nSchweidnitz, Breslau or Liegnitz. On the Austrians concentrating towards\nthe Elbe, Frederick gradually drew his army north-westward along the\nedge of the mountain country until on the 1st of June it was near\nSchweidnitz. At that date the Austro-Saxons were advancing (very slowly\nowing to the poorness of the roads and the dilatoriness of the Saxon\nartillery train) from Waldenburg and Landshut through the mountains,\nheading for Striegau. After a few minor skirmishes at the end of May,\nFrederick had made up his mind to offer no opposition to the passage of\nthe Allies, but to fall upon them as they emerged, and the Prussian army\nwas therefore kept concentrated out of sight, while only selected\nofficers and patrols watched the debouches of the mountains. On the\nother hand the Allies had no intention of delivering battle, but meant\nonly, on emerging from the mountains, to take up a suitable camping\nposition and thence to interpose between Breslau and the king, believing\nthat \"the king was at his wits' end, and, once the army really began its\nretreat on Breslau, there would be frightful consternation in its\nranks.\" But in fact, as even the coolest observers noticed, the Prussian\narmy was in excellent spirits and eager for the \"decisive affair\"\npromised by the king. On the 3rd of June, watched by the invisible\npatrols, the Austrians and Saxons emerged from the hills at\nHohenfriedberg with bands playing and colours flying. Their advanced\nguard of infantry and cavalry spread out into the plain, making for a\nline of hills spreading north-west from Striegau, where the army was to\nencamp. But the main body moved slowly, and at last Prince Charles and\nWeissenfels decided to put off the occupation of the line of hills till\nthe morrow. The army bivouacked therefore in two separate wings, the\nSaxons (with a few Austrian regiments) between Gunthersdorf and\nPilgramshain, the Austrians near Hausdorf. They were about 70,000\nstrong, Frederick 65,000.\n\n[Illustration: Hohenfriedberg, June 4, 1745.]\n\nThe king had made his arrangements in good time, aided by the enemy's\nslowness, and in the evening he issued simple orders to move. About 9\nP.M. the Prussians marched off from Alt-Jauernigk towards Striegau, the\nguns on the road, the infantry and cavalry, in long open columns of\ncompanies and squadrons, over the fields on either side--a night march\nwell remembered by contrast with others as having been executed in\nperfect order. Meanwhile General Dumoulin, who commanded an advanced\ndetachment between Striegau and Stanowitz, broke camp silently and moved\ninto position below the hill north-west of Striegau, which was found to\nbe occupied by Saxon light infantry outposts. The king's orders were for\nDumoulin and the right wing of the main army to deploy and advance\ntowards Haslicht against the Saxons, and for the left wing infantry to\nprolong the line from the marsh to Gunthersdorf, covered by the\nleft-wing cavalry on the plain near Thomaswaldau. On the side of the\nAustrians, the outlying hussars are said to have noticed and reported\nthe king's movement, for the night was clear and starlit, but their\nreport, if made, was ignored.\n\nAt 4 A.M. Dumoulin advanced on Pilgramshain, neglecting the fire of the\nSaxon outpost on the Spitzberg, whereupon this promptly retired in\norder to avoid being surrounded. Dumoulin then posted artillery on the\nslope of the hill and deployed his six grenadier battalions facing the\nvillage. The leading cavalry of the main army came up and deployed on\nDumoulin's left front in open rolling ground. Meantime the duke of\nWeissenfels had improvised a line of defence, posting his infantry in\nthe marshy ground and about Pilgramshain, and his cavalry, partly in\nfront of Pilgramshain and partly on the intervening space, opposite that\nof the Prussians. But before the marshy ground was effectively occupied\nby the duke's infantry, his cavalry had been first shaken by the fire of\nDumoulin's guns on the Spitzberg and a heavy battery that was brought up\non to the Grabener Fuchsberg, and then charged by the Prussian\nright-wing cavalry, and in the melee the Allies were gradually driven in\nconfusion off the battlefield. The cavalry battle was ended by 6.30\nA.M., by which time Dumoulin's grenadiers, stiffened by the line\nregiment Anhalt (the \"Old Dessauer's\" own), were vigorously attacking\nthe garden hedges and walls of Pilgramshain, and the Saxon and Austrian\ninfantry in the marsh was being attacked by Prince Dietrich of Dessau\nwith the right wing of the king's infantry. The line infantry of those\ndays, however, did not work easily in bad ground, and the Saxons were\nsteady and well drilled. After an hour's fight, well supported by the\nguns and continually reinforced as the rest of the army closed up, the\nprince expelled the enemy from the marsh, while Dumoulin drove the light\ntroops out of Pilgramshain. By 7 A.M. the Saxons, forming the left wing\nof the allied army, were in full retreat.\n\nWhile his allies were being defeated, Prince Charles of Lorraine had\ndone nothing, believing that the cannonade was merely an outpost affair\nfor the possession of the Spitzberg. His generals indeed had drawn out\ntheir respective commands in order of battle, the infantry south of\nGunthersdorf, the cavalry near Thomaswaldau, but they had no authority\nto advance without orders, and stood inactive, while, 1 m. away, the\nPrussian columns were defiling over the Striegau Water. This phase of\nthe king's advance was the most delicate of all, and the moment that he\nheard from Prince Dietrich that the marsh was captured he stopped the\nnorthward flow of his battalions and swung them westward, the left wing\ncavalry having to cover their deployment. But when one-third of this\ncavalry only had crossed at Teichau the bridge broke. For a time the\nadvanced squadrons were in great danger. But they charged boldly, and a\ndisjointed cavalry battle began, during which (Ziethen's hussars having\ndiscovered a ford) the rest of the left-wing cavalry was able to cross.\nAt last 25 intact squadrons under Lieut.-General von Nassau charged and\ndrove the Austrians in disorder towards Hohenfriedberg. This action was\nthe more creditable to the victors in that 45 squadrons in 3 separate\nfractions defeated a mass of 60 squadrons that stood already deployed to\nmeet them.\n\nMeanwhile the Prussian infantry columns of the centre and left had\ncrossed Striegau Water and deployed to their left, and by 8.30 they were\nadvancing on Gunthersdorf and the Austrian infantry south of that place.\nFrederick's purpose was to roll up the enemy from their inner flank, and\nwhile Prince Dietrich, with most of the troops that had forced the\nSaxons out of the marsh, pursued Weissenfels, two regiments of his and\none of Dumoulin's were brought over to the left wing and sent against\nthe north side of Gunthersdorf. In the course of the general forward\nmovement, which was made in what was for those days a very irregular\nline, a wide gap opened up between the centre and left, behind which 10\nsquadrons of the Bayreuth dragoon regiment, with Lieut.-General von\nGessler, took up their position. Thus the line advanced. The grenadiers\non the extreme left cleared Thomaswaldau, and their fire galled the\nAustrian squadrons engaged in the cavalry battle to the south. Then\nGunthersdorf, attacked on three sides, was also evacuated by the enemy.\nBut although Frederick rode back from the front saying \"the battle is\nwon,\" the Prussian infantry, in spite of its superior fire discipline,\nfailed for some time to master the defence, and suffered heavily from\nthe eight close-range volleys they received, one or two regiments losing\n40 and 50% of their strength. The Austrians, however, suffered still\nmore; feeling themselves isolated in the midst of the victorious enemy,\nthey began to waver, and at the psychological moment Gessler and the\nBayreuth dragoons charged into their ranks and \"broke the equilibrium.\"\nThese 1500 sabres scattered twenty battalions of the enemy and brought\nin 2500 prisoners and 66 Austrian colours, and in this astounding charge\nthey themselves lost no more than 94 men. By nine o'clock the battle was\nover, and the wrecks of the Austro-Saxon army were retreating to the\nmountains. The Prussians, who had been marching all night, were too far\nspent to pursue.\n\n The loss of the allies was in all 15,224, 7985 killed and wounded, and\n 7239 prisoners, as well as 72 guns and 83 standards and colours. The\n Prussians lost 4666 killed and wounded, 71 missing.\n\n\n\n\nHOHENHEIM, a village of Germany, in the kingdom of Wurttemberg, 7 m. S.\nof Stuttgart by rail. Pop. 300. It came in 1768 from the counts of\nHohenheim to the dukes of Wurttemberg, and in 1785 Duke Karl Eugen built\na country house here. This house with grounds is now the seat of the\nmost important agricultural college in Germany; it was founded in 1817,\nwas raised to the position of a high school in 1865, and now ranks as a\ntechnical high school with university status.\n\n See Frohlich, _Das Schloss und die Akademie Hohenheim_ (Stuttgart,\n 1870).\n\n\n\n\nHOHENLIMBURG, a town of Germany, on the Lenne, in the Prussian prov. of\nWestphalia, 30 m. by rail S.E. of Dortmund. Pop. (1905) 12,790. It has\ntwo Evangelical churches, a Roman Catholic church and a synagogue. The\ntown is the seat of various iron and metal industries, while dyeing,\ncloth-making and linen-weaving are also carried on here. It is the chief\ntown of the county of Limburg, and formerly belonged to the counts of\nLimburg, a family which became extinct in 1508. Later it passed to the\ncounts of Bentheim-Tecklenburg. The castle of Hohenlimburg, which\noverlooks the town, is now the residence of Prince Adolf of\nBentheim-Tecklenburg.\n\n\n\n\nHOHENLOHE, a German princely family which took its name from the\ndistrict of Hohenlohe in Franconia. At first a countship, its two\nbranches were raised to the rank of principalities of the Empire in 1744\nand 1764 respectively; in 1806 they lost their independence and their\nlands now form part of the kingdoms of Bavaria and of Wurttemberg. At\nthe time of the mediatization the area of Hohenlohe was 680 sq. m. and\nits estimated population was 108,000. The family is first mentioned in\nthe 12th century as possessing the castle of Hohenloch, or Hohenlohe,\nnear Uffenheim, and its influence was soon perceptible in several of the\nFranconian valleys, including those of the Kocher, the Jagst and the\nTauber. Henry I. (d. 1183) was the first to take the title of count of\nHohenlohe, and in 1230 his grandsons, Gottfried and Conrad, supporters\nof the emperor Frederick II., founded the lines of Hohenlohe-Hohenlohe\nand Hohenlohe-Brauneck, names taken from their respective castles. The\nlatter became extinct in 1390, its lands passing later to Brandenburg,\nwhile the former was divided into several branches, only two of which,\nhowever, Hohenlohe-Weikersheim and Hohenlohe-Uffenheim-Speckfeld, need\nbe mentioned here. Hohenlohe-Weikersheim, descended from Count Kraft I.\n(d. 1313), also underwent several divisions, that which took place after\nthe deaths of Counts Albert and George in 1551 being specially\nimportant. At this time the lines of Hohenlohe-Neuenstein and\nHohenlohe-Waldenburg were founded by the sons of Count George.\nMeanwhile, in 1412, the family of Hohenlohe-Uffenheim-Speckfeld had\nbecome extinct, and its lands had passed through the marriages of its\nheiresses into other families.\n\nThe existing branches of the Hohenlohe family are descended from the\nlines of Hohenlohe-Neuenstein and Hohenlohe-Waldenburg, established in\n1551. The former of these became Protestant, while the latter remained\nCatholic. Of the family of Hohenlohe-Neuenstein, which underwent several\npartitions and inherited Gleichen in 1631, the senior line became\nextinct in 1805, while in 1701 the junior line divided itself into\nthree branches, those of Langenburg, Ingelfingen and Kirchberg.\nKirchberg died out in 1861, but members of the families of\nHohenlohe-Langenburg and Hohenlohe-Ingelfingen are still alive, the\nlatter being represented by the branches of Hohenlohe-Ingelfingen and\nHohenlohe-Ohringen. The Roman Catholic family of Hohenlohe-Waldenburg\nwas soon divided into three branches, but two of these had died out by\n1729. The surviving branch, that of Schillingsfurst, was divided into\nthe lines of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfurst and Hohenlohe-Bartenstein; other\ndivisions followed, and the four existing lines of this branch of the\nfamily are those of Waldenburg, Schillingsfurst, Jagstberg and\nBartenstein. The family of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfurst possesses the\nduchies of Ratibor and of Corbie inherited in 1824.\n\nThe principal members of the family are dealt with below.\n\nI. FRIEDRICH LUDWIG, prince of Hohenlohe-Ingelfingen (1746-1818),\nPrussian general, was the eldest son of Prince Johann Friedrich (d.\n1796) of Hohenlohe-Ingelfingen, and began his military career as a boy,\nserving against the Prussians in the last years of the Seven Years' War.\nEntering the Prussian army after the peace (1768), he was on account of\nhis rank at once made major, and in 1775 he became lieutenant-colonel;\nin 1778 he took part in the War of the Bavarian Succession and about the\nsame time was made a colonel. Shortly before the death of Frederick the\nGreat he was promoted to the rank of major-general and appointed chief\nof a regiment. For some years the prince did garrison duty at Breslau,\nuntil in 1791 he was made governor of Berlin. In 1794 he commanded a\ncorps in the Prussian army on the Rhine and distinguished himself\ngreatly in many engagements, particularly in the battle of\nKaiserslautern on the 20th of September. He was at this time the most\npopular soldier in the Prussian army. Blucher wrote of him that \"he was\na leader of whom the Prussian army might well be proud.\" He succeeded\nhis father in the principality, and acquired additional lands by his\nmarriage with a daughter of Count von Hoym. In 1806 Hohenlohe, now a\ngeneral of infantry, was appointed to command the left-wing army of the\nPrussian forces opposing Napoleon, having under him Prince Louis\nFerdinand of Prussia; but, feeling that his career had been that of a\nprince and not that of a scientific soldier, he allowed his\nquartermaster-general Massenbach to influence him unduly. Disputes soon\nbroke out between Hohenlohe and the commander-in-chief, the duke of\nBrunswick, the armies marched hither and thither without effective\nresults, and finally Hohenlohe's army was almost destroyed by Napoleon\nat Jena (see NAPOLEONIC CAMPAIGNS). The prince displayed his usual\npersonal bravery in the battle, and managed to rally a portion of his\ncorps near Erfurt, whence he retired into Prussia. But the pursuers\nfollowed him up closely, and, still acting under Massenbach's advice, he\nsurrendered the remnant of his army at Prenzlau on the 28th of October,\na fortnight after Jena and three weeks after the beginning of\nhostilities. Hohenlohe's former popularity and influence in the army had\nnow the worst possible effect, for the commandants of garrisons\neverywhere lost heart and followed his example. After two years spent as\na prisoner of war in France Hohenlohe retired to his estates, living in\nself-imposed obscurity until his death on the 15th of February 1818. He\nhad, in August 1806, just before the outbreak of the French War,\nresigned the principality to his eldest son, not being willing to become\na \"mediatized\" ruler under Wurttemberg suzerainty.\n\nII. LUDWIG ALOYSIUS, prince of Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Bartenstein\n(1765-1829), marshal and peer of France, was born on the 18th of August\n1765. In 1784 he entered the service of the Palatinate, which he quitted\nin 1792 in order to take the command of a regiment raised by his father\nfor the service of the emigrant princes of France. He greatly\ndistinguished himself under Conde in the campaigns of 1792-1793,\nespecially at the storming of the lines of Weissenburg. Subsequently he\nentered the service of Holland, and, when almost surrounded by the army\nof General Pichegru, conducted a masterly retreat from the island of\nBommel. From 1794 to 1799 he served as colonel in the Austrian\ncampaigns; in 1799 he was named major-general by the archduke Charles;\nand after obtaining the rank of lieutenant-general he was appointed by\nthe emperor governor of the two Galicias. Napoleon offered to restore to\nhim his principality on condition that he adhered to the confederation\nof the Rhine, but as he refused, it was united to Wurttemberg. After\nNapoleon's fall in 1814 he entered the French service, and in 1815 he\nheld the command of a regiment raised by himself, with which he took\npart in the Spanish campaign of 1823. In 1827 he was created marshal and\npeer of France. He died at Luneville on the 30th of May 1829.\n\nIII. ALEXANDER LEOPOLD FRANZ EMMERICH, prince of\nHohenlohe-Waldenburg-Schillingsfurst (1794-1849), priest and reputed\nmiracle-worker, was born at Kupferzell, near Waldenburg, on the 17th of\nAugust 1794. By his mother, the daughter of an Hungarian nobleman, he\nwas from infancy destined for the church; and she entrusted his early\neducation to the ex-Jesuit Riel. In 1804 he entered the \"Theresianum\" at\nVienna, in 1808 the academy at Bern, in 1810 the archiepiscopal seminary\nat Vienna, and afterwards he studied at Tyrnau and Ellwangen. He was\nordained priest in 1815, and in the following year he went to Rome,\nwhere he entered the society of the \"Fathers of the Sacred Heart.\"\nSubsequently, at Munich and Bamberg, he was blamed for Jesuit and\nobscurantist tendencies, but obtained considerable reputation as a\npreacher. His first co-called miraculous cure was effected, in\nconjunction with a peasant, Martin Michel, on a princess of\nSchwarzenberg who had been for some years paralytic. Immediately he\nacquired such fame as a performer of miraculous cures that multitudes\nfrom various countries flocked to partake of the beneficial influence of\nhis supposed supernatural gifts. Ultimately, on account of the\ninterference of the authorities with his operations, he went in 1821 to\nVienna and then to Hungary, where he became canon at Grosswardein and in\n1844 titular bishop of Sardica. He died at Voslau near Vienna on the\n17th of November 1849. He was the author of a number of ascetic and\ncontroversial writings, which were collected and published in one\nedition by S. Brunner in 1851.\n\nIV. KRAFT, prince of Hohenlohe-Ingelfingen (1827-1892), soldier and\nmilitary writer, son of Prince Adolf of Hohenlohe-Ingelfingen\n(1797-1873), was born at Koschentin in Upper Silesia. He was a nephew of\nthe Prince Hohenlohe noticed above, who commanded the Prussians at Jena.\nEducated with great rigour, owing to the impoverishment of the family\nestates during the Napoleonic wars, he was sent into the Prussian army,\nand commissioned to the artillery at the least expensive arm of the\nservice. He joined the Prussian Guard artillery in 1845, and it was soon\ndiscovered that he had unusual aptitudes as an artillery officer. For a\ntime his brother officers resented the presence of a prince, until it\nwas found that he made no attempt to use his social position to secure\nadvancement. After serving as a military attache in Vienna and on the\nTransylvanian frontier during the Crimean War, he was made a captain on\nthe general staff, and in 1856 personal aide-de-camp to the king,\nremaining, however, in close touch with the artillery. In 1864, having\nbecome in the meanwhile successively major and lieut.-colonel, he\nresigned the staff appointments to become commander of the new Guard\nField Artillery regiment and in the following year he became colonel. In\n1866 he saw his first real active service. In the bold advance of the\nGuard corps on the Austrian right wing at Koniggratz (see SEVEN WEEKS'\nWAR), he led the Guard reserve artillery with the greatest dash and\nsuccess, and after the short war ended he turned his energies, now\nfortified by experience, to the better tactical training of the Prussian\nartillery. In 1868 he was made a major-general and assigned to command\nthe Guard artillery brigade. In this capacity he gained great\ndistinction during the Franco-German war and especially at Gravelotte\nand Sedan; he was in control of the artillery attack on the\nfortifications of Paris. In 1873 he was placed in command of an infantry\ndivision, and three years later was promoted lieutenant-general. He\nretired in 1879, was made general of infantry in 1883 and general of\nartillery in 1889. His military writings were numerous, and amongst\nthem several have become classics. These are _Briefe uber Artillerie_\n(Eng. trans. _Letters on Artillery_, 1887); _Briefe uber Strategie_\n(1877; Eng. trans. _Letters on Strategy_, 1898); and _Gesprache uber\nReiterei_ (1887; Eng. trans. _Conversations on Cavalry_). The _Briefe\nuber Infanterie_ and _Briefe uber Kavallerie_ (translated into English,\n_Letters on Infantry_, _Letters on Cavalry_, 1889) are of less\nimportance, though interesting as a reflection of prevailing German\nideas. His memoirs (_Aus meinem Leben_) were prepared in retirement near\nDresden, and the first volume (1897) created such a sensation that eight\nyears were allowed to elapse before the publication was continued.\nPrince Kraft died near Dresden on the 16th of January 1892.\n (C. F. A.)\n\nV. CHLODWIG KARL VICTOR, prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfurst\n(1819-1901), statesman, was born on the 31st of March 1819 at\nSchillingsfurst in Bavaria. His father, Prince Franz Joseph (1787-1841),\nwas a Catholic, his mother, Princess Konstanze of Hohenlohe-Langenburg,\na Protestant. In accordance with the compromise customary at the time,\nPrince Chlodwig and his brothers were brought up in the religion of\ntheir father, while his sisters followed that of their mother. In spite\nof the difference of creed the family was very united, and it was to the\nspirit that rendered this possible that the prince owed his liberal and\ntolerant point of view, which was to exercise an important influence on\nhis political activity. As the younger son of a cadet line of his house\nit was necessary for Prince Chlodwig to follow a profession. For a while\nhe thought of obtaining a commission in the British army through the\ninfluence of his aunt, Princess Feodora of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (_nee_\nprincess of Leiningen), Queen Victoria's half-sister. He decided,\nhowever, to enter the Prussian diplomatic service. His application to be\nexcused the preliminary steps, which involved several years' work in\nsubordinate positions in the Prussian civil service, was refused by\nFrederick William IV., and the prince, with great good sense, decided to\nsacrifice his pride of rank and to accept the king's conditions. As\nauscultator in the courts at Coblenz he acquired a taste for\njurisprudence, became a _Referendar_ in September 1843, and after some\nmonths of travel in France, Switzerland and Italy went to Potsdam as a\ncivil servant (May 13, 1844). These early years were invaluable, not\nonly as giving him experience of practical affairs but as affording him\nan insight into the strength and weakness of the Prussian system. The\nimmediate result was to confirm his Liberalism. The Prussian principle\nof \"propagating enlightenment with a stick\" did not appeal to him; he\n\"recognized the confusion and want of clear ideas in the highest\ncircles,\" the tendency to make agreement with the views of the\ngovernment the test of loyalty to the state; and he noted in his journal\n(June 25, 1844) four years before the revolution of '48, \"a slight cause\nand we shall have a rising.\" \"The free press,\" he notes on another\noccasion, \"is a necessity, progress the condition of the existence of a\nstate.\" If he was an ardent advocate of German unity, and saw in Prussia\nthe instrument for its attainment, he was throughout opposed to the\n\"Prussification\" of Germany, and ultimately it was he who made the\nunification of Germany possible by insisting at once on the principle of\nunion with the North German states and at the same time on the\npreservation of the individuality of the states of the South.\n\nOn the 12th of November 1834 the landgrave Viktor Amadeus of\nHesse-Rotenburg died, leaving to his nephews, the princes Viktor and\nChlodwig Hohenlohe, his allodial estates: the duchy of Ratibor in\nSilesia, the principality of Corvey in Westphalia, and the lordship of\nTreffurt in the Prussian governmental district of Erfurt. On the death\nof Prince Franz Joseph on the 14th of January 1841 it was decided that\nthe principality of Schillingsfurst should pass to the third brother,\nPhilipp Ernst, as the two elder sons, Viktor and Chlodwig, were provided\nfor already under their uncle's will, the one with the duchy of Ratibor,\nthe other with Corvey and Treffurt. The youngest son, Gustav (b.\nFebruary 28, 1823), the future cardinal, was destined for the Church. On\nthe death of Prince Philipp Ernst (May 3, 1845) a new arrangement was\nmade: Prince Chlodwig became prince of Schillingsfurst, while Corvey was\nassigned to the duke of Ratibor; Treffurt was subsequently sold by\nPrince Chlodwig, who purchased with the price large estates in Posen.\nThis involved a complete change in Prince Chlodwig's career. His new\nposition as a \"reigning\" prince and hereditary member of the Bavarian\nUpper House was incompatible with that of a Prussian official. On the\n18th of April 1846 he took his seat as a member of the Bavarian\n_Reichsrath_, and on the 26th of June received his formal discharge from\nthe Prussian service.\n\nSave for the interlude of 1848 the political life of Prince Hohenlohe\nwas for the next eighteen years not eventful. During the revolutionary\nyears his sympathies were with the Liberal idea of a united Germany, and\nhe compromised his chances of favour from the king of Bavaria by\naccepting the task (November 1, 1848) of announcing to the courts of\nRome, Florence and Athens the accession to office of the Archduke John\nof Austria as regent of Germany. But he was too shrewd an observer to\nhope much from a national parliament which \"wasted time in idle babble,\"\nor from a democratic victory which had stunned but not destroyed the\nGerman military powers. On the 16th of February 1847 he had married the\nPrincess Marie of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg, the heiress to vast\nestates in Russia.[1] This led to a prolonged visit to Werki in\nLithuania (1851-1853) in connexion with the management of the property,\na visit repeated in 1860. In general this period of Hohenlohe's life was\noccupied in the management of his estates, in the sessions of the\nBavarian _Reichsrath_ and in travels. In 1856 he visited Rome, during\nwhich he noted the baneful influence of the Jesuits. In 1859 he was\nstudying the political situation at Berlin, and in the same year he paid\na visit to England. The marriage of his brother Konstantin in 1859 to\nanother princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg led also to frequent\nvisits to Vienna. Thus Prince Hohenlohe was brought into close touch\nwith all the most notable people in Europe. At the same time, during\nthis period (1850-1866) he was endeavouring to get into relations with\nthe Bavarian government, with a view to taking a more active part in\naffairs. Towards the German question his attitude at this time was\ntentative. He had little hope of a practical realization of a united\nGermany, and inclined towards the tripartite divisions under Austria,\nPrussia and Bavaria--the so-called \"Trias.\" He attended the _Furstentag_\nat Frankfort in 1863, and in the Schleswig-Holstein question was a\nsupporter of the prince of Augustenburg. It was at this time that, at\nthe request of Queen Victoria, he began to send her regular reports on\nthe political condition of Germany.\n\nPrince Hohenlohe's importance in history, however, begins with the year\n1866. In his opinion the war was a blessing. It had demonstrated the\ninsignificance of the small and middle states, \"a misfortune for the\ndynasties\"--with whose feelings a mediatized prince could scarcely be\nexpected to be over-sympathetic--but the best possible good fortune for\nthe German nation. In the Bavarian _Reichsrath_ Hohenlohe now began to\nmake his voice heard in favour of a closer union with Prussia; clearly,\nif such a union were desirable, he was the man in every way best fitted\nto prepare the way for it. One of the main obstacles in the way was the\ntemperament of Louis II. of Bavaria, whose ideas of kingship were very\nremote from those of the Hohenzollerns, whose pride revolted from any\nconcession to Prussian superiority, and who--even during the crisis of\n1866--was more absorbed in operas than in affairs of state. Fortunately\nRichard Wagner was a politician as well as a composer, and equally\nfortunately Hohenlohe was a man of culture capable of appreciating \"the\nmaster's\" genius. It was Wagner, apparently, who persuaded the king to\nplace Hohenlohe at the head of his government (_Denkwurdigkeiten_, i.\n178, 211), and on the 31st of December 1866 the prince was duly\nappointed minister of the royal house and of foreign affairs and\npresident of the council of ministers.\n\nAs head of the Bavarian government Hohenlohe's principal task was to\ndiscover some basis for an effective union of the South German states\nwith the North German Confederation, and during the three critical years\nof his tenure of office he was, next to Bismarck, the most important\nstatesman in Germany. He carried out the reorganization of the Bavarian\narmy on the Prussian model, brought about the military union of the\nsouthern states, and took a leading share in the creation of the customs\nparliament (_Zollparlament_), of which on the 28th of April 1868 he was\nelected a vice-president. During the agitation that arose in connexion\nwith the summoning of the Vatican council Hohenlohe took up an attitude\nof strong opposition to the ultramontane position. In common with his\nbrothers, the duke of Ratibor and the cardinal, he believed that the\npolicy of Pius IX.--inspired by the Jesuits (that \"devil's society,\" as\nhe once called it)--of setting the Church in opposition to the modern\nState would prove ruinous to both, and that the definition of the dogma\nof papal infallibility, by raising the pronouncements of the Syllabus of\n1864 into articles of faith, would commit the Church to this policy\nirrevocably. This view he embodied into a circular note to the Catholic\npowers (April 9, 1869), drawn up by Dollinger, inviting them to exercise\nthe right of sending ambassadors to the council and to combine to\nprevent the definition of the dogma. The greater powers, however, were\nfor one reason or another unwilling to intervene, and the only practical\noutcome of Hohenlohe's action was that in Bavaria the powerful\nultramontane party combined against him with the Bavarian \"patriots\" who\naccused him of bartering away Bavarian independence to Prussia. The\ncombination was too strong for him; a bill which he brought in for\ncurbing the influence of the Church over education was defeated, the\nelections of 1869 went against him, and in spite of the continued\nsupport of the king he was forced to resign (March 7, 1870).\n\nThough out of office, his personal influence continued very great both\nat Munich and Berlin and had not a little to do with favourable terms of\nthe treaty of the North German Confederation with Bavaria, which\nembodied his views, and with its acceptance by the Bavarian\nparliament.[2] Elected a member of the German Reichstag, he was on the\n23rd of March 1871 chosen one of its vice-presidents, and was\ninstrumental in founding the new groups which took the name of the\nLiberal Imperial party (_Liberale Reichspartei_), the objects of which\nwere to support the new empire, to secure its internal development on\nLiberal lines, and to oppose clerical aggression as represented by the\nCatholic Centre. Like the duke of Ratibor, Hohenlohe was from the first\na strenuous supporter of Bismarck's anti-papal policy, the main lines of\nwhich (prohibition of the Society of Jesus, &c.) he himself suggested.\nThough sympathizing with the motives of the Old Catholics, however, he\nrealized that they were doomed to sink into a powerless sect, and did\nnot join them, believing that the only hope for a reform of the Church\nlay in those who desired it remaining in her communion.[3] In 1872\nBismarck proposed to appoint Cardinal Hohenlohe Prussian envoy at the\nVatican, but his views were too much in harmony with those of his\nfamily, and the pope refused to receive him in this capacity.[4]\n\nIn 1873 Bismarck chose Prince Hohenlohe to succeed Count Harry Arnim as\nambassador in Paris, where he remained for seven years. In 1878 he\nattended the congress of Berlin as third German representative, and in\n1880, on the death of Bernhardt Ernst von Bulow (October 20), secretary\nof state for foreign affairs, he was called to Berlin as temporary head\nof the Foreign Office and representative of Bismarck during his absence\nthrough illness. In 1885 he was chosen to succeed Manteuffel as governor\nof Alsace-Lorraine. In this capacity he had to carry out the coercive\nmeasures introduced by the chancellor in 1887-1888, though he largely\ndisapproved of them;[5] his conciliatory disposition, however, did much\nto reconcile the Alsace-Lorrainers to German rule. He remained at\nStrassburg till October 1894, when, at the urgent request of the\nemperor, he consented, in spite of his advanced years, to accept the\nchancellorship in succession to Caprivi. The events of his\nchancellorship belong to the general history of Germany (q.v.); as\nregards the inner history of this time the editor of his memoirs has\nvery properly suppressed the greater part of the detailed comments which\nthe prince left behind him. In general, during his term of office, the\npersonality of the chancellor was less conspicuous in public affairs\nthan in the ease of either of his predecessors. His appearances in the\nPrussian and German parliaments were rare, and great independence was\nleft to the secretaries of state. What influence the tact and experience\nof Hohenlohe exercised behind the scenes on the masterful will and\nimpulsive character of the emperor cannot as yet be generally known.\n\nPrince Hohenlohe resigned the chancellorship on the 17th of October\n1900, and died at Ragaz on the 6th of July 1901. On the 16th of February\n1897 he had celebrated his golden wedding; on the 21st of December of\nthe same year the princess died. There were six children of the\nmarriage: Elizabeth (b. 1847); Stephanie (b. 1851); Philipp Ernst,\nreigning prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfurst (b. 1853), who married\nPrincess Charielee Ypsilanti; Albert (1857-1866); Moritz and Alexander,\ntwins (b. 1862).\n\n All other authorities for the life of Prince Hohenlohe have been\n superseded by the _Denkwurdigkeiten_ (2 vols., Stuttgart and Leipzig,\n 1906). With the exception noted above these are singularly full and\n outspoken, the latter quality causing no little scandal in Germany and\n bringing down on Prince Alexander, who was responsible for their\n publication, the disfavour of the emperor. They form not only the\n record of a singularly full and varied life, but are invaluable to the\n historian for the wealth of material they contain and for\n appreciations of men and events by an observer who had the best\n opportunities for forming a judgment. The prince himself they reveal\n not only as a capable man of affairs, though falling short of\n greatness, but as a personality of singular charm, tenacious of his\n principles, tolerant, broad-minded, and possessed of a large measure\n of the saving grace of humour.\n\n See generally A. F. Fischer, _Geschichte des Hauses Hohenlohe_\n (1866-1871); K. Weller, _Hohenlohisches Urkundenbuch_, 1153-1350\n (Stuttgart, 1899-1901), and _Geschichte des Hauses Hohenlohe_\n (Stuttgart, 1904). (W. A. P.; C. F. A.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [1] Through her mother, _nee_ Princess Stephanie Radziwill (d. 1832).\n Before Prince Wittgenstein's death (1887) a new law had forbidden\n foreigners to hold land in Russia. Prince Hohenlohe appears, however,\n to have sold one of his wife's estates and to have secured certain\n privileges from the Russian court for the rest.\n\n [2] Speech of December 30, 1870, in the _Reichsrath_.\n _Denkwurdigkeiten_, ii. 36.\n\n [3] \"If I wished to leave the Church because of all the scandalous\n occurrences in the Catholic Church, I should have had to secede while\n studying Church history,\" _op. cit._ ii. 92.\n\n [4] Dr Johann Friedrich (q.v.), afterwards one of the Old Catholic\n leaders, was his secretary at the time of the Vatican council, and\n supplied historical and theological material to the opposition\n bishops.\n\n [5] He protested against the passport system as likely to lead to a\n war with France, for which he preferred not to be responsible (Letter\n to Wilmowski, _Denkw._ ii. 433), but on the chancellor taking full\n responsibility consented to retain office.\n\n\n\n\nHOHENSTAUFEN, the name of a village and ruined castle near Lorsch in\nSwabia, now in the kingdom of Wurttemberg, which gave its name to a\ncelebrated Swabian family, members of which were emperors or German\nkings from 1138 to 1208, and again from 1214 to 1254. The earliest known\nancestor was Frederick, count of Buren (d. 1094), whose son Frederick\nbuilt a castle at Staufen, or Hohenstaufen, and called himself by this\nname. He was a firm supporter of the emperor Henry IV., who rewarded his\nfidelity by granting him the dukedom of Swabia in 1079, and giving him\nhis daughter Agnes in marriage. In 1081 he remained in Germany as\nHenry's representative, but only secured possession of Swabia after a\nstruggle lasting twenty years. In 1105 Frederick was succeeded by his\nson Frederick II., called the One-eyed, who, together with his brother\nConrad, afterwards the German king Conrad III., held south-west Germany\nfor their uncle the emperor Henry V. Frederick inherited the estates of\nHenry V. in 1125, but failed to secure the throne, and took up an\nattitude of hostility towards the new emperor, Lothair the Saxon, who\nclaimed some of the estates of the late emperor as crown property. A war\nbroke out and ended in the complete submission of Frederick at Bamberg.\nHe retained, however, his dukedom and estates. In 1138 Conrad of\nHohenstaufen was elected German king, and was succeeded in 1152, not by\nhis son but by his nephew Frederick Barbarossa, son of his brother\nFrederick (d. 1147). Conrad's son Frederick inherited the duchy of\nFranconia which his father had received in 1115, and this was retained\nby the Hohenstaufen until the death of Duke Conrad II. in 1196. In 1152\nFrederick received the duchy of Swabia from his cousin the German king\nFrederick I., and on his death in 1167 it passed successively to\nFrederick's three sons Frederick, Conrad and Philip. The second\nHohenstaufen emperor was Frederick Barbarossa's son, Henry VI., after\nwhose death a struggle for the throne took place between Henry's brother\nPhilip, duke of Swabia, and Otto of Brunswick, afterwards the emperor\nOtto IV. Regained for the Hohenstaufen by Henry's son, Frederick II., in\n1214, the German kingdom passed to his son, Conrad IV., and when\nConrad's son Conradin was beheaded in Italy in 1268, the male line of\nthe Hohenstaufen became extinct. Daughters of Philip of Swabia married\nFerdinand III., king of Castile and Leon, and Henry II., duke of\nBrabant, and a daughter of Conrad, brother of the emperor Frederick I.,\nmarried into the family of Guelph. The castle of Hohenstaufen was\ndestroyed in the 16th century during the Peasants' War, and only a few\nfragments now remain.\n\n See F. von Raumer, _Geschichte der Hohenstaufen und ihrer Zeit_\n (Leipzig, 1878); B. F. W. Zimmermann, _Geschichte der Hohenstaufen_\n (Stuttgart, 1st ed., 1838; 2nd ed., 1865); F. W. Schirrmacher, _Die\n letzten Hohenstaufen_ (Gottingen, 1871).\n\n\n\n\nHOHENSTEIN (Hohenstein-Ernstthal), a town of Germany, in the kingdom of\nSaxony, on the slopes of the Erzgebirge, and on the railway\nReichenbach-Chemnitz, 12 m. N.E. of Zwickau. Pop. (1905) 13,903.\nHohenstein possesses two fine Evangelical churches, a town hall,\nrestored in 1876, and several monuments to famous men. The principal\nindustries are the spinning and weaving of cotton, the manufacture of\nmachines, stockings, gloves and woollen and silk fabrics, cotton\nprinting and dyeing. Many of the inhabitants are also employed in the\nneighbouring copper and arsenic mines. Not far from Hohenstein there is\na mineral spring, connected with which there are various kinds of baths.\nHohenstein is the birthplace of the physicist G. H. von Schubert and of\nC. G. Schroter (1699-1782), one of the inventors of the pianoforte.\nHohenstein consists of two towns, Hohenstein and Ernstthal, which were\nunited in 1898.\n\nAnother place of the same name is a town in East Prussia. Pop. (1900)\n2467. This Hohenstein, which was founded by the Teutonic Order in 1359,\nhas a Roman Catholic and an Evangelical church, a synagogue and several\neducational establishments.\n\n\n\n\nHOHENZOLLERN, the name of a castle which stood on the hill of Zollern\nabout 1(1/2) m. south of Hechingen, and gave its name to the family to\nwhich the present German emperor belongs. A vague tradition connects the\nhouse with the Colonna family of Rome, or the Colalto family of\nLombardy; but one more definite unites the Hohenzollerns with the\nBurkhardingers, who were counts in Raetia during the early part of the\n10th century, and two of whom became dukes of Swabia. Tassilo, a member\nof this family, is said to have built a castle at Zollern early in the\n9th century; but the first historical mention of the name is in the\n_Chronicon_ of a certain Berthold (d. 1088), who refers to Burkhard and\nWezil, or Werner, of Zollern, or Zolorin. These men appear to have been\ncounts of Zollern, and to have met their death in 1061. The family of\nWezil died out in 1194, and the existing branches of the Hohenzollerns\nare descended from Burkhard and his son Frederick, whose eldest son,\nFrederick II., was in great favour with the German kings, Lothair the\nSaxon and Conrad III. Frederick II. died about 1145, and his son and\nsuccessor, Frederick III., was a constant supporter of the Hohenstaufen.\nThis count married Sophia, daughter and heiress of Conrad, burgrave of\nNuremberg, and about 1192 he succeeded his father-in-law as burgrave,\nobtaining also some lands in Austria and Franconia. He died about 1200,\nand his sons, Conrad and Frederick, ruled their lands in common until\n1227, when an important division took place. Conrad became burgrave of\nNuremberg, and, receiving the lands which had come into the family\nthrough his mother, founded the Franconian branch of the family, which\nbecame the more important of the two; while Frederick, receiving the\ncounty of Zollern and the older possessions of the family, was the\nancestor of the Swabian branch.\n\nEarly in the 12th century Burkhard, a younger son of Frederick I.,\nsecured the county of Hohenberg, and this district remained in the\npossession of the Hohenzollerns until the death of Count Sigismund in\n1486. Its rulers, however, with the exception of Count Albert II. (d.\n1298), played an unimportant part in German history. Albert, who was a\nMinnesinger, was loyal to the declining fortunes of the Hohenstaufen,\nand afterwards supported his brother-in-law, Rudolph of Habsburg, in his\nefforts to obtain the German throne. He shared in the campaigns of\nRudolph and fell in battle in 1298, during the struggle between Adolph\nof Nassau and Albert of Habsburg (afterwards King Albert I.). When this\nfamily became extinct in 1486 Hohenberg passed to the Habsburgs.\n\nThe Franconian branch of the Hohenzollerns was represented in 1227 by\nConrad, burgrave of Nuremberg, whom the emperor Frederick II. appointed\nguardian of his son Henry, and administrator of Austria. After a short\napostasy, during which he supported Henry Raspe, landgrave of Thuringia,\nConrad returned to the side of the Hohenstaufen and aided Conrad IV. He\ndied in 1261, when his son and successor, the burgrave Frederick III.,\nhad already obtained Bayreuth through his marriage with Elizabeth,\ndaughter of Otto of Meran (d. 1234). Frederick took a leading part in\nGerman affairs, and it is interesting to note that he had a considerable\nshare in securing the election of his uncle, Rudolph of Habsburg, as\nGerman king in 1273. He died in 1297 and was succeeded by his son,\nFrederick IV. This burgrave fought for King Albert I. in Thuringia, and\nsupported Henry VII. in his efforts to secure Bohemia for his son John;\nbut in 1314, forsaking his father's policy, he favoured Louis,\nafterwards the emperor Louis IV., in his struggle with Frederick, duke\nof Austria, and by his conduct at the battle of Muhldorf in 1322 and\nelsewhere earned the designation of \"saviour of the empire.\" Frederick,\nhowever, did not neglect his hereditary lands. He did something for the\nmaintenance of peace and the security of traders, gave corporate\nprivileges to villages, and took the Jews under his protection. His\nservices to Louis were rewarded in various ways, and, using part of his\nwealth to increase the area of his possessions, he bought the town and\ndistrict of Ansbach in 1331. Dying in 1332, Frederick was succeeded by\nhis son, John II., who, after one of his brothers had died and two\nothers had entered the church, ruled his lands in common with his\nbrother Albert. About 1338 John bought Culmbach and Plassenburg, and on\nthe strength of a privilege granted to him in 1347 he seized many\nrobber-fortresses and held the surrounding lands as imperial fiefs. In\ngeneral he continued his father's policy, and when he died in 1357 was\nsucceeded by his son, Frederick V., who, after the death of his uncle\nAlbert in 1361, became sole ruler of Nuremberg, Ansbach and Bayreuth.\nFrederick lived in close friendship with the emperor Charles IV., who\nformally invested him with Ansbach and Bayreuth and made him a prince of\nthe empire in 1363. In spite of the troubled times in which he lived,\nFrederick was a successful ruler, and introduced a regular system of\npublic finance into his lands. In 1397 he divided his territories\nbetween his sons John and Frederick, and died in the following year. His\nelder son, John III., who had married Margaret, a daughter of the\nemperor Charles IV., was frequently in the company of his\nbrothers-in-law, the German kings Wenceslaus and Sigismund. He died\nwithout sons in 1420.\n\nSince 1397 the office of burgrave of Nuremberg had been held by John's\nbrother, Frederick, who in 1415 received Brandenburg from King\nSigismund, and became margrave of Brandenburg as Frederick I. (q.v.). On\nhis brother's death in 1420 he reunited the lands of his branch of the\nfamily, but in 1427 he sold his rights as burgrave to the town of\nNuremberg. The subsequent history of this branch of the Hohenzollerns is\nidentified with that of Brandenburg from 1415 to 1701, and with that of\nPrussia since the latter date, as in this year the elector Frederick\nIII. became king of Prussia. In 1871 William, the seventh king, took the\ntitle of German emperor. While the electorate of Brandenburg passed\naccording to the rule of primogeniture, the Franconian possessions of\nthe Hohenzollerns, Ansbach and Bayreuth, were given as appanages to\nyounger sons, an arrangement which was confirmed by the _dispositio\nAchillea_ of 1473. These principalities were ruled by the sons and\ndescendants of the elector Albert Achilles from 1486 to 1603; and, after\nreverting to the elector of Brandenburg, by the descendants of the\nelector John George from 1603 to 1791. In 1791 Prince Charles Alexander\n(d. 1806), who had inherited both districts, sold his lands to Prussia.\n\nThe influence of the Swabian branch of the Hohenzollerns was weakened by\nseveral partitions of its lands; but early in the 16th century it rose\nto some eminence through Count Eitel Frederick II. (d. 1512), a friend\nand adviser of the emperor Maximilian I. Eitel received from this\nemperor the district of Haigerloch, and in 1534 his grandson Charles (d.\n1576) was granted the counties of Sigmaringen and Vohringen by the\nemperor Charles V. In 1576 the sons of Charles divided their lands, and\nfounded three branches of the family, one of which is still flourishing.\nEitel Frederick IV. took Hohenzollern with the title of\nHohenzollern-Hechingen; Charles II. Sigmaringen and Vohringen and the\ntitle of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen; and Christopher took Haigerloch.\nChristopher's family died out in 1634, but the remaining lines are of\nsome importance. Count John George of Hohenzollern-Hechingen was made a\nprince in 1623, and John of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen soon received the\nsame honour. In 1695 these two branches of the family entered conjointly\ninto an agreement with Brandenburg, which provided that, in case of the\nextinction of either of the Swabian branches, the remaining branch\nshould inherit its lands; and if both branches became extinct the\nprincipalities should revert to Brandenburg. During the 17th and 18th\ncenturies and during the period of the Napoleonic wars the history of\nthese lands was very similar to that of the other small estates of\nGermany. In consequence of the political troubles of 1848 Princes\nFrederick William of Hohenzollern-Hechingen and Charles Anton of\nHohenzollern-Sigmaringen resigned their principalities, and accordingly\nthese fell to the king of Prussia, who took possession on the 12th of\nMarch 1850. By a royal decree of the 20th of May following the title of\n\"highness,\" with the prerogatives of younger sons of the royal house,\nwas conferred on the two princes. The proposal to raise Prince Leopold\nof Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (1835-1905) to the Spanish throne in 1870\nwas the immediate cause of the war between France and Germany. In 1908\nthe head of this branch of the Hohenzollerns, the only one existing\nbesides the imperial house, was Leopold's son William (b. 1864), who,\nowing to the extinction of the family of Hohenzollern-Hechingen in 1869,\nwas called simply prince of Hohenzollern. In 1866 Prince Charles of\nHohenzollern-Sigmaringen was chosen prince of Rumania, becoming king in\n1881.\n\nThe modern Prussian province of Hohenzollern is a long, narrow strip of\nterritory bounded on the S.W. by Baden and in other directions by\nWurttemberg. It was divided into two principalities,\nHohenzollern-Sigmaringen and Hohenzollern-Hechingen, until 1850, when\nthese were united. They now form the government of Sigmaringen (q.v.).\n\nThe castle of Hohenzollern was destroyed in 1423, but it has been\nrestored several times. Some remains of the old building may still be\nseen adjoining the present castle, which was built by King Frederick\nWilliam IV.\n\n See _Monumenta Zollerana_, edited by R. von Stillfried and T. Marker\n (Berlin, 1852-1890); _Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des\n Hauses Hohenzollern_, edited by E. Berner (Berlin, 1901 fol.); R. von\n Stillfried, _Altertumer und Kunstdenkmale des erlauchten Hauses von\n Hohenzollern_ (Berlin, 1852-1867) and _Stammtafeln des Gesamthauses\n Hohenzollern_ (Berlin, 1869); L. Schmid, _Die alteste Geschichte des\n erlauchten Gesamthauses der koniglichen und furstlichen Hohenzollern_\n (Tubingen, 1884-1888); E. Schwartz, _Stammtafel des preussischen\n Konigshauses_ (Breslau 1898); _Hohenzollernsche Forschungen, Jahrbuch\n fur die Geschichte der Hohenzollern_, edited by C. Meyer (Berlin,\n 1891-1902); _Hohenzollern Jahrbuch, Forschungen und Abbildungen zur\n Geschichte der Hohenzollern in Brandenburg-Freussen_, edited by Seidel\n (Leipzig, 1897-1903), and T. Carlyle, _History of Frederick the Great_\n (London, 1872-1873). (A. W. H.*)\n\n\n\n\nHOKKAIDO, the Japanese name for the northern division of the empire\n(_Hoku_ = north, _kai_ = sea, and _do_ = road), including Yezo, the\nKuriles and their adjacent islets.\n\n\n\n\nHOKUSAI (1760-1849), the greatest of all the Japanese painters of the\nPopular School (_Ukiyo-ye_), was born at Yedo (Tokyo) in the 9th month\nof the 10th year of the period Horeki, i.e. October-November 1760. He\ncame of an artisan family, his father having been a mirror-maker,\nNakajima Issai. After some practice as a wood-engraver he, at the age of\neighteen, entered the studio of Katsugawa Shunsho, a painter and\ndesigner of colour-prints of considerable importance. His disregard for\nthe artistic principles of his master caused his expulsion in 1785; and\nthereafter--although from time to time Hokusai studied various styles,\nincluding especially that of Shiba Gokan, from whom he gained some\nfragmentary knowledge of European methods--he kept his personal\nindependence. For a time he lived in extreme poverty, and, although he\nmust have gained sums for his work which might have secured him comfort,\nhe remained poor, and to the end of his life proudly described himself\nas a peasant. He illustrated large numbers of books, of which the\nworld-famous _Mangwa_, a pictorial encyclopaedia of Japanese life,\nappeared in fifteen volumes from 1812 to 1875. Of his colour-prints the\n\"Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji\" (the whole set consisting of forty-six\nprints) were made between 1823 and 1829; \"Views of Famous Bridges\" (11),\n\"Waterfalls\" (8), and \"Views of the Lu-chu Islands\" (8), are the best\nknown of those issued in series; but Hokusai also designed some superb\nbroadsheets published separately, and his _surimono_ (small prints made\nfor special occasions and ceremonies) are unequalled for delicacy and\nbeauty. The \"Hundred Views of Mount Fuji\" (1834-1835), 3 vols., in\nmonochrome, are of extraordinary originality and variety. As a painter\nand draughtsman Hokusai is not held by Japanese critics to be of the\nfirst rank, but this verdict has never been accepted by Europeans, who\nplace him among the greatest artists of the world. He possessed great\npowers of observation and characterization, a singular technical skill,\nan unfailing gift of good humour, and untiring industry. He was an eager\nstudent to the end of his long life, and on his death-bed said, \"If\nHeaven had lent me but five years more, I should have become a great\npainter.\" He died on the 10th of May 1849.\n\n See E. de Goncourt, _Hokousai_ (1896); M. Revon, _Etude sur Hokusai_\n (1896); E. F. Fenollosa, _Catalogue of the Exhibition of Paintings by\n Hokusai at Tokyo_ (1901); E. F. Strange, Hokusai (1906). (E. F. S.)\n\n\n\n\nHOLBACH, PAUL HEINRICH DIETRICH, BARON D' (1723-1789), French\nphilosopher and man of letters, of German origin, was born at\nHeidelsheim in the palatinate in 1723. Of his family little is known;\naccording to J. J. Rousseau his father was a rich parvenu, who brought\nhis son at an early age to Paris, where the latter spent most of his\nlife. Much of Holbach's fame is due to his intimate connexion with the\nbrilliant coterie of bold thinkers and polished wits whose creed, the\nnew philosophy, is concentrated in the famous _Encyclopedie_. Possessed\nof easy means and being of hospitable disposition, he kept open house\nfor Helvetius, D'Alembert, Diderot, Condillac, Turgot, Buffon, Grimm,\nHume, Garrick, Wilkes, Sterne, and for a time J. J. Rousseau, guests\nwho, while enjoying the intellectual pleasure of their host's\nconversation, were not insensible to his excellent cuisine and costly\nwines. For the _Encyclopedie_ he compiled and translated a large number\nof articles on chemistry and mineralogy, chiefly from German sources. He\nattracted more attention, however, in the department of philosophy. In\n1767 _Christianisme devoile_ appeared, in which he attacked Christianity\nand religion as the source of all human evils. This was followed up by\nother works, and in 1770 by a still more open attack in his most famous\nbook, _Le Systeme de la nature_, in which it is probable he was\nassisted by Diderot. Denying the existence of a deity, and refusing to\nadmit as evidence all a priori arguments, Holbach saw in the universe\nnothing save matter in spontaneous movement. What men call their souls\nbecome extinct when the body dies. Happiness is the end of mankind. \"It\nwould be useless and almost unjust to insist upon a man's being virtuous\nif he cannot be so without being unhappy. So long as vice renders him\nhappy, he should love vice.\" The restraints of religion were to be\nreplaced by an education developing an enlightened self-interest. The\nstudy of science was to bring human desires into line with their natural\nsurroundings. Not less direct and trenchant are his attacks on political\ngovernment, which, interpreted by the light of after events, sound like\nthe first distant mutterings of revolution. Holbach exposed the logical\nconsequences of the theories of the Encyclopaedists. Voltaire hastily\nseized his pen to refute the philosophy of the Systeme in the article\n\"Dieu\" in his _Dictionnaire philosophique_, while Frederick the Great\nalso drew up an answer to it. Though vigorous in thought and in some\npassages clear and eloquent, the style of the Systeme is diffuse and\ndeclamatory, and asserts rather than proves its statements. Its\nprinciples are summed up in a more popular form in _Bon Sens, ou idees\nnaturelles opposees aux idees surnaturelles_ (Amsterdam, 1772). In the\nSysteme social (1773), the _Politique naturelle_ (1773-1774) and the\n_Morale universelle_ (1776) Holbach attempts to rear a system of\nmorality in place of the one he had so fiercely attacked, but these\nlater writings had not a tithe of the popularity and influence of his\nearlier work. He published his books either anonymously or under\nborrowed names, and was forced to have them printed out of France. The\nuprightness and sincerity of his character won the friendship of many to\nwhom his philosophy was repugnant. J. J. Rousseau is supposed to have\ndrawn his portrait in the virtuous atheist Wolmar of the _Nouvelle\nHeloise_. He died on the 21st of January 1789.\n\n Holbach is also the author of the following and other works: _Esprit\n du clerge_ (1767); _De l'imposture sacerdotale_ (1767); _Pretres\n demasques_ (1768); _Examen critique de la vie et des ouvrages de St\n Paul_ (1770); _Histoire critique de Jesus-Christ_ (1770), and\n _Ethocratie_ (1776). For further particulars as to his life and\n doctrines see Grimm's _Correspondance litteraire_, &c. (1813);\n Rousseau's _Confessions_; Morellet's _Memoires_ (1821); Madame de\n Genlis, _Les Diners du Baron Holbach_; Madame d'Epinay's _Memoires_;\n Avezac-Lavigne, _Diderot et la societe du Baron d'Holbach_ (1875), and\n Morley's _Diderot_ (1878).\n\n\n\n\nHOLBEACH, a market town in the Holland or Spalding parliamentary\ndivision of Lincolnshire, England, on the Midland and Great Northern\njoint railway, 23(1/2) m. N.E. of Peterborough. Pop. of urban district\n(1901), 4755. All Saints' Church, with a lofty spire, is a fine specimen\nof late Decorated work. The grammar school, founded in 1669, occupies a\nbuilding erected in 1877. Other public buildings are the assembly rooms\nand a market house. Roman and Saxon remains have been found, and the\nmarket dates from the 13th century.\n\n\n\n\nHOLBEIN, HANS, the elder (c. 1460-1524), belonged to a celebrated family\nof painters in practice at Augsburg and Basel from the close of the 15th\nto the middle of the 16th century. Though closely connected with Venice\nby her commercial relations, and geographically nearer to Italy than to\nFlanders, Augsburg at the time of Maximilian cultivated art after the\nfashion of the Flemings, and felt the influence of the schools of Bruges\nand Brussels, which had branches at Cologne and in many cities about the\nheadwaters of the Rhine. It was not till after the opening of the 16th\ncentury, and between that and the era of the Reformation, that Italian\nexample mitigated to some extent the asperity of South German painting.\nFlemish and German art was first tempered with Italian elements at\nAugsburg by Hans Holbein the elder. Hans first appears at Augsburg as\npartner to his brother Sigismund, who survived him and died in 1540 at\nBerne. Sigismund is described as a painter, but his works have not come\ndown to us. Hans had the lead of the partnership at Augsburg, and signed\nall the pictures which it produced. In common with Herlen, Schongauer,\nand other masters of South Germany, he first cultivated a style akin to\nthat of Memlinc and other followers of the schools of Brussels and\nBruges, but he probably modified the systems of those schools by\nstudying the works of the masters of Cologne. As these early impressions\nwaned, they were replaced by others less favourable to the expansion of\nthe master's fame; and as his custom increased between 1499 and 1506, we\nfind him relying less upon the teaching of the schools than upon a mere\nobservation and reproduction of the quaintnesses of local passion plays.\nMost of his early works indeed are taken from the Passion, and in these\nhe obviously marshalled his figures with the shallow stage effect of the\nplays, copying their artificial system of grouping, careless to some\nextent of proportion in the human shape, heedless of any but the coarser\nforms of expression, and technically satisfied with the simplest methods\nof execution. If in any branch of his art he can be said to have had a\nconscience at this period, we should say that he showed it in his\nportrait drawings. It is seldom that we find a painted likeness worthy\nof the name. The drawings of which numbers are still preserved in the\ngalleries of Basel, Berlin and Copenhagen show extraordinary quickness\nand delicacy of hand, and a wonderful facility for seizing character;\nand this happily is one of the features which Holbein bequeathed to his\nmore famous son, Hans the younger. It is between 1512 and 1522 that\nHolbein tempered the German quality of his style with some North Italian\nelements. A purer taste and more pleasing realism mark his work, which\nin drapery, dress and tone is as much more agreeable to the eye as in\nrespect of modelling and finish it is smoother and more carefully\nrounded. Costume, architecture, ornament and colour are applied with\nsome knowledge of the higher canons of art. Here, too, advantage accrued\nto Hans the younger, whose independent career about this time began.\n\nThe date of the elder Holbein's birth is unknown. But his name appears\nin the books of the tax-gatherers of Augsburg in 1494, superseding that\nof Michael Holbein, who is supposed to have been his father. Previous to\nthat date, and as early as 1493, he was a painter of name, and he\nexecuted in that year, it is said, for the abbey at Weingarten, the\nwings of an altarpiece representing Joachim's Offering, the Nativity of\nthe Virgin, Mary's Presentation in the Temple, and the Presentation of\nChrist, which now hang in separate panels in the cathedral of Augsburg.\nIn these pieces and others of the same period, for instance in two\nMadonnas in the Moritz chapel and castle of Nuremberg, we mark the clear\nimpress of the schools of Van der Weyden and Memlinc; whilst in later\nworks, such as the Basilica of St Paul (1504) in the gallery of\nAugsburg, the wane of Flemish influence is apparent. But this\naltarpiece, with its quaint illustrations of St Paul's life and\nmartyrdom, is not alone of interest because its execution is\ncharacteristic of old Holbein. It is equally so because it contains\nportraits of the master himself, accompanied by his two sons, the\npainters Ambrose (c. 1494-c. 1519) and Hans the younger. Later pictures,\nsuch as the Passion series in the Furstenberg gallery at Donaueschingen,\nor the Martyrdom of St Sebastian in the Munich Pinakothek, contain\nsimilar portraits, the original drawings of which are found in old\nHolbein's sketch-book at Berlin, or in stray leaves like those possessed\nby the duke of Aumale in Paris. Not one of these fails to give us an\ninsight into the character, or a reflex of the features, of the members\nof this celebrated family. Old Holbein seems to ape Leonardo, allowing\nhis hair and beard to grow wildly, except on the upper lip. Hans the\nyounger is a plain-looking boy. But his father points to him with his\nfinger, and hints that though but a child he is clearly a prodigy.\n\nAfter 1516 Hans Holbein the elder appears as a defaulter in the\nregisters of the tax-gatherers at Augsburg; but he willingly accepts\ncommissions abroad. At Issenheim in Alsace, where Grunewald was employed\nin 1516, old Holbein also finds patrons, and contracts to complete an\naltarpiece. But misfortune or a bailiff pursues him, and he leaves\nIssenheim, abandoning his work and tools. According to Sandrart, he\nwanders to Basel and takes the freedom of its gild. His brother\nSigismund and others are found suing him for debt before the courts of\nAugsburg. Where he lived when he executed the altarpiece, of which two\nwings with the date of 1522 are in the gallery of Carlsruhe, is\nuncertain; where he died two years later is unknown. He slinks from ken\nat the close of a long life, and disappears at last heeded by none but\nhis own son, who claims his brushes and paints from the monks of\nIssenheim without much chance of obtaining them. His name is struck off\nthe books of the Augsburg gild in 1524.\n\n The elder Holbein was a prolific artist, who left many pictures behind\n him. Earlier than the Basilica of St Paul, already mentioned, is the\n Basilica of St Mary Maggiore, and a Passion in eleven pieces, in the\n Augsburg gallery, both executed in 1499. Another Passion, with the\n root of Jesse and a tree of the Dominicans, is that preserved in the\n Staedel, Saalhof, and church of St Leonard at Frankfort. It was\n executed in 1501. The Passion of Donaueschingen was finished after\n 1502, in which year was completed the Passion of Kaisheim, a\n conglomerate of twenty-seven panels, now divided amongst the galleries\n of Munich, Nuremberg, Augsburg and Schleissheim. An altarpiece of the\n same class, commissioned for the monastery of St Moritz at Augsburg in\n 1504-1508, has been dispersed and lost. 1512 is the date of a\n Conception in the Augsburg gallery, long assigned, in consequence of a\n forged inscription, to Hans Holbein the younger. A diptych, with a\n Virgin and Child, and a portrait of an old man, dated 1513, came in\n separate parts into the collections of Mr Posonyi and Count\n Lanckoronski at Vienna. The sketch-books of Berlin, Copenhagen and\n Augsburg give a lively picture of the forms and dress of Augsburg\n residents at the beginning of the 16th century. They comprise\n portraits of the emperor Maximilian, the future Charles V., Kunz von\n der Rosen, the fool of Maximilian, the Fuggers, friars, merchants, and\n at rare intervals ladies.\n\n See also the biography by Stodtner (Berlin, 1896).\n\n\n\n\nHOLBEIN, HANS, the younger (1497-1543), German painter, favourite son of\nHans Holbein the elder, was probably born at Augsburg about the year\n1497. Though Sandrart and Van Mander declare that they do not know who\ngave him the first lessons, he doubtless received an artist's education\nfrom his father. About 1515 he left Augsburg with Ambrose, his elder\nbrother, to seek employment as an illustrator of books at Basel. His\nfirst patron is said to have been Erasmus, for whom, shortly after his\narrival, he illustrated with pen-and-ink sketches an edition of the\n_Encomium Moriae_, now in the museum of Basel. But his chief occupation\nwas that of drawing titlepage-blocks and initials for new editions of\nthe Bible and classics issued from the presses of Froben and other\npublishers. His leisure hours, it is supposed, were devoted to the\nproduction of rough painter's work, a schoolmaster's sign in the Basel\ncollection, a table with pictures of St Nobody in the library of the\nuniversity at Zurich. In contrast with these coarse productions, the\nportraits of Jacob Meyer and his wife in the Basel museum, one of which\npurports to have been finished in 1516, are miracles of workmanship. It\nhas always seemed difficult indeed to ascribe such excellent creations\nto Holbein's nineteenth year; and it is hardly credible that he should\nhave been asked to do things of this kind so early, especially when it\nis remembered that neither he nor his brother Ambrose were then allowed\nto matriculate in the guild of Basel. Not till 1517 did Ambrose, whose\nlife otherwise remains obscure, join that corporation; Hans, not\noverburdened with practice, wandered into Switzerland, where (1517) he\nwas employed to paint in the house of Jacob Hertenstein at Lucerne. In\n1519 Holbein reappeared at Basel, where he matriculated and, there is\nevery reason to think, married. Whether, previous to this time, he took\nadvantage of his vicinity to the Italian border to cross the Alps is\nuncertain. Van Mander says that he never was in Italy; yet the large\nwall-paintings which he executed after 1519 at Basel, and the series of\nhis sketches and pictures which is still extant, might lead to the\nbelief that Van Mander was misinformed. The spirit of Holbein's\ncompositions for the Basel town hall, the scenery and architecture of\nhis numerous drawings, and the cast of form in some of his imaginative\nportraits, make it more likely that he should have felt the direct\ninfluence of North Italian painting than that he should have taken\nItalian elements from imported works or prints. The Swiss at this period\nwandered in thousands to swell the ranks of the French or imperial\narmies fighting on Italian soil, and the road they took may have been\nfollowed by Hans on a more peaceful mission. He shows himself at all\nevents familiar with Italian examples at various periods of his career;\nand if we accept as early works the \"Flagellation,\" and the \"Last\nSupper\" at Basel, coarse as they are, they show some acquaintance with\nLombard methods of painting, whilst in other pieces, such as the series\nof the Passion in oil in the same collection, the modes of Hans Holbein\nthe elder are agreeably commingled with a more modern, it may be said\nItalian, polish. Again, looking at the \"Virgin\" and \"Man of Sorrows\" in\nthe Basel museum, we shall be struck by a searching metallic style akin\nto that of the Ferrarese; and the \"Lais\" or the \"Venus and Amor\" of the\nsame collection reminds us of the Leonardesques of the school of Milan.\nWhen Holbein settled down to an extensive practice at Basel in 1519, he\ndecorated the walls of the house \"Zum Tanz\" with simulated architectural\nfeatures of a florid character after the fashion of the Veronese; and\nhis wall paintings in the town-hall, if we can truly judge of them by\ncopies, reveal an artist not unfamiliar with North Italian composition,\ndistribution, action, gesture and expression. In his drawings too,\nparticularly in a set representing the Passion at Basel, the\narrangement, and also the perspective, form and decorative ornament, are\nin the spirit of the school of Mantegna. Contemporary with these,\nhowever, and almost inexplicably in contrast with them as regards\nhandling, are portrait-drawings such as the likenesses of Jacob Meyer,\nand his wife, which are finished with German delicacy, and with a power\nand subtlety of hand seldom rivalled in any school. Curiously enough,\nthe same contrast may be observed between painted compositions and\npainted portraits. The \"Bonifacius Amerbach\" of 1519 at Basel is\nacknowledged to be one of the most complete examples of smooth and\ntransparent handling that Holbein ever executed. His versatility at this\nperiod is shown by a dead Christ (1521), a corpse in profile on a\ndissecting table, and a set of figures in couples; the \"Madonna and St\nPantalus,\" and \"Kaiser Henry with the Empress Kunigunde\" (1522),\noriginally composed for the organ loft of the Basel cathedral, now in\nthe Basel museum. Equally remarkable, but more attractive, though\ninjured, is the \"Virgin and Child between St Ursus and St Nicholas\" (not\nSt Martin) giving alms to a beggar, in the gallery of Solothurn. This\nremarkable picture is dated 1522, and seems to have been ordered for an\naltar in the minster of St Ursus of Solothurn by Nicholas Conrad, a\ncaptain and statesman of the 16th century, whose family allowed the\nprecious heirloom to fall into decay in a chapel of the neighbouring\nvillage of Grenchen. Numerous drawings in the spirit of this picture,\nand probably of the same period in his career, might have led Holbein's\ncontemporaries to believe that he would make his mark in the annals of\nBasel as a model for painters of altarpieces as well as a model for\npictorial composition and portrait. The promise which he gave at this\ntime was immense. He was gaining a freedom in draughtsmanship that gave\nhim facility to deal with any subject. Though a realist, he was sensible\nof the dignity and severity of religious painting. His colour had almost\nall the richness and sweetness of the Venetians. But he had fallen on\nevil times, as the next few years undoubtedly showed. Amongst the\nportraits which he executed in these years are those of Froben, the\npublisher, known only by copies at Basel and Hampton Court, and Erasmus,\nwho sat in 1523, as he likewise did in 1530, in various positions,\nshowing his face threequarters as at Longford, Basel, Turin, Parma, the\nHague and Vienna, and in profile as in the Louvre or at Hampton Court.\nBesides these, Holbein made designs for glass windows, and for woodcuts,\nincluding subjects of every sort, from the Virgin and Child with saints\nof the old time to the Dance of Death, from gospel incidents extracted\nfrom Luther's Bible to satirical pieces illustrating the sale of\nindulgences and other abuses denounced by Reformers. Holbein, in this\nway, was carried irresistibly with the stream of the Reformation, in\nwhich, it must now be admitted, the old traditions of religious painting\nwere wrecked, leaving nothing behind but unpictorial elements which\nCranach and his school vainly used for pictorial purposes.\n\nOnce only, after 1526, and after he had produced the \"Lais\" and \"Venus\nand Amor,\" did Holbein with impartial spirit give his services and\npencil to the Roman Catholic cause. The burgomaster Meyer, whose\npatronage he had already enjoyed, now asked him to represent himself and\nhis wives and children in prayer before the Virgin; and Holbein produced\nthe celebrated altarpiece now in the palace of Prince William of Hesse\nat Darmstadt, the shape and composition of which are known to all the\nworld by its copy in the Dresden museum. The drawings for this\nmasterpiece are amongst the most precious relics in the museum of Basel.\nThe time now came when art began to suffer from unavoidable depression\nin all countries north of the Alps. Holbein, at Basel, was reduced to\naccept the smallest commissions--even for scutcheons. Then he saw that\nhis chances were dwindling to nothing, and taking a bold resolution,\narmed with letters of introduction from Erasmus to More, he crossed the\nChannel to England, where in the one-sided branch of portrait painting\nhe found an endless circle of clients. Eighty-seven drawings by Holbein\nin Windsor Castle, containing an equal number of portraits, of persons\nchiefly of high quality, testify to his industry in the years which\ndivide 1528 from 1543. They are all originals of pictures that are still\nextant, or sketches for pictures that were lost or never carried out.\nSir Thomas More, with whom he seems to have had a very friendly\nconnexion, sat to him for likenesses of various kinds. The drawing of\nhis head is at Windsor. A pen-and-ink sketch, in which we see More\nsurrounded by all the members of his family, is now in the gallery of\nBasel, and numerous copies of a picture from it prove how popular the\nlost original must once have been. At the same period were executed the\nportraits of Warham (Lambeth and Louvre), Wyatt (Louvre), Sir Henry\nGuildford and his wife (Windsor), all finished in 1527, the astronomer\nNicholas Kratzer (Louvre), Thomas Godsalve (Dresden), and Sir Bryan Tuke\n(Munich) in 1528. In this year, 1528, Holbein returned to Basel, taking\nto Erasmus the sketch of More's family. With money which he brought from\nLondon he purchased a house at Basel wherein to lodge his wife and\nchildren, whose portraits he now painted with all the care of a husband\nand father (1528). He then witnessed the flight of Erasmus and the fury\nof the iconoclasts, who destroyed in one day almost all the religious\npictures at Basel. The municipality, unwilling that he should suffer\nagain from the depression caused by evil times, asked him to finish the\nfrescoes of the town-hall, and the sketches from these lost pictures are\nstill before us to show that he had not lost the spirit of his earlier\ndays, and was still capable as a composer. His \"Rehoboam receiving the\nIsraelite Envoys,\" and \"Saul at the Head of his Array meeting Samuel,\"\ntestify to Holbein's power and his will, also proved at a later period\nby the \"Triumphs of Riches and Poverty,\" executed for the Steelyard in\nLondon (but now lost), to prefer the fame of a painter of history to\nthat of a painter of portraits. But the reforming times still remained\nunfavourable to art. With the exception of a portrait of Melanchthon\n(Hanover) which he now completed, Holbein found little to do at Basel.\nThe year 1530, therefore, saw him again on the move, and he landed in\nEngland for the second time with the prospect of bettering his fortunes.\nHere indeed political changes had robbed him of his earlier patrons. The\ncircle of More and Warham was gone. But that of the merchants of the\nSteelyard took its place, for whom Holbein executed the long and\nimportant series of portraits that lie scattered throughout the\ngalleries and collections of England and the Continent, and bear date\nafter 1532. Then came again the chance of practice in more fashionable\ncircles. In 1533 the \"Ambassadors\" (National Gallery), and the \"Triumphs\nof Wealth and Poverty\" were executed, then the portraits of Leland and\nWyatt (Longford), and (1534) the portrait of Thomas Cromwell. Through\nCromwell Holbein probably became attached to the court, in the pay of\nwhich he appears permanently after 1537. From that time onwards he was\nconnected with all that was highest in the society of London. Henry\nVIII. invited him to make a family picture of himself, his father and\nfamily, which obtained a post of honour at Whitehall. The beautiful\ncartoon of a part of this fine piece at Hardwicke Hall enables us to\ngauge its beauty before the fire which destroyed it in the 17th century.\nThen Holbein painted Jane Seymour in state (Vienna), employing some\nEnglish hand perhaps to make the replicas at the Hague, Sion House and\nWoburn; he finished the Southwell of the Uffizi (copy at the Louvre),\nthe jeweller Morett at Dresden, and last, not least, Christine of\nDenmark, who gave sittings at Brussels in 1538. During the journey which\nthis work involved Holbein took the opportunity of revisiting Basel,\nwhere he made his appearance in silk and satin, and _pro forma_ only\naccepted the office of town painter. He had been living long and\ncontinuously away from home, not indeed observing due fidelity to his\nwife, who still resided at Basel, but fairly performing the duties of\nkeeping her in comfort. His return to London in autumn enabled him to do\nhomage to the king in the way familiar to artists. He presented to Henry\nat Christmas a portrait of Prince Edward. Again abroad in the summer of\n1539, he painted with great fidelity the princess Anne of Cleves, at\nDuren near Cologne, whose form we still see depicted in the great\npicture of the Louvre. That he could render the features of his sitter\nwithout flattery is plain from this one example. Indeed, habitual\nflattery was contrary to his habits. His portraits up to this time all\ndisplay that uncommon facility for seizing character which his father\nenjoyed before him, and which he had inherited in an expanded form. No\namount of labour, no laboriousness of finish--and of both he was ever\nprodigal--betrayed him into loss of resemblance or expression. No\npainter was ever quicker at noting peculiarities of physiognomy, and it\nmay be observed that in none of his faces, as indeed in none of the\nfaces one sees in nature, are the two sides alike. Yet he was not a\nchild of the 16th century, as the Venetians were, in substituting touch\nfor line. We must not look in his works for modulations of surface or\nsubtle contrasts of colour in juxtaposition. His method was to the very\nlast delicate, finished and smooth, as became a painter of the old\nschool.\n\nAmongst the more important creations of Holbein's later time we should\nnote his \"Duke of Norfolk\" at Windsor, the hands of which are so\nperfectly preserved as to compensate for the shrivel that now disfigures\nthe head. Two other portraits of 1541 (Berlin and Vienna), the Falconer\nat the Hague, and John Chambers at Vienna (1542), are noble specimens of\nportrait art; most interesting and of the same year are the likenesses\nof Holbein himself, of which several examples are extant--one\nparticularly good at Fahna, the seat of the Stackelberg family near\nRiga, and another at the Uffizi in Florence. Here Holbein appears to us\nas a man of regular features, with hair just turning grey, but healthy\nin colour and shape, and evidently well to do in the world. Yet a few\nmonths only separated him then from his death-bed. He was busy painting\na picture of Henry the VIII. confirming the Privileges of the Barber\nSurgeons (Lincoln's Inn Fields), when he sickened of the plague and died\nafter making a will about November 1543. His loss must have been\nseriously felt in England. Had he lived his last years in Germany, he\nwould not have changed the current which decided the fate of painting in\nthat country; he would but have shared the fate of Durer and others who\nmerely prolonged the agony of art amidst the troubles of the\nReformation. (J. A. C.)\n\n The early authorities are Karel Van Mander's _Het Schilder Boek_\n (1604), and J. von Sandrart, _Accademia Todesca_ (1675). See also R.\n N. Wornum, _Life and Work of Holbein_ (1867); H. Knackfuss, _Holbein_\n (1899); G. S. Davies, _Holbein_ (1903); A. F. G. A. Woltmann, _Holbein\n und seine Zeit_ (1876).\n\n\n\n\nHOLBERG, LUDVIG HOLBERG, BARON (1684-1754), the great Scandinavian\nwriter, was born at Bergen, in Norway, on the 3rd of December 1684. Both\nHolberg's parents died in his childhood, his father first, leaving a\nconsiderable property; and in his eleventh year he lost his mother also.\nBefore the latter event, however, the family had been seriously\nimpoverished by a great fire, which destroyed several valuable\nbuildings, but notwithstanding this, the mother left to each of her six\nchildren some little fortune. In 1695 the boy Holberg was taken into the\nhouse of his uncle, Peder Lem, who sent him to the Latin school, and\nprepared him for the profession of a soldier; but soon after this he was\nadopted by his cousin Otto Munthe, and went to him up in the mountains.\nHis great desire for instruction, however, at last induced his family\nto send him back to Bergen, to his uncle, and there he remained, eagerly\nstudying, until the destruction of that city by fire in 1702, when he\nwas sent to the university of Copenhagen. But he soon exhausted his\nresources, and, having nothing to live upon, was glad to hurry back to\nNorway, where he accepted the position of tutor in the house of a rural\ndean at Voss. He soon returned to Copenhagen, where in 1704 he took his\ndegree, and worked hard at French, English and Italian. But he had to\ngain his living, and accordingly he accepted the post of tutor once\nmore, this time in the house of Dr Smith, vice-bishop of Bergen. The\ngood doctor had travelled much, and the reading of his itineraries and\nnote-books awakened such a longing for travel in the young Holberg that\nat last, at the close of 1704, having scraped together 60 dollars, he\nwent on board a ship bound for Holland. He proceeded as far as\nAix-la-Chapelle, where he fell sick of a fever, and suffered so much\nfrom weakness and poverty, that he made his way on foot to Amsterdam,\nand came back to Norway. Ashamed to be seen so soon in Bergen, he\nstopped at Christianssand, where he lived through the winter, supporting\nhimself by giving lessons in French. In the spring of 1706 he travelled,\nin company with a student named Brix, through London to Oxford, where he\nstudied for two years, gaining his livelihood by giving lessons on the\nviolin and the flute. He mentions, with gratitude, the valuable\nlibraries of Oxford, and it is pleasant to record that it was while he\nwas there that it first occurred to him, as he says, \"how splendid and\nglorious a thing it would be to take a place among the authors.\" Through\nLondon and Elsinore he reached Copenhagen a third time, and began to\nlecture at the university; his lectures were attended, but he got no\nmoney. He was asked in 1709 to conduct a rich young gentleman to\nDresden, and on his return journey he lectured at Leipzig, Halle and\nHamburg. Once more in Copenhagen, he undertook to teach the children of\nAdmiral Gedde. Weary with this work, he took a post at Borch College in\n1710, where he wrote, and printed in 1711, his first work, _An\nIntroduction to the History of the Nations of Europe_, and was permitted\nto present to King Frederick IV. two manuscript essays on Christian IV.\nand Frederick III. The king soon after presented him with the title of\nProfessor, and with the Rosenkrantz grant of 100 dollars for four years,\nthe holder of which was expected to travel. Holberg accordingly started\nin 1714, and visited, chiefly on foot, a great portion of Europe. From\nAmsterdam he walked through Rotterdam to Antwerp, took a boat to\nBrussels, and on foot again reached Paris. Walking and skating, he\nproceeded in the depth of winter to Marseilles, and on by sea to Genoa.\nOn the last-mentioned voyage he caught a fever, and nearly died in that\ncity. On his recovery he pushed on to Civita Vecchia and Rome. When the\nspring had come, being still very poor and in feeble health, he started\nhomewards on foot by Florence, across the Apennines, through Bologna,\nParma, Piacenza, Turin, over the Alps, through Savoy and Dauphine to\nLyons, and finally to Paris, where he arrived in excellent health. After\nspending a month in Paris, he walked on to Amsterdam, took sail to\nHamburg, and so went back to Denmark in 1716. He spent the next two\nyears in extreme poverty, and published his _Introduction to Natural and\nPopular Law_. But at last, in 1718, his talents were recognized by his\nappointment as professor of metaphysics at the university of Copenhagen;\nand in 1720 he was promoted to the lucrative chair of public eloquence,\nwhich gave him a seat in the consistory. His pecuniary troubles were now\nat an end. Hitherto he had written only on law, history and philology,\nalthough in a Latin controversy with the jurist Andreas Hojer of\nFlensborg his satirical genius had flashed out. But now, and until 1728,\nhe created an entirely new class of humorous literature under the\npseudonym of Hans Mikkelsen. The serio-comic epic of _Peder Paars_, the\nearliest of the great classics of the Danish language, appeared In 1719.\nThis poem was a brilliant satire on contemporary manners, and enjoyed an\nextraordinary success. But the author had offended in it several\npowerful persons who threatened his life, and if Count Danneskjold had\nnot personally interested the king in him, Holberg's career might have\nhad an untimely close. During the next two years he published five\nshorter satires, all of which were well received by the public. The\ngreat event of 1721 was the erection of the first Danish theatre in\nGronnegade, Copenhagen; Holberg took the direction of this house, in\nwhich was played, in September 1722, a Danish translation of L'Avare.\nUntil this time no plays had been acted in Denmark except in French and\nGerman, but Holberg now determined to use his talent in the construction\nof Danish comedy. The first of his original pieces performed was _Den\npolitiske Kandestober_ (The Pewterer turned Politician); he wrote other\ncomedies with miraculous rapidity, and before 1722 was closed, there had\nbeen performed in succession, and with immense success, _Den\nVaegelsindede_ (The Waverer), _Jean de France_, _Jeppe paa Bjerget_, and\n_Gert the Westphalian_. Of these five plays, four at least are\nmasterpieces; and they were almost immediately followed by others.\nHolberg took no rest, and before the end of 1723 the comedies of\n_Barselstuen_ (The Lying-in Room), _The Eleventh of July_, _Jakob von\nThyboe_, _Den Bundeslose_ (The Fidget), _Erasmus Montanus_, _Don\nRanudo_, _Ulysses of Ithaca_, _Without Head or Tail_, _Witchcraft_ and\n_Melampe_ had all been written, and some of them acted. In 1724 the most\nfamous comedy that Holberg produced was _Henrik and Pernille_. But in\nspite of this unprecedented blaze of dramatic genius the theatre fell\ninto pecuniary difficulties, and had to be closed, Holberg composing for\nthe last night's performance, in February 1727, a _Funeral of Danish\nComedy_. All this excessive labour for the stage had undermined the\ngreat poet's health, and in 1725 he had determined to take the baths at\nAix-la-Chapelle; but instead of going thither he wandered through\nBelgium to Paris, and spent the winter there. In the spring he returned\nto Copenhagen with recovered health and spirits, and worked quietly at\nhis protean literary labours until the great fire of 1728. In the period\nof national poverty and depression that followed this event, a\npuritanical spirit came into vogue which was little in sympathy with\nHolberg's dramatic or satiric genius. He therefore closed his career as\na dramatic poet by publishing in 1731 his acted comedies, with the\naddition of five which he had no opportunity of putting on the stage.\nWith characteristic versatility, he adopted the serious tone of the new\nage, and busied himself for the next twenty years with historical,\nphilosophical and statistical writings. During this period he published\nhis poetical satire called _Metamorphosis_ (1726), his _Epistolae ad\nvirum perillustrem_ (1727), his _Description of Denmark and Norway_\n(1729), _History of Denmark_, _Universal Church History_, _Biographies\nof Famous Men_, _Moral Reflections_, _Description of Bergen_ (1737), _A\nHistory of the Jews_, and other learned and laborious compilations. The\nonly poem he published at this time was the famous _Nicolai Klimii iter\nsubterraneum_ (1741), afterwards translated into Danish by Baggesen.\nWhen Christian VI. died in 1747, pietism lost its sway; the theatre was\nreopened and Holberg was appointed director, but he soon resigned this\narduous post. The six comedies he wrote in his old age did not add to\nhis reputation. His last published work was his _Epistles_, in 5 vols.\nthe last of them posthumous (1754). In 1747 he was created by the new\nking Baron of Holberg. In August 1753 he took to his bed, and he died at\nCopenhagen on the 28th of January 1754, in the seventieth year of his\nage. He was buried at Soro, in Zealand. He had never married, and he\nbequeathed all his property, which was considerable, to Soro College.\n\nHolberg was not only the founder of Danish literature and the greatest\nof Danish authors, but he was, with the exception of Voltaire, the first\nwriter in Europe during his own generation. Neither Pope nor Swift, who\nperhaps excelled him in particular branches of literary production,\napproached him in range of genius, or in encyclopaedic versatility.\nHolberg found Denmark provided with no books, and he wrote a library for\nher. When he arrived in the country, the Danish language was never heard\nin a gentleman's house. Polite Danes were wont to say that a man wrote\nLatin to his friends, talked French to the ladies, called his dogs in\nGerman, and only used Danish to swear at his servants. The single genius\nof Holberg revolutionized this system. He wrote poems of all kinds in a\nlanguage hitherto employed only for ballads and hymns; he instituted a\ntheatre, and composed a rich collection of comedies for it; he filled\nthe shelves of the citizens with works in their own tongue on history,\nlaw, politics, science, philology and philosophy, all written in a true\nand manly style, and representing the extreme attainment of European\nculture at the moment. Perhaps no author who ever lived has had so vast\nan influence over his countrymen, an influence that is still at work\nafter 200 years.\n\n The editions of Holberg's works are legion. Complete editions of the\n _Comedies_ are too numerous to be quoted; the best is that brought out\n in 3 vols. by F. I. Lichtenberg, in 1870. Of _Peder Paars_ there exist\n at least twenty-three editions, besides translations in Dutch, German\n and Swedish. The _Iter subterraneum_ has been three several times\n translated into Danish, ten times into German, thrice into Swedish,\n thrice into Dutch, thrice into English, twice into French, twice into\n Russian and once into Hungarian. The life of Holberg was written by\n Welhaven in 1858 and by Georg Brandes in 1884. Among works on his\n genius by foreigners may be mentioned an exhaustive study by Robert\n Prutz (1857), and _Holberg considere comme imitateur de Moliere_, by\n A. Legrelle (Paris, 1864). (E. G.)\n\n\n\n\nHOLBORN, a central metropolitan borough of London, England, bounded N.W.\nby St Pancras, N.E. by Finsbury, S.E. by the City of London, S. and W.\nby the City of Westminster and St Marylebone. Pop. (1901), 59,405. Area\n405.1 acres. Its main thoroughfare is that running E. and W. under the\nnames of Holborn Viaduct, High Holborn and New Oxford Street.\n\nThe name of Holborn was formerly derived from Old Bourne, a tributary of\nthe Fleet, the valley of which is clearly seen where Holborn Viaduct\ncrosses Farringdon Street. Of the existence of this tributary, however,\nthere is no evidence, and the origin of the name is found in\n_Hole-bourne_, the stream in the hollow, in allusion to the Fleet\nitself. The fall and rise of the road across the valley before the\nconstruction of the viaduct (1869) was abrupt and inconvenient. In\nearlier times a bridge here crossed the Fleet, leading from Newgate,\nwhile a quarter of a mile west of the viaduct is the site of Holborn\nBars, at the entrance to the City, where tolls were levied. The better\nresidential district of Holborn, which extends northward to Euston Road\nin the borough of St Pancras, is mainly within the parish of St George,\nBloomsbury. The name of Bloomsbury is commonly derived from William\nBlemund, a lord of the manor in the 15th century. A dyke called\nBlemund's Ditch, of unknown origin, bounded it on the south, where the\nland was marshy. During the 18th century Bloomsbury was a fashionable\nand wealthy residential quarter. The reputation of the district\nimmediately to the south, embraced in the parish of St Giles in the\nFields, was far different. From the 17th century until modern times this\nwas notorious as a home of crime and poverty. Here occurred some of the\nearliest cases of the plague which spread over London in 1664-1665. The\nopening of the thoroughfares of New Oxford Street (1840) and Shaftesbury\nAvenue (1855) by no means wholly destroyed the character of the\ndistrict. The circus of Seven Dials, east of Shaftesbury Avenue, affords\na typical name in connexion with the lowest aspect of life in London. A\nsimilar notoriety attached to Saffron Hill on the eastern confines of\nthe borough. By a singular contrast, the neighbouring thoroughfare of\nHatton Garden, leading north from Holborn Circus, is a centre of the\ndiamond trade.\n\nOf the ecclesiastical buildings of Holborn that of first interest is the\nchapel of St Etheldreda in Ely Place, opening from Holborn Circus. Ely\nPlace takes its name from a palace of the bishops of Ely, who held land\nhere as early as the 13th century. Here died John of Gaunt in 1399. The\nproperty was acquired by Sir Christopher Hatton, Lord Chancellor under\nQueen Elizabeth, after whom Hatton Garden is named; though the bishopric\nkept some hold upon it until the 18th century. The chapel, the only\nremnant of the palace, is a beautiful Decorated structure with a vaulted\ncrypt, itself above ground-level. Both are used for worship by Roman\nCatholics, by whom the chapel was acquired in 1874 and opened five years\nlater after careful restoration. The present parish church of St Giles\nin the Fields, between Shaftesbury Avenue and New Oxford Street, dates\nfrom 1734, but here was situated a leper's hospital founded by Matilda,\nwife of Henry I., in 1101. Its chapel became the parish church on the\nsuppression of the monasteries. The church of St Andrew, the parish of\nwhich extends into the City, stands near Holborn Viaduct. It is by Wren,\nbut there are traces of the previous Gothic edifice in the tower.\nSacheverell was among its rectors (1713-1724), and Thomas Chatterton\n(1770) was interred in the adjacent burial ground, no longer extant, of\nShoe Lane Workhouse; the register recording his Christian name as\nWilliam. Close to this church Is the City Temple (Congregational).\n\nTwo of the four Inns of Court, Lincoln's Inn and Gray's Inn, lie within\nthe borough. Of the first the Tudor gateway opens upon Chancery Lane.\nThe chapel, hall and residential buildings surrounding the squares\nwithin, are picturesque, but of later date. To the west lie the fine\nsquare, with public gardens, still called, from its original character,\nLincoln's Inn Fields. Gray's Inn, between High Holborn and Theobald's\nRoad, and west of Gray's Inn Road, is of similar arrangement. The fabric\nof the small chapel is apparently of the 14th century, and may have been\nattached to the manor house of Portpool, held at that period by the\nLords Grey of Wilton. Of the former Inns of Chancery attached to these\nInns of Court the most noteworthy buildings remaining are those of\nStaple Inn, of which the timbered and gabled Elizabethan front upon High\nHolborn is a unique survival of its character in a London thoroughfare;\nand of Barnard's Inn, occupied by the Mercer's School. Both these were\nattached to Gray's Inn. Of Furnival's and Thavies Inns, attached to\nLincoln's Inn, only the names remain. The site of the first is covered\nby the fine red brick buildings of the Prudential Assurance Company,\nHolborn Viaduct. Among other institutions in Holborn, the British\nMuseum, north of New Oxford Street, is pre-eminent. The varied\ncollections of Sir John Soane, accumulated at his house in Lincoln's Inn\nFields, are open to view as the Soane Museum. There may also be\nmentioned the Royal College of Surgeons, Lincoln's Inn Fields, with\nmuseum; the Royal Colleges of Organists, and of Veterinary Surgeons, the\nCollege of Preceptors, the Jews' College, and the Metropolitan School of\nShorthand. Among hospitals are the Italian, the Homoeopathic, the\nNational for the paralysed and epileptic, the Alexandra for children\nwith hip disease, and the Hospital for sick children. The Foundling\nHospital, Guilford Street, was founded by Thomas Coram in 1739.\n\n\n\n\nHOLCROFT, THOMAS (1745-1809), English dramatist and miscellaneous\nwriter, was born on the 10th of December 1745 (old style) in Orange\nCourt, Leicester Fields, London. His father, besides having a\nshoemaker's shop, kept riding horses for hire; but having fallen into\ndifficulties was reduced ultimately to the necessity of hawking pedlary.\nThe son accompanied his parents in their tramps, and succeeded in\nprocuring the situation of stable boy at Newmarket, where he spent his\nevenings chiefly in miscellaneous reading and the study of music.\nGradually he obtained a knowledge of French, German and Italian. At the\nend of his term of engagement as stable boy he returned to assist his\nfather, who had again resumed his trade of shoemaker in London; but\nafter marrying in 1765, he became a teacher in a small school in\nLiverpool. He failed in an attempt to set up a private school, and\nbecame prompter in a Dublin theatre. He acted in various strolling\ncompanies until 1778, when he produced _The Crisis; or, Love and\nFamine_, at Drury Lane. _Duplicity_ followed in 1781. Two years later he\nwent to Paris as correspondent of the _Morning Herald_. Here he attended\nthe performances of Beaumarchais's _Mariage de Figaro_ until he had\nmemorized the whole. The translation of it, with the title _The Follies\nof the Day_, was produced at Drury Lane in 1784. _The Road to Ruin_, his\nmost successful melodrama, was produced in 1792. A revival in 1873 ran\nfor 118 nights. Holcroft died on the 23rd of March 1809. He was a member\nof the Society for Constitutional Information, and on that account was,\nin 1794, indicted of high treason, but was discharged without a trial.\nAmong his novels may be mentioned _Alwyn_ (1780), an account, largely\nautobiographical, of a strolling comedian, and _Hugh Trevor_\n(1794-1797). He also was the author of _Travels from Hamburg through\nWestphalia, Holland and the Netherlands to Paris_, of some volumes of\nverse and of translations from the French and German.\n\n His _Memoirs written by Himself and continued down to the Time of his\n Death, from his Diary, Notes and other Papers_, by William Hazlitt,\n appeared in 1816, and was reprinted, in a slightly abridged form, in\n 1852.\n\n\n\n\nHOLDEN, HUBERT ASHTON (1822-1896), English classical scholar, came of an\nold Staffordshire family. He was educated at King Edward's school,\nBirmingham, and Trinity College, Cambridge (senior classic, 1845;\nfellow, 1847). He was vice-principal of Cheltenham College (1853-1858),\nand headmaster of Queen Elizabeth's school, Ipswich (1858-1883). He died\nin London on the 1st of December 1896. In addition to several school\neditions of portions of Cicero, Thucydides, Xenophon and Plutarch, he\npublished an expurgated text of Aristophanes with a useful onomasticon\n(re-issued separately, 1902) and larger editions of Cicero's _De\nofficiis_ (revised ed., 1898) and of the _Octavius_ of Minucius Felix\n(1853). His chief works, however, were his _Foliorum silvula_ (1852), a\ncollection of English extracts for translation into Greek and Latin\nverse; _Folia silvulae_ (translations of the same); and _Foliorum\ncenturiae_, a companion volume of extracts for Latin prose translation.\nIn English schools these books have been widely used for the teaching of\nLatin and Greek composition.\n\n\n\n\nHOLDEN, SIR ISAAC, BART. (1807-1897), English inventor and manufacturer,\nwas the son of Isaac Holden, a native of Cumberland, and was born at\nHurlet, a village between Paisley and Glasgow, on the 7th of May 1807.\nHis early life was passed in very straitened circumstances, but his\nfather spared no pains to give him as much elementary education as\npossible. At the age of ten he began to work as weaver's draw-boy, and\nafterwards was employed in a cotton mill. Meanwhile his education was\ncontinued at the night schools, and from time to time, as funds allowed,\nhe was taken from work and sent to the grammar-school, to which he at\nlast went regularly for a year or two until he was fifteen, when his\nfather removed to Paisley and apprenticed him to an uncle, a\nshawl-weaver there. This proving too much for his strength, in 1823 he\nbecame assistant teacher in a school at Paisley, and in 1828 he was\nappointed mathematical teacher in the Queen's Square Academy, Leeds. At\nthe end of six months he was transferred to Lingard's grammar school,\nnear Huddersfield, and shortly afterwards became classical master at\nCastle Street Academy, Reading. It was here that in 1829 he invented a\nlucifer match by adopting sulphur as the medium between the explosive\nmaterial and the wood, but he refused to patent the invention. In 1830\nhis health again failed, and he returned to Scotland, where a Glasgow\nfriend set up a school for him. After six months, however, he was\nrecommended for the post of bookkeeper to Messrs. Townend Brothers,\nworsted manufacturers, of Cullingworth, where his interest in machinery\nsoon led to his transfer from the counting-house to the mill. There his\nexperiments led him to the invention of his square motion wool-comber\nand of a process for making genappe yarns, a patent for which was taken\nout by him in conjunction with S. C. Lister (Lord Masham) in 1847. The\nfirm of Lister & Holden, which established a factory near Paris in 1848,\ncarried on a successful business, and in 1859, when Lister retired, was\nsucceeded by Isaac Holden and Sons, which became the largest\nwool-combing business in the world, employing upwards of 4000\nworkpeople. In 1865 Holden's medical advisers insisted on complete\nchange of occupation, and he entered parliament as Liberal member for\nKnaresborough. From 1868 to 1882 he was without a seat, but in the\nlatter year he was elected for the northern division of the West Riding,\nand in 1885 for Keighley. He was created a baronet in 1893, and died\nsuddenly at Oakworth House, near Keighley, on the 13th of August 1897.\n\nHis son and heir, Sir Angus Holden, was in 1908 created a peer with the\ntitle of Baron Holden of Alston.\n\n\n\n\nHOLDERLIN, JOHANN CHRISTIAN FRIEDRICH (1770-1843), German poet, was born\non the 20th of March 1770, at Lauffen on the Neckar. His mother\nremoving, after a second marriage, to Nurtingen, he began his education\nat the classical school there. He was destined by his relations for the\nchurch, and with this view was later admitted to the seminaries at\nDenkendorf and Maulbronn. At the age of eighteen he entered as a student\nof theology the university of Tubingen, where he remained till 1793. He\nwas already the writer of occasional verses, and had begun to sketch his\nnovel _Hyperion_, when he was introduced in this year to Schiller, and\nobtained through him the post of tutor to the young son of Charlotte von\nKalb. A year later he left this situation to attend Fichte's lectures,\nand to be near Schiller in Jena. The latter recognized in the young poet\nsomething of his own genius, and encouraged him by publishing some of\nhis early writings in his periodicals _Die neue Thalia_ and _Die Horen_.\nIn 1796 Holderlin obtained the post of tutor in the family of the banker\nJ. F. Gontard in Frankfort-on-Main. For Gontard's beautiful and gifted\nwife, Susette, the \"Diotima\" of his _Hyperion_, he conceived a violent\npassion; and she became at once his inspiration and his ruin. At the end\nof two years, during which time the first volume of _Hyperion_ was\npublished (1797), a crisis appears to have occurred in their relations,\nfor the young poet suddenly left Frankfort. In spite of ill-health, he\nnow completed _Hyperion_, the second volume of which appeared in 1799,\nand began a tragedy, _Der Tod des Empedokles_, a fragment of which is\npublished among his works. His friends became alarmed at the alternate\ndepression and nervous irritability from which he suffered, and he was\ninduced to go to Switzerland, as tutor in a family at Hauptwill. There\nhis health improved; and several of his poems, among which are _Der\nblinde Sanger_, _An die Hoffnung_ and _Dichtermut_, were written at this\ntime. In 1801 he returned home to arrange for the publication of a\nvolume of his poems; but, on the failure of this enterprise, he was\nobliged to accept a tutorship at Bordeaux. \"Diotima\" died a year later,\nin June 1802, and the news is supposed to have reached Holderlin shortly\nafterwards, for in the following month he suddenly left Bordeaux, and\ntravelled homewards on foot through France, arriving at Nurtingen\ndestitute and insane. Kind treatment gradually alleviated his condition,\nand in lucid intervals he occupied himself by writing verses and\ntranslating Greek plays. Two of these translations--the _Antigone_ and\n_Oedipus rex_ of Sophocles--appeared in 1804, and several of his short\npoems were published by Franz K. L. von Seckendorff in his\n_Musenalmanach_, 1807 and 1808. In 1804 Holderlin obtained the sinecure\npost of librarian to the landgrave Frederick V. of Hesse-Homburg, and\nwent to live in Homburg under the supervision of friends; but two years\nlater becoming irremediably but harmlessly insane, he was taken in the\nsummer of 1807 to Tubingen, where he remained till his death on the 7th\nof June 1843.\n\nHolderlin's writings are the production of a beautiful and sensitive\nmind; but they are intensely, almost morbidly, subjective, and they lack\nreal human strength. Perhaps his strongest characteristic was his\npassion for Greece, the result of which was that he almost entirely\ndiscarded rhyme in favour of the ancient verse measures. His poems are\nall short pieces; of his tragedy only a fragment was written. _Hyperion,\noder der Eremit in Griechenland_ (1797-1799), is a romance in letters,\nin which the stormy fervour of the \"Sturm und Drang\" is combined with a\nromantic enthusiasm for Greek antiquity. The interest centres not in the\nstory, for the novel has little or none--Hyperion is a young Greek who\ntakes part in the rising of his people against the Turks in 1770--but in\nits lyric subjectivity and the dithyrambic beauty of its language.\n\n Holderlin's lyrics, _Lyrische Gedichte_, were edited by L. Uhland and\n G. Schwab in 1826. A complete edition of his works, _Samtliche Werke_,\n with a biography by C. T. Schwab, appeared in 1846; also _Dichtungen_\n by K. Kostlin (Tubingen, 1884), and (the best edition) _Gesammelte\n Dichtungen_ by B. Litzmann (2 vols., Stuttgart, 1897). For biography\n and criticism, see C. C. T. Litzmann, _F. Holderlins Leben_ (Berlin,\n 1890), A. Wilbrandt, _Holderlin_ (2nd ed., Berlin, 1891), and C.\n Muller, _Friedrich Holderlin, sein Leben und sein Dichten_ (Bremen,\n 1894).\n\n\n\n\n\nHOLDERNESSE, EARL OF, an English title borne by Sir John Ramsay and\nlater by the family of Darcy. John Ramsay (c. 1580-1626), a member of\nthe Scottish family of Ramsay of Dalhousie, was knighted for his share\nin rescuing James VI. from the hands of John Ruthven, earl of Gowrie, in\nAugust 1600. In 1606 the king created him Viscount Haddington and Lord\nRamsay of Barns, and in 1621 made him an English peer as earl of\nHoldernesse. Ramsay died without surviving issue in February 1626, when\nhis titles became extinct. In 1644 Charles I. created his nephew, Prince\nRupert, earl of Holdernesse, but when the prince died unmarried in\nNovember 1682 the earldom again became extinct. Conyers Darcy\n(1599-1689), who was made earl of Holdernesse in 1682 only a few days\nafter the death of Rupert, was the son and heir of Conyers Darcy, Lord\nDarcy and Conyers (c. 1571-1654), and succeeded his father in these\nbaronies in March 1654. He was succeeded as 2nd earl by his only son\nConyers (c. 1620-1692), who was member of parliament for Yorkshire\nduring the reign of Charles II. In his turn he was succeeded by his\ngrandson Robert (1681-1722). Robert's only son, Robert Darcy, 4th earl\nof Holdernesse (1718-1778), was a diplomatist and a politician. From\n1744 to 1746 he was ambassador at Venice and from 1749 to 1751 he\nrepresented his country at the Hague. In 1751 he became one of the\nsecretaries of state, and he remained in office until March 1761, when\nhe was dismissed by George III. From 1771 to 1776 he acted as governor\nto two of the king's sons, a \"solemn phantom\" as Horace Walpole calls\nhim. He left no sons, and all his titles became extinct except the\nbarony of Conyers, which had been created by writ in 1509 in favour of\nhis ancestor Sir William Conyers (d. 1525). This descended to his only\ndaughter Amelia (1754-1784), the wife of Francis Osborne, afterwards 5th\nduke of Leeds, and when the 7th duke of Leeds died in 1859 it passed to\nhis nephew, Sackville George Lane-Fox (1827-1888), falling into abeyance\non his death. Hornby castle in Yorkshire, now the principal seat of the\ndukes of Leeds, came to them through marriage of the 5th duke with the\nheiress of the families of Conyers and of Darcy.\n\n\n\n\nHOLDHEIM, SAMUEL (1806-1860), Jewish rabbi, a leader of reform in the\nGerman Synagogue, was born in Posen in 1806 and died in Berlin in 1860.\nIn 1836 he was appointed rabbi at Frankfort-on-the-Oder, in 1840 he was\ntransferred to the rabbinate of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. He then became\nprominent as an advocate on the one hand of religious freedom (much\ntrammelled at the time by Prussian state laws) and on the other of\nreform within the Jewish community. Various rabbinical conferences were\nheld, at Brunswick (1844), Frankfort-on-the-Main (1845) and Breslau\n(1846). At all of these Holdheim was a strong supporter of the policy of\nmodifying ritual (especially with regard to Sabbath observance, marriage\nlaws and liturgical customs). In 1846 he was chosen Rabbi of the new\nBerlin congregation and there exercised considerable influence on the\ncourse of Jewish reform.\n\n See I. H. Ritter in the _Jewish Quarterly Review_, i. 202. The same\n authority has written the life of Holdheim in vol. iii. of his\n _Geschichte der judischen Reformation_ (Berlin, 1865). Graetz in his\n _History_ passes an unfavourable judgment on Holdheim, and there were\n admittedly grounds for opposition to Holdheim's attitude. A moderate\n criticism is contained in Dr D. Philipson's _History of the Reform\n Movement_ in Judaism (London, 1906).\n\n\n\n\nHOLGUIN, a town of the high plateau country in the interior of Oriente\nprovince, Cuba, about 65 m. N.W. of Santiago de Cuba. Pop. (1907) 7592.\nThe town is near the Maranon and Jigue rivers, on a plain from which\nhills rise on all sides except the E., on which side it is open to the\nwinds of the plateau. Holguin was long the principal acclimatization\nstation for Spanish troops. The oldest public buildings are two churches\nbuilt in 1800 and 1809 respectively. Holguin has trade in cabinet woods,\ntobacco, Indian corn and cattle products, which it exports through its\nport Gibara, about 25 m. N.N.E., with which it is connected by railway.\nHolguin was settled about 1720 and became a _ciudad_ (city) in 1751. In\nthe Ten Years' War of 1868-78 and in the revolution of 1895-98 Holguin\nwas an insurgent centre.\n\n\n\n\nHOLIDAY, originally the \"holy day,\" a festival set apart for religious\nobservances as a memorial of some sacred event or sacred person; hence a\nday on which the ordinary work or business ceases. For the religious\nsense see FEASTS AND FESTIVALS, and SUNDAY. Apart from the use of the\nterm for a single day of rest or enjoyment, it is commonly used in the\nplural for a recognized and regular period (as at schools, &c.) of\nabsence from work. It is unnecessary here to deal with what may be\nregarded as private holidays, which are matters of agreement between\nemployer and employed or between the authorities of this or that\ninstitution and those who attend it. In recent years there has been a\nnotable tendency in most occupations to shorten the hours of labour, and\nmake holidays more regular. It will suffice to deal here with public\nholidays, the observance of which is prescribed by the state. In one\nrespect these have been diminished, in so far as saints' days are no\nlonger regarded as entailing non-attendance at the government offices in\nEngland, as was the case at the beginning of the 19th century. But while\nthe influence of religion in determining such holidays has waned, the\nimportance of making some compulsory provision for social recreation has\nmade itself felt. In England four days, known as Bank Holidays (q.v.),\nare set apart by statute to be observed as general holidays, while the\nsovereign may by proclamation appoint any day to be similarly observed.\nEndeavours have been made from time to time to get additional days\nrecognized as general holidays, such as Empire Day (May 24th), Arbor\nDay, &c. In the British colonies there is no uniform practice. In Canada\neight days are generally observed as public holidays: New Year's Day,\nGood Friday, Easter Monday, Christmas Day, the birthday of the\nsovereign, Victoria Day, Dominion Day and Labour Day. Some of the\nprovinces have followed the American example by adding an Arbor Day.\nAlberta and Saskatchewan observe Ash Wednesday. In Quebec, where the\nmajority of the population is Roman Catholic, the holy days are also\nholidays, namely, the Festival of the Epiphany, Ash Wednesday, Good\nFriday, Easter Monday, the Ascension, All Saint's Day, Conception Day,\nChristmas Day. In 1897 Labour Day was added. In New South Wales, the 1st\nof January, Good Friday, Easter Eve, Easter Monday, the birthday of the\nsovereign, the 1st of August, the birthday of the prince of Wales,\nChristmas Day and the 26th of December, are observed as holidays. In\nVictoria there are thirteen public holidays during the year, and in\nQueensland fourteen. In New Zealand the public holidays are confined to\nfour, Christmas Day, New Year's Day, Good Friday and Labour Day. In most\nof the other British colonies the usual number of public holidays is\nfrom six to eight.\n\nIn the United States there is no legal holiday in the sense of the\nEnglish bank holidays. A legal holiday is dependent upon state and\nterritorial legislation. It is usual for the president to proclaim the\nlast Thursday in November as a day of thanksgiving; this makes it only a\nlegal holiday in the District of Columbia, and in the territories, but\nmost states make it a general holiday. Independence Day (July 4th) and\nLabour Day (first Monday in September) are legal holidays in most\nstates. There are other days which, in connexion with particular events\nor in remembrance of particular persons, have been made legal holidays\nby particular states. For example, Lincoln's birthday, Washington's\nbirthday, Memorial Day (May 30th), Patriots' Day (April 19th, Maine and\nMass.), R. E. Lee's birthday (Jan. 19th, Ala., Fla., Ga., Va.),\nPioneers' Day (July 24th, Utah), Colorado Day (Aug. 1st), Battle of New\nOrleans (Jan. 8th, La.), Bennington Battle Day (Aug. 16th, Vt.),\nDefender's Day (Sept, 12th, Md.), Arbor Day (April 22nd, Nebraska;\nsecond Friday in May R.I., &c.), Admission Day (September 9th, Cal.;\nOct. 31st, Nev.), Confederate Memorial Day (April 26th, Ala., Fla., Ga.,\nMiss., May 10th, N. & S. Car., June 3rd, La., Miss., Texas), &c.\n\n See M'Curdy, _Bibliography of Articles relating to Holidays_ (Boston,\n 1905). (T. A. I.)\n\n\n\n\nHOLINSHED (or HOLLINGSHEAD), RAPHAEL (d. c. 1580), English chronicler,\nbelonged probably to a Cheshire family, and according to Anthony Wood\nwas educated at one of the English universities, afterwards becoming a\n\"minister of God's Word.\" The authenticity of these facts is doubtful,\nalthough it is possible that Raphael was the Holinshed who matriculated\nfrom Christ's College, Cambridge, in 1544. About 1560 he came to London\nand was employed as a translator by Reginald or Reyner Wolfe, to whom he\nsays he was \"singularly beholden.\" Wolfe was already engaged in the\npreparation of a universal history, and Holinshed worked for some years\non this undertaking; but after Wolfe's death in 1573 the scope of the\nwork was abridged, and it appeared in 1578 as the _Chronicles of\nEngland, Scotland, and Ireland_. The work was in two volumes, which were\nillustrated, and although Holinshed did a great deal of the work he\nreceived valuable assistance from William Harrison (1534-1593) and\nothers, while the part dealing with the history of Scotland is mainly a\ntranslation of Hector Boece's _Scotorum historiae_. Afterwards, as is\nshown by his will, Holinshed served as steward to Thomas Burdet of\nBramcott, Warwickshire, and died about 1580.\n\n A second edition of the _Chronicles_, enlarged and improved but\n without illustrations, which appeared in 1587, contained statements\n which were offensive to Queen Elizabeth and her advisers, and\n immediately after publication some of the pages were excised by order\n of the privy council. These excisions were published separately in\n 1723. An edition of the _Chronicles_, in accordance with the original\n text, was published in six volumes in 1808. The work contains a large\n amount of information, and shows that its compilers were men of great\n industry; but its chief interest lies in the fact that it was largely\n used by Shakespeare and other Elizabethan dramatists; Shakespeare, who\n probably used the edition of 1587, obtaining from the _Chronicles_\n material for most of his historical plays, and also for _Macbeth_,\n _King Lear_ and part of _Cymbeline_. A single manuscript by Holinshed\n is known to be extant. This is a translation of Florence of Worcester,\n and is in the British Museum. See W. G. Boswell-Stone, _Shakspere's\n Holinshed_. _The Chronicle and the historical plays compared_ (London,\n 1896).\n\n\n\n\nHOLKAR, the family name of the Mahratta ruler of Indore (q.v.), which\nhas been adopted as a dynastic title. The termination -_kar_ implies\nthat the founder of the family came from the village of Hol near Poona.\n\n\n\n\nHOLL, FRANK (1845-1888), English painter, was born in London on the 4th\nof July 1845, and was educated chiefly at University College School. He\nwas a grandson of William Holl, an engraver of note, and the son of\nFrancis Holl, A.R.A., another engraver, whose profession he originally\nintended to follow. Entering the Royal Academy schools as a probationer\nin painting in 1860, he rapidly progressed, winning silver and gold\nmedals, and making his debut as an exhibitor in 1864 with \"A Portrait,\"\nand \"Turned out of Church,\" a subject picture. \"A Fern Gatherer\" (1865);\n\"The Ordeal\" (1866); \"Convalescent\" (the somewhat grim pathos of which\nattracted much attention), and \"Faces in the Fire\" (1867), succeeded.\nHoll gained the travelling studentship in 1868; the successful work was\ncharacteristic of the young painter's mood, being \"The Lord gave, and\nthe Lord hath taken away.\" His insatiable zeal for work of all kinds\nbegan early to undermine the artist's health, but his position was\nassured by the studentship picture, which created a sort of _furore_,\nalthough, as with most of his works, the blackness of its coloration,\nprobably due to his training as an engraver, was even more decidedly\nagainst it than the sadness of its theme. Otherwise, this painting\nexhibited nearly all the best technical qualities to which he ever\nattained, except high finish and clearness, and a very sincere vein of\npathos. Holl was much below Millais In portraiture, and far inferior In\nall the higher ways of design; in technical resources, relatively\nspeaking, he was but scantily provided. The range of his studies and the\nmanner of his painting were narrower than those of Josef Israels, with\nwhom, except as a portrait-painter, he may better be compared than with\nMillais. In 1870 he painted \"Better is a Dinner of Herbs where Love is,\nthan a Stalled Ox and Hatred therewith\"; \"No Tidings from the Sea,\" a\nscene in a fisherman's cottage, in 1871--a story told with\nbreath-catching pathos and power; \"I am the Resurrection and the Life\"\n(1872); \"Leaving Home\" (1873), \"Deserted\" (1874), both of which had\ngreat success; \"Her First-born,\" girls carrying a baby to the grave\n(1876); and \"Going Home\" (1877). In 1877 he painted the two pictures\n\"Hush\" and \"Hushed.\" \"Newgate, Committed for Trial,\" a very sad and\ntelling piece, first attested the breaking down of the painter's health\nin 1878. In this year he was elected A.R.A., and exhibited \"The Gifts of\nthe Fairies,\" \"The Daughter of the House,\" \"Absconded,\" and a very fine\nportrait of Samuel Cousins, the mezzotint engraver. This last canvas is\na masterpiece, and deserved the success which attended the print\nengraved from it. Holl was overwhelmed with commissions, which he would\nnot decline. The consequences of this strain upon a constitution which\nwas never strong were more or less, though unequally, manifest in\n\"Ordered to the Front,\" a soldier's departure (1880); \"Home Again,\" its\nsequel, in 1883 (after which he was made R.A.). In 1886 he produced a\nportrait of Millais as his diploma work, but his health rapidly declined\nand he died at Hampstead, on the 31st of July 1888. Holl's better\nportraits, being of men of rare importance, attest the commanding\nposition he occupied in the branch of art he so unflinchingly followed.\nThey include likenesses of Lord Roberts, painted for queen Victoria\n(1882); the prince of Wales, Lord Dufferin, the duke of Cleveland\n(1885); Lord Overstone, Mr Bright, Mr Gladstone, Mr Chamberlain, Sir J.\nTenniel, Earl Spencer, Viscount Cranbrook, and a score of other\nimportant subjects. (F. G. S.)\n\n\n\n\nHOLLAND, CHARLES (1733-1769), English actor, was born in Chiswick, the\nson of a baker. He made his first appearance on the stage in the title\nrole of _Oroonoko_ at Drury Lane in 1755, John Palmer, Richard Yates and\nMrs Cibber being in the cast. He played under Garrick, and was the\noriginal Florizel in the latter's adaptation of Shakespeare's _Winter's\nTale_. Garrick thought highly of him, and wrote a eulogistic epitaph for\nhis monument in Chiswick church.\n\nHis nephew, Charles Holland (1768-1849) was also an actor, who played\nwith Mrs Siddons and Kean.\n\n\n\n\nHOLLAND, SIR HENRY, BART. (1788-1873), English physician and author, was\nborn at Knutsford, Cheshire, on the 27th of October 1788. His maternal\ngrandmother was the sister of Josiah Wedgwood, whose grandson was\nCharles Darwin; and his paternal aunt was the mother of Mrs Gaskell.\nAfter spending some years at a private school at Knutsford, he was sent\nto a school at Newcastle-on-Tyne, whence after four years he was\ntransferred to Dr J. P. Estlin's school near Bristol. There he at once\ntook the position of head boy, in succession to John Cam Hobhouse,\nafterwards Lord Broughton, an honour which required to be maintained by\nphysical prowess. On leaving school he became articled clerk to a\nmercantile firm in Liverpool, but, as the privilege was reserved to him\nof passing two sessions at Glasgow university, he at the close of his\nsecond session sought relief from his articles, and in 1806 began the\nstudy of medicine in the university of Edinburgh, where he graduated in\n1811. After several years spent in foreign travel, he began practice in\n1816 as a physician in London--according to his own statement, \"with a\nfair augury of success speedily and completely fulfilled.\" This\n\"success,\" he adds, \"was materially aided by visits for four successive\nyears to Spa, at the close of that which is called the London season.\"\nIt must also, however, be in a great degree attributed to his happy\ntemperament and his gifts as a conversationalist--qualities the\ninfluence of which, in the majority of cases belonging to his class of\npractice, is often of more importance than direct medical treatment. In\n1816 he was elected F.R.S., and in 1828 F.R.C.S. He became physician in\nordinary to Prince Albert in 1840, and was appointed in 1852 physician\nin ordinary to the queen. In April 1853 he was created a baronet. He was\nalso a D.C.L. of Oxford and a member of the principal learned societies\nof Europe. He was twice married, his second wife being a daughter of\nSydney Smith, a lady of considerable literary talent, who published a\nbiography of her father. Sir Henry Holland at an early period of his\npractice resolved to devote to his professional duties no more of his\ntime than was necessary to secure an income of L5000 a year, and also to\nspend two months of every year solely in foreign travel. By the former\nresolution he secured leisure for a wide acquaintance with general\nliterature, and for a more than superficial cultivation of several\nbranches of science; and the latter enabled him, besides visiting, \"and\nmost of them repeatedly, every country of Europe,\" to make extensive\ntours in the other three continents, journeying often to places little\nfrequented by European travellers. As, moreover, he procured an\nintroduction to nearly all the eminent personages in his line of travel,\nand knew many of them in his capacity of physician, his acquaintance\nwith \"men and cities\" was of a species without a parallel. The _London\nMedical Record_, in noticing his death, which took place on his\neighty-fifth birthday, October 27, 1873, remarked that it \"had occurred\nunder circumstances highly characteristic of his remarkable career.\" On\nhis return from a journey in Russia he was present, on Friday, October\n24th, at the trial of Marshal Bazaine in Paris, dining with some of the\njudges in the evening. He reached London on the Saturday, took ill the\nfollowing day, and died quietly on the Monday afternoon.\n\n Sir Henry Holland was the author of _General View of the Agriculture\n of Cheshire_ (1807); _Travels in the Ionian Isles, Albania, Thessaly\n and Greece_ (1812-1813, 2nd ed., 1819); _Medical Notes and\n Reflections_ (1839); _Chapters on Mental Physiology_ (1852); _Essays\n on Scientific and other Subjects contributed to the Edinburgh and\n Quarterly Reviews_ (1862); and _Recollections of Past Life_ (1872).\n\n\n\n\nHOLLAND, HENRY FOX, 1ST BARON (1705-1774), English statesman, second son\nof Sir Stephen Fox, was born on the 28th of September 1705. Inheriting a\nlarge share of the riches which his father had accumulated, he\nsquandered it soon after attaining his majority, and went to the\nContinent to escape from his creditors. There he made the acquaintance\nof a countrywoman of fortune, who became his patroness and was so lavish\nwith her purse that, after several years' absence, he was in a position\nto return home and, in 1735, to enter parliament as member for Hindon in\nWiltshire. He became the favourite pupil and devoted supporter of Sir\nRobert Walpole, achieving unequalled and unenviable proficiency in the\nworst political arts of his master and model. As a speaker he was fluent\nand self-possessed, imperturbable under attack, audacious in exposition\nor retort, and able to hold his own against Pitt himself. Thus he made\nhimself a power in the House of Commons and an indispensable member of\nseveral administrations. He was surveyor-general of works from 1737 to\n1742, was member for Windsor from 1741 to 1761; lord of the treasury in\n1743, secretary at war and member of the privy council in 1746, and in\n1755 became leader of the House of Commons, secretary of state and a\nmember of the cabinet under the duke of Newcastle. In 1757, in the\nrearrangements of the government, Fox was ultimately excluded from the\ncabinet, and given the post of paymaster of the forces. During the war,\nwhich Pitt conducted with extraordinary vigour, and in which the nation\nwas intoxicated with glory, Fox devoted himself mainly to accumulating a\nvast fortune. In 1762 he again accepted the leadership of the House,\nwith a seat in the cabinet, under the earl of Bute, and exercised his\nskill in cajolery and corruption to induce the House of Commons to\napprove of the treaty of Paris of 1763; as a recompense, he was raised\nto the House of Lords with the title of Baron Holland of Foxley,\nWiltshire, on the 16th of April 1763. In 1765 he was forced to resign\nthe paymaster generalship, and four years later a petition of the livery\nof the city of London against the ministers referred to him as \"the\npublic defaulter of unaccounted millions.\" The proceedings brought\nagainst him in the court of exchequer were stayed by a royal warrant;\nand in a statement published by him he proved that in the delays in\nmaking up the accounts of his office he had transgressed neither the law\nnor the custom of the time. From the interest on the outstanding\nbalances he had, none the less, amassed a princely fortune. He strove,\nbut in vain, to obtain promotion to the dignity of an earl, a dignity\nupon which he had set his heart, and he died at Holland House,\nKensington, on the 1st of July 1774, a sorely disappointed man, with a\nreputation for cunning and unscrupulousness which cannot easily be\nmatched, and with an unpopularity which justifies the conclusion that he\nwas the most thoroughly hated statesman of his day. Lord Holland married\nin 1744 Lady Georgina Caroline Lennox, daughter of the duke of\nRichmond, who was created Baroness Holland, of Holland, Lincolnshire, in\n1762. There were four sons of the marriage: Stephen, 2nd Lord Holland\n(d. 1774); Henry (d. an infant); Charles James (the celebrated\nstatesman); and Henry Edward (1755-1811), soldier and diplomatist.\n\n See Walpole's and other memoirs of the time, also the article FOX,\n CHARLES JAMES.\n\n\n\n\nHOLLAND, HENRY RICH, 1ST EARL OF (1590-1649), 2nd son of Robert, 1st\nearl of Warwick, and of Penelope, Sir Philip Sidney's \"Stella,\" daughter\nof Walter Devereux, 1st earl of Essex, was baptized on the 19th of\nAugust 1590, educated at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, knighted on the\n3rd of June 1610, and returned to parliament for Leicester in 1610 and\n1614. In 1610 he was present at the siege of Juliers. Favours were\nshowered upon him by James I. He was made gentleman of the bedchamber to\nCharles, prince of Wales, and captain of the yeomen of the guard; and on\nthe 8th of March 1623 he was raised to the peerage as Baron Kensington.\nIn 1624 he was sent to Paris to negotiate the marriage treaty between\nCharles and Henrietta Maria. On the 15th of September he was created\nearl of Holland, and in 1625 was sent on two further missions, first to\nParis to arrange a treaty between Louis XIII. and the Huguenots, and\nlater to the Netherlands in company with Buckingham. In October 1627 he\nwas given command of the troops sent to reinforce Buckingham at Rhe, but\nthrough delay in starting only met the defeated troops on their return.\nHe succeeded Buckingham as chancellor of Cambridge University; was\nmaster of the horse in 1628, and was appointed constable of Windsor and\nhigh steward to the queen in 1629. He interested himself, like his elder\nbrother, Lord Warwick, in the plantations; and was the first governor of\nthe Providence company in 1630, and one of the proprietors of\nNewfoundland in 1637. In 1631 he was made chief-justice-in-eyre south of\nthe Trent, and in this capacity was responsible for the unpopular\nrevival of the obsolete forest laws. He intrigued at court against\nPortland and against Strafford, who expressed for him the greatest\ncontempt. In 1636 he was disappointed at not obtaining the great office\nof lord high admiral, but was made instead groom of the stole. In 1639\nhe was appointed general of the horse, and drew ridicule upon himself by\nthe fiasco at Kelso. In the second war against the Scots he was\nsuperseded in favour of Conway. He opposed the dissolution of the Short\nParliament, joined the peers who supported the parliamentary cause, and\ngave evidence against Strafford. He was, however, won back to the king's\nside by the queen, and on the 16th of April 1641 made captain general\nnorth of the Trent. Dissatisfied, however, with Charles's refusal to\ngrant him the nomination of a new baron, he again abandoned him, refused\nthe summons to York, and was deprived of his office as groom of the\nstole at the instance of the queen, who greatly resented his\ningratitude. He was chosen by the parliament in March and July 1642 to\ncommunicate its votes to Charles, who received him, much to his\nindignation, with studied coldness. He was appointed one of the\ncommittee of safety in July; made zealous speeches on behalf of the\nparliamentary cause to the London citizens; and joined Essex's army at\nTwickenham, where, it is said, he persuaded him to avoid a battle. In\n1643 he appeared as a peacemaker, and after failing to bring over Essex,\nhe returned to the king. His reception, however, was not a cordial one,\nand he was not reinstated in his office of groom of the stole. After,\ntherefore, accompanying the king to Gloucester and taking part in the\nfirst battle of Newbury, he once more returned to the parliament,\ndeclaring that the court was too much bent on continuing hostilities,\nand the influence of the \"papists\" too strong for his patriotism. He was\nrestored to his estates, but the Commons obliged the Lords to exclude\nhim from the upper house, and his petition in 1645 for compensation for\nhis losses and for a pension was refused. His hopes being in this\nquarter also disappointed, he once again renewed his allegiance to the\nking's cause; and after endeavouring to promote the negotiations for\npeace in 1645 and 1647 he took up arms in the second Civil War, received\na commission as general, and put himself at the head of 600 men at\nKingston. He was defeated on the 7th of July 1647, captured at St Neots\nshortly afterwards, and imprisoned at Warwick Castle. He was tried\nbefore a \"high court of justice\" on the 3rd of February 1649, and in\nspite of his plea that he had received quarter was sentenced to death.\nHe was executed together with Hamilton and Capel on the 9th of March.\nClarendon styles him \"a very well-bred man and a fine gentleman in good\ntimes.\"[1] He was evidently a man of shallow character, devoid of\nability, raised far above his merits and hopelessly unfit for the great\ntimes in which he lived. Lord Holland married Elizabeth, daughter and\nheiress of Sir Walter Cope of Kensington, and, besides several\ndaughters, had four sons, of whom the eldest, Robert, succeeded him as\n2nd earl of Holland, and inherited the earldom of Warwick in 1673.\n\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [1] _Hist. of the Rebellion_, xi. 263.\n\n\n\n\nHOLLAND, HENRY RICHARD VASSALL FOX, 3RD BARON (1773-1840), was the son\nof Stephen Fox, 2nd Baron Holland, his mother, Lady Mary Fitzpatrick,\nbeing the daughter of the earl of Upper Ossory. He was born at\nWinterslow House in Wiltshire, on the 21st of November 1773, and his\nfather died in the following year. He was educated at Eton and at Christ\nChurch, Oxford, where he became the friend of Canning, of Hookham Frere,\nand of other wits of the time. Lord Holland did not take the same\npolitical side as his friends in the conflicts of the revolutionary\nepoch. He was from his boyhood deeply attached to his uncle, C. J. Fox,\nand remained steadily loyal to the Whig party. In 1791 he visited Paris\nand became acquainted with Lafayette and Talleyrand, and in 1793 he\nagain went abroad to travel in France and Italy. At Florence he met with\nLady Webster, wife of Sir Godfrey Webster, Bart., who left her husband\nfor him. She was by birth Elizabeth Vassall (1770-1845), daughter of\nRichard Vassall, a planter in Jamaica. A son was born of their irregular\nunion, a Charles Richard Fox (1796-1873), who after some service in the\nnavy entered the Grenadiers, and was known in later life as a collector\nof Greek coins. His collection was bought for the royal museum of Berlin\nwhen he died in 1873. He married Lady Mary Fitzclarence, a daughter of\nWilliam IV. by Mrs Jordan. Sir Godfrey Webster having obtained a\ndivorce, Lord Holland was enabled to marry on the 6th of July 1797. He\nhad taken his seat in the House of Lords on the 5th of October 1796.\nDuring several years he may be said almost to have constituted the Whig\nparty in the Upper House. His protests against the measures of the Tory\nministers were collected and published, as the _Opinions of Lord\nHolland_ (1841), by Dr Moylan of Lincoln's Inn. In 1800 he was\nauthorized to take the name of Vassall, and after 1807 he signed himself\nVassall Holland, though the name was no part of his title. In 1800 Lord\nand Lady Holland went abroad and remained in France and Spain till 1805,\nvisiting Paris during the Peace of Amiens, and being well received by\nNapoleon. Lady Holland always professed a profound admiration of\nNapoleon, of which she made a theatrical display after his fall, and he\nleft her a gold snuff-box by his will. In public life Lord Holland took\na share proportionate to his birth and opportunities. He was appointed\nto negotiate with the American envoys, Monroe and W. Pinkney, was\nadmitted to the privy council on the 27th of August 1806, and on the\n15th of October entered the cabinet \"of all the talents\" as lord privy\nseal, retiring with the rest of his colleagues in March 1807. He led the\nopposition to the Regency bill in 1811, and he attacked the \"orders in\ncouncil\" and other strong measures of the government taken to counteract\nNapoleon's Berlin decrees. He was in fact in politics a consistent Whig,\nand in that character he denounced the treaty of 1813 with Sweden which\nbound England to consent to the forcible union of Norway, and he\nresisted the bill of 1816 for confining Napoleon in St Helena. His\nloyalty as a Whig secured recognition when his party triumphed in the\nstruggle for parliamentary reform, by his appointment as chancellor of\nthe duchy of Lancaster in the cabinet of Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne,\nand he was still in office when he died on the 22nd of October 1840.\nLord Holland is notable, not for his somewhat insignificant political\ncareer, but as a patron of literature, as a writer on his own account,\nand because his house was the centre and the headquarters of the Whig\npolitical and literary world of the time; and Lady Holland (who died on\nthe 16th of November 1845) succeeded in taking the sort of place in\nLondon which had been filled in Paris during the 18th century by the\nsociety ladies who kept \"salons.\" Lord Holland's _Foreign Reminiscences_\n(1850) contain much amusing gossip from the Revolutionary and Napoleonic\nera. His _Memoirs of the Whig Party_ (1852) is an important contemporary\nauthority. His small work on _Lope de Vega_ (1806) is still of some\nvalue. Holland had two legitimate sons, Stephen, who died in 1800, and\nHenry Edward, who became 4th Lord Holland. When this peer died in\nDecember 1859 the title became extinct.\n\n See _The Journal of Elizabeth, Lady Holland_, edited by the earl of\n Ilchester (1908); and Lloyd Sanders, _The Holland House Circle_\n (1908).\n\n\n\n\nHOLLAND, JOSIAH GILBERT (1819-1881), American author and editor, was\nborn in Belchertown, Massachusetts, on the 24th of July 1819. He\ngraduated in 1843 at the Berkshire Medical College (no longer in\nexistence) at Pittsfield, Mass., and after practising medicine in\n1844-1847, and making an unsuccessful attempt, with Charles Robinson\n(1818-1894), later first governor of the state of Kansas, to establish a\nhospital for women, he taught for a brief period in Richmond, Virginia,\nand in 1848 was superintendent of schools in Vicksburg, Mississippi. In\n1849 he became assistant editor under Samuel Bowles, and three years\nlater one of the owners, of the Springfield (Massachusetts)\n_Republican_, with which he retained his connexion until 1867. He then\ntravelled for some time in Europe, and in 1870 removed to New York,\nwhere he helped to establish and became editor and one-third owner of\n_Scribner's Monthly_ (the title of which was changed in 1881 to _The\nCentury_), which absorbed the periodicals _Hours at Home_, _Putnam's\nMagazine_ and the _Riverside Magazine_. He remained editor of this\nmagazine until his death. Dr Holland's books long enjoyed a wide\npopularity. The earlier ones were published over the pseudonym \"Timothy\nTitcomb.\" His writings fall into four classes: history and biography,\nrepresented by a _History of Western Massachusetts_ (1855), and a _Life\nof Abraham Lincoln_ (1865); fiction, of which _Miss Gilbert's Career_\n(1860) and _The Story of Sevenoaks_ (1875) remain faithful pictures of\nvillage life in eastern United States; poetry, of which _Bitter-Sweet_\n(1858) and _Kathrina, Her Life and Mine_ (1867) were widely read; and a\nseries of homely essays on the art of living, of which the most\ncharacteristic were _Letters to Young People, Single and Married_\n(1858), _Gold Foil, hammered from Popular Proverbs_ (1859), _Letters to\nthe Jonses_ (1863), and _Every-Day Topics_ (2 series, 1876 and 1882).\nWhile a resident of New York, where he died on the 12th of October 1881,\nhe identified himself with measures for good government and school\nreform, and in 1872 became a member and for a short time in 1873 was\npresident of the Board of Education.\n\n See Mrs H. M. Plunkett's _Josiah Gilbert Holland_ (New York, 1894).\n\n\n\n\nHOLLAND, PHILEMON (1552-1637), English scholar, \"the translator-general\nin his age,\" was born at Chelmsford in Essex. He was the son of a\nclergyman, John Holland, who had been obliged to take refuge in Germany\nand Denmark with Miles Coverdale during the Marian persecution. Having\nbecome a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and taken the degree of\nM.A., he was incorporated at Oxford (July 11th, 1585). Having\nsubsequently studied medicine, about 1595 he settled as a doctor in\nCoventry, but chiefly occupied himself with translations. In 1628 he was\nappointed headmaster of the free school, but, owing probably to\nadvancing age, he held office for only eleven months. His latter days\nwere oppressed by poverty, partly relieved by the generosity of the\ncommon council of Coventry, which in 1632 assigned him L3, 6s. 8d. for\nthree years, \"if he should live so long.\" He died on the 9th of\nFebruary, 1636-1637. His fame is due solely to his translations, which\nincluded Livy, Pliny's _Natural History_, Plutarch's _Morals_,\nSuetonius, Ammianus Marcellinus and Xenophon's _Cyropaedia_. He\npublished also an English version, with additions, of Camden's\n_Britannia_. His Latin translation of Brice Bauderon's _Pharmacopaea_\nand his _Regimen sanitatis Salerni_ were published after his death by\nhis son, HENRY HOLLAND (1583-?1650), who became a London bookseller, and\nis known to bibliographers for his _Bazili[omega]logia; a Booke of\nKings, beeing the true and liuely Effigies of all our English Kings from\nthe Conquest_ (1618), and his _Her[omega]ologia Anglica_ (1620).\n\n\n\n\nHOLLAND, RICHARD, or RICHARD DE HOLANDE (fl. 1450), Scottish writer,\nauthor of the _Buke of the Howlat_, was secretary or chaplain to the\nearl of Moray (1450) and rector of Halkirk, near Thurso. He was\nafterwards rector of Abbreochy, Loch Ness, and later held a chantry in\nthe cathedral of Norway. He was an ardent partisan of the Douglases, and\non their overthrow retired to Orkney and later to Shetland. He was\nemployed by Edward IV. in his attempt to rouse the Western Isles through\nDouglas agency, and in 1482 was excluded from the general pardon granted\nby James III. to those who would renounce their fealty to the Douglases.\n\nThe poem, entitled the _Buke of the Howlat_, written about 1450, shows\nhis devotion to the house of Douglas:--\n\n \"On ilk beugh till embrace\n Writtin in a bill was\n O Dowglass, O Dowglass\n Tender and trewe!\"\n\n (ii. 400-403).\n\nand is dedicated to the wife of a Douglas--\n\n \"Thus for ane Dow of Dunbar drew I this Dyte,\n Dowit with ane Dowglass, and boith war thei dowis.\"\n\nbut all theories of its being a political allegory in favour of that\nhouse may be discarded. Sir Walter Scott's judgment that the _Buke_ is\n\"a poetical apologue ... without any view whatever to local or natural\npolitics\" is certainly the most reasonable. The poem, which extends to\n1001 lines written in the irregular alliterative rhymed stanza, is a\nbird-allegory, of the type familiar in the _Parlement of Foules_. It has\nthe incidental interest of showing (especially in stanzas 62 and 63) the\nantipathy of the \"Inglis-speaking Scot\" to the \"Scots-speaking Gael\" of\nthe west, as is also shown in Dunbar's _Flyting with Kennedy_.\n\n The text of the poem is preserved in the Asloan and Bannatyne MSS.\n Fragments of an early 16th century black-letter edition, discovered by\n D. Laing, are reproduced in the _Adversaria_ of the Bannatyne Club.\n The poem has been frequently reprinted, by Pinkerton, in his _Scottish\n Poems_ (1792); by D. Laing (Bannatyne Club 1823; reprinted in \"New\n Club\" series, Paisley, 1882); by the Hunterian Club in their edition\n of the Bannatyne MS., and by A. Diebler (Chemnitz, 1893). The latest\n edition is that by F. J. Amours in _Scottish Alliterative Poems_\n (Scottish Text Society, 1897), pp. 47-81. (See also Introduction pp.\n xx.-xxxiv.)\n\n\n\n\nHOLLAND, officially the kingdom of the Netherlands (_Koningrijk der\nNederlanden_), a maritime country in the north-west of Europe. The name\nHolland is that of the former countship, which forms part of the\npolitical, as well as the geographical centre of the kingdom (see the\nnext article).\n\n_Topography._--Holland is bounded on the E. by Germany, on the S. by\nBelgium, on the W. and N. by the North Sea, and at the N.E. corner by\nthe Dollart. From Stevensweert southward to the extreme corner of\nLimburg the boundary line is formed by the river Maas or Meuse.[1] On\nthe east a natural geographical boundary was formed by the long line of\nmarshy fens extending along the borders of Overysel, Drente and\nGroningen. The kingdom extends from 53 deg. 32' 21\" (Groningen Cape on\nRottum Island) to 50 deg. 45' 49\" N. (Mesch in the province of\nLimburg), and from 3 deg. 23' 27\" (Sluis in the province of Zeeland) to\n7 deg. 12' 20\" E. (Langakkerschans in the province of Groningen). The\ngreatest length from north to south, viz. that from Rottum Island to\nEisden near Maastricht is 164 m., and the greatest breadth from\nsouth-west to north-east, or from Zwin near Sluis to Losser in Overysel,\n144 m. The area is subject to perpetual variation owing, on the one\nhand, to the erosion of the coasts, and, on the other, to reclamation of\nland by means of endiking and drainage operations. In 1889 the total\narea was calculated at 12,558 sq. m., and, including the Zuider Zee and\nthe Wadden (2050 sq. m.) and the Dutch portion of the Dollart (23 sq.\nm.), 14,613 sq. m. In no country in Europe has the character of the\nterritory exercised so great an influence on the inhabitants as in the\nNetherlands; and, on the other hand, no people has so extensively\nmodified the condition of its territory as the Dutch. The greatest\nimportance attaches therefore to the physical conformation of the\ncountry.\n\n\n Coast.\n\n The coast-line extends in a double curve from south-west to\n north-east, and is formed by a row of sand dunes, 171 m. in length,\n fringed by a broad sandy beach descending very gradually into the sea.\n In the north and south, however, this line is broken by the inlets of\n the sea which form the Frisian and the South Holland and Zeeland\n islands respectively; but the dunes themselves are found continued\n along the seaward side of these islands, thus indicating the original\n continuity of the coast-line. The breadth of the dunes naturally\n varies greatly, the maximum width of about 4375 yds. being found at\n Schoorl, north-west of Alkmaar. The average height of the individual\n dune-tops is not above 33 ft., but attains a maximum of 197 ft. at the\n High Blinkert, near Haarlem. The steepness of the dunes on the side\n towards the sea is caused by the continual erosion, probably\n traceable, in part at least, to the channel current (which at mean\n tide has a velocity of 14 or 15 in. per second), and to the strong\n west or north-west winds which carry off large quantities of material.\n This alteration of coast-line appears at Loosduinen, where the moor or\n fenland formerly developed behind the dunes now crops out on the shore\n amid the sand, being pressed to the compactness of lignite by the\n weight of the sand drifted over it. Again, the remains of the Roman\n camp Brittenburg or Huis te Britten, which originally lay within the\n dunes and, after being covered by them, emerged again in 1520, were,\n in 1694, 1600 paces out to sea, opposite Katwijk; while, besides\n Katwijk itself, several other villages of the west coast, as Domburg,\n Scheveningen, Egmond, have been removed further inland. The tendency\n of the dunes to drift off on the landward side is prevented by the\n planting of bent-grass (_Arundo arenaria_), whose long roots serve to\n bind the sand together. It must be further remarked that both the\n \"dune-pans,\" or depressions, which are naturally marshy through their\n defective drainage, and the _geest_ grounds--that is, the grounds\n along the foot of the downs--have been in various places either\n planted with wood or turned into arable and pasture land; while the\n numerous springs at the base of the dunes are of the utmost value to\n the great cities situated on the marshy soil inland, the example set\n by Amsterdam in 1853 in supplying itself with this water having been\n readily followed by Leiden, the Hague, Flushing, &c.\n\n As already remarked, the coast-line of Holland breaks up into a series\n of islands at its northern and southern extremities. The principal\n sea-inlets in the north are the Texel Gat or Marsdiep and the Vlie,\n which lead past the chain of the Frisian Islands into the large inland\n sea or gulf called the Zuider Zee, and the Wadden or \"shallows,\" which\n extend along the shores of Friesland and Groningen as far as the\n Dollart and the mouth of the Ems. The inland sea-board thus formed\n consists of low coasts of sea-clay protected by dikes, and of some\n high diluvial strata which rise far enough above the level of the sea\n to make dikes unnecessary, as in the case of the Gooi hills between\n Naarden and the Eem, the Veluwe hills between Nykerk and Elburg, and\n the steep cliffs of the Gaasterland between Oude Mirdum and Stavoren.\n The Dollart was formed in 1277 by the inundation of the Ems basin,\n more than thirty villages being destroyed at once. The Zuider Zee and\n the bay in the Frisian coast known as the Lauwers Zee also gradually\n came into existence in the 13th century. The extensive sea-arms\n forming the South Holland and Zeeland archipelago are the Hont or West\n Scheldt, the East Scheldt, the Grevelingen (communicating with Krammer\n and the Volkerak) and the Haringvliet, which after being joined by the\n Volkerak is known as the Hollandsch Diep. These inlets were formerly\n of much greater extent than now, but are gradually closing up owing to\n the accumulation of mud deposits, and no longer have the same freedom\n of communication with one another. At the head of the Hollandsch Diep\n is the celebrated railway bridge of the Moerdyk (1868-1871) 1607 yds.\n in length; and above this bridge lies the Biesbosch (\"reed forest\"), a\n group of marshy islands formed by a disastrous inundation in 1421,\n when seventy-two villages and upwards of 100,000 lives were destroyed.\n\n\n Relief and levels.\n\n Besides the dunes the only hilly regions of Holland are the southern\n half of the province of Limburg, the neighbourhood of Nijmwegen, the\n hills of Utrecht, including the Gooi hills, the Veluwe region in\n Gelderland, the isolated hills in the middle and east of Overysel and\n the Hondsrug range in Drente. The remainder of the country is flat,\n and shows a regular downward slope from south-east to north-west, in\n which direction the rivers mainly flow. The elevation of the surface\n of the country ranges between the extreme height of 1057 ft. near\n Vaals in the farthest corner of Limburg, and 16-20 ft. below the\n Amsterdam zero[2] in some of the drained lands in the western half of\n the country. In fact, one quarter of the whole kingdom, consisting of\n the provinces of North and South Holland, the western portion of\n Utrecht as far as the Vaart Rhine, Zeeland, except the southern part\n of Zeeland-Flanders, and the north-west part of North Brabant, lies\n below the Amsterdam zero; and altogether 38% of the country, or all\n that part lying west of a line drawn through Groningen, Utrecht and\n Antwerp, lies within one metre above the Amsterdam zero and would be\n submerged if the sea broke down the barrier of dunes and dikes. This\n difference between the eastern and western divisions of Holland has\n its counterpart in the landscape and the nature of the soil. The\n western division consists of low fen or clay soil and presents a\n monotonous expanse of rich meadow-land, carefully drained in regular\n lines of canals bordered by stunted willows, and dotted over with\n windmills, the sails of canal craft and the clumps of elm and poplar\n which surround each isolated farm-house. The landscape of the eastern\n division is considered less typical. Here the soil consists mainly of\n sand and gravel, and the prevailing scenery is formed of waste heaths\n and patches of wood, while here and there fertile meadows extend along\n the banks of the streams, and the land is laid out in the highly\n regular manner characteristic of fen reclamation (see DRENTE).\n\n\n Rivers.\n\n The entire drainage of Holland is into the North Sea. The three\n principal rivers are the Rhine, the Maas (Meuse) and the Scheldt\n (Schelde), and all three have their origin outside the country, whilst\n the Scheldt has its mouth only in Holland, giving its name to the two\n broad inlets of the sea which bound the Zeeland islands. The Rhine in\n its course through Holland is merely the parent stream of several\n important branches, splitting up into Rhine and Waal, Rhine and Ysel,\n Crooked Rhine and Lek (which takes two-thirds of the waters), and at\n Utrecht into Old Rhine and Vecht, finally reaching the sea through the\n sluices at Katwijk as little more than a drainage canal. The Ysel and\n the Vecht flow to the Zuider Zee; the other branches to the North Sea.\n The Maas, whose course is almost parallel to that of the Rhine,\n follows in a wide curve the general slope of the country, receiving\n the Roer, the Mark and the Aa. Towards its mouth its waters find their\n way into all the channels intersecting the South Holland archipelago.\n The main stream joining the Waal at Gorinchem flows on to Dordrecht as\n the Merwede, and is continued thence to the sea by the Old Maas, the\n North, and the New Maas, the New Maas being formed by the junction of\n the Lek and the North. From Gorinchem the New Merwede (constructed in\n the second half of the 19th century) extends between dykes through the\n marshes of the Biesbosch to the Hollandsch Diep. These great rivers\n render very important service as waterways. The mean velocity of their\n flow seldom exceeds 4.9 ft., but rises to 6.4 ft. when the river is\n high. In the lower reaches of the streams the velocity and slope are\n of course affected by the tides. In the Waal ordinary high water is\n perceptible as far up as Zalt Bommel in Gelderland, in the Lek the\n maximum limits or ordinary and spring tides are at Vianen and\n Kuilenburg respectively, in the Ysel above the Katerveer at the\n junction of the Willemsvaart and past Wyhe midway between Zwolle and\n Deventer; and in the Maas near Heusden and at Well in Limburg. Into\n the Zuider Zee there also flow the Kuinder, the Zwarte Water, with its\n tributary the Vecht, and the Eem. The total length of navigable\n channels is about 1150 m., but sand banks and shallows not\n infrequently impede the shipping traffic at low water during the\n summer. The smaller streams are often of great importance. Except\n where they rise in the fens they call into life a strip of fertile\n grassland in the midst of the barren sand, and are responsible for the\n existence of many villages along their banks. Following the example of\n the great Kampen irrigation canal in Belgium, artificial irrigation is\n also practised by means of some of the smaller streams, especially in\n North Brabant, Drente and Overysel, and in the absence of streams,\n canals and sluices are sometimes specially constructed to perform the\n same service. The low-lying spaces at the confluences of the rivers,\n being readily laid under water, have been not infrequently chosen as\n sites for fortresses. As a matter of course, the streams are also\n turned to account in connexion with the canal system--the Dommel,\n Berkel, Vecht, Regge, Holland Ysel, Gouwe, Rotte, Schie, Spaarne,\n Zaan, Amstel, Dieze, Amer, Mark, Zwarte Water, Kuinder and the\n numerous Aas in Drente and Groningen being the most important in this\n respect.\n\n\n Lakes.\n\n It is unnecessary to mention the names of the numerous marshy lakes\n which exist, especially in Friesland and Groningen, and are connected\n with rivers or streamlets. Those of Friesland are of note for the\n abundance of their fish and their beauty of situation, on which last\n account the Uddelermeer in Gelderland is also celebrated. The Rockanje\n Lake near Brielle is remarkable for the strong salty solution which\n covers even the growing reeds with a hard crust. Many of the lakes\n are nothing more than deep pits or marshes from which the peat has\n been extracted.\n\n[Illustration: Holland Map.]\n\n_Dikes._--The circumstance that so much of Holland is below the\nsea-level necessarily exercises a very important influence on the\ndrainage, the climate and the sanitary conditions of the country, as\nwell as on its defence by means of inundation. The endiking of low lands\nagainst the sea which had been quietly proceeding during the first\neleven centuries of the Christian era, received a fresh impetus in the\n12th and 13th centuries from the fact that the level of the sea then\nbecame higher in relation to that of the land. This fact is illustrated\nby the broadening of river mouths and estuaries at this time, and the\nbeginning of the formation of the Zuider Zee. A new feature in diking\nwas the construction of dams or sluices across the mouths of rivers,\nsometimes with important consequences for the villages situated on the\nspot. Thus the dam on the Amstel (1257) was the origin of Amsterdam, and\nthe dam on the Ye gave rise to Edam. But Holland's chief protection\nagainst inundation is its long line of sand dunes, in which only two\nreal breaches have been effected during the centuries of erosion. These\nare represented by the famous sea dikes called the Westkapelle dike and\nthe Hondsbossche Zeewering, or sea-defence, which were begun\nrespectively in the first and second halves of the 15th century. The\nfirst extends for a distance of over 4000 yds. between the villages of\nWestkapelle and Domburg in the island of Walcheren; the second is about\n4900 yds. long, and extends from Kamperduin to near Petten, whence it is\ncontinued for another 1100 yds. by the Pettemer dike. These two sea\ndikes were reconstructed by the state at great expense between the year\n1860 and 1884, having consisted before that time of little more than a\nprotected sand dike. The earthen dikes are protected by stone-slopes and\nby piles, and at the more dangerous points also by _zinkstukken_\n(sinking pieces), artificial structures of brushwood laden with stones,\nand measuring some 400 yds. in circuit, by means of which the current is\nto some extent turned aside. The Westkapelle dike, 12,468 ft. long, has\na seaward slope of 300 ft., and is protected by rows of piles and basalt\nblocks. On its ridge, 39 ft. broad, there is not only a roadway but a\nservice railway. The cost of its upkeep is more than L6000 a year, and\nof the Hondsbossche Zeewering L2000 a year. When it is remembered that\nthe woodwork is infested by the pile worm (_Teredo navalis_), the\nravages of which were discovered in 1731, the labour and expense\nincurred in the construction and maintenance of the sea dikes now\nexisting may be imagined. In other parts of the coast the dunes, though\nnot pierced through, have become so wasted by erosion as to require\nartificial strengthening. This is afforded, either by means of a\nso-called sleeping dike (_slaperdyk_) behind the weak spot, as, for\ninstance, between Kadzand and Breskens in Zeeland-Flanders, and again\nbetween 's Gravenzande and Loosduinen; or by means of piers or\nbreakwaters (_hoofden_, heads) projecting at intervals into the sea and\ncomposed of piles, or brushwood and stones. The first of such\nbreakwaters was that constructed in 1857 at the north end of the island\nof Goeree, and extends over 100 yds. into the sea at low water. Similar\nconstructions are to be found on the seaward side of the islands of\nWalcheren, Schouwen and Voorne, and between 's Gravenzande and\nScheveningen, and Katwijk and Noordwijk. Owing to the obstruction which\nthey offer to drifting sands, artificial dunes are in course of time\nformed about them, and in this way they become at once more effective\nand less costly to maintain. The firm and regular dunes which now run\nfrom Petten to Kallantsoog (formerly an island), and thence northwards\nto Huisduinen, were thus formed about the Zyper (1617) and Koegras\n(1610) dikes respectively. From Huisduinen to Nieuwediep the dunes are\nreplaced by the famous Helder sea-wall. The shores of the Zuider Zee and\nthe Wadden, and the Frisian and Zuider Zee islands, are also partially\nprotected by dikes. In more than one quarter the dikes have been\nrepeatedly extended so as to enclose land conquered from the sea, the\nwork of reclamation being aided by a natural process. Layer upon layer\nof clay is deposited by the sea in front of the dikes, until a new\nfringe has been added to the coast-line on which sea-grasses grasses\nbegin to grow. Upon these clay-lands (_kwelders_) horses, cattle and\nsheep are at last able to pasture at low tide, and in course of time\nthey are in turn endiked.\n\nRiver dikes are as necessary as sea dikes, elevated banks being found\nonly in a few places, as on the Lower Rhine. Owing to the unsuitability\nof the foundations, Dutch dikes are usually marked by a great width,\nwhich at the crown varies between 13 and 26 ft. The height of the dike\nranges to 40 in. above high water-level. Between the dikes and the\nstream lie \"forelands\" (_interwaarden_), which are usually submerged in\nwinter, and frequently lie 1 or 2 yds, higher than the country within\nthe dikes. These forelands also offer in course of time an opportunity\nfor endiking and reclamation. In this way the towns of Rotterdam,\nSchiedam, Vlaardingen and Maasluis have all gradually extended over the\nMaas dike in order to keep in touch with the river, and the small town\nof Delftshaven is built altogether on the outer side of the same dike.\n\n _Impoldering._--The first step in the reclamation of land is to\n \"impolder\" it, or convert it into a \"polder\" (i.e. a section of\n artificially drained land), by surrounding it with dikes or quays for\n the two-fold purpose of protecting it from all further inundation from\n outside and of controlling the amount of water inside. Impoldering for\n its own sake or on a large scale was impossible as long as the means\n of drainage were restricted. But in the beginning of the 15th century\n new possibilities were revealed by the adaptation of the windmill to\n the purpose of pumping water. It was gradually recognized that the\n masses of water which collected wherever peat-digging had been carried\n on were an unnecessary menace to the neighbouring lands, and also that\n a more enduring source of profit lay in the bed of the fertile\n sea-clay under the peat. It became usual, therefore, to make the\n subsequent drainage of the land a condition of the extraction of peat\n from it, this condition being established by proclamation in 1595.\n\n _Drainage._--It has been shown that the western provinces of Holland\n may be broadly defined as lying below sea-level. In fact the surface\n of the sea-clay in these provinces is from 11(1/2) to 16(1/2) ft.\n below the Amsterdam zero. The ground-water is, therefore, relatively\n very high and the capacity of the soil for further absorption\n proportionately low. To increase the reservoir capacity of the polder,\n as well as to conduct the water to the windmills or engines, it is\n intersected by a network of ditches cut at right angles to each other,\n the amount of ditching required being usually one-twelfth of the area\n to be drained. In modern times pumping engines have replaced\n windmills, and the typical old Dutch landscape with its countless\n hooded heads and swinging arms has been greatly transformed by the\n advent of the chimney stacks of the pumping-stations. The power of the\n pumping-engines is taken on the basis of 12 h.p. per 1000 hectares for\n every metre that the water has to be raised, or stated in another\n form, the engines must be capable of raising nearly 9 lb. of water\n through 1 yd. per acre per minute. The main ditches, or canals,\n afterwards also serve as a means of navigation. The level at which it\n is desired to keep the water in these ditches constitutes the unit of\n water measurement for the polder, and is called the polder's _zomer\n peil_ (Z.P.) or summer water-level. In pasture-polders (_koepolders_)\n Z.P. is 1 to 1(1/2) ft. below the level of the polder, and in\n agricultural polders 2(1/2) to 3(1/2) ft. below. Owing to the\n shrinkage of the soil in reclaimed lands, however, that is, lands\n which have been drained after fen or other reclamation, the sides of\n the polder are often higher than the middle, and it is necessary by\n means of small dams or sluices to make separate water-tight\n compartments (_afpolderingen_), each having its own unit of\n measurement. Some polders also have a winter peil as a precaution\n against the increased fall of water in that season. The summer\n water-level of the pasture polders south of the former Y is about 4 to\n 8 ft. below the Amsterdam zero, but in the Noorderkwartier to the\n north, it reaches 10(1/2) ft. below A. P. in the Beschotel polder, and\n in reclaimed lands (_droogmakerijen_) may be still lower, thus in the\n Reeuwyk polder north of Gouda it is 21(1/4) ft. below.\n\n The drainage of the country is effected by natural or artificial\n means, according to the slope of the ground. Nearly all the polders of\n Zeeland and South Holland are able to discharge naturally into the sea\n at average low water, self-regulating sluices being used. But in North\n Holland and Utrecht on the contrary the polder water has generally to\n be raised. In some deep polders and drained lands where the water\n cannot be brought to the required height at once, windmills are found\n at two or even three different levels. The final removal of polder\n water, however, is only truly effected upon its discharge into the\n \"outer waters\" of the country, that is, the sea itself or the large\n rivers freely communicating with it; and this happens with but a small\n proportion of Dutch polders, such as those of Zeeland, the Holland\n Ysel and the Noorderkwartier.\n\n As the system of impoldering extended, the small sluggish rivers were\n gradually cut off by dikes from the marshy lands through which they\n flowed, and by sluices from the waters with which they communicated.\n Their level ranges from about 1(1/2) to 4 ft. above that of the pasture\n polders. In addition, various kinds of canals and endiked or embanked\n lakes had come into existence, forming altogether a vast network of\n more or less stagnant waters. These waters are utilized as the\n temporary reservoirs of the superfluous polder water, each system of\n reservoirs being termed a _boezem_ (bosom or basin), and all lands\n watering into the same boezem being considered as belonging to it. The\n largest boezem is that of Friesland, which embraces nearly the whole\n province. It sometimes happens that a polder is not in direct contact\n with the boezem to which it belongs, but first drains into an adjacent\n polder, from which the water is afterwards removed. In the same way,\n some boezems discharge first into others, which then discharge into\n the sea or rivers. This is usually the case where there is a great\n difference in height between the surface of the boezem and the outer\n waters, and may be illustrated by the Alblasserwaard and the Rotte\n boezems in the provinces of South and North Holland respectively. In\n time of drought the water in the canals and boezems is allowed to run\n back into the polders, and so serve a double purpose as\n water-reservoirs. Boezems, like polders, have a standard water-level\n which may hot be exceeded, and as in the polder this level may vary in\n the different parts of an extended boezem. The height of the _boezem\n peil_ ranges between 1(1/3) ft. above to 1(5/6) ft. below the\n Amsterdam zero, though the average is about 1 to 1(2/3) ft. below.\n Some boezems, again, which are less easily controlled, have a \"danger\n water-level\" at which they refuse to receive any more water from the\n surrounding polders. The Schie or Delflands boezem of South Holland is\n of this kind, and such a boezem is termed _besloten_ or \"sequestered,\"\n in contradistinction to a \"free\" boezem. A third kind of boezem is the\n reserve or _berg-boezem_, which in summer may be made dry and used for\n agriculture, while in winter it serves as a special reserve. The\n centuries of labour and self-sacrifice involved in the making of this\n complete and harmonious system of combined defence and reclamation are\n better imagined than described, and even at the present day the\n evidences of the struggle are far less apparent than real.\n\n _Geology._--Except in Limburg, where, in the neighbourhood of\n Maastricht, the upper layers of the chalk are exposed and followed by\n Oligocene and Miocene beds, the whole of Holland is covered by recent\n deposits of considerable thickness, beneath which deep borings have\n revealed the existence of Pliocene beds similar to the \"Crags\" of East\n Anglia. They are divided into the _Diestien_, corresponding in part\n with the English Coralline Crag, the _Scaldisien_ and _Poederlien_\n corresponding with the Walton Crag, and the _Amstelien_ corresponding\n with the Red Crag of Suffolk. In the south of Holland the total\n thickness of the Pliocene series is only about 200 ft., and they are\n covered by about 100 ft. of Quaternary deposits; but towards the north\n the beds sink down and at the same time increase considerably in\n thickness, so that at Utrecht a deep boring reached the top of the\n Pliocene at a depth of 513 ft. and at 1198 ft. it had not touched the\n bottom. At Amsterdam the top of the Pliocene lay 625 ft. below the\n surface, but the boring, 1098 ft. deep, did not reach the base of the\n uppermost division of the Pliocene, viz. the _Amstelien_. Eastward and\n westward of Amsterdam, as well as southward, the Pliocene beds rise\n slowly to the surface, and gradually decrease in thickness. They were\n laid down in a broad bay which covered the east of England and nearly\n the whole of the Netherlands, and was open to the North Sea. There is\n evidence that the sea gradually retreated northwards during the\n deposition of these beds, until at length the Rhine flowed over to\n England and entered the sea north of Cromer. The appearance of\n northern shells in the upper divisions of the Pliocene series\n indicates the approach of the Glacial period, and glacial drift\n containing Scandinavian boulders now covers much of the country east\n of the Zuider Zee. The more modern deposits of Holland consist of\n alluvium, wind-blown sands and peat.[3]\n\n _Climate._--Situated in the temperate zone between 50 deg. and 53 deg.\n N. the climate of Holland shows a difference in the lengths of day and\n night extending in the north to nine hours, and there is a\n correspondingly wide range of temperature; it also belongs to the\n region of variable winds. On an average of fifty years the mean annual\n temperature was 49.8 deg. Fahr.; the maximum, 93.9 deg. Fahr.; the\n minimum, -5.8 deg. Fahr. The mean annual barometric height is 29.93\n in.; the mean annual moisture, 81%; the mean annual rainfall, 27.99\n in. The mean annual number of days with rain is 204, with snow 19, and\n with thunder-storms 18. The increased rainfall from July to December\n (the summer and autumn rains), and the increased evaporation in spring\n and summer (5.2 in. more than the rainfall), are of importance as\n regards \"poldering\" and draining operations. The prevalence of\n south-west winds during nine months of the year and of north-west\n during three (April-June) has a strong influence on the temperature\n and rainfall, tides, river mouths and outlets, and also, geologically,\n on dunes and sand drifts, and on fens and the accumulation of clay on\n the coast. The west winds of course increase the moisture, and\n moderate both the winter cold and the summer heat, while the east\n winds blowing over the continent have an opposite influence. It\n cannot be said that the climate is particularly good, owing to the\n changeableness of the weather, which may alter completely within a\n single day. The heavy atmosphere likewise, and the necessity of living\n within doors or in confined localities, cannot but exercise an\n influence on the character and temperament of the inhabitants. Only of\n certain districts, however, can it be said that they are positively\n unhealthy; to this category belong some parts of the Holland\n provinces, Zeeland, and Friesland, where the inhabitants are exposed\n to the exhalations from the marshy ground, and the atmosphere is often\n burdened with sea-fogs.\n\n _Fauna._--In the densely populated Netherlands, with no extensive\n forests, the fauna does not present any unusual varieties. The otter,\n martin and badger may be mentioned among the rarer wild animals, and\n the weasel, ermine and pole-cat among the more common. In the 18th\n century wolves still roamed the country in such large numbers that\n hunting parties were organized against them; now they are unknown.\n Roebuck and deer are found in a wild state in Gelderland and Overysel,\n foxes are plentiful in the dry wooded regions on the borders of the\n country, and hares and rabbits in the dunes and other sandy stretches.\n Among birds may be reckoned about two hundred and forty different\n kinds which are regular inhabitants, although nearly two hundred of\n these are migratory. The woodcock, partridge, hawk, water-ousel,\n magpie, jay, raven, various kinds of owls, wood-pigeon, golden-crested\n wren, tufted lark and titmouse are among the birds which breed here.\n Birds of passage include the buzzard, kite, quail, wild fowl of\n various kinds, golden thrush, wagtail, linnet, finch and nightingale.\n Storks are plentiful in summer and might almost be considered the most\n characteristic feature of the prevailing landscape.\n\n _Flora._--The flora may be most conveniently dealt with in the four\n physiographical divisions to which it belongs. These are, namely, the\n heath-lands, pasture-lands, dunes and coasts. Heath (_Erica tetralix_)\n and ling (_Calluna vulgaris_) cover all the waste sandy regions in the\n eastern division of the country. The vegetation of the meadow-lands is\n monotonous. In the more damp and marshy places the bottom is covered\n with marsh trefoil, carex, smooth equisetum, and rush. In the ditches\n and pools common yellow and white water-lilies are seen, as well as\n water-soldier (_Stratiotes aloides_), great and lesser reed-mace,\n sweet flag and bur-reed. The plant forms of the dunes are stunted and\n meagre as compared with the same forms elsewhere. The most common\n plant here is the stiff sand-reed (_Arundo arenaria_), called\n sand-oats in Drente and Overysel, where it is much used for making\n mats. Like the sand-reed, the dewberry bramble and the shrub of the\n buckthorn (_Hippophae rhamnoides_) perform a useful service in helping\n to bind the sand together. Furze and the common juniper are regular\n dune plants, and may also be found on the heaths of Drente, Overysel\n and Gelderland. Thyme and the small white dune-rose (_Rosa\n pimpinellifolia_) also grow in the dunes, and wall-pepper (_Sedum\n acre_), field fever-wort, reindeer moss, common asparagus, sheep's\n fescue grass, the pretty Solomon-seal (_Polygonatum officinale_), and\n the broad-leaved or marsh orchis (_Orchis latifolia_). The sea-plants\n which flourish on the sand and mud-banks along the coasts greatly\n assist the process of littoral deposits and are specially cultivated\n in places. Sea-aster flourishes in the Wadden of Friesland and\n Groningen, the Dollart and the Zeeland estuaries, giving place nearer\n the shore to sandspurry (_Spergularia_), or sea-poa or floating meadow\n grass (_Glyceria maritima_), which grows up to the dikes, and affords\n pasture for cattle and sheep. Along the coast of Overysel and in the\n Biesbosch lake club-rush, or scirpus, is planted in considerable\n quantities for the hat-making industry, and common sea-wrack (_Zostera\n marina_) is found in large patches in the northern half of the Zuider\n Zee, where it is gathered for trade purposes during the months of\n June, July and August. Except for the willow-plots found along the\n rivers on the clay lands, nearly all the wood is confined to the sand\n and gravel soils, where copses of birch and alder are common.\n\n_Population._--The following table shows the area and population in the\neleven provinces of the Netherlands:--\n\n +--------------+-------+----------+------------+-----------+\n | |Area in|Population| Population |Density per|\n | Province | sq. m.| 1890. | 1900. | sq. m. in |\n | | | | | 1900. |\n +--------------+-------+----------+------------+-----------+\n | North Brabant| 1,980 | 509,628 | 553,842 | 280 |\n | Gelderland | 1,965 | 512,202 | 566,549 | 288 |\n | South Holland| 1,166 | 949,641 | 1,144,448 | 981 |\n | North Holland| 1,070 | 829,489 | 968,131 | 905 |\n | Zeeland | 690 | 199,234 | 216,295 | 313 |\n | Utrecht | 534 | 221,007 | 251,034 | 470 |\n | Friesland | 1,282 | 335,558 | 340,262 | 265 |\n | Overysel | 1,291 | 295,445 | 333,338 | 258 |\n | Groningen | 790 | 272,786 | 299,602 | 379 |\n | Drente | 1,030 | 130,704 | 148,544 | 144 |\n | Limburg | 850 | 255,721 | 281,934 | 332 |\n | +-------+----------+------------+-----------+\n | Total |12,648 |4,511,415 | 5,104,137* | 404 |\n +--------------+-------+----------+------------+-----------+\n * This total includes 158 persons assigned to no province.\n\nThe extremes of density of population are found in the provinces of\nNorth Holland and South Holland on the one hand, and Drente on the\nother. This divergence is partly explained by the difference of\nsoil--which in Drente comprises the maximum of waste lands, and in South\nHolland the minimum--and partly also by the greater facilities which the\nseaward provinces enjoy of earning a subsistence, and the greater\nvariety of their industries. The largest towns are Amsterdam, Rotterdam,\nthe Hague, Utrecht, Groningen, Haarlem, Arnhem, Leiden, Nijmwegen,\nTilburg. Other considerable towns are Dordrecht, Maastricht, Leeuwarden,\nZwolle, Delft, 's Hertogenbosch, Schiedam, Deventer, Breda, Apeldoorn,\nHelder, Enschede, Gouda, Zaandam, Kampen, Hilversum, Flushing,\nAmersfoort, Middelburg, Zutphen and Alkmaar. Many of the smaller towns,\nsuch as Assen, Enschede, Helmond, Hengelo, Tiel, Venlo, Vlaardingen,\nZaandam, Yerseke, show a great development, and it is a noteworthy fact\nthat the rural districts, taken as a whole, have borne an equal share in\nthe general increase of population. This, taken in conjunction with the\nadvance in trade and shipping, the diminution in emigration, and the\nprosperity of the savings banks, points to a favourable state in the\ncondition of the people.\n\n\n Roads.\n\n _Communications._--The roads are divided into national or royal roads,\n placed directly under the control of the _water-staat_ and supported\n by the state; provincial roads, under the direct control of the states\n of the provinces, and almost all supported by the provincial\n treasuries; communal and polder roads, maintained by the communal\n authorities and the polder boards; and finally, private roads. The\n system of national roads, mainly constructed between 1821 and 1827,\n but still in process of extension, brings into connexion nearly all\n the towns.\n\n\n Canals.\n\n The canal system of Holland is peculiarly complete and extends into\n every part of the country, giving to many inland towns almost a\n maritime appearance. The united length of the canals exceeds 1500 m.\n As a matter of course the smaller streams have been largely utilized\n in their formation, while the necessity for a comprehensive drainage\n system has also contributed in no small degree. During the years\n 1815-1830 a large part of the extensive scheme of construction\n inaugurated by King William I. was carried out, the following canals,\n among others, coming into existence in that period: the North Holland\n ship canal (depth, 16(1/2) ft.) from Amsterdam to den Helder, the\n Grift canal between Apeldoorn and Hattem, the Willemsvaart connecting\n Zwolle with the Ysel, the Zuid Willemsvaart, or South William's canal\n (6(1/2) ft.), from 's Hertogenbosch to Maastricht, and the\n Ternuzen-Ghent ship canal. After 1849 the canal programme was again\n taken up by the state, which alone or in conjunction with the\n provincial authorities constructed the Apeldoorn-Dieren canal\n (1859-1869), the drainage canals of the \"Peel\" marsh in North Brabant,\n and of the eastern provinces, namely, the Deurne canal (1876-1892)\n from the Maas to Helenaveen, the Almelo (1851-1858) and Overysel\n (1884-1888) canals from Zwolle, Deventer and Almelo to Koevorden, and\n the Stieltjes (1880-1884), and Orange (1853-1858 and 1881-1889) canals\n in Drente, the North Williams canal (1856-1862) between Assen and\n Groningen, the Ems (1866-1876) ship canal from Groningen to Delfzyl,\n and the New Merwede, and enlarged the canal from Harlingen by way of\n Leeuwarden to the Lauwars Zee. The large ship canals to Rotterdam and\n Amsterdam, called the New Waterway and the North Sea canal\n respectively, were constructed in 1866-1872 and 1865-1876 at a cost of\n 2(1/2) and 3 million pounds sterling, the former by widening the\n channel of the Scheur north of Rozenburg, and cutting across the Hook\n of Holland, the latter by utilizing the bed of the Y and cutting\n through the dunes at Ymuiden. In 1876 an agreement was arrived at with\n Germany for connecting the important drainage canals in Overysel,\n Drente and Groningen with the Ems canal system, as a result of which\n the Almelo-Noordhorn (1884-1888) and other canals came into existence.\n\n The canals differ in character in the different provinces. In Zeeland\n they connect the towns of the interior with the sea or the river\n mouths; for example, the one from Middelburg to Veere and Flushing\n (1866-1878), from Goes to the East Scheldt, and from Zierikzee also to\n the East Scheldt. The South Beveland (1862-1866) canal connects the\n East and West Scheldt; similarly in South Holland the Voorne canal\n unites the Haringvliet with the New Maas, which does not allow the\n passage of large vessels above Brielle; whilst owing lo the banks and\n shallows in front of Hellevoetsluis the New Waterway was cut to\n Rotterdam. Of another character is the Zederik canal, which unites the\n principal river of central Holland, the Lek, at Vianen by means of the\n Linge with the Merwede at Gorkum. Amsterdam is connected with the Lek\n and the Zederik canal via Utrecht by the Vecht and the Vaart Rhine\n (1881-1893; depth 10.2 ft.). Again, a totally different character\n belongs to the canals in North Brabant, and the east and north-east of\n Holland where, in the absence of great rivers, they form the only\n waterways which render possible the drainage of the fens and the\n export of peat; and unite the lesser streams with each other. Thus in\n Overysel, in addition to the canals already mentioned, the Dedemsvaart\n connects the Vecht with the Zwarte Water near Hasselt; in Drente the\n Smildervaart and Drentsche Hoofdvaart unites Assen with Meppel, and\n receives on the eastern side the drainage canals of the Drente fens,\n namely, the Orange canal and the Hoogeveen Vaart (1850-1860;\n 1880-1893). Groningen communicates with the Lauwers Zee by the\n Reitdiep (1873-1876), while the canal to Winschoten and the\n Stadskanaal, or State canal (1877-1880), bring it into connexion with\n the flourishing fen colonies in the east of the province and in\n Drente. In Friesland, finally, besides the ship canal from Harlingen\n to the Lauwers Zee there are canals from Leeuwarden to the Lemmer,\n whence there is a busy traffic with Amsterdam; and the Caspar Robles\n or Kolonels Diep, and the Hoendiep connect it with Groningen.\n\n\n Railways.\n\n The construction of railways was long deferred and slowly\n accomplished. The first line was that between Amsterdam and Haarlem,\n opened in 1839 by the Holland railway company (_Hollandsch Yzeren\n Spoorweg Maatschappij_). In 1845 the state undertook to develop the\n railway system, and a company of private individuals was formed to\n administer it under the title of the _Maatschappij tot Exploitatie van\n Staatspoorwegen_. In 1860, however, the total length of railways was\n only 208 m., and in that year a parliamentary bill embodying a\n comprehensive scheme of construction was adopted. By 1872 this\n programme was nearly completed, and 542 m. of new railway had been\n added. In 1873 and 1875 a second and a third bill provided for the\n extension of the railway system at the cost of the state, and, in\n 1876, 1882 and 1890 laws were introduced readjusting the control of\n the various lines, some of which were transferred to the Holland\n railway. The state railway system was completed in 1892, and since\n that time the utmost that the state has done has been to subsidize new\n undertakings. These include various local lines such as the line\n Alkmaar-Hoorn (1898), Ede-Barneveld-Nykerk, Enschede-Ahaus in Germany\n (1902), Leeuwarden to Franeker, Harlingen and Dokkum, and the line\n Zwolle-Almelo (junction at Marienberg)\n Koevorden-Stadskanal-Veendam-Delfzyl, connecting all the fen countries\n on the eastern borders. The electric railway Amsterdam-Zandvoort was\n opened in 1904. The frame upon which the whole network of the Dutch\n railways may be said to depend is formed of two main lines from north\n and south and four transverse lines from west to east. The two\n longitudinal lines are the railway den Helder via Haarlem\n (1862-1867),[4] Rotterdam (1839-1847), and Zwaluwe (1869-1877) to\n Antwerp (1852-1855), belonging to the Holland railway company, and the\n State railway from Leeuwarden and Groningen (1870) (junction at\n Meppel, 1867) Zwolle (1866)--Arnhem (1865)--Nijmwegen (1879)--Venlo\n (1883)--Maastricht (1865). The four transverse lines belong to the\n State and Holland railways alternately and are, beginning with the\n State railway: (1) the line Flushing (1872)--Rozendaal (1860)--Tilburg\n (1863)--Bokstel (whence there is a branch line belonging to the North\n Brabant and Germany railway company via Vechel to Goch in Germany,\n opened in 1873)--Eindhoven--Venlo and across Prussian border (1866);\n (2) the line Hook of Holland--Rotterdam (1893)--Dordrecht\n (1872-1877)--Elst (1882-1885)--Nijmwegen (1879)--Cleves, Germany\n (1865); (3) the line Rotterdam--Utrecht (1866-1869) and\n Amsterdam--Utrecht--Arnhem (1843-1845) to Emmerich in Germany (1856):\n this line formerly belonged to the Netherlands-Rhine railway company,\n but was bought by the state in 1890; and finally (4) the line\n Amsterdam--Hilversum--Amersfoort--Apeldoorn (1875), whence it is\n continued (a) via Deventer, Almelo and Hengelo to Salzbergen, Germany\n (1865); (b) via Zutphen, Hengelo (1865), Enschede (1866) to Gronau,\n Germany; (c) via Zutphen (1876) and Ruurlo to Winterswyk (1878). Of\n these (1) and (2) form the main transcontinental routes in connexion\n with the steamboat service to England (ports of Queenborough and\n Harwich respectively). Two other lines of railway, both belonging to\n the state, also traverse the country west to east, namely, the line\n Rozendaal--'s Hertogenbosch (1890)--Nijmwegen, and in the extreme\n north, the line from Harlingen through Leeuwarden (1863) and Groningen\n (1866) to the border at Nieuwe Schans (1869), whence it was connected\n with the German railways in 1876. The northern and southern provinces\n are further connected by the lines Amsterdam--Zaandam\n (1878)--Enkhuizen (1885), whence there is a steam ferry across the\n Zuider Zee to Stavoren, from where the railway is continued to\n Leeuwarden (1883-1885); the Netherlands Central railway,\n Utrecht--Amersfoort--Zwoole--Kampen (1863); and the line Utrecht--'s\n Hertogenbosch (1868-1869) which is continued southward into Belgium by\n the lines bought in 1898 from the Grand Central Beige railway, namely,\n via Tilburg to Turnhout (1867), and via Eindhoven (1866) to Hasselt.\n In 1892 Greenwich mean time was adopted on the railways and in the\n post-offices, making a difference of twenty minutes with mean\n Amsterdam time.\n\n\n Tramways.\n\n Since 1877 railway communication has been largely supplemented by\n steam-tramways, which either run along the main roads or across the\n country on special embankments, while one of them is carried across\n the river Ysel at Doesburg on a pontoon bridge. The state first began\n to encourage the construction of these local light railways by means\n of subsidies in 1893, since when some of the most prominent lines have\n come into existence, such as Purmerend--Alkmaar (1898),\n Zutphen--Emmerich (1902), along the Dedemsvaart in Overysel (1902),\n from 's Hertogenbosch via Utrecht and Eindhoven to Turnhout in Belgium\n (1898), and especially those connecting the South Holland and Zeeland\n islands with the railway, namely, between Rotterdam and Numansdorp on\n the Hollandsch Diep (1898), and from Breda or Bergen-op-Zoom, via\n Steenbergen to St Philipsland, Zierikzee and Brouwershaven (1900). An\n electric tramway connects Haarlem and Zandvoort. The number of\n passengers carried by the steam-tramways is relatively higher than\n that of the railways. The value of the goods traffic is not so high,\n owing, principally, to the want of intercommunication between the\n various lines on account of differences in the width of the gauge.\n\n_Agriculture._--Waste lands are chiefly composed of the barren stretches\nof heaths found in Drente, Overysel, Gelderland and North Brabant. They\nformerly served to support large flocks of sheep and some cattle, but\nare gradually transformed by the planting of woods, as well as by\nstrenuous efforts at cultivation. Zeeland and Groningen are the two\nprincipal agricultural provinces, and after them follow Limburg, North\nBrabant, Gelderland and South Holland. The chief products of cultivation\non the heavy clay soil are oats, barley and wheat, and on the\nsand-grounds rye, buckwheat and potatoes. Flax and beetroot are also\ncultivated on the clay lands. Tobacco, hemp, hops, colza and chicory\nform special cultures. With the possible exception of oats, the cereals\ndo not suffice for home consumption, and maize is imported in large\nquantities for cattle-feeding, and barley for the distilleries and\nbreweries. Horticulture and market-gardening are of a high order, and\nflourish especially on the low fen soil and _geest_ grounds along the\nfoot of the dunes in the provinces of North and South Holland. The\nprincipal market products are cauliflower, cabbage, onions, asparagus,\ngherkins, cucumbers, beans, peas, &c. The principal flowers are\nhyacinths, tulips, crocuses, narcissus and other bulbous plants, the\ntotal export of which is estimated at over L200,000. Fruit is everywhere\ngrown, and there is a special cultivation of grapes and figs in the\nWestland of South Holland. The woods, or rather the plantations,\ncovering 6%, consist of (1) the so-called forest timber (_opgaandhout_;\nFr. _arbres de haute futaie_), including the beech, oak, elm, poplar,\nbirch, ash, willow and coniferous trees; and (2) the copse wood\n(_akkermaal_ or _hakhout_), embracing the elder, willow, beech, oak, &c.\nThis forms no unimportant branch of the national wealth.\n\n\n Livestock.\n\n With nearly 35% of the total surface of the country under permanent\n pasture, cattle-breeding forms one of the most characteristic\n industries of the country. The provinces of Friesland, North and South\n Holland, and Utrecht take the lead as regards both quality and\n numbers. A smaller, hardier kind of cattle and large numbers of sheep\n are kept upon the heath-lands in the eastern provinces, which also\n favour the rearing of pigs and bee-culture. Horse-breeding is most\n important in Friesland, which produces the well-known black breed of\n horse commonly used in funeral processions. Goats are most numerous in\n Gelderland and North Brabant. Poultry, especially fowls, are generally\n kept. Stock-breeding, like agriculture, has considerably improved\n under the care of the government (state and provincial), which grants\n subsidies for breeding, irrigation of pasture-lands, the importation\n of finer breeds of cattle and horses, the erection of factories for\n dairy produce, schools, &c.\n\n _Fisheries._--The fishing industry of the Netherlands may be said to\n have been in existence already in the 13th century, and in the\n following century received a considerable impetus from the discovery\n how to cure herring by William Beukelszoon, a Zeeland fisherman. It\n steadily declined during the 17th and 18th centuries, however, but\n again began to revive in the last half of the 19th century. The\n fisheries are commonly divided into four particular fishing areas,\n namely, the \"deep-sea\" fishery of the North Sea, and the \"inner\"\n (_binnengaatsch_) fisheries of the Wadden, the Zuider Zee, and the\n South Holland and Zeeland waters. The deep-sea fishery may be farther\n divided into the so-called \"great\" or \"salt-herring\" fishery, mainly\n carried on from Vlaardingen and Maasluis during the summer and autumn,\n and the \"fresh-herring\" fishery, chiefly pursued at Scheveningen,\n Katwijk and Noordwijk. The value of the herring fisheries is enhanced\n by the careful methods of smoking and salting, the export of salted\n fish being considerable. In the winter the largest boats are laid up\n and the remainder take to line-fishing. Middelharnis, Pernis and\n Zwartewaal are the centres of this branch of fishery, which yields\n halibut, cod, ling and haddock. The trawl fisheries of the coast yield\n sole, plaice, turbot, brill, skate, &c., of which a large part is\n brought alive to the market. In the Zuider Zee small herring, flat\n fish, anchovies and shrimps are caught, the chief fishing centres\n being the islands of Texel, Urk and Wieringen, and the coast towns of\n Helder, Bunschoten, Huizen, Enkhuizen, Vollendam, Kampen, Harderwyk,\n Vollenhove. The anchovy fishing which takes place in May, June and\n July sometimes yields very productive results. Oysters and mussels are\n obtained on the East Scheldt, and anchovies at Bergen-op-Zoom; while\n salmon, perch and pike are caught in the Maas, the Lek and the New\n Merwede. The oyster-beds and salmon fisheries are largely in the hands\n of the state, which lets them to the highest bidder. Large quantities\n of eels are caught in the Frisian lakes. The fisheries not only supply\n the great local demand, but allow of large exports.\n\n_Manufacturing Industries._--The mineral resources of Holland give no\nencouragement to industrial activity, with the exception of the\ncoal-mining in Limburg, the smelting of iron ore in a few furnaces in\nOverysel and Gelderland, the use of stone and gravel in the making of\ndikes and roads, and of clay in brickworks and potteries, the quarrying\nof stone at St Pietersberg, &c. Nevertheless the industry of the country\nhas developed in a remarkable manner since the separation from Belgium.\nThe greatest activity is shown in the cotton industry, which flourishes\nespecially in the Twente district of Overysel, where jute is also worked\ninto sacks. In the manufacture of woollen and linen goods Tilburg ranks\nfirst, followed by Leiden, Utrecht and Eindhoven; that of half-woollens\nis best developed at Roermond and Helmond. Other branches of industry\ninclude carpet-weaving at Deventer, the distillation of brandy, gin and\nliqueurs at Schiedam, Rotterdam and Amsterdam, and beer-brewing in most\nof the principal towns; shoe-making and leather-tanning in the\nLangstraat district of North Brabant; paper-making at Apeldoorn, on the\nZaan, and in Limburg; the manufacture of earthenware and faience at\nMaastricht, the Hague and Delft, as well as at Utrecht, Purmerend and\nMakkum; clay pipes and stearine candles at Gouda; margarine at Osch;\nchocolate at Weesp and on the Zaan; mat-plaiting and broom-making at\nGenemuiden and Blokzyl; diamond-cutting and the manufacture of quinine\nat Amsterdam; and the making of cigars and snuff at Eindhoven,\nAmsterdam, Utrecht, Kampen, &c. Shipbuilding is of no small importance\nin Holland, not only in the greater, but also in the smaller towns along\nthe rivers and canals. The principal shipbuilding yards are at\nAmsterdam, Kinderdijk, Rotterdam and at Flushing, where there is a\ngovernment dockyard for building warships.\n\n _Trade and Shipping._--To obtain a correct idea of the trade of\n Holland, greater attention than would be requisite in the case of\n other countries must be paid to the inland traffic. It is impossible\n to state the value of this in definite figures, but an estimate may be\n formed of its extent from the number of ships which it employs in the\n rivers and canals, and from the quantity of produce brought to the\n public market. In connexion with this traffic there is a large fleet\n of tug boats; but steam- or petroleum-propelled barges are becoming\n more common. Some of the lighters used in the Rhine transport trade\n have a capacity of 3000 tons. A great part of the commercial business\n at Rotterdam belongs to the commission and transit trade. The other\n principal ports are Flushing, Terneuzen (for Belgium), Harlingen,\n Delfzyl, Dordrecht, Zaandam, Schiedam, Groningen, den Helder,\n Middelburg, Vlaardingen. Among the national mail steamship services\n are the lines to the East and West Indies, Africa and the United\n States. An examination of its lists of exports and imports will show\n that Holland receives from its colonies its spiceries, coffee, sugar,\n tobacco, indigo, cinnamon; from England and Belgium its manufactured\n goods and coals; petroleum, raw cotton and cereals from the United\n States; grain from the Baltic provinces, Archangel, and the ports of\n the Black Sea; timber from Norway and the basin of the Rhine, yarn\n from England, wine from France, hops from Bavaria and Alsace; iron-ore\n from Spain; while in its turn it sends its colonial wares to Germany,\n its agricultural produce to the London market, its fish to Belgium and\n Germany, and its cheese to France, Belgium and Hamburg, as well as\n England. The bulk of trade is carried on with Germany and England;\n then follow Java, Belgium, Russia, the United States, &c. In the last\n half of the 19th century the total value of the foreign commerce was\n more than trebled.\n\n_Constitution and Government._--The government of the Netherlands is\nregulated by the constitution of 1815, revised in 1848 and 1887, under\nwhich the sovereign's person is inviolable and the ministers are\nresponsible. The age of majority of the sovereign is eighteen. The crown\nis hereditary in both the male and the female line according to\nprimogeniture; but it is only in default of male heirs that females can\ncome to the throne. The crown prince or heir apparent is the first\nsubject of the sovereign, and bears the title of the prince of Orange.\nThe sovereign alone has executive authority. To him belong the ultimate\ndirection of foreign affairs, the power to declare war and peace, to\nmake treaties and alliances, and to dissolve one or both chambers of\nparliament, the supreme command of the army and navy, the supreme\nadministration of the state finances and of the colonies and other\npossessions of the kingdom, and the prerogative of mercy. By the\nprovisions of the same constitution he establishes the ministerial\ndepartments, and shares the legislative power with the first and second\nchambers of parliament, which constitute the states-general and sit at\nthe Hague. The heads of the departments to whom the especial executive\nfunctions are entrusted are eight in number--ministers respectively of\nthe interior, of \"water-staat,\" trade and industry (that is, of public\nworks, including railways, post-office, &c.), of justice, of finance, of\nwar, of marine, of the colonies and of foreign affairs. There is a\ndepartment of agriculture, but without a minister at its head. The heads\nof departments are appointed and dismissed at the pleasure of the\nsovereign, usually determined, however, as in all constitutional states,\nby the will of the nation as indicated by its representatives.\n\nThe number of members in the first chamber is 50, South Holland sending\n10, North Holland 9, North Brabant and Gelderland each 6, Friesland 4,\nOverysel, Limburg and Groningen each 3, Zeeland, Utrecht and Drente each\n2. According to the fundamental law (_Grondwet_) of 1887, they are\nchosen by the provincial states, not only from amongst those who bear\nthe greatest burden of direct taxation in each province, but also from\namongst great functionaries and persons of high rank. Those deputies who\nare not resident in the Hague are entitled to receive 16s. 8d. a day\nduring the session. The duration of parliament is nine years, a third of\nthe members retiring every three years. The retiring members are\neligible for re-election. The members of the second chamber are chosen\nin the electoral districts by all capable male citizens not under 23\nyears of age, who pay one or more direct taxes, ranging from a minimum\nof one guilder (1s. 8d.) towards the income tax. The number of members\nis 100, Amsterdam returning 9, Rotterdam 5, the Hague 3, Groningen and\nUtrecht 2 members each. Members must be at least thirty years old, and\nreceive an annual allowance of L166, besides travelling expenses. They\nonly, and the government, have the right of initiating business, and of\nproposing amendments. Their term is four years, but they are\nre-eligible. All communications from the sovereign to the states-general\nand from the states to the sovereign, as well as all measures relating\nto internal administration or to foreign possessions, are first\nsubmitted to the consideration of the council of state, which consists\nof 14 members appointed by the sovereign, who is the president. The\nstate council also has the right of making suggestions to the sovereign\nin regard to subjects of legislation and administration.\n\n The provincial administration is entrusted to the provincial states,\n which are returned by direct election by the same electors as vote for\n the second chamber. The term is for six years, but one-half of the\n members retire every three years subject to re-election or renewal.\n The president of the assembly is the royal commissioner for the\n province. As the provincial states only meet a few times in the year,\n they name a committee of deputy-states which manages current general\n business, and at the same time exercises the right of control over the\n affairs of the communes. At the head of every commune stands a\n communal council, whose members must be not under 23 years of age.\n They are elected for six years (one-third of the council retiring\n every two years) by the same voters as for the provincial states.\n Communal franchise is further restricted, however, to those electors\n who pay a certain sum to the communal rates. The number of councillors\n varies according to the population between 7 and 45. One of the\n special duties of the council is the supervision of education. The\n president of the communal council is the burgomaster, who is named by\n the sovereign in every instance for six years, and receives a salary\n varying from L40 to over L600. Provision is made for paying the\n councillors a certain fee--called \"presence-money\"--when required.\n The burgomaster has the power to suspend any of the council's decrees\n for 30 days. The executive power is vested in a college formed by the\n burgomaster and two, three or four magistrates (_wethouders_) to be\n chosen by and from the members of the council. The provinces are\n eleven in number.\n\n _National Defence._--The home defence system of Holland is a militia\n with strong cadres based on universal service. Service in the\n \"militia\" or 1st line force is for 8 years, in the 2nd line for 7.\n Every year in the drill season contingents of militiamen are called up\n for long or short periods of training, and the maximum peace strength\n under arms in the summer is about 35,000, of whom half are permanent\n cadres and half militiamen. In 1908 12,300 of the year's contingent\n were trained for eight months and more, and 5200 for four months. The\n war strength of the militia is 105,000, that of the second line or\n reserve 70,000. The defence of the country is based on the historic\n principle of concentrating the people and their resources in the heart\n of the country, covered by a wide belt of inundations. The chosen line\n of defence is marked by a series of forts which control the sluices,\n extending from Amsterdam, through Muiden, thence along the Vecht and\n through Utrecht to Gorinchem (Gorkum) on the Waal. The line continues\n thence by the Hollandsche Diep and Volkerak to the sea, and the coast\n also is fortified. The army in the colonies numbers in all about\n 26,000, all permanent troops and for the most part voluntarily\n enlisted European regulars. The military expenditure in 1908 was\n L2,331,255. The Dutch navy at home and in Indian waters consists\n (1909) of 9 small battleships, 6 small cruisers and 80 other vessels,\n manned by 8600 officers and men of the navy and about 2250 marines.\n Recruiting is by voluntary enlistment, with contingent powers of\n conscription amongst the maritime population.\n\n _Justice._--The administration of justice is entrusted (1) to the high\n council (_hooge raad_) at the Hague, the supreme court of the whole\n kingdom, and the tribunal for all high government officials and for\n the members of the states-general; (2) to the five courts of justice\n established at Amsterdam, the Hague, Arnhem, Leeuwarden and 's\n Hertogenbosch; (3) to tribunals established in each arrondissement;\n (4) to cantonal judges appointed over a group of communes, whose\n jurisdiction is restricted to claims of small amount (under 200\n guilders), and to breaches of police regulations, and who at the same\n time look after the interest of minors. The high council is composed\n of 12 to 14 councillors, a procureur-general and three\n advocates-general. Criminal and correctional procedure were formerly\n divided between the courts of justice and the arrondissement\n tribunals; but this distinction was suppressed by the penal code of\n 1886, thereby increasing the importance of the arrondissement courts,\n which also act as court of appeal of the cantonal courts.\n\n Besides the prisons, which include one built on the cellular principle\n at Breda, the state supports three penal workhouses for drunkards and\n beggars. There are also the penal colonies at Veenhuizen in Drente,\n which were brought from the Society of Charity (_Maatschappij van\n Weldadigkeid_) in 1859. The inmates practise agriculture, as well as\n various industries for supplying all the requirements of the colony.\n The objection raised against these establishments is that the\n prisoners do not represent the real vagabondage of the country, but a\n class of more or less voluntary inmates. Children under 16 years of\n age are placed in the three state reformatories, and there is an\n institution for vagabond women at Rotterdam.\n\n _Charitable and other Institutions._--Private charities have always\n occupied a distinguished position in the Netherlands, and the\n principle of the law of 1854 concerning the relief of the poor is,\n that the state shall only interfere when private charity fails. All\n private and religious institutions have to be inscribed before they\n can collect public funds. In some cases these institutions are\n organized and administered conjointly with the civil authorities. At\n the head of the charitable institutions stand the agricultural\n colonies belonging to the Society of Charity (see DRENTE). Of the\n numerous institutions for the encouragement of the sciences and the\n fine arts, the following are strictly national--the Royal Academy of\n Sciences (1855), the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute\n (1854), the National Academy of the Plastic Arts, the Royal School of\n Music, the National Archives, besides various other national\n collections and museums. Provincial scientific societies exist at\n Middelburg, Utrecht, 's Hertogenbosch and Leeuwarden, and there are\n private and municipal associations, institutions and collections in a\n large number of the smaller towns. Among societies of general utility\n are the Society for Public Welfare (_Maatschappij tot nut van't\n algemeen_, 1785), whose efforts have been mainly in the direction of\n educational reform; the Geographical Society at Amsterdam (1873);\n Teyler's Stichting or foundation at Haarlem (1778), and the societies\n for the promotion of industry (1777), and of sciences (1752) in the\n same town; the Institute of Languages, Geography and Ethnology of the\n Dutch Indies (1851), and the Indian Society at the Hague, the Royal\n Institute of Engineers at Delft (1848), the Association for the\n Encouragement of Music at Amsterdam, &c.\n\n _Religion._--Religious conviction is one of the most characteristic\n traits of the Dutch people, and finds expression in a large number of\n independent religious congregations. The bond between church and\n state which had been established by the synod of Dort (1618) and the\n organization of the Low-Dutch Reformed Church (_Nederlandsche\n Hervormde Kerk_) as the national Protestant church, practically came\n to an end in the revolution of 1795, and in the revision of the\n Constitution in 1848 the complete religious liberty and equality of\n all persons and congregations was guaranteed. The present organization\n of the Reformed Church dates from 1852. It is governed by a general\n assembly or \"synod\" of deputies from the principal judicatures,\n sitting once a year. The provinces are subdivided into \"classes,\" and\n the classes again into \"circles\" (_ringen_), each circle comprising\n from 5 to 25 congregations, and each congregation being governed by a\n \"church council\" or session. The provincial synods are composed of\n ministers and elders deputed by the classes; and these are composed of\n the ministers belonging to the particular class and an equal number of\n elders appointed by the local sessions. The meetings of the circles\n have no administrative character, but are mere brotherly conferences.\n The financial management in each congregation is entrusted to a\n special court (_kerk-voogdij_) composed of \"notables\" and church\n wardens. In every province there is besides, in the case of the\n Reformed Church, a provincial committee of supervision for the\n ecclesiastical administration. For the whole kingdom this supervision\n is entrusted to a common \"collegium\" or committee of supervision,\n which meets at the Hague, and consists of 11 members named by the\n provincial committee and 3 named by the synod. Some congregations have\n withdrawn from provincial supervision, and have thus free control of\n their own financial affairs. The oldest secession from the Orthodox\n Church is that of the Remonstrants, who still represent the most\n liberal thought in the country, and have their own training college at\n Leiden. Towards 1840 a new congregation calling itself the Christian\n Reformed Church (_Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerk_) arose as a protest\n against the government and the modern tendencies of the Reformed\n Church; and for the same reason those who had founded the Free\n University of Amsterdam (1880) formed themselves in 1886 into an\n independent body called the _Nederlandsche Gereformeerde Kerk_. In\n 1892 these two churches united under the name of the Reformed Churches\n (_Gereformeerde Kerken_) with the doctrine and discipline of Dort.\n They have a theological seminary at Kampen. Other Protestant bodies\n are the Walloons, who, though possessing an independent church\n government, are attached to the Low-Dutch Reformed Church; the\n Lutherans, divided into the main body of Evangelical Lutherans and a\n smaller division calling themselves the Re-established or Old\n Lutherans (_Herstelde Lutherschen_) who separated in 1791 in order to\n keep more strictly to the Augsburg confession; the Mennonites founded\n by Menno Simons of Friesland, about the beginning of the 16th century;\n the Baptists, whose only central authority is the General Baptist\n Society founded at Amsterdam in 1811; the Evangelical Brotherhood of\n Hernhutters or Moravians, who have churches and schools at Zeist and\n Haarlem; and a Catholic Apostolic Church (1867) at the Hague. There\n are congregations of English Episcopalians at the Hague, Amsterdam and\n Rotterdam, and German Evangelicals at the Hague (1857) and Rotterdam\n (1861). In 1853 the Roman Catholic Church, which before had been a\n mission in the hands of papal legates and vicars, was raised into an\n independent ecclesiastical province with five dioceses, namely, the\n archbishopric of Utrecht, and the suffragan bishoprics of Haarlem,\n Breda, 's Hertogenbosch and Roermond, each with its own seminary. Side\n by side with the Roman Catholic hierarchy are the congregations of the\n Old Catholics or Old Episcopalian Church (_Oud Bisschoppelijke\n Clerezie_), and the Jansenists (see JANSENISM). The Old Catholics,\n with whom the Jansenists are frequently confused, date from the 17th\n century. Besides an archbishop at Utrecht, the Old Catholics have\n bishops at Deventer and Haarlem, and a training college at Amersfoort.\n They numbered in 1905 about 9000 (see UTRECHT). The large Jewish\n population in Holland had its origin in the wholesale influx of\n Portuguese Jews at the end of the 16th, and of German Jews in the\n beginning of the 17th century. In 1870 they were reorganized under the\n central authority of the Netherlands Israelite Church, and divided\n into head and \"ring\" synagogues and associated churches. The Roman\n Catholic element preponderates in the southern provinces of Limburg,\n and North Brabant, but in Friesland, Groningen and Drente the Baptists\n and Christian Reformed are most numerous.\n\n _Education._--Every grade of education in the Netherlands is under the\n control and supervision of the state, being administered by a special\n department under the ministry for the interior. In 1889 the state\n recognized private denominational schools, and in 1900 passed a law of\n compulsory attendance. Infant schools, which are generally in the\n hands of private societies or the municipal authorities, are not\n interfered with by the state. According to the law of 1889 primary\n education is carried on in the ordinary and in continuation schools\n for boys and girls (co-education having been long in vogue). These\n schools are established in every commune, the state contributing aid\n at the rate of 25% of the total expenditure. The age of admission is\n six; and the course is for six years, 7-13 being the legal age limits;\n the fee, from which poverty exempts, is almost nominal. Nature-study,\n continued in the secondary schools, is an essential part in the\n curriculum of these schools, and elementary general history, English,\n French and German are among the optional subjects. While the boys are\n instructed in woodwork, needlework is taught to the girls, its\n introduction in 1889 having been the first recognition of practical\n instruction in any form. Continuation schools (_herhalingsscholen_)\n must be organized wherever required, and are generally open for six\n months in winter, pupils of twelve to fourteen or sixteen attending.\n Secondary schools were established by the law of 1863 and must be\n provided by every commune of 10,000 inhabitants; they comprise the\n Burgher-Day-and-Evening schools and the Higher-Burgher schools. The\n first named schools being mainly intended for those engaged in\n industrial or agricultural pursuits, the day classes gradually fell\n into disuse. The length of the course as prescribed by law is two\n years, but it is usually extended to three or four years, and the\n instruction, though mainly theoretical, has regard to the special\n local industries; the fees, if any, may not exceed one pound sterling\n per annum. Special mention must be made in this connexion of the\n school of engineering in Amsterdam (1878) and the Academy of Plastic\n Arts at Rotterdam. The higher-burgher schools have either a three or a\n five years' course, and the fees vary from L2, 10s. to L5 a year. The\n instruction given is essentially non-classical and scientific. In both\n schools certificates are awarded at the end of the course, that of the\n higher-burgher schools admitting to the natural science and medical\n branches of university education, a supplementary examination in Greek\n and Latin being required for other branches. The gymnasia, or\n classical schools, fall legally speaking under the head of higher\n education. By the law of 1876, every town of 20,000 inhabitants,\n unless specially exempted, must provide a gymnasium. A large\n proportion of these schools are subsidized by the state to the extent\n of half their net cost. The curriculum is classical and philological,\n but in the two upper classes there is a bifurcation in favour of\n scientific subjects for those who wish. The fees vary from L5 to L8 a\n year, but, owing to the absence of scholarships and bursaries, are\n sometimes remitted, as in the case of the higher-burgher schools.\n Among the schools which give specialized instruction, mention must be\n made of the admirable trade schools (_ambachtsscholen_) established in\n 1861, and the corresponding industrial schools for girls; the fishery\n schools and schools of navigation; the many private schools of\n domestic science, and of commerce and industry, among which the\n municipal school at Enschede (1886) deserves special mention; and the\n school of social work, \"Das Huis,\" at Amsterdam (1900). For the\n education of medical practitioners, civil and military, the more\n important institutions are the National Obstetrical College at\n Amsterdam, the National Veterinary School at Utrecht, the National\n College for Military Physicians at Amsterdam and the establishment at\n Utrecht for the training of military apothecaries for the East and\n West Indies. The organization of agricultural education under the\n state is very complete, and includes a state professor of agriculture\n for every province (as well as professors of horticulture in several\n cases), \"winter schools\" of agriculture and horticulture, and a state\n agricultural college at Wageningen (1876) with courses in home and\n colonial agriculture. The total fees at this college, including board\n and lodging, are about L50 a year. According to the law of 1898, the\n state also maintains or subsidizes experimental or testing-stations.\n Other schools of the same class are the Gerard Adriaan van Swieten\n schools of agriculture, gardening and forestry in Drente, the school\n of instruction in butter and cheese making (_zuivelbereiding_) at\n Bolsward and the state veterinary college at Utrecht.\n\n There are three state universities in Holland, namely, Leiden (1575),\n Groningen (1585) and Utrecht (1634). The ancient athenaeums of\n Franeker (1585) and Harderwyk (1603) were closed in 1811, but that of\n Amsterdam was converted into a municipal university in 1877. In each\n of these universities there are five faculties, namely, law, theology,\n medicine, science and mathematics, and literature and philosophy, the\n courses for which are respectively four, five, eight, and six or seven\n years for the two last named. The fees amount to 200 florins (L16,\n 13s. 4d.) per annum and are payable for four years. Two kinds of\n degrees are conferred, namely, the ordinary (_candidaats_) and the\n \"doctor's\" degrees. Pupils from the higher-burgher schools are only\n eligible for the first. There is also a free (Calvinistic) university\n at Amsterdam founded in 1880 and enjoying, since 1905, the right of\n conferring degrees. It has, however, no faculties of law or science.\n The state polytechnic school at Delft (1864) for the study of\n engineering in all its branches, architecture and naval construction,\n has a nominal course of four years, and confers the degree of\n \"engineer.\" The fees are the same as those of the universities, and as\n at the universities there are bursaries. A national institution at\n Leiden for the study of languages, geography and ethnology of the\n Dutch Indies has given place to communal institutions of the same\n nature at Delft and at Leiden, founded in 1864 and 1877. The centre of\n Dutch university life, which is non-residential, is the students'\n corps, at the head of which is a \"senate,\" elected annually from among\n the students of four years' standing. Membership of the corps is\n gained after a somewhat trying novitiate, but is the only passport to\n the various social and sports societies.\n\n All teachers in the Netherlands must qualify for their profession by\n examination. Under the act of 1898 they are trained either in the\n state training-colleges, or in state-aided municipal, and private\n denominational colleges; or else by means of state or private\n state-aided courses of instruction. The age of admission to this class\n of training is from 14 to 18, and the course is for four years. In the\n last year practice in teaching is obtained at the primary \"practice\"\n school attached to each college, and students are also taught to make\n models explanatory of the various subjects of instruction after the\n manner of the Swedish Sloyd (Slojd) system. Assistant-teachers wishing\n to qualify as head-teachers must have had two years' practical\n experience. Pupil-teachers can only give instruction under the\n supervision of a certificated teacher. The minimum salary of teachers\n is determined by law. The teaching, which follows the so-called\n \"Heuristic\" method, and the equipment of schools of every description,\n are admirable.\n\n _Finance._--The following statement shows the revenue and expenditure\n of the kingdom for the years 1889, 1900-1901 and 1905:--\n\n _Revenue._\n\n +-------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+\n | Source. | 1889. | 1901. | 1905. |\n +-------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+\n | | L | L | L |\n | Excise | 3,678,075 | 4,042,500 | 4,514,998 |\n | Direct taxation | 2,300,865 | 2,900,175 | 3,135,665 |\n | Indirect taxation | 2,004,745 | 1,805,583 | 1,946,666 |\n | Post Office | 539,405 | 865,750 | 1,103,333 |\n | Government telegraphs | 106,970 | 187,375 | 211,333 |\n | Export and Import duties| 440,247 | 801,500 | 930,912 |\n | State domains | 213,186 | 147,000 | 139,000 |\n | Pilot dues | 106,079 | 191,667 | 200,000 |\n | State lotteries | 54,609 | 54,250 | 52,666 |\n | Game and Fisheries | 11,660 | 11,000 | 11,750 |\n | Railways | .. | 361,512 | 349,011 |\n | Part paid by East Indies| | | |\n | on account of interest | | | |\n | and redemption of | | | |\n | public debt | .. | .. | 321,916 |\n | Netherland Bank | | | |\n | contribution | .. | .. | 160,500 |\n +-------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+\n | Total* | 9,475,337 |11,394,220 |14,017,079 |\n +-------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+\n * Including various miscellaneous items not specified in detail.\n\n _Expenditure._\n\n +-------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+\n | Object. | 1889. | 1901. | 1905. |\n +-------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+\n | | L | L | L |\n | National Debt | 2,727,591 | 2,906,214 | 2,899,770 |\n | Department of War | 1,708,698 | 1,893,036 | 2,474,011 |\n | \" Waterstaat| 1,790,291 | 2,448,339 | 2,869,951 |\n | \" Finance | 1,537,404 | 2,092,343 | 2,297,180 |\n | \" Marine | 1,038,536 | 1,388,141 | 1,396,137 |\n | \" Interior | 815,188 | 1,330,563 | 1,613,134 |\n | \" Justice | 426,343 | 529,159 | 592,073 |\n | \" Colonies | 93,829 | 109,768 | 251,150 |\n | Dept. of Foreign Affairs| 57,312 | 71,101 | 82,403 |\n | Royal Household | 54,166 | 66,667 | 66,666 |\n | Superior Authorities of | | | |\n | the State | 52,476 | 56,792 | 58,251 |\n | Unforeseen Expenditure | 1,745 | 4,166 | 4,166 |\n +-------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+\n | Total* |10,393,579 |12,896,289 |14,907,781 |\n +-------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+\n * Including, besides the ordinary budget, the outlays in payment\n of annuities, in funding and discharging debt, in railway\n extension, &c.\n\n The total debt in 1905 amounted to L96,764,266, the annual interest\n amounted to L3,396,590. During the years 1850-1905, L27,416,651 has\n been devoted to the redemption of the public debt. The total wealth of\n the kingdom is estimated at 900 millions sterling. The various\n provinces and communes have separate budgets. The following table\n gives a statement of the provincial and communal finances:--\n\n _Revenue._\n\n +---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+\n | | 1889. | 1900. | 1905. |\n +---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+\n | | L | L | L |\n | Provincial | 722,583 | 445,333 | 718,199 |\n | Communal | 6,132,000 | 9,311,666 |12,750,083 |\n +---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+\n\n _Expenditure._\n\n +---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+\n | | 1889. | 1900. | 1905. |\n +---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+\n | | L | L | L |\n | Provincial | 740,333 | 445,333 | 702,718 |\n | Communal | 5,683,800 | 8,503,250 |12,085,250 |\n +---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+\n\n_Colonies._--The Dutch colonies in the Malay Archipelago have an area of\n600,000 sq. m., with a population of 23,000,000, among which are 35,000\nEuropeans, 319,000 Chinese, 15,000 Arabs, and 10,000 other immigrant\nAsiatics. The West Indian possessions of Holland include Dutch Guiana or\nthe government of Surinam, and the Dutch Antilles or the government of\nCuracoa and its dependencies (St Eustatius, Saba, the southern half of\nSt Martin, Curacoa, Bonaire and Aruba), a total area of 60,000 sq. m.,\nwith 90,000 inhabitants, of whom a small portion are Europeans, and the\nrest negroes and other people of colour, and Chinese.\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The chief place is due to the following geographical\n publications:--Dr H. Blink, _Nederland en zijne Bewoners_ (Amsterdam,\n 1888-1892), containing a copious bibliography; _Tegenwoordige Staat\n van Nederland_ (Amsterdam, 1897); R. Schuiling, _Aardrijkskunde van\n Nederland_ (Zwolle, 1884); A. A. Beekman, _De Strijd om het Bestaan_\n (Zutphen, 1887), a manual on the characteristic hydrography of the\n Netherlands; and E. Reclus' _Nouvelle geographie universelle_ (1879;\n vol. iv.). The _Gedenboek uitgeven ter gelegenheid van het\n fijftig-jarig bestaan van het Koninklijk Instituut van Ingenieurs_,\n 1847-1897 ('s Gravenhage, 1898), is an excellent aid in studying\n technically the remarkable works on Dutch rivers, canals, sluices,\n railways and harbours, and drainage and irrigation works. The\n _Aardrijkskundig Woordenboek van Nederland_, by P. H. Witkamp (Arnhem,\n 1895), is a complete gazetteer with historical notes, and _Nomina\n Geographica Neerlandica_, published by the Netherlands Geographical\n Society (Amsterdam, 1885, &c.), contains a history of geographical\n names. _Geschiedenis van den Boereastand en den landbouw in\n Nederland_, H. Blink (Groningen, 1902), and the report on agriculture,\n published at the Hague by the Royal Commission appointed in 1896,\n furnish special information in connexion with this subject. Of more\n general interest are: _Eene halve Eeuw, 1848-1898_, edited by Dr P. H.\n Ritter (Amsterdam, 1898), containing a series of articles on all\n subjects connected with the kingdom during the second half of the 19th\n century, written by specialists; and _Les Pays Bas_ (Leiden, 1899),\n and _La Hollande geographique, ethnologique, politique, &c._ (Paris,\n 1900), both works of the same class as the preceding.\n\n Books of travel include some of considerable topographical as well as\n literary interest, from Lodovico Guicciardini (1567) down to Edmondo\n de Amicis (_Holland_, translated from the Italian, London, 1883); H.\n Havard, _Dead Cities of the Zuider Zee, &c._ (translated from the\n French, London 1876), and D. S. Meldrum, _Holland and the Hollanders_\n (London, 1899) in the 19th century. Mention may also be made of _Old\n Dutch Towns and Villages of the Zuider Zee_, by W. J. Tuyn (translated\n from the Dutch, London, 1901), _Nieuwe Wandelingen door Nederland_, by\n J. Craandijk and P. A. Schipperus (Haarlem, 1888); _Friesland Meres\n and through the Netherlands_, by H. M. Doughty (London, 1887); _On\n Dutch Waterways_, by G. C. Davis (London, 1887); _Hollande et\n hollandais_, by H. Durand (Paris, 1893); and _Holland and Belgium_ by\n Professor N. G. van Kampen (translated from the Dutch, London, 1860),\n the last three being chiefly remarkable for their fine illustrations.\n Works of historical and antiquarian interest of a high order are\n _Merkwaardige Kasteelen in Nederland_, by J. van Lennep and W. J.\n Hofdyk (Leiden, 1881-1884); _Noord-Hollandsche Oudheden_, by G. van\n Arkel and A. W. Weisman, published by the Royal Antiquarian Society\n (Amsterdam, 1891); and _Oud Holland_, edited by A. D. de Vries and N.\n de Roever (Amsterdam, 1883-1886), containing miscellaneous\n contributions to the history of ancient Dutch art, crafts and letters.\n Natural history is covered by various periodical publications of the\n Royal Zoological Society \"Natura Artis Magistra\" at Amsterdam, and the\n _Natuurlijke Historie van Nederland_ (Haarlem, 1856-1863) written by\n specialists, and including ethnology and flora. Military and naval\n defence may be studied in _De vesting Holland_, by A. L. W. Seijffardt\n (Utrecht, 1887), and the _Handbook of the Dutch Army_, by Major W. L.\n White, R.A. (London, 1896); ecclesiastical history in _The Church in\n the Netherlands_, by P. H. Ditchfield (London, 1893); and education in\n vol. viii. of the _Special Reports on Educational Subjects_ issued by\n the Board of Education, London. Statistics are furnished by the annual\n publication of the Society for Statistics in the Netherlands,\n Amsterdam.\n\n\nHISTORY FROM 1579 TO MODERN TIMES[5]\n\n\n Consequences of the Union of Utrecht.\n\n Sovereignty offered to the Duke of Anjou.\n\n The Ban against William of Orange.\n\n The Act of Abjuration.\n\n The Apology.\n\nThe political compact known as the Union of Utrecht differed from its\nimmediate predecessors, the Pacification of Ghent, the Union of Brussels\nand the Perpetual Edict, in its permanence. The confederacy of the\nnorthern provinces of the Netherlands which was effected (29th of\nJanuary 1579) by the exertions of John of Nassau, was destined to be the\nbeginning of a new national life. The foundation was laid on which the\nRepublic of the United Netherlands was to be raised. Its immediate\nresults were far from promising. The falling away of the Walloon\nprovinces and the Catholic nobles from the patriot cause threatened it\nwith ruin. Nothing but the strong personal influence and indefatigable\nlabours of the prince of Orange stood in the way of a more general\ndefection. Everywhere, save in staunch and steadfast Holland and\nZeeland, a feeling of wavering and hesitation was spreading through the\nland. In Holland and Zeeland William was supreme, but elsewhere his aims\nand his principles were misrepresented and misunderstood. He saw that\nunaided the patriotic party could not hope to resist the power of Philip\nII., and he had therefore resolved to gain the support of France by the\noffer of the sovereignty of the Netherlands to the duke of Anjou. But\nAnjou was a Catholic, and this fact aroused among the Protestants a\nfeeling that they were being betrayed. But the prince persisted in the\npolicy he felt to be a necessity, and (23rd of Jan. 1581) a treaty was\nconcluded with the duke, by which he, under certain conditions, agreed\nto accept the sovereignty of the Netherlands provinces, except Holland\nand Zeeland. These two provinces were unwilling to have any sovereign\nbut William himself, and after considerable hesitation he agreed to\nbecome their Count (24th of July 1581). He felt that he was justified in\ntaking this step because of the Ban which Philip had published on the\n15th of March 1581, in which Orange had been proclaimed a traitor and\nmiscreant, and a reward offered to any one who would take his life. His\npractical answer to the king was the act of Abjuration, by which at his\npersuasion the representatives of the provinces of Brabant, Flanders,\nHolland, Zeeland, Gelderland and Utrecht, assembled at the Hague,\ndeclared that Philip had forfeited his sovereignty over them, and that\nthey held themselves henceforth absolved from their allegiance to him.\nIn a written defence, the famous _Apology_, published later in the year,\nWilliam replied at great length to the charges that had been brought\nagainst him, and carrying the war into the enemy's camp, endeavoured to\nprove that the course he had pursued was justified by the crimes and\ntyranny of the king.\n\n\n Attempt on the Life of Orange by Jean Jaureguy.\n\n The French Fury.\n\n Assassination of William the Silent.\n\nThe duke of Anjou was solemnly inaugurated as duke of Brabant (February\n1582), and shortly afterwards as duke of Gelderland, count of Flanders\nand lord of Friesland. William had taken up his residence at Antwerp in\norder to give the French prince his strongest personal support, and\nwhile there a serious attempt was made upon his life (March 18th) by a\nyouth named Jean Jaureguy. He fired a pistol at the prince close to his\nhead, and the ball passed under the right ear and out at the left jaw.\nIt was a terrible wound, but fortunately not fatal. Meanwhile Anjou soon\ngrew tired of his dependent position and of the limitations placed upon\nhis sovereignty. He resolved by a secret and sudden attack (17th of\nJanuary 1583) to make himself master of Antwerp and of the person of\nOrange. The assault was made, but it proved an utter failure. The\ncitizens resisted stoutly behind barricades, and the French were routed\nwith heavy loss. The \"French Fury\" as it was called, rendered the\nposition of Anjou in the Netherlands impossible, and made William\nhimself unpopular in Brabant. He accordingly withdrew to Delft. In the\nmidst of his faithful Hollanders he felt that he could still organize\nresistance, and stem the progress made by Spanish arms and Spanish\ninfluence under the able leadership of Alexander of Parma. Antwerp, with\nSt Aldegonde as its burgomaster, was still in the hands of the patriots\nand barred the way to the sea, and covered Zeeland from invasion. Never\nfor one moment did William lose heart or relax his efforts and\nvigilance; he felt that with the two maritime provinces secure the\nnational cause need not be despaired of. But his own days had now drawn\nto their end. The failure of Jaureguy did not deter a young Catholic\nzealot, by name Balthazar Gerard, from attempting to assassinate the man\nwhom he looked upon as the arch-enemy of God and the king. Under the\npretext of seeking a passport, Gerard penetrated into the Prinsenhof at\nDelft, and firing point blank at William as he left the dining hall,\nmortally wounded him (10th of July 1584). Amidst general lamentations\n\"the Father of his Country,\" as he was called, was buried with great\nstate in the Nieuwe Kerk at Delft at the public charge.\n\n\n Maurice of Nassau.\n\n The Sovereignty offered to Henry III. and declined.\n\n Leicester Governor-general.\n\nBut though the great leader was dead, he had not striven or worked in\nvain. The situation was critical, but there was no panic. Throughout the\nrevolted provinces there was a general determination to continue the\nstruggle to the bitter end. To make head, however, against the\nvictorious advance of Parma, before whose arms all the chief towns of\nBrabant and Flanders, Bruges, Ghent, Brussels and lastly--after a\nvaliant defence--Antwerp itself had fallen, it was necessary to look for\nthe protection of a foreign ruler. The government, now that the\ncommanding personal influence of William was no more, was without any\ncentral authority which could claim obedience. The States-General were\nbut the delegates of a number of sovereign provinces, and amongst these\nHolland by its size and wealth (after the occupation by the Spaniards of\nBrabant and Flanders) was predominant. Maurice of Nassau, William's\nsecond son, had indeed on his father's death been appointed captain and\nadmiral-general of the Union, president of the Council of State, and\nstadholder of Holland and Zeeland, but he was as yet too young, only\nseventeen, to take a leading part in affairs. Count Hohenloo took the\ncommand of the troops with the title of lieutenant-general. Two devoted\nadherents of William of Orange, Paul Buys, advocate of Holland, and\nJohan van Oldenbarneveldt, pensionary of Rotterdam, were the statesmen\nwho at this difficult juncture took the foremost part in directing the\npolicy of the confederacy. They turned first to France. The sovereignty\nof the provinces was offered to Henry III., but the king, harassed by\ncivil discords in his own country, declined the dangerous honour (1585).\nRepelled in this direction, the States-General next turned themselves to\nEngland. Elizabeth was alarmed by the successes of the Spanish arms, and\nespecially by the fall of Antwerp; and, though refusing the sovereignty,\nshe agreed to send a force of 5000 foot and 1000 horse to the aid of the\nProvinces under the command of the earl of Leicester, her expenses being\nguaranteed by the handing over to her the towns of Flushing, Brill and\nRammekens as pledges (10th of August 1585). Leicester, on landing in\nHolland, was in the presence of the States-General and of Maurice of\nNassau invested with the title of governor-general and practically\nsovereign powers (February 1586).\n\n\n Failure and withdrawal of Leicester.\n\nThe new governor had great difficulties to contend with. He knew nothing\nof the language or the character of the people he was called upon to\ngovern; his own abilities both as general and statesman were mediocre;\nand he was hampered constantly in his efforts by the niggardliness and\nchanging whims of his royal mistress. In trying to consolidate the\nforces of the Provinces for united action and to centralize its\ngovernment, he undoubtedly did his best, according to his lights, for\nthe national cause. But he was too hasty and overbearing. His edict\nprohibiting all commercial intercourse with the enemy at once aroused\nagainst him the bitter hostility of the merchants of Holland and\nZeeland, who thrived by such traffic. His attempts to pack the council\nof State, on which already two Englishmen had seats, with personal\nadherents and to override the opposition of the provincial states of\nHolland to his arbitrary acts, at last made his position impossible. The\ntraitorous surrender of Deventer and Zutphen by their English governors,\nStanley and York, both Catholics, rendered all Englishmen suspect. The\nStates of Holland under the leadership of Johan van Oldenbarneveldt,\ntook up an attitude of resolute hostility to him, and the States of\nHolland dominated the States-General. In the midst of these divided\ncouncils the important seaport of Sluis was taken by Parma. Utterly\ndiscredited, Leicester (6th of August 1587) abandoned the task, in\nwhich he had met with nothing but failure, and returned to England.\n\n\n Johan van Oldenbarneveldt.\n\n Maurice of Nassau.\n\nNothing could have been worse than the position of the States at the\nbeginning of 1588. Had Parma had a free hand, in all probability he\nwould have crushed out the revolt and reconquered the northern\nNetherlands. But the attention of the Spanish king was at this time\nconcentrated upon the success of the Invincible Armada. The army of\nParma was held in readiness for the invasion of England, and the United\nProvinces had a respite. They were fortunately able to avail themselves\nof it. The commanding abilities of Oldenbarneveldt, now advocate of\nHolland, gradually gathered into his hands the entire administration of\nthe Republic. He became indispensable and, as his influence grew, more\nand more did the policy of the provinces acquire unity and consistency\nof purpose. At the same time Maurice of Nassau, now grown to man's\nestate, began to display those military talents which were to gain for\nhim the fame of being the first general of his time. But Maurice was no\npolitician. He had implicit trust in the advocate, his father's faithful\nfriend and counsellor, and for many years to come the statesman and the\nsoldier worked in harmony together for the best interests of their\ncountry (see OLDENBARNEVELDT, and MAURICE, prince of Orange). At the\nside of Maurice, as a wise adviser, stood his cousin William Louis,\nstadholder of Friesland, a trained soldier and good commander in the\nfield.\n\n\n Campaign of 1591.\n\n Death of Parma.\n\n New province of Stadt en Landen.\n\nAfter the destruction of the Armada, Parma had been occupied with\ncampaigns on the southern frontier against the French, and the\nNetherlanders had been content to stand on guard against attack. The\nsurprise of Breda by a stratagem (8th of March 1590) was the only\nmilitary event of importance up to 1591. But the two stadholders had not\nwasted the time. The States' forces had been reorganized and brought to\na high state of military discipline and training. In 1591 the\nStates-General, after considerable hesitation, were persuaded by Maurice\nto sanction an offensive campaign. It was attended by marvellous\nsuccess. Zutphen was captured on the 20th of May, Deventer on the 20th\nof June. Parma, who was besieging the fort of Knodsenburg, was forced to\nretire with loss. Hulst fell after a three days' investment, and finally\nNymegen was taken on the 21st of October. The fame of Maurice, a\nconsummate general at the early age of twenty-four, was on all men's\nlips. The following campaign was signalized by the capture of Steenwyk\nand Koevorden. On the 8th of December 1592 Parma died, and the States\nwere delivered from their most redoubtable adversary. In 1593 the\nleaguer of Geertruidenburg put the seal on Maurice's reputation as an\ninvincible besieger. The town fell after an investment of three months.\nGroningen was the chief fruit of the campaign of 1594. With its\ndependent district it was formed into a new province under the name of\nStadt en Landen. William Louis became the stadholder (see GRONINGEN).\nThe soil of the northern Netherlands was at last practically free from\nthe presence of Spanish garrisons.\n\n\n Triple Alliance of France, England and the United Provinces.\n\nThe growing importance of the new state was signalized by the\nconclusion, in 1596, of a triple alliance between England, France and\nthe United Provinces. It was of short duration and purchased by hard\nconditions, but it implied the recognition by Henry IV. and Elizabeth of\nthe States-General, as a sovereign power, with whom treaties could be\nconcluded. Such a recognition was justified by the brilliant successes\nof the campaign of 1597. It began with the complete rout of a Spanish\nforce of 4500 men at Turnhout in January, with scarcely any loss to the\nvictors. Then in a succession of sieges Rheinberg, Meurs, Groenlo,\nBredevoort, Enschede, Ootmarsum, Oldenzaal and Lingen fell into the\nhands of Maurice.\n\n\n Albert and Isabel, Sovereigns of the Netherlands.\n\nThe relations of the Netherlands to Spain were in 1598 completely\nchanged. Philip II. feeling death approaching, resolved to marry his\nelder daughter, the Infanta Isabel Clara Eugenia, to her cousin, the\nCardinal Archduke Albert of Austria, who had been governor-general of\nthe Netherlands since 1596, and to erect the Provinces into an\nindependent sovereignty under their joint rule. The instrument was\nexecuted in May; Philip died in September; the marriage took place in\nNovember. In case the marriage should have no issue, the sovereignty of\nthe Netherlands was to revert to the king of Spain. The archdukes (such\nwas their official title) did not make their _joyeuse entree_ into\nBrussels until the close of 1599. The step was taken too late to effect\na reconciliation with the rebel provinces. Peace overtures were made,\nbut the conditions were unacceptable. The States-General never seriously\nconsidered the question of giving in their submission to the new\nsovereigns. The traders of Holland and Zeeland had thriven mightily by\nthe war. Their ships had penetrated to the East and West Indies, and\nwere to be found in every sea. The year 1600 saw the foundation of the\nChartered East India Company (see DUTCH EAST INDIA COMPANY). The\nquestion of freedom of trade with the Indies had become no less vital to\nthe Dutch people than freedom of religious worship. To both these\nconcessions Spanish policy was irreconcilably opposed.\n\n\n The Battle of Nieuport.\n\n Siege of Ostend.\n\nDunkirk, as a nest of freebooters who preyed upon Dutch commerce, was\nmade the objective of a daring offensive campaign in 1600 by the orders\nof the States-General under the influence of Oldenbarneveldt in the\nteeth of the opposition of the stadholders Maurice and William Louis. By\na bold march across Flanders, Maurice reached Nieuport on the 1st of\nJuly, and proceeded to invest it. The archduke Albert, however, followed\nhard on his steps with an army of seasoned troops, and Maurice, with his\ncommunications cut, was forced to fight for his existence. A desperate\ncombat took place on the dunes between forces of equal strength and\nvalour. Only by calling up his last reserves did victory declare for\nMaurice. The archduke had to fly for his life. Five thousand Spaniards\nwere killed; seven hundred taken, and one hundred and five standards. To\nhave thus worsted the dreaded Spanish infantry in open fight was a great\ntriumph for the States troops and their general, but it was barren of\nresults. Maurice refused to run further risks and led back his army to\nHolland. For the following three years all the energies alike of the\narchdukes and the States-General were concentrated on the siege of\nOstend (15th of July 1601-20th of Sept. 1604), the solitary possession\nof the Dutch in Flanders. The heroic obstinacy of the defence was\nequalled by the perseverance of the attack, and there was a vast\nexpenditure, especially on the side of the Spaniards, of blood and\ntreasure. At last when reduced to a heap of ruins, Ostend fell before\nthe resolution of Ambrosio de Spinola, a Genoese banker, to whom the\ncommand of the besiegers had been entrusted (see SPINOLA). A month\nbefore the surrender, however, another and more commodious seaport,\nSluis, had fallen into the possession of the States army under Maurice,\nand thus the loss of Ostend was discounted.\n\n\n Negotiations for Peace.\n\n The Twelve Years' Truce.\n\nSpinola proved himself to be a general of a high order, and the\ncampaigns of 1606 and 1607 resolved themselves into a duel of skill\nbetween him and Maurice without much advantage accruing to either side.\nBut the archdukes' treasury was now empty, and their credit exhausted;\nboth sides were weary of fighting, and serious negotiations for peace\nwere set on foot. The disposition of the Spaniards to make concessions\nwas further quickened by the destruction of their fleet at Gibraltar by\nthe Dutch admiral Heemskerk, (April 1607). But there were many\ndifficulties in the way. The peace party in the United Provinces headed\nby Oldenbarneveldt was opposed by the stadholders Maurice and William\nLouis, the great majority of the military and naval officers, the\nCalvinist preachers and many leading merchants. The Spaniards on their\nside were obdurate on the subjects of freedom of trade in the Indies and\nof freedom of religious worship. At last, after the negotiations had\nbeen repeatedly on the point of breaking off, a compromise was effected\nby the mediation of the envoys of France and England. On the 9th of\nApril 1609 a truce for twelve years was agreed upon. On all points the\nDutch demands were granted. The treaty was concluded with the Provinces,\n\"in the quality of free States over whom the archdukes made no\npretentions.\" The _uti possidetis_ as regards territorial possession was\nrecognized. Neither the granting of freedom of worship to Roman\nCatholics nor the word \"Indies\" was mentioned, but in a secret treaty\nKing Philip undertook to place no hindrance in the way of Dutch trade,\nwherever carried on.\n\n\n Theological strife in Holland.\n\n Arminius and Gomarus.\n\n Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants.\n\n Waard-gelders.\n\n Oldenbarneveldt executed.\n\nOne of the immediate results of this triumph of his policy was the\nincrease of Oldenbarneveldt's influence and authority in the government\nof the Republic. But though Maurice and his other opponents had\nreluctantly yielded to the advocate's skilful diplomacy and persuasive\narguments, a soreness remained between the statesman and the stadholder\nwhich was destined never to be healed. The country was no sooner\nrelieved from the pressure of external war than it was torn by internal\ndiscords. After a brief interference in the affairs of Germany, where\nthe intricate question of the Cleves-Julich succession was already\npreparing the way for the Thirty Years' War, the United Provinces became\nimmersed in a hot and absorbing theological struggle with which were\nmixed up important political issues. The province of Holland was the\narena in which it was fought out. Two professors of theology at Leiden,\nJacobus Arminius (see ARMINIUS) and Franciscus Gomarus, became the\nleaders of two parties, who differed from one another upon certain\ntenets of the abstruse doctrine of predestination. Gomarus supported the\northodox Calvinist view; Arminius assailed it. The Arminians appealed to\nthe States of Holland (1610) in a Remonstrance in which their\ntheological position was defined. They were henceforth known as\n\"Remonstrants\"; their opponents were styled \"Contra-Remonstrants.\" The\nadvocate and the States of Holland took sides with the Remonstrants,\nMaurice and the majority of the States-General (four provinces out of\nseven) supported the Contra-Remonstrants. It became a question of the\nextent of the rights of sovereign princes under the Union. The\nStates-General wished to summon a national synod, the States of Holland\nrefused their assent, and made levies of local militia (_waard-gelders_)\nfor the maintenance of order. The States-General (9th of July 1618) took\nup the challenge, and the prince of Orange, as captain-general, was\nplaced at the head of a commission to go in the first place to Utrecht,\nwhich supported Oldenbarneveldt, and then to the various cities of\nHolland to insist on the disbanding of the _waard-gelders_. On the side\nof Maurice, whom the army obeyed, was the power of the sword. The\nopposition collapsed; the recalcitrant provincial states were purged;\nand the leaders of the party of state rights--the advocate himself, Hugo\nde Groot (see GROTIUS), pensionary of Rotterdam, and Hoogerbeets,\npensionary of Leiden, were arrested and thrown into prison. The whole\nproceedings were illegal, and the illegality was consummated by the\nprisoners being brought before a special tribunal of 24 judges, nearly\nall of whom were personal enemies of the accused. The trial was merely a\npreliminary to condemnation. The advocate was sentenced to death, and\nexecuted (13th of May 1619) in the Binnenhof at the Hague. The sentences\nof Grotius and Hoogerbeets were commuted to perpetual imprisonment.\n\n\n Synod of Dort.\n\nMeanwhile the National Synod had been summoned and had met at Dort on\nthe 13th of November 1618. One hundred members, many of them foreign\ndivines, composed this great assembly, who after 154 sittings gave their\nseal to the doctrines of the Netherlands Confession and the Heidelberg\nCatechism. The Arminians were condemned, their preachers deprived, and\nthe Remonstrant party placed under a ban (6th of May 1619).\n\n\n Renewal of the war.\n\n Death of Maurice.\n\n The period of Frederick Henry.\n\n The East and West India Companies.\n\nIn 1621 the Twelve Years' Truce came to an end, and war broke out once\nmore with Spain. Maurice, after the death of Oldenbarneveldt, was\nsupreme in the land, but he missed sorely the wise counsels of the old\nstatesman whose tragic end he had been so largely instrumental in\nbringing about. He and Spinola found themselves once more at the head of\nthe armies in the field, but the health of the stadholder was\nundermined, and his military genius was under a cloud. Deeply mortified\nby his failure to relieve Breda, which was blockaded by Spinola, Maurice\nfell seriously ill, and died on the 23rd of April 1625. He was succeeded\nin his dignities by his younger brother Frederick Henry (see FREDERICK\nHENRY, prince of Orange), who was appointed stadholder of Holland,\nZeeland, Utrecht, Overyssel and Gelderland, captain and adjutant-general\nof the Union and head of the Council of State. Frederick Henry was as a\ngeneral scarcely inferior to Maurice, and a far more able statesman. The\nmoderation of his views and his conciliatory temper did much to heal the\nwounds left by civil and religious strife, and during his time the power\nand influence of the stadholderate attained their highest point. Such\nwas his popularity and the confidence he inspired that in 1631 his great\noffices of state were declared hereditary, in favour of his\nfive-year-old son, by the _Acte de Survivance_. He did much to justify\nthe trust placed in him, for the period of Frederick Henry is the most\nbrilliant in the history of the Dutch Republic. During his time the East\nIndia Company, which had founded the town of Batavia in Java as their\nadministrative capital, under a succession of able governor-generals\nalmost monopolized the trade of the entire Orient, made many conquests\nand established a network of factories and trade posts stretching from\nthe Cape of Good Hope to Japan (see DUTCH EAST INDIA COMPANY). The West\nIndia Company, erected in 1621, though framed on the same model, aimed\nrather at waging war on the enemies' commerce than in developing their\nown. Their fleets for some years brought vast booty into the company's\ncoffers. The Mexican treasure ships fell into the hands of Piet Heyn,\nthe boldest of their admirals, in 1628; and they were able to send\narmies across the ocean, conquer a large part of Brazil, and set up a\nflourishing Dutch dominion in South America (see Dutch West India\nCompany). The operations of these two great chartered companies occupy a\nplace among memorable events of Frederick Henry's stadholderate; they\nare therefore mentioned here, but for further details the special\narticles must be consulted.\n\n\n Policy of Frederick Henry.\n\nWhen Frederick Henry stepped into his brother's place, he found the\nUnited Provinces in a position of great danger and of critical\nimportance. The Protestants of Germany were on the point of being\ncrushed by the forces of the Austrian Habsburgs and the Catholic League.\nIt lay with the Netherlands to create a diversion in the favour of their\nco-religionists by keeping the forces of the Spanish Habsburgs fully\noccupied. But to do so with their flank exposed to imperialist attack\nfrom the east, was a task involving grave risks and possible disaster.\nIn these circumstances, Frederick Henry saw the necessity of securing\nFrench aid. It was secured by the skilful diplomacy of Francis van\nAarssens (q.v.) but on hard conditions. Richelieu required the\nassistance of the Dutch fleet to enable him to overcome the resistance\nof the Huguenot stronghold of La Rochelle. The far-sighted stadholder,\ndespite popular opposition, by his powerful personal influence induced\nthe States-General to grant the naval aid, and thus obtain the French\nalliance on which the safety of the republic depended.\n\n\n Sieges of Hertogenbosch and Maestricht.\n\n Death of the Infanta Isabel.\n\nThe first great military success of Frederick Henry was in 1629. His\ncapture of Hertogenbosch (Bois-le-duc), hitherto supposed to be\nimpregnable, after a siege of five months was a triumph of engineering\nskill. Wesel also was taken by surprise this same year. In 1631 a large\nSpanish fleet carrying a picked force of 6000 soldiers, for the invasion\nof Zeeland, was completely destroyed by the Dutch in the Slaak and the\ntroops made prisoners. The campaign of the following year was made\nmemorable by the siege of Maestricht. This important frontier town lying\non both sides of the river Meuse was taken by the prince of Orange in\nthe teeth of two relieving armies, Spanish and Imperialist, whose\nunited forces were far larger than his own. This brilliant feat of arms\nwas the prelude to peace negotiations, which led to a lengthy exchange\nof diplomatic notes. No agreement, however, was reached. The death of\nthe Infanta Isabel in November 1633, and the reversion of the\nNetherlands to the sovereignty of the king of Spain, rendered all\nefforts to end the war, for the time being, fruitless.\n\n\n Alliance with France.\n\n Capture of Breda.\n\n Battle of the Downs.\n\nAt this juncture a strengthening of the French alliance seemed to the\nprince not merely expedient, but necessary. He had to contend against a\nstrong peace party in Holland headed by the pensionary Pauw, but with\nthe aid of the diplomatic skill of Aarssens all opposition was overcome.\nPauw was replaced as pensionary by Jacob Cats, and the objections of\nRichelieu were met and satisfied. A defensive and offensive alliance\nwith France was concluded early in 1635 against the king of Spain, and\neach party bound itself not to make a peace or truce without the assent\nof the other. A large French force was sent into the Netherlands and\nplaced under the command of the prince of Orange. The military results\nof the alliance were during the first two campaigns inconsiderable. The\nCardinal Infant Ferdinand had been appointed governor of the\nNetherlands, and he proved himself an excellent general, and there were\ndissensions in the councils of the allies. In 1637 the stadholder was\nable to add to his fame as an invincible besieger of cities. His failure\nto relieve Breda had hastened the death of Maurice. It fell in 1625 into\nthe hands of Spinola after a blockade of eleven months; it was now\nretaken by Frederick Henry after a siege of eleven weeks, in the face of\nimmense difficulties. The reluctance of the States of Holland, and of\nAmsterdam in particular, to grant adequate supplies caused the campaigns\nof 1638 and 1639 to be in the main defensive and dilatory. An attempted\nattack on Antwerp was foiled by the vigilance of the Cardinal Infant. A\nbody of 6000 men under Count William of Nassau were surprised and\nutterly cut to pieces. The year 1639, which had begun with abortive\nnegotiations, and in which the activity of the stadholder had been much\nhampered by ill-health, was not to end, however, without a signal\ntriumph of the Dutch arms, but it was to be on sea and not on land. A\nmagnificent Spanish armada consisting of 77 vessels, manned by 24,000\nsoldiers and sailors under the command of Admiral Oquendo, were sent to\nthe Channel in September with orders to drive the Dutch from the narrow\nseas and land a large body of troops at Dunkirk. Attacked by a small\nDutch fleet under Admiral Marten Tromp, the Spaniards sheltered\nthemselves under the English Downs by the side of an English squadron.\nTromp kept watch over them until he had received large reinforcements,\nand then (21st of October) boldly attacked them as they lay in English\nwaters. Oquendo himself with seven vessels escaped under cover of a fog;\nall the rest of the fleet was destroyed. This crushing victory assured\nto the Dutch the command of the sea during the rest of the war. The\nnaval power of Spain never in fact recovered from the blow.\n\n\n English and Dutch Commercial Rivalry.\n\n Marriage of William and Mary.\n\nThe triumph of Tromp had, however, a bad effect on public feeling in\nEngland. The circumstances under which the battle of the Downs was won\nwere galling to the pride of the English people, and intensified the\ngrowing unfriendliness between two nations, one of whom possessed and\nthe other claimed supremacy upon the seas. The prosperity of the\nworld-wide Dutch commerce was looked upon with eyes of jealousy across\nthe Channel. Disputes had been constantly recurring between Dutch and\nEnglish traders in the East Indies and elsewhere, and the seeds were\nalready sown of that stern rivalry which was to issue in a series of\nfiercely contested wars. But in 1639-1640 civil discords in England\nstood in the way of a strong foreign policy, and the adroit Aarssens was\nable so \"to sweeten the bitterness of the pill\" as to bring King Charles\nnot merely to \"overlook the scandal of the Downs,\" but to consent to the\nmarriage of the princess royal with William, the only son of the\nstadholder. The wedding of the youthful couple (aged respectively 14 and\n10 years) took place on the 12th of May 1641 (see WILLIAM II., PRINCE OF\nORANGE). This royal alliance gave added influence and position to the\nhouse of Orange-Nassau.\n\n\n Changed relations of the United Provinces with France and Spain.\n\nAbout this time various causes brought about a change in the feelings\nwhich had hitherto prevented any possibility of peace between Spain and\nthe United Netherlands. The revolt of Portugal (December 1640) weakened\nthe Spanish power, and involved the loss to Spain of the Portuguese\ncolonies. But it was in the Portuguese colonies that the conquests of\nthe Dutch East and West India Companies had been made, and the question\nof the Indies as between Netherlander and Spaniard assumed henceforth\nquite a different complexion. Aarssens, the strongest advocate of the\nFrench alliance, passed away in 1641, and his death was quickly followed\nby those of Richelieu and Louis XIII. The victory of Conde at Rocroy\nopened the eyes of Frederick Henry to the danger of a French conquest of\nthe Belgian provinces; and, feeling his health growing enfeebled, the\nprince became anxious before his death to obtain peace and security for\nhis country by means of an accommodation with Spain. In 1643\nnegotiations were opened which, after many delays and in the face of\ncountless difficulties, were at length, four years later, to terminate\nsuccessfully.\n\n\n Death of Frederick Henry--his last campaigns.\n\nThe course of the _pourparlers_ would doubtless have run more smoothly\nbut for the infirm health and finally the death of the prince of Orange\nhimself. Frederick Henry expired on the 14th of March 1647, and was\nburied by the side of his father and brother in Delft. In his last\ncampaigns he had completed with signal success the task which, as a\nmilitary commander, he had set himself,--of giving to the United\nProvinces a thoroughly defensible frontier of barrier fortresses. In\n1644 he captured Sas de Ghent; in 1645 Hulst. That portion of Flanders\nwhich skirts the south bank of the Scheldt thus passed into the\npossession of the States, and with it the complete control of all the\nwaterways to the sea.\n\n\n The Peace of Munster.\n\n Complete triumph of the Dutch.\n\nThe death of the great stadholder did not, however, long delay the\ncarrying out of the policy on which he had set his heart, of concluding\na separate peace with Spain behind the back of France, notwithstanding\nthe compact of 1635 with that power. A provisional draft of a treaty had\nalready been drawn up before the demise of Frederick Henry, and\nafterwards, despite the strenuous opposition of the new prince of Orange\n(who, under the _Acte de Survivance_, had inherited all his father's\noffices and dignities) and of two of the provinces, Zeeland and Utrecht,\nthe negotiations were by the powerful support of the States of Holland\nand of the majority of the States-General, quickly brought to a\nsuccessful issue. The treaty was signed at Munster on the 30th of\nJanuary 1648. It was a peace practically dictated by the Dutch, and\ninvolved a complete surrender of everything for which Spain had so long\nfought. The United Provinces were recognized as free and independent,\nand Spain dropped all her claims; the _uti possidetis_ basis was adopted\nin respect to all conquests; the Scheldt was declared entirely closed--a\nclause which meant the ruin of Antwerp for the profit of Amsterdam; the\nright to trade in the East and West Indies was granted, and all the\nconquests made by the Dutch from the Portuguese were ceded to them; the\ntwo contracting parties agreed to respect and keep clear of each other's\ntrading grounds; each was to pay in the ports of the other only such\ntolls as natives paid. Thus, triumphantly for the revolted provinces,\nthe eighty years' war came to an end. At this moment the republic of the\nUnited Netherlands touched, perhaps, the topmost point of its prosperity\nand greatness.\n\n\n The form of Government in the United Provinces.\n\n The position of Holland and Amsterdam.\n\nNo sooner was peace concluded than bitter disputes arose between the\nprovincial States of Holland and the prince of Orange, supported by the\nother six provinces, upon the question of the disbanding of the military\nforces. William was a young man (he was twenty-one at the time of his\nfather's death) of the highest abilities and of soaring ambition. He\nwas totally opposed to the peace with Spain, and wished to bring about a\nspeedy resumption of the war. With this view he entered into secret\nnegotiations for a French alliance which, as far as can be gathered from\nextant records, had for its objects the conquest and partition by the\nallies of the Belgic provinces, and joint action in England on behalf of\nCharles II. As a preliminary step William aimed at a centralization of\nthe powers of government in the United Provinces in his own person. He\nsaw clearly the inherent defects of the existing federation, and he\nwished to remedy a system which was so complicated as to be at times\nalmost unworkable. The States-General were but the delegates, the\nstadholders the servants, of a number of sovereign provinces, each of\nwhich had different historical traditions and a different form of\ngovernment, and one of which--Holland--in wealth and importance\noutweighed the other six taken together. Between the States of Holland\nand the States-General there was constant jealousy and friction. And yet\nstrangely enough the States of Holland themselves were not really\nrepresentative of the people of that province, but only of the limited,\nself-coopting burgher aristocracies of certain towns, each of which with\nits rights and liberties had a quasi-independence of its own. Foremost\namong these was the great commercial capital, Amsterdam, whose rich\nburgher patriciate did not scruple on occasion to defy the authority of\nthe States-General, the stadholder and even of the States of Holland\nthemselves.\n\n\n The position in 1650.\n\n The question of disbanding the forces.\n\n The Prisoners of Loevenstein.\n\n Sudden Death of William II.\n\nThe States of Holland had, in the years that followed the truce of 1609,\nmeasured their strength with that of the States-General, but the issue\nhad been decided conclusively in favour of the federal authority by the\nsword of Maurice. The party and the principles of Oldenbarneveldt,\nhowever, though crushed, were not extinguished, and though Frederick\nHenry by his personal influence and prudent statesmanship had been able\nto surmount the difficulties placed in his way, he had had to encounter\nat times strong opposition, and had been much hampered in the conduct\nboth of his campaigns and of his policy. With the conclusion of the\npeace of Munster and the death of the veteran stadholder the struggle\nfor predominance in the Union between the Orange-federalist and the\nHollander States-rights parties was certain to be renewed. The moment\nseemed to be favourable for the assertion of provincial sovereignty\nbecause of the youth and inexperience of the new prince of Orange. But\nWilliam II., though little more than a boy, was endowed with singular\ncapacity and great strength of will, and he was intent upon ambitious\nprojects, the scope of which has been already indicated. The collision\ncame, which was perhaps inevitable. The States-General in the disbanding\nof the forces wished to retain the _cadres_ of the regiments complete in\ncase of a renewal of the war. The States of Holland objected, and,\nalthough the army was a federal force, gave orders for the general\ndisbanding of the troops in the pay of the province. The officers\nrefused to obey any orders but those of the council of State of the\nUnion. The provincial states, on their part, threatened them with loss\nof pay. At this juncture the States-General, as in 1618, appointed a\ncommission headed by the prince of Orange to visit the towns of Holland,\nand provide for the maintenance of order and the upholding of the Union.\nBoth parties put themselves in the wrong, the province by refusing its\nquota to the federal war-sheet, the generality by dealing with\nindividual towns instead of with the states of the province. The\nvisitation was a failure. The town councils, though most of them willing\nto receive William in his capacity as stadholder, declined to give a\nhearing to the commission. Amsterdam refused absolutely to admit either\nstadholder or commission. In these circumstances William resolved upon\nstrong measures. Six leading members of the States of Holland were\nseized (30th of July 1650) and imprisoned in Loevenstein Castle, and\ntroops under the command of William Frederick, stadholder of Friesland,\nwere sent to surprise Amsterdam. But the town council had been warned,\nand the gates were shut and guarded. The _coup d'etat_ nevertheless was\ncompletely successful. The anti-Orange party, remembering the fate of\nOldenbarneveldt, were stricken with panic at the imprisonment of their\nleaders. The States of Holland and the town council of Amsterdam gave in\ntheir submission. The prisoners were released, and public thanks were\nrendered to the prince by the various provincial states for \"his great\ntrouble, care and prudence.\" William appeared to be master of the\nsituation but his plans for future action were never to be carried into\neffect. Busily engaged in secret negotiations with France, he had\nretired to his hunting seat at Dieren, when he fell ill with smallpox on\nthe 27th of October. A few days later he expired at the Hague (6th of\nNovember), aged but twenty-four years. A week after his death, his\nwidow, the princess Mary of England, gave birth to a son who, as William\nIII., was to give added lustre to the house of Orange.\n\n\n The Grand Assembly.\n\nThe anti-Orange particularist party, which had just suffered decisive\ndefeat, now lifted up its head again. At the instance of Holland a Grand\nAssembly was summoned, consisting of delegates from all the provinces,\nto consider the state of the Union, the army and religion. It met at the\nHague on the 18th of January 1651. The conclusions arrived at were that\nall sovereign powers resided in the provinces, and that to them\nseverally, each within its own borders, belonged the control of the\nmilitary forces and of religion. There was to be no captain-general of\nthe Union. All the provinces, except Friesland and Groningen, which\nremained true to William Frederick of Nassau-Dietz, agreed to leave the\noffice of stadholder vacant. The practical result was the establishment\nof the hegemony of Holland in the Union, and the handing over of the\ncontrol of its policy to the patrician oligarchies who formed the town\ncouncils of that province.\n\n\n The office of Grand Pensionary.\n\n John de Witt.\n\nSuch a system would have been unworkable but for the fact that with the\nrevival of the political principles of Oldenbarneveldt, there was found\na statesman of commanding ability to fill the office in which the famous\nadvocate of Holland had for so many years been \"minister of all affairs\"\nin the forming state. The title of advocate had indeed been replaced by\nthat of grand pensionary (_Raad Pensionaris_), but the duties assigned\nto the office remained the same, the only change of importance being\nthat the advocate was appointed for life, the grand pensionary for a\nterm of five years. The grand pensionary was nominally the paid servant\nof the States of Holland, but his functions were such as to permit a man\nof talent and industry in the stadholderless republic to exercise\ncontrol in all departments of policy and of government. All\ncorrespondence passed through his hands, he wrote all despatches,\nconducted the debates over which he presided, kept the minutes, drafted\nthe resolutions, and was _ex officio_ the leader and spokesman of the\ndelegates who represented the Province of Holland in the States-General.\nSuch was the position to which John de Witt, a young man of twenty-eight\nyears of age, belonging to one of the most influential patrician\nfamilies of Dordrecht (his father, Jacob de Witt, was one of the\nprisoners of Loevenstein) was appointed in 1653. From that date until\n1672 it was his brain and his will that guided the affairs of the United\nNetherlands. He was supreme in the States of Holland, and Holland was\ndominant in the States-General (see JOHN DE WITT).\n\n\n Disputes between English and Dutch Traders.\n\n Naval struggle with England.\n\n Peace of Westminster.\n\n Act of Seclusion.\n\nThe death of William II. had left the Dutch republic at the very highest\npoint of commercial prosperity, based upon an almost universal carrying\ntrade, and the strictest system of monopoly. Friction and disputes had\nfrequently arisen between the Dutch and the English traders in different\nparts of the world, and especially in the East Indies, culminating in\nthe so-called \"Massacre of Amboyna\"; and the strained relations between\nthe two nations would, but for the civil discords in England, have\nprobably led to active hostilities during the reign of Charles I. With\nthe accession of Cromwell to power the breach was widened. A strong\nparty in the Provinces were unfriendly to the Commonwealth, and insults\nwere offered in the Hague to the English envoys. The parliament replied\nby passing the memorable Navigation Act (Oct. 1651), which struck a\ndeadly blow at the Dutch carrying trade. It was the beginning of that\nstruggle for supremacy upon the seas which was to end, after three great\nwars, in the defeat of the weaker country. The first English war lasted\nfrom May 1652 to April 1654, and within fifteen months twelve sea-fights\ntook place, which were desperately contested and with varying success.\nThe leaders on both sides--the Netherlanders Tromp (killed in action on\nthe 10th of August 1653) and de Ruyter, the Englishmen Blake and\nMonk--covered themselves with equal glory. But the losses to Dutch trade\nwere so serious that negotiations for peace were set on foot by the\nburgher party of Holland, and Cromwell being not unwilling, an agreement\nwas reached in the Treaty of Westminster, signed on the 5th of April\n1654. The Dutch conceded the striking of the flag and compensation for\nEnglish claims against the Dutch in the East Indies and elsewhere. The\nact of Seclusion, which barred the young prince of Orange from holding\nthe office of stadholder and of captain-general, had been one of the\nconditions on which Cromwell had insisted. The consent of the\nStates-General was refused, but by a secret treaty Holland, under the\ninfluence of de Witt, accepted it in their own name as a sovereign\nprovince. The popular feeling throughout the United Provinces was\nstrongly antagonistic to the act of Seclusion, by which at the dictation\nof a foreign power a ban of exclusion was pronounced against the house\nof Orange-Nassau, to which the republic owed its independence.\n\n\n War with Sweden.\n\nIn 1658, the States-General interfered to save the Danes from Charles\nGustavus of Sweden. In 1659 a treaty of peace was concluded between\nFrance, England and the United Provinces with a view to the settlement\nof the Dano-Swedish question, which ended in securing a northern peace\nin 1660, and in keeping the Baltic open for Dutch trade. The foreign\naffairs of the republic were throughout these years ably conducted by de\nWitt, and the position of Dutch colonial expansion in the Eastern seas\nmade secure and firm. An advantageous peace with Portugal was made in\n1662.\n\n\n Second English war.\n\n Peace of Breda.\n\n The Triple Alliance.\n\nMeanwhile the Commonwealth in England had been followed in 1660 by the\nrestoration of the monarchy. To conciliate the new king the act of\nSeclusion was repealed, and the education of the young prince of Orange\nwas undertaken by the States of Holland under the superintendence of de\nWitt. But Charles owed a grudge against Holland, and he was determined\nto gratify it. The Navigation Act was re-enacted, old grievances\nrevived, and finally the Dutch colony of New Netherland was seized in\ntime of peace (1664) and its capital, New Amsterdam, renamed New York.\nWar broke out in 1665, and was marked by a series of terrific battles.\nOn the 13th of June 1665 the Dutch admiral Obdam was completely defeated\nby the English under the duke of York. The four days' fight (11th-14th\nof June 1666) ended in a hard-won victory by de Ruyter over Monk, but\nlater in this year (August 3rd) de Ruyter was beaten by Ayscue and\nforced to take refuge in the Dutch harbours. He had his revenge, for on\nthe 22nd of June 1667 the Dutch fleet under de Ruyter and Cornelius de\nWitt made their way up the Medway as far as Chatham and burnt the\nEnglish fleet as it lay at anchor. Negotiations between the two\ncountries were already in progress and this event hastened a settlement.\nThe peace of Breda was signed (31st of July 1667) on terms on the whole\nfavourable to the Dutch. New Netherland was retained by England in\nexchange for Suriname. In the following year by the efforts of Sir\nWilliam Temple the much vaunted Triple Alliance was concluded between\nGreat Britain, the United Provinces and Sweden to check the ambitious\ndesigns of Louis XIV. The instability of Charles II., who sold himself\nto Louis by the treaty of Dover (1670), speedily rendered it of no\neffect, and left the United Provinces to face unaided the vengeance of\nthe French king.\n\n\n The French invasion.\n\n William III. Stadholder and Captain-general.\n\n The third English war.\n\n Murder of the Brothers de Witt.\n\nFrom 1668 to 1672 Louis made ready to destroy the Dutch, and so well had\nhis diplomacy served him that they were left without a friend in Europe.\nIn 1672 the storm broke: the English without a declaration of war tried,\nunsuccessfully, to intercept the Dutch Mediterranean fleet; and the\nFrench at the same time set forth in apparently irresistible strength to\novercome the despised traders of Holland. The States were ill-prepared\non land though their fleet was strong and ready; party spirit had become\nintensely bitter as the prince of Orange (see WILLIAM III.) grew to\nman's estate, and the ruling burgher party, knowing how great was the\npopularity of William, especially in the army, had purposely neglected\ntheir land forces. Town after town fell before the French armies, and to\nde Witt and his supporters there seemed to be nothing left but to make\nsubmission and accept the best terms that Louis XIV. would grant. The\nyoung prince alone rose to the height of the occasion, and set his face\nagainst such cowardly counsels, and he had the enthusiastic support of\nthe great majority of the people. Amidst general acclamation William was\nelected stadholder, first of Zeeland, then of Holland, and was appointed\ncaptain-general of the Union (June 1672). Meanwhile the fleet under de\nRuyter had encountered a combined English and French force in Solebay\n(7th of June), and after a desperate fight, in which the French had but\nslackly supported their allies, had more then held its own. William, in\nhis turn, with an army wholly insufficient to meet the French in the\nopen field, was able to persuade his countrymen to open the dikes and by\nflooding the land to prevent its occupation by the enemy. The courage\nand resourcefulness of their youthful leader inspired the people to make\nheroic sacrifices for their independence, but unfortunately such was the\nrevulsion of feeling against the grand pensionary, that he himself and\nhis brother Cornelius were torn in pieces by an infuriated mob at the\nHague (20th of August).\n\n\n Peace of Westminster.\n\n The war with France.\n\n Death of de Ruyter.\n\n Peace of Nymwegen.\n\nWilliam, now supreme in the States, while on land struggling with\nchequered success against the superior forces of the French, strove by\nhis diplomacy, and not in vain, to gain allies for the republic. The\ngrowing power of France caused alarm to her neighbours, and Sweden,\nDenmark, Spain and the emperor lent a willing ear to the persuasions of\nthe stadholder and were ready to aid his efforts to curb the ambition of\nLouis. On sea in 1673 de Ruyter, in a series of fiercely contested\nbattles, successfully maintained his strenuous and dogged conflict\nagainst the united English and French fleets. In England the war was\nexceedingly unpopular, and public opinion forced Charles II. to conclude\npeace. The treaty of Westminster, which provided that all conquests\nshould be restored, was signed on the 14th of February 1674. The French\nnow found themselves threatened on many sides, and were reduced to the\ndefensive. The prince, however, suffered a defeat at Seneff, and was in\n1674 prevented from invading France. The war, nevertheless, during the\nfollowing years was on the whole advantageous to the Dutch. In 1676 a\nDutch squadron fought two hard but indecisive battles with a superior\nFrench force, off Stromboli (8th of January) and off Messina (22nd of\nApril). In the last-named fight Admiral de Ruyter was badly wounded and\ndied (29th of April). In 1677 negotiations for peace went on, and were\nforwarded by the marriage, at the close of the year, of William of\nOrange with his cousin the princess Mary, daughter of the duke of York.\nAt last (August 1678) a peace was concluded at Nymwegen by which the\nDutch secured the integrity and independence of their country. All the\nconquests made by the French were given up.\n\n\n League of Augsburg.\n\n Revolution of 1688.\n\n The Grand Alliance.\n\n William and Heinsius.\n\nThe aggressive policy of Louis XIV. in the years that followed the peace\nof Nymwegen enabled William to lay the foundations of the famous\nconfederacy which changed the whole aspect of European politics. The\nleague of Augsburg (1686), which followed the revocation of the edict of\nNantes, placed Orange at the head of the resistance to French\ndomination. The league was formed by the emperor, Spain, Sweden, the\nUnited Provinces and by several German states. In England William and\nMary were looked upon as the natural successors to the throne on the\ndeath of James II., and William kept up close relations with the\nmalcontents in Church and State, who disliked the arbitrary and\npapistical policy of his father-in-law. But with the birth of a prince\nof Wales the situation was changed, and William determined to intervene\nactively in English affairs. His opportunity came when Louis XIV.,\nhaving declared war against the Empire, had invaded the Palatinate. The\nopposition of Amsterdam to an English expedition, in the absence of\ndanger from the side of France, was overcome. The Revolution of 1688\nensued, and England became, under William's strong rule, the chief\nmember of the Great Coalition against French aggression. In the Grand\nAlliance of 1689-1690 he was accused of sacrificing Dutch to English\ninterests, but there can be no doubt that William loved his native\ncountry better than his adopted one, and was a true patriot. If the\nUnited Provinces suffered in prosperity through their close relations\nwith and subordination to Great Britain during a long series of years,\nit was due not to the policy of William, but to the fact that the\nterritory of the republic was small, open to attack by great military\npowers, and devoid of natural resources. The stadholder's authority and\npopularity continued unimpaired, despite of his frequent absences in\nEngland. He had to contend, like his predecessors, with the perennial\nhostility of the burgher aristocracy of Amsterdam, and at times with\nother refractory town councils, but his power in the States during his\nlife was almost autocratic. His task was rendered lighter by the\ninfluence and ability of Heinsius, the grand pensionary of Holland, a\nwise and prudent statesman, whose tact and moderation in dealing with\nthe details and difficulties of internal administration were\nconspicuous. The stadholder gave to Heinsius his fullest confidence, and\nthe pensionary on his part loyally supported William's policy and placed\nhis services ungrudgingly at his disposal (see HEINSIUS).\n\n\n War with France.\n\n Peace of Ryswick.\n\n Death of William III.\n\nThe conduct of the war by the allies was far from successful. In 1690\n(July 1st) Waldeck was defeated by Luxemburg at Fleurus; and the\nAnglo-Dutch fleet was so severely handled by Tourville (10th July) off\nBeachy Head that for two years the command of the sea remained in the\npossession of the French. A striking victory off Cape la Hogue (29th of\nMay 1692) restored, however, supremacy to the allies. On land the\ncombined armies fared ill. In 1691 the French took Mons, and in 1692\nNamur, in which year after a hard-fought battle William was defeated at\nSteenkirk and in 1693 at Neerwinden. But William's military genius never\nshone so brightly as in the hour of defeat; he never knew what it was to\nbe beaten, and in 1695 his recapture of Namur was a real triumph of\nskill and resolution. At last, after long negotiations, exhaustion\ncompelled the French king to sign the peace of Ryswick in 1697, in which\nWilliam was recognized by France as king of England, the Dutch obtaining\na favourable commercial treaty, and the right to garrison the Netherland\nbarrier towns. This peace, however, did no more than afford a breathing\nspace during which Louis XIV. prepared for a renewal of the struggle.\nThe great question of the Spanish succession was looming in all men's\neyes, and though partition treaties between the interested powers were\nconcluded in 1698 and 1700, it is practically certain that the French\nking held himself little bound by them. In 1701 he elbowed the Dutch\ntroops out of the barrier towns; he defied England by recognizing James\nIII. on the death of his father; and it was clear that another war was\nimminent when William III. died in 1702.\n\n\n Stadholderless Government.\n\nIn 1672 the stadholdership in five provinces had been made hereditary in\nthe family of the prince of Orange, but William died childless, and the\nrepublican burgher party was strong enough to prevent the posts being\nfilled up. William had wished that his cousin, Count John William Friso\nof Nassau, stadholder of Friesland and Groningen, should succeed him,\nbut his extreme youth and the jealousy of Holland against a \"Frisian\"\nstood in the way of his election. The result was a want of unity in\ncounsel and action among the provinces, Friesland and Groningen standing\naloof from the other five, while Holland and Zeeland had to pay for\ntheir predominance in the Union by being left to bear the bulk of the\ncharges. Fortunately there was no break of continuity in the policy of\nthe States, the chief conduct of affairs remaining, until his death in\n1720, in the capable and tried hands of the grand pensionary Heinsius,\nwho had at his side a number of exceptionally experienced and wise\ncounsellors--among these Simon van Slingeland, for forty-five years\n(1680-1725) secretary of the council of state, and afterwards grand\npensionary of Holland (1727-1736), and Francis Fagel, who succeeded his\nfather in 1699 as recorder (_Griffier_) of the States-General, and held\nthat important office for fifty years. The tradition of William III. was\nthus preserved, but with the loss of the firm hand and strong\npersonality of that great ruler the United Provinces were relegated to a\nsubordinate place in the councils of the nations, and with the gradual\ndecadence of its navy the Dutch republic ceased to rank as a power to be\nreckoned with.\n\n\n War of the Spanish Succession.\n\n Treaty of Utrecht.\n\nIn the War of the Spanish Succession, which broke out in 1702, Dutch\ntroops took part in the campaigns of Marlborough and Eugene, and had\ntheir share in winning the great victories of Blenheim (1704), Ramillies\n(1706), Oudenarde (1708) and Malplaquet (1709). At the peace of Utrecht,\nconcluded in 1713, the interests of the Netherlands were but\nhalf-heartedly supported by the English plenipotentiaries, and the\nFrench were able to obtain far more favourable terms than they had the\npower to exact. But they were compelled to abandon all claim to the\nSpanish Netherlands, which were formally handed over to the United\nProvinces, as trustees, to be by them, after the conclusion of a\nsatisfactory barrier treaty, given up to the emperor, and be known\nhenceforth as the Austrian Netherlands. The peace of Utrecht taught the\nDutch that the great powers around them, while ready to use their\nresources for war, would not scruple to abandon them when they wanted\npeace; they, therefore, determined henceforth to stand clear of all\nforeign complications. With 1713 the influence of the United Netherlands\nupon European politics comes almost to an end.\n\n\n Peace policy.\n\n Ostend East India Company.\n\n War of the Austrian Succession.\n\n Revolution of 1747.\n\n William IV.\n\nThe ruling party in the States took an active part in securing George I.\non the throne of England; and they succeeded in coming to an agreement\nboth with France and with Austria over the difficulties connected with\nthe barrier towns, and were thus able in tranquillity to concentrate\ntheir energies upon furthering the interests of their trade. Under the\nclose oligarchical rule of the patrician families, who filled all\noffices in the town councils, the States of Holland, in which the\ninfluence of Amsterdam was dominant, and which in their turn exercised\npredominance in the States-General, became more and more an assembly of\n\"shopkeepers\" whose policy was to maintain peace for the sake of the\ncommerce on which they thrived. For thirty years after the peace of\nUtrecht the Provinces kept themselves free from entanglement in the\nquarrels of their neighbours. The foundation of the Ostend East India\nCompany (see OSTEND COMPANY), however, by the emperor Joseph II. in\n1723, at once aroused the strong opposition of the Amsterdam merchants\nwho looked upon this invasion of their monopoly with alarm, and declared\nthat the Ostend Company had been set up in contravention to the terms of\nArticle V. of the treaty of Munster. In maintaining this position the\nStates had the support of England, but it was not until 1731 that they\nsucceeded in obtaining the suppression of the company by consenting to\nguarantee the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VI. This step led in 1743 to\ntheir being involved in the War of the Austrian Succession, and thus\nbeing drawn into hostilities with France, which invaded the barrier\ncountry. In 1744 they formed with Great Britain, Austria and Saxony, a\nQuadruple Alliance, and put a contingent of troops in the field. The\nDutch took an active part in the campaign of 1745 and suffered heavily\nat Fontenoy, after which battle Marshal Saxe overran the Austrian\nNetherlands. The French captured all the barrier towns, and in 1747\nentered Dutch Flanders and made an easy conquest. The United Provinces,\nas in 1672, seemed to lie at the mercy of their enemies, and as in that\neventful year, popular feeling broke down the opposition of the burgher\noligarchies, and turned to William IV., prince of Orange, as the saviour\nof the state. John William Friso had died young in 1711, leaving a\nposthumous son, William Charles Henry Friso, who was duly elected\nstadholder by the two provinces, Friesland and Groningen, which were\nalways faithful to his family, and in 1722 he became also, though with\nvery limited powers, stadholder of Gelderland. The other provinces,\nhowever, under pressure from Holland, bound themselves not to elect\nstadholders, and they refused to revive the office of captain-general of\nthe Union. By the conquest of Dutch Flanders Zeeland was threatened, and\nthe states of that province, in which there were always many Orange\npartisans, elected (April 1747) William stadholder, captain-general and\nadmiral of Zeeland. The example once given was infectious, and was\nfollowed in rapid succession by Holland, Utrecht and Overysel. Finally\nthe States-General (May 4) appointed the prince, who was the first\nmember of his family to be stadholder of all the seven provinces,\ncaptain and admiral-general of the Union, and a little later these\noffices were declared hereditary in both the male and female lines.\n\n\n Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle.\n\n Death of William IV.\n\n Anne of England Regent.\n\nWilliam IV., though not a man of great ability, was sincerely anxious to\ndo his utmost for securing the maintenance of peace, and the development\nof the resources and commercial prosperity of the country, and his\npowerful dynastic connexions (he had married Anne, eldest daughter of\nGeorge II.) gave him weight in the councils of Europe. The peace of\nAix-la-Chapelle, in 1748, in which the influence of Great Britain was\nexerted on behalf of the States, though it nominally restored the old\ncondition of things, left the Provinces crippled by debt, and fallen low\nfrom their old position among the nations. At first the stadholder's\nefforts to promote the trade and welfare of the country were hampered by\nthe distrust and opposition of Amsterdam, and other strongholds of\nanti-Orange feeling, and just as his good intentions were becoming more\ngenerally recognized, William unfortunately died, on the 22nd of October\n1751, aged forty years, leaving his three-year-old son, William V., heir\nto his dignities. The princess Anne of England became regent, but she\nhad a difficult part to play, and on the outbreak of the Seven Years'\nWar in which the Provinces were determined to maintain neutrality, her\nEnglish leanings brought much unpopularity upon her. She died in 1759,\nand for the next seven years the regency passed into the hands of the\nStates, and the government was practically stadholderless.\n\n\n William V.\n\n The Armed Neutrality.\n\n War with England.\n\n Peace of Paris.\n\nIn 1766 William V. was declared to be of age; and his accession to power\nwas generally welcomed. He was, however, a weak man, without energy or\nresolution, and he allowed himself to be entirely led by his old\nguardian the duke of Brunswick, and by his wife Frederica Wilhelmina of\nPrussia, a woman of marked ability, to whom he entirely deferred. In the\nAmerican War of Independence William's sympathies were strongly on the\nEnglish side, while those of the majority of the Dutch people were with\nthe revolted colonies. It is, however, certain that nothing would have\ndriven the Provinces to take part in the war but for the overbearing\nattitude of the British government with regard to the right of neutral\nshipping upon the seas, and the heavy losses sustained by Dutch commerce\nat the hands of British privateers. The famous agreement, known as the\n\"Armed Neutrality,\" with which in 1780 the States of the continent at\nthe instigation of Catherine II. of Russia replied to the maritime\nclaims put forward by Great Britain drew the Provinces once more into\nthe arena of European politics. Every effort was made by the English to\nprevent the Dutch from joining the league, and in this they were\nassisted by the stadholder, but at last the States-General, though only\nby the bare majority of four provinces against three, determined to\nthrow in their lot with the opponents of England. Nothing could have\nbeen more unfortunate, for the country was not ready for war, and party\nspirit was too strong for united action to be taken or vigorous\npreparations to be made. When war broke out Dutch commerce was\ndestroyed, and the Dutch colonies were at the mercy of the English fleet\nwithout the possibility of a blow being struck in their defence. An\nindecisive, but bravely fought action with Admiral Parker at the Dogger\nBank showed, however, that the Dutch seamen had lost none of their old\ndogged courage, and did much to soothe the national sense of\nhumiliation. In the negotiations of the Treaty of Paris (1783) the Dutch\nfound themselves abandoned by their allies, and compelled to accept the\ndisadvantageous but not ungenerous terms accorded to them by Great\nBritain. They had to sacrifice some of their East Indian possessions and\nto concede to the English freedom of trade in the Eastern seas.\n\n\n The \"Patriot\" Party.\n\n Intervention of the King of Prussia.\n\n Difficulty with the Emperor.\n\n Prussian Invasion.\n\n Restoration to power of William V.\n\nOne result of this humiliating and disastrous war was the strengthening\nof the hands of the anti-Orange burgher-regents, who had now arrogated\nto themselves the name of \"patriots.\" It was they, and not the\nstadholder, who had been mainly responsible for the Provinces joining\n\"the Armed Neutrality,\" but the consequences of the war, in which this\nact had involved them, was largely visited upon the prince of Orange.\nThe \"patriot\" party did their utmost to curtail his prerogatives, and\nharass him with petty insults, and at last the Prussian king was obliged\nto interfere to save his niece, who was even more unpopular than her\nweak husband, from being driven from the country. In 1784 the emperor\nJoseph II. took advantage of the dissensions in the Provinces to raise\nthe question of the opening of the Scheldt. He himself was, however, no\nmore prepared for attack than the Republic for defence, but the Dutch\nhad already sunk so low, that they agreed to pay a heavy indemnity to\ninduce the Austrians to drop a demand they were unable to enforce. To\nhold the mouth of the Scheldt and prevent at all costs a revival of\nAntwerp as a commercial port had been for two centuries a cardinal point\nof Dutch policy. This difficulty removed, the agitation of the\n\"patriots\" against the stadholderate form of government increased in\nviolence, and William speedily found his position untenable. An insult\noffered to the prince of Orange in 1787 led to an invasion of the\ncountry by a Prussian army. Amsterdam capitulated, the country was\noccupied, and the patriot leaders declared incapable of holding any\noffice. The Orange party was completely triumphant, and William V.,\nunder the protection of Prussia and England, with which states the\nUnited Provinces were compelled to ally themselves, was restored to\npower. It was, however, impossible to make the complicated and creaking\nmachinery of the constitution of the worn-out republic of the United\nNetherlands work smoothly, and in all probability it would have been\nwithin a very short time replaced by an hereditary monarchy, had not the\ncataclysm of the French Revolution swept it away from its path, never to\nbe revived.\n\n\n The French invade the Netherlands.\n\n Overthrow of the Stadholderate.\n\n Flight of William V.\n\n The Batavian Republic.\n\n Changes of Government.\n\nWhen war broke out between the French revolutionary government and the\ncoalition of kings, the Provinces remained neutral as long as they\ncould. It was not till Dumouriez had overrun all the Austrian\nNetherlands in 1792, and had thrown open the passage of the Scheldt,\nthat they were drawn into the war. The patriot party sided with the\nFrench, but for various reasons the conquest of the country was delayed\nuntil 1795. In the closing months of 1794 Pichegru, at the head of a\nlarge and victorious army, invaded the Provinces. The very severe frost\nof that winter gave his troops an easy passage over all the rivers and\nlow-lying lands; town after town fell before him; he occupied Amsterdam,\nand crossing the ice with his cavalry took the Dutch fleet, as it lay\nfrost-bound at the Texel. The stadholder and his family fled to England,\nand the disorganized remnants of the allied forces under the duke of\nYork retreated into Germany. The \"patriots,\" as the anti-Orange\nrepublicans still styled themselves, received the French with open arms\nand public rejoicings, and the government was reorganized so as to bring\nit into close harmony with that of Paris. The stadholderate, the offices\nof captain and admiral-general, and all the ancient organization of the\nUnited Netherlands were abolished, and were transformed into the\nBatavian Republic, in close alliance with France. But the Dutch had soon\ncause to regret their revolutionary ardour. French alliance meant French\ndomination, and participation in the wars of the Revolution. Its\nconsequences were the total ruin of Dutch commerce, and the seizure of\nall the Dutch colonies by the English. Internally one change of\ngovernment succeeded another; after the States-General came a national\nconvention; then in 1798 a constituent assembly with an executive\ndirectory; then chambers of representatives; then a return to the\nearlier systems under the names of the eight provincial and one central\nCommissions (1801). These changes were the outcome of a gradual reaction\nin a conservative direction.\n\n\n Constitution of 1805.\n\n Louis Bonaparte King of Holland.\n\n The Sovereign Prince.\n\n Creation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.\n\n The Hundred Days.\n\n William I. crowned at Brussels.\n\n Constitution of the Netherlands.\n\nThe peace of Amiens gave the country a little rest, and the Dutch got\nback the Cape of Good Hope and their West Indian colonies; it was,\nhowever, but the brief and deceptive interlude between two storms; when\nwar began again England once more took possession of all she had\nrestored. In 1805 the autocratic will of Napoleon Bonaparte imposed upon\nthem a new constitution, and Rutger Jan Schimmelpenninck (1765-1825) was\nmade, under the ancient title of grand pensionary, head of the\ngovernment. In the next year the French emperor added Holland, as the\nUnited Provinces were now named, to the ring of dependent sovereignties,\nby means of which he sought to build up a universal empire, and he\nforced his brother Louis to be the unwilling king of an unwilling\npeople. The new king was a man of excellent intentions and did his best\nto promote the interest of his subjects, but finding himself unable to\nprotect them from the despotic overlordship of his brother, after a four\nyears' reign, Louis abdicated. In 1810 the Northern Netherlands by\ndecree of Napoleon were incorporated in the French empire, and had to\nbear the burdens of conscription and of a crushing weight of taxation.\nThe defeat of Leipzig in 1813 was the signal for a general revolt in the\nNetherlands; the prince of Orange (son of William V.) was recalled, and\namidst general rejoicing accepted at Amsterdam the offer of the\nsovereignty under a free constitution (Dec. 1, 1813), with the title of\nsovereign prince. On the downfall of Napoleon the great powers\ndetermined to create in the Low Countries a powerful state, and by the\ntreaty of London (June 14, 1814) the Belgians were united with the Dutch\nprovinces to form the kingdom of the Netherlands, which was also to\ninclude the bishopric of Liege and the duchy of Bouillon, and the prince\nof Orange was placed upon the throne on the 15th of March 1815 as\nWilliam I., king of the Netherlands (see WILLIAM I., king of the\nNetherlands). The ancestral possessions of the House of Nassau were\nexchanged for Luxemburg, of which territory King William in his personal\ncapacity became grand duke. The carrying out of the treaty was delayed\nby the Hundred Days' campaign, which for a short time threatened its\nvery existence. The daring invasion of Napoleon, however, afforded the\nDutch and Belgian contingents of the allied army the opportunity to\nfight side by side under the command of William, prince of Orange,\neldest son of the new king, who highly distinguished himself by his\ngallantry at Quatre Bras, and afterwards at Waterloo where he was\nwounded (see WILLIAM II., king of the Netherlands). The Congress of\nVienna confirmed the arrangements made by the treaty of London, and\nWilliam I. was crowned king of the Netherlands at Brussels on the 27th\nof September 1815. Under the constitution the king, as hereditary\nsovereign, possessed full executive powers, and the initiative in\nproposing laws. He had the power of appointing his own council of state.\nThe legislative body bore the time-honoured title of States-General, and\nwas divided into an Upper Chamber nominated by the king, and a Lower\nChamber elected by the people. Freedom of worship, freedom of the press,\nand political equality were principles of the constitution, guaranteed\nto all.\n\n\n Difference between the Dutch and Belgic provinces.\n\n The Belgian Revolution.\n\n Reign of William II.\n\n Accession of William III.\n\n The Constitution of 1848.\n\n Political parties in the Netherlands.\n\nThe union of the Dutch and Belgian provinces, like so many of the\nterritorial arrangements of the Congress of Vienna, was an attempt to\ncreate a strong state out of diverse and jarring elements. It was an\nartificial union, which nothing but consummate tact and statesmanship\ncould have rendered permanent and solid. North and south were divided\nfrom one another by religious belief, by laws and usages, by material\ninterests, and by two centuries and a half of widely severed national\nlife. The Belgians were strict Catholics, the Dutch Calvinistic\nProtestants. The Dutch were chiefly a commercial and seafaring people,\nwith interests in distant lands and colonial possessions; the Belgians\nwere agriculturists, except where their abundance of minerals made them\nmanufacturers. The national traits of the Dutch were a blend of German\nand English, the national leaning of the Belgians was towards France and\nFrench ideals. Nevertheless the materials were there out of which a\nreally broad-minded and conciliatory handling of religion and racial\ndifficulties might have gradually built up a Netherland nation able to\nhold from its population and resources a considerable place among\nEuropean powers. For it must not be forgotten that some two-thirds of\nthe Belgian people are by origin and language of the same race as the\nDutch. But when difficulties and differences arose between North and\nSouth, as they were sure to arise, they were not dealt with wisely. The\nking had good intentions, but his mind was warped by Dutch prejudices,\nand he was ill-advised and acted unadvisedly. The consequences were the\nBelgian Revolution of 1830, which ended in the intervention of the great\npowers, and the setting up, in 1831, of Belgium as an independent\nkingdom. The final settlement of outstanding questions between the two\ncountries was not reached till 1839 (for an account of the Belgian\nRevolution, see BELGIUM). King William I. in the following year, having\nbecome unpopular through his resistance to reform, resigned his crown to\nhis son William II., who reigned in peace till his death in 1849, when\nhe was succeeded by his eldest son William III. (see WILLIAM III., king\nof the Netherlands). His accession marked the beginning of\nconstitutional government in the Netherlands. William I. had been to a\nlarge extent a personal ruler, but William II., though for a time\nfollowing in his father's steps, had been moved by the revolutionary\noutbreaks of 1848 to concede a revision of the constitution. The\nfundamental law of 1848 enacted that the first chamber of the\nStates-General should be elected by the Provincial Estates instead of\nbeing appointed by the king, and that the second chamber should be\nelected directly by all persons paying a certain amount in taxation.\nMinisters were declared responsible to the States-General, and a liberal\nmeasure of self-government was also granted. During the long reign of\nWilliam III. (1849-1890) the chief struggles of parties in the\nNetherlands centred round religious education. On the one side are the\nliberals, divided into moderates and progressives, the representatives\nto a large extent of the commercial towns. Opposed to them is the\ncoalition of the orthodox Protestant conservatives, styled\nanti-revolutionaries, supported by the Calvinistic peasantry, and the\nCatholics, who represent about one-third of the population and have\ntheir headquarters in Dutch Brabant, Dutch Flanders and Limburg. There\nis also in the Netherlands a small, but very strenuous socialist party,\nwhich was founded by the active propaganda of an ex-pastor\nDomela-Nieuwenhuis. It draws its chief strength from Amsterdam and\ncertain country districts of Friesland.\n\n\n Religious education.\n\nThe liberals were in power from 1871 to 1888 continuously, but a\nCatholic-anti-revolutionary ministry under Baron Mackay held office from\n1888 to 1891, and again a coalition ministry was formed in 1901 with Dr\nKuyper at its head. From 1894 to 1897 a ministry of moderate liberals\nsupported by a large part of the Catholic and anti-revolutionary parties\nwere in power. The constitution of 1848 made it the duty of the state to\nprovide free primary secular education, but it allowed to members of all\ncreeds the liberty of establishing private schools, and this was carried\ninto effect by a law passed in 1857 by the joint efforts of the liberals\nand Catholics against the opposition of the orthodox Calvinists. But the\nlong liberal ascendancy closed the ranks of the Catholic-Calvinist\ncoalition, and united them against the neutral schools, and in 1889 they\nwere able to pass a law enabling not only the unsectarian public\nschools, but all private schools organized by societies and bodies\nrecognized by the law to receive subventions from the state. In 1890\nthere were 3000 public schools with 450,000 scholars and 1300 private\nschools with 195,000 scholars.\n\n\n Extension of the suffrage.\n\n Military service.\n\nThe subject of the extension of the franchise has also been the cause of\nviolent party strife and controversy. It was taken in hand as early as\n1872, but as a revision of the constitution was necessary, no change was\nactually carried out till 1887. The law of that year lowered the\nqualification of the payer of a direct tax to 10 fl. Votes were given to\nall householders paying a certain _minimum_ house duty, and to all\nlodgers who had for a given time paid a _minimum_ of rent, also to all\nwho possessed certain educational and social qualifications, whose\ndefinition was left to be specified by a later law. The passing of such\na law was deferred by the coalition (Catholic-Orthodox) ministry of\n1888-1891. The liberal ministry of 1891 attempted to deal with the\nquestion, and a proposal was made by the minister Tak van Poortvliet,\nwhich almost amounted to universal suffrage. The educational\nqualification was to be able to write, the social that of not receiving\ncharitable relief. This proposal caused a cleavage right through all\nparties. It was supported by the radical left, by a large portion of the\nOrthodox-Calvinists under Dr Kuyper, and by some Catholics; it had\nagainst it the moderate liberals, the aristocratic section of the\nOrthodox-Calvinists, the bulk of the Catholics, and a few radicals under\nan influential leader van Houten. After a fierce electoral fight the\nTakkians were victors at the first polls, but were beaten at the second\nballots. Of the 46 Takkians, 35 were liberals; of the 54 anti-Takkians,\n24 were Catholics. A moderate liberal ministry was formed (1894) and in\n1896 carried into law what was known as the van Houten project. It gave\nthe right of voting to all Dutchmen over twenty-five years of age, who\npaid 1 fl. in direct taxation; were householders or lodgers as defined\nin 1887, or tenants of a vessel of, at least, 24 tons; were the\nrecipients of certain salaries or had certain deposits in the public\nfunds or savings banks. By this reform the number of electors, which had\nbeen raised in 1887 from 140,000 to 300,000, was augmented to 700,000.\nThe question of universal military service has also divided parties. The\nprinciple of personal service has been strongly opposed by the Catholics\nand conservatives, but became the law of the land in 1898, though\nexemptions were conceded in favour of ecclesiastics and certain classes\nof students.\n\n\n The Achin war.\n\nThe long-continued and costly wars with the sultan of Achin have during\na series of years been a source of trouble to Dutch ministries. In\n1871-1872 Great Britain, in exchange for certain possessions of Holland\non the coast of Guinea, agreed to recognize the right of the Dutch to\noccupy the north of Sumatra. The sultan of Achin opposed by force of\narms the efforts of the Dutch to make their occupation effective, and\nhas succeeded in maintaining a vigorous resistance, the Dutch colonial\ntroops suffering severely from the effects of the insalubrious climate.\nUntil 1871 the surplus derived from the colonial budget had been turned\ninto a deficit, and the necessity of imposing fresh taxes to meet the\nwar expenses has led to the downfall both of individual ministries and\nof cabinets.\n\n\n Queen Wilhelmina.\n\nWilliam III. dying in 1890 was succeeded by his only surviving child,\nWilhelmina. The new queen being a minor, her mother, the queen-dowager\nEmma, became regent. One effect of the accession of Queen Wilhelmina was\nthe severance of the bond between the Netherlands and Luxemburg. The\ngrand duchy, being hereditary only in the male line, passed to the\nnearest agnate, the duke of Nassau. In 1898 the queen, having reached\nthe age of eighteen, assumed the government. She married in 1901 Prince\nHenry of Mecklenburg. The outbreak of the Boer War in 1899 led to a\nstrong outburst of sympathy among the Dutch on behalf of their kinsmen\nin South Africa, and there were times during the war, especially after\nPresident Kruger had fled from the Transvaal in a Dutch war vessel and\nhad settled in Holland, when it was a task of some difficulty for the\nDutch government to prevent the relations between Great Britain and the\nNetherlands from becoming strained. The ministry, however, under Dr\nKuyper were able to keep the popular feeling in favour of the Boers in\nrestraint, and to maintain towards Great Britain a correct attitude of\nstrict neutrality. In 1903 the government took strong measures to\nprevent a threatened general strike of railway employees, the military\nwere called out, and occupied the stations. A bill was passed by the\nStates-General declaring railway strikes illegal. The elections of 1905\nfor the Second Chamber gave the liberals a narrow majority of four. Dr\nKuyper accordingly resigned, and a moderate liberal cabinet was formed\nby Th. H. de Meester. The fact that up to 1908 the queen had not become\na mother gradually caused some public concern as to the succession; but\nin 1909 Queen Wilhelmina, amid national rejoicings, gave birth to a\nprincess.\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY.--See (for the general history) J. Wagenaar,\n _Vaderlandsche historie_, to 1751 (21 vols., 1749-1759); continuation\n by Az. P. Loosjes, from 1751-1810 (48 vols., 1786-1811); W.\n Bilderdijk, _Geschiedenis der Vaderlands_ (13 vols., 1832-1853); Groen\n G. van Prinsterer, _Handboek der Geschiedenis van het Vaderland_ (6th\n ed., 1895); (for particular periods): L. ab Aitzema, _Saken van spaet\n en oorlogh in ende om trent de Vereenigde Nederlanden (1621-1668)_ (15\n vols., 1657-1671); continuation by Lambert van den Bos (Lambertus\n Sylvius) (4 vols., 1685-1699). The work of Aitzema contains a large\n number of important diplomatic and other documents; A. de Wicquefort,\n _Histoire des provinces des Pays-Bas depuis la paix de Munster_\n (1648-1658) (2 vols., 1719-1743); in these volumes will be also found\n a rich collection of original documents; R. Fruin, _Tien jaren uit den\n tactig jarigen oorlog (1588-1598)_, (6th ed., 1905), a standard work;\n J. L. Motley, _History of the United Netherlands (1584-1609)_, (4\n vols., 1860-1868); P. J. Blok, _History of the People of the\n Netherlands_, vol. iii. (1568-1621) (trans. by Ruth Putnam, 1900);\n _Cambridge Modern History_, vol. iii. ch. xix. and vol. iv. ch. xxv.\n (see the bibliographies); Ant. L. Pontales, _Vingt annees de\n republique parlementaire au 17me siecle. Jean de Witt, grand\n pensionnaire de Hollande_ (1884); E. C. de Gerlache, _Histoire du\n royaume des Pays-Bas 1814-1830_ (3 vols., 1859); Bosch J. de Kemper,\n _Geschiedenis van Nederland na 1830_ (5 vols., 1873-1882); also the\n following important works: Groen G. van Prinsterer, _Archives ou\n correspondance inedite de la maison d'Orange-Nassau_, 2^e serie\n (1584-1688) (5 vols., 1857-1860); J. de Witt, _Brieven (1652-1669)_ (6\n vols., 1723-1725); A. Kluit, _Historie der Hollandsche Staatsregering\n tot 1795_ (5 vols., 1802-1805); G. W. Vreede, _Inleiding tot eene\n geschiedenis der Nederlandsche diplomatic_ (6 vols., 1850-1865); J. C.\n de Jonge, _Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Zeewesen_, (6 vols.,\n 1833-1848); E. Luzac, _Holland's Rijkdom_ (4 vols., 1781); R. Fruin,\n _Geschiedenis der Staatsinstellingen in Nederland tot den val der\n Republick_, edn. Colenbrander (1901); N. G. van Kampen, _Geschiedenis\n der Nederlanders buiten Europa_ (4 vols., 1833); W. J. A. Jonckbloet,\n _Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Letterkunde_ (2 vols. 1881); C. Busken\n Huet, _Het Land van Rembrandt-studien over de Nordnederlandsche\n beschaving in de 17^e eeuw_ (2 vols., 1886); L. D. Petit, _Repertorium\n der verhandelingen en bijdragen betreffende de geschiedenis des\n Vaterlands in tijdschriften en mengel werken tot op 1900 verschenen_,\n 2 parts (1905); other parts of this valuable _repertorium_ are in\n course of publication. (G. E.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [1] At Maastricht, however, a portion lies on the left bank of the\n river, measured, according to the treaty with Belgium, 19th of April\n 1839, art. 4, by an average radius of 1200 Dutch fathoms (7874 ft.)\n from the outer glacis of the fortress.\n\n [2] The datum plane, or basis of the measurement of heights, is\n throughout Holland, and also in some of the border districts of\n Germany, the _Amsterdamsch Peil_ (A.P.), or Amsterdam water-level,\n and represents the average high water-level of the Y at Amsterdam at\n the time when it was still open to the Zuider Zee. Local and\n provincial \"peils\" are, however, also in use on some waterways.\n\n [3] See J. Lorie, _Contributions a la geologie des Pays-bas_\n (1885-1895), _Archives du Mus. Teyler_ (Haarlem), ser. 2, vol. ii.\n pp. 109-240, vol. iii. pp. 1-160, 375-461, vol. iv. pp. 165-309 and\n _Bull. soc. belge geol._ vol. iii. (1889); _Mem._ pp. 409-449; F. W.\n Harmer, \"On the Pliocene Deposits of Holland,\" &c., _Quart. Journ.\n Geol. Soc., London_, vol. lii. (1896) pp. 748-781, pls. xxxiv., xxxv.\n\n [4] The dates indicate the period of construction of the different\n sections.\n\n [5] For the history of the Netherlands previous to the confederacy of\n the northern provinces in 1579 see NETHERLANDS.\n\n\n\n\nHOLLAND, COUNTY AND PROVINCE OF.--The first mention of Holland in any\ndocument is found in an imperial _gift brief_ dated May 2nd, 1064. In\nthis the phrase \"_omnis comitatus in Hollandt_\" occurs, but without any\nfurther description of the locality indicated. A comparison with other\ndocumentary evidence, however, leads to the identification of Holland\nwith the _forestum Merweda_, or the bush-grown fenland lying between the\nWaal, the old Meuse and the Merwe. It is the district surrounding the\ntown of Dordrecht. A portion of the original Holland was submerged by a\ngreat inundation in 1421, and its modern appellation of Biesbosch\n(reed-forest) is descriptive of what must have been the condition of the\nentire district in early times. The word Holland is indeed by many\nauthorities thought to be a corruption of Holt-land (it was sometimes so\nspelt by 13th-century writers) and to signify wood-land. The earliest\nspelling is, however, Holland, and it is more probable that it means\nlowlying-land (hol = hollow), a derivation which is equally applicable\nto the district in Lincolnshire which bears the same name.\n\n\n The first Count of Holland.\n\nThe title count of Holland appears to have been first borne by the\nFrisian count Dirk III., who founded Dordrecht (about 1015) and made it\nhis residence (see below). It was not, however, till late in the 11th\ncentury that his successors adopted the style \"_Hollandensis comes_\" as\ntheir territorial designation (it is found for the first time on a seal\nof Dirk V. 1083), and that the name Holland became gradually extended\nnorthwards to connote all the land subject to the rule of the counts\nbetween Texel and the Maas.\n\n\n Dirk I.\n\n Dirk II.\n\n Extent of his dominions.\n\n Arnulf.\n\n Dirk III.\n\n Foundation of Dordrecht.\n\n Defeat of Godfrey of Lorraine.\n\n Beginning of the County of Holland.\n\nThe beginnings of the history of this feudal state (the later Holland)\ncentre round the abbey of Egmont in whose archives its records have been\npreserved. In 922 Charles the Simple gave in full possession to a count\nin Frisia, Dirk by name (a shortened form of Diederic, Latin\nTheodoricus), \"the church of Egmont with all that belonged to it from\nSwithardeshage to Kinhem.\" This man, usually known as Dirk I., died\nabout 939 and was succeeded by his son of the same name. Among the\nrecords of the abbey of Egmont is a document by which the emperor Arnulf\ngave to a certain count Gerolf the same land \"between Swithardeshage and\nKinhem,\" afterwards held by Dirk I. It is generally assumed that this\nGerolf was his father, otherwise their deed of gift would not have been\npreserved among the family papers. Dirk II. was the founder of the abbey\nof Egmont. His younger son Egbert became archbishop of Treves. His elder\nson Arnulf married Liutgardis, daughter of Siegfried of Luxemburg and\nsister-in-law of the emperor Henry II. He obtained from the emperor Otto\nIII., with whom he was in great favour in 983, a considerable extension\nof territory, that now covered by the Zuider Zee and southward down to\nNijmwegen. In the deed of gift he is spoken of as holding the three\ncountships of Maasland, Kinhem or Kennemerland and Texla or Texel; in\nother words his rule extended over the whole country from the right bank\nof the Maas or Meuse to the Vlie. He appears also to have exercised\nauthority at Ghent. He died in 988. Arnulf was count till 993, when he\nwas slain in battle against the west Frisians, and was succeeded by his\ntwelve-year-old son Dirk III. During the guardianship of his mother,\nLiutgardis, the boy was despoiled of almost all his possessions, except\nKennemerland and Maasland. But no sooner was he arrived at man's estate\nthan Dirk turned upon his enemies with courage and vigour. He waged war,\nsuccessfully with Adelbold, the powerful bishop of Utrecht, and made\nhimself master not only of his ancestral possessions, but of the\ndistrict on the Meuse known as the Bushland of Merweda (_forestum\nMerweda_), hitherto subject to the see of Utrecht. In the midst of this\nmarshy tract, at a point commanding the courses of the Meuse and the\nWaal, he built a castle (about 1015) and began to levy tolls. Around\nthis castle sprang up the town of Thuredrecht or Dordrecht. The\npossession of this stronghold was so injurious to the commerce of Tiel,\nCologne and the Rhenish towns with England that complaints were made by\nthe bishop of Utrecht and the archbishop of Cologne to the emperor.\nHenry II. took the part of the complainants and commissioned Duke\nGodfrey of Lorraine to chastise the young Frisian count. Duke Godfrey\ninvaded Dirk's lands with a large army, but they were impeded by the\nswampy nature of the country and totally defeated with heavy loss (July\n29, 1018). The duke was himself taken prisoner. The result was that Dirk\nwas not merely confirmed in his possession of Dordrecht and the Merweda\nBushland (the later Holland) but also of the territory of a vassal of\nthe Utrecht see, Dirk Bavo by name, which he conquered. This victory of\n1018 is often regarded as the true starting-point of the history of the\ncounty of Holland. Having thus established his rule in the south, Dirk\nnext proceeded to bring into subjection the Frisians in the north. He\nappointed his brother Siegfrid or Sikka as governor over them. In his\nlater years Dirk went upon a pilgrimage to the Holy Land from which he\nreturned in 1034; and ruled in peace until his death in 1039.\n\n\n Dirk IV.\n\n Quarrel with Flanders about Zeeland.\n\nHis son, Dirk IV., was one of the most enterprising of his warlike and\nstrenuous race. He began the long strife with the counts of Flanders, as\nto the lordship over Walcheren and other islands of Zeeland; the quarrel\nwas important, as dealing with the borderland between French and German\noverlordship. This strife, which lasted 400 years, did not at first\nbreak out into actual warfare, because both Dirk and Baldwin V. of\nFlanders had a common danger in the emperor Henry III., who in 1046\noccupied the lands in dispute. Dirk allied himself with Godfrey the\nBearded of Lorraine, who was at war with the emperor, and his territory\nwas invaded by a powerful imperial fleet and army (1047). But Dirk\nentrenched himself in his stronghold at Vlaardingen, and when winter\ncame on he surrounded and cut off with his light boats a number of the\nenemy's ships, and destroyed a large part of their army as they made\ntheir way amidst the marches, which impeded their retreat. He was able\nto recover what he had lost and to make peace on his own terms. Two\nyears later he was again assailed by a coalition headed by the\narchbishop of Cologne and the bishop of Utrecht. They availed themselves\nof a very hard winter to penetrate into the land over the frozen water.\nDirk offered a stout resistance, but, according to the most trustworthy\naccount, was enticed into an ambuscade and was killed in the fight\n(1049). He died unmarried and was succeeded by his brother Floris I.\n\n\n Floris I.\n\n Dirk V.\n\n Robert the Frisian guardian to his stepson\n\n Godfrey the Hunchback of Lorraine conquers Holland.\n\n The Bishop of Utrecht surrenders it to Dirk V.\n\n Floris II.\n\n Dirk VI.\n\nFloris, like his predecessors, was hard-fighting and tenacious. He\ngradually recovered possession of his ancestral lands. He found a\nformidable adversary in the able and warlike William, who, becoming\nbishop of Utrecht in 1054, was determined to recover the lost\npossessions of his see; and in 1058, in alliance with Hanno, archbishop\nof Cologne, Egbert, margrave of Brandenburg, the bishop of Liege and\nothers, invaded the Frisian territory. At first success attended the\ninvaders and many places fell into their hands, but finally they were\nsurprised and defeated near Dordrecht. The counts of Guelders and\nLouvain were among the prisoners that fell into the hands of Floris. The\nattack was renewed in 1061. In a battle at Nederhemert Floris met with\nhis death in the hour of victory. He is said to have been killed as,\nwearied with pursuing, he lay asleep under a tree. He was succeeded by\nhis son, Dirk V., a child, under the guardianship of his mother,\nGertrude of Saxony. Bishop William seems now to have seized his\nopportunity and occupied all the territory that he claimed. In this he\nwas confirmed by two charters of the emperor Henry IV. (April 30 and May\n2, 1064). Among the possessions thus assigned to him is found _comitatus\nomnis in Hollandt cum omnibus ad bannum regalem pertinentibus_. An\nexamination of these documents shows the possessions of Dirk as _in\nWestflinge et circa oras Rheni_, i.e. west of the Vlie and around the\nmouths of the Rhine. Gertrude and her son appear to have withdrawn to\nthe islands of Frisia (Zeeland), leaving William in undisturbed\noccupation of the disputed lands. In 1063 Gertrude contracted a marriage\nwith Robert, the second son of Baldwin V. of Flanders, a man famous for\nhis adventurous career (see FLANDERS). On his marriage his father\ninvested him with Imperial Flanders, as an apanage including the islands\nof Frisia (Zeeland) west of the Scheldt. He now became guardian to his\nstepson, in whose inheritance lay the islands east of the Scheldt.\nRobert thus, in his own right and that of Dirk, was ruler of all Frisia\n(Zeeland), and thus became known among his Flemish countrymen as Robert\nthe Frisian. The death of his brother Baldwin VI. in 1070 led to civil\nwar in Flanders, the claim of Robert to the guardianship of his nephew\nArnulf being disputed by Richilde, the widow of Baldwin. The issue was\ndecided by the decisive victory of Robert at Cassel (February 1071) when\nArnulf was killed and Richilde taken prisoner (see Flanders). While\nRobert was thus engaged in Flanders, an effort was made to recover \"the\nCounty of Holland\" and other lands now held by William of Utrecht. The\npeople rose in revolt, but by command of the emperor Henry IV. were\nspeedily brought back under episcopal rule by an army under the command\nof Godfrey the Hunchback, duke of Lower Lorraine. Again in 1076, at the\nrequest of the bishop, Duke Godfrey visited his domains in the Frisian\nborderland. At Delft, of which town tradition makes Godfrey the founder,\nthe duke was treacherously murdered (February 26, 1076). William of\nUtrecht died on the 17th of the following April. Dirk V., now grown to\nman's estate, was not slow to take advantage of the favourable juncture.\nWith the help of Robert (his stepfather) he raised an army, besieged\nConrad, the successor of William, in the castle of Ysselmonde and took\nhim prisoner. The bishop purchased his liberty by surrendering all claim\nto the disputed lands. Henceforth the Frisian counts became definitively\nknown as counts of Holland. Dirk V. died in 1091 and was succeeded by\nhis son Floris II. the Fat. This count had a peaceful and prosperous\nreign of thirty-one years. After his death (1122) his widow, Petronilla\nof Saxony, governed in the name of Dirk VI., who was a minor. The\naccession of her half-brother, Lothaire of Saxony, to the imperial\nthrone on the death of Henry V. greatly strengthened her position. The\nEast Frisian districts, Oostergoo and Westergoo, were by Lothaire\ntransferred from the rule of the bishops of Utrecht to that of the\ncounts of Holland (1125). These Frisians proved very troublesome\nsubjects to Dirk VI. In 1132 they rose in insurrection under the\nleadership of Dirk's own brother, Floris the Black. The emperor Conrad\nIII. (1138), who was of the rival house of Hohenstaufen, gave back these\nFrisian districts to the bishop; it was in truth somewhat of an empty\ngift. The Frisian peasants and fisher folk loved their independence, and\nwere equally refractory to the rule of any distant overlord, whether\ncount or bishop. Dirk VI. was succeeded in 1157 by Floris III.\n\n\n Floris III.\n\n Dirk VII.\n\n William I.\n\n Floris IV.\n\nFloris III. reversed the traditional policy of his house by allying\nhimself with the Hohenstaufens. He became a devoted adherent and friend\nof Frederick Barbarossa. He had troubles with West Friesland and\nGroningen, and a war with the count of Flanders concerning their\nrespective rights in West Zeeland, in which he was beaten. In 1170 a\ngreat flood caused immense devastation in the north and helped to form\nthe Zuider Zee. In 1189 Floris accompanied Frederick Barbarossa upon the\nthird Crusade, of which he was a distinguished leader. He died in 1190\nat Antioch of pestilence. His son, Dirk VII., had a stormy, but on the\nwhole successful reign. Contests with the Flemings in West Zeeland and\nwith the West Frisians, stirred up to revolt by his brother William,\nended in his favour. The brothers were reconciled and William was made\ncount of East Friesland. In 1202, however, Dirk was defeated and taken\nprisoner by the duke of Brabant, and had to purchase peace on\nhumiliating terms. He only survived his defeat a short time and died\nearly in 1204, leaving as his only issue a daughter, Ada, 17 years of\nage. The question of female succession thus raised was not likely to be\naccepted without a challenge by William. It had been the intention of\nDirk VII. to secure the recognition of his daughter's rights by\nappointing his brother her guardian. His widow Alida, however, an\nambitious woman of strong character, as soon as her husband was dead,\nhurried on a marriage between Ada and Count Louis of Loon; and attempted\nwith the nobles of Holland, who now for the first time make their\nappearance as a power in the country, to oppose the claim which William\nhad made to the countship as heir in the male line. A struggle ensued.\nWilliam was supported by the Zeelanders and Ada was forced to fly to\nEngland. William, by a treaty concluded with Louis of Loon in 1206,\nbecame undisputed count. He took an active part in the events of his\ntime. He fought by the side of the emperor Otto IV. in the great battle\nof Bouvines in 1214 (see PHILIP AUGUSTUS), and was taken prisoner. Two\nyears later he accompanied Louis, the eldest son of Philip Augustus, in\nhis expedition against King John of England. William is perhaps best\nknown in history by his taking part in the fourth Crusade. He\ndistinguished himself greatly at the capture of Damietta (1219). He did\nnot long survive his return home, dying in 1222. The earliest charters\nconveying civic privileges in the county of Holland date from his\nreign--those of Geertruidenberg (1213) and of Dordrecht (1220). His son\nFloris IV., being a minor, succeeded him under the guardianship of his\nmaternal uncle, Gerard III. of Gelderland. He maintained in later life\nclose relations of friendship with Gerard, and supported him in his\nquarrel with the bishop of Utrecht (1224-1226). Floris was murdered in\n1235 at a tournament at Corbie in Picardy by the count of Clermont.\nAnother long minority followed his death, during which his brother Otto,\nbishop of Utrecht, acted as guardian to his nephew William II.\n\n\n William II.\n\n Elected King of the Romans.\n\n Floris V.\n\n Alliance with Edward I. of England.\n\n First Charter to Amsterdam.\n\n Murder of Floris V.\n\nWilliam II. became a man of mark. Pope Innocent IV., having deposed the\nemperor Frederick II., after several princes had refused to allow\nthemselves to be nominated in the place of the Hohenstaufen, caused the\nyoung count of Holland to be elected king of the Romans (1247) by an\nassembly composed chiefly of German ecclesiastics. William took Aachen\nin 1248 and was there crowned king; and after Frederick's death in 1250,\nhe had a considerable party in Germany. He brought a war with Margaret\nof Flanders (Black Margaret) to a successful conclusion (1253). He was\non the point of proceeding to Rome to be crowned emperor, when in an\nexpedition against the West Frisians he perished, going down, horse and\narmour, through the ice (1256). Like so many of his predecessors he left\nhis inheritance to a child. Floris V. was but two years old on his\nfather's death; and he was destined during a reign of forty years to\nleave a deeper impress upon the history of Holland than any other of its\ncounts. Floris was a man of chivalrous character and high capacity, and\nthroughout his reign he proved himself an able and beneficent ruler.\nAlike in his troubles with his turbulent subjects and in the perennial\ndisputes with his neighbours he pursued a strong, far-sighted and\nsuccessful policy. But his active interest in affairs was not limited to\nthe Netherlands. He allied himself closely with Edward I. of England in\nhis strife with France, and secured from the English king great trading\nadvantages for his people; the staple of wool was placed at Dort\n(Dordrecht) and the Hollanders and Zeelanders got fishing rights on the\nEnglish coast. So intimate did their relations become that Floris sent\nhis son John to be educated at the court of Edward with a view to his\nmarriage with an English princess. To balance the power of the nobles he\ngranted charters to many of the towns. Floris made himself master of\nAmstelland and Gooiland; and Amsterdam, destined to become the chief\ncommercial town of Holland, counts him the founder of its greatness. Its\nearliest extant charter dates from 1275. In 1296 Floris forsook the\nalliance of Edward I. for that of Philip IV. of France, probably because\nEdward had given support to Guy, count of Flanders, in his dynastic\ndispute with John of Avesnes, count of Hainaut, Floris's nephew (see\nFLANDERS). The real motives of his policy will, however, never be known,\nfor shortly afterwards a conspiracy of disaffected nobles, headed by\nGijsbrecht van Amstel, Gerard van Velzen and Wolfert van Borselen, was\nformed against him. He was by them basely murdered in the castle of\nMuiden (June 27, 1296). The tragic event has been immortalized in dramas\nfrom the pens of Holland's most famous writers (see VONDEL, HOOFT). The\nburghers and people, who knew him to be their best friend, took such\nvengeance on his slayers as permanently to reduce the power of the\nnobles.\n\n\n John I.\n\n Extinction of the first line of Counts. Their high character.\n\nJohn I., his son, was in England when his father was murdered; he was\nbut 15 years of age, feeble in body and mind. He was married to Eleanor,\ndaughter of Edward I. His reign was a struggle between John of Avesnes,\nthe young count's guardian and next heir, and Wolfert van Borselen, who\nhad a strong following in Zeeland. In 1299 van Borselen was killed, and\na few months later John I. died. John of Avesnes was at once recognized\nas his successor by the Hollanders. Thus with John I. ended the first\nline of counts, after a rule of nearly 400 years. Europe has perhaps\nnever seen an abler series of princes than these fourteen lineal\ndescendants of Dirk I. Excepting the last there is not a weak man among\nthem. Physically handsome and strong, model knights of the days of\nchivalry, hard fighters, wise statesmen, they were born leaders of men;\nalways ready to advance the commerce of the country, they were the\nsupporters of the growing towns, and likewise the pioneers in the task\nof converting a land of marshes and swamps into a fertile agricultural\nterritory rich in flocks and herds. As individuals they had their\nfailings, but one and all were worthy members of a high-souled race.\n\n\n John II. of the House of Avesnes.\n\n William III.\n\n William IV.\n\n The Empress Margaret.\n\n William V. of the House of Bavaria.\n\n Albert of Bavaria.\n\n William VI.\n\n Jacqueline of Bavaria.\n\n Accession of the Burgundian Dynasty.\n\n Philip the Good.\n\n Flourishing state of Holland.\n\n Charles the Bold.\n\n Mary of Burgundy.\n\nJohn of Avesnes, who took the title of John II., was the son of John of\nAvesnes, count of Hainaut, and Alida, sister of William II. of Holland.\nOn his succession to the countship the Hollanders were willing to\nreceive him, but the Zeelanders were hostile; and a long struggle ensued\nbefore his authority was generally recognized. In 1301 Bishop William of\nUtrecht invaded Amstelland, but was killed in battle. John made use of\nhis victory to secure the election of his brother Guy as bishop in his\nplace. A war with the Flemings followed, in which the Flemings were at\nfirst victorious, but after a struggle of many vicissitudes they were at\nlength driven out of Holland and Zeeland In 1304. John II. died in that\nyear and was succeeded by his son William III., surnamed the Good\n(1304-1337). In his reign the long-standing quarrel with Flanders, which\nhad during a century and a half caused so many wars, was finally settled\nby the treaty of 1323, by which the full possession of West Zeeland was\ngranted to William, who on his part renounced all claim in Imperial\nFlanders. The Amstelland with its capital, Amsterdam, which had hitherto\nbeen held as a fief of Utrecht, was by William, on the death of his\nuncle Bishop Guy, finally annexed to Holland. This count did much to\nencourage civic life and to develop the resources of the country. He had\nclose relations through marriage with the three principal European\ndynasties of his time. His wife was Jeanne of Valois, niece of the\nFrench king; in 1323 the emperor Louis the Bavarian wedded his daughter\nMargaret; and in 1328 his third daughter, Philippa of Hainaut, was\nmarried to Edward III. of England. By their alliance William III.\noccupied a position of much dignity and influence, which he used to\nfurther the interests and increase the welfare of his hereditary lands.\nHe was in all respects a great prince and a wise and prudent statesman.\nHe was succeeded by his son, William IV., who was the ally of his\nbrother-in-law, Edward III., in his French wars. He was fond of\nadventure, and in 1343 made a journey to the Holy Land in disguise, and\non his way took part in an expedition of the knights of the Teutonic\nOrder against the infidel Wends and Lithuanians. He was killed in battle\nagainst the Frisians in 1345. He left no children, and the question as\nto the succession now brought on Holland a period of violent civil\ncommotions. His inheritance was claimed by his eldest sister, the\nempress Margaret, as well as by Philippa of Hainaut, or in other words,\nby Edward III. of England. Margaret came in person and was duly\nrecognized as countess in Holland, Zeeland and Hainaut; but returned to\nher husband after appointing her second son (the eldest, Louis,\nrenounced his rights) Duke William of Bavaria, as stadholder in her\nplace. William was but sixteen, and disorder and confusion soon reigned\nin the land. The sudden death of the emperor in 1347 added to the\ndifficulties of his position. In 1349 Margaret was induced to resign her\nsovereignty, and the stadholder became count under the title of William\nV. This was the time of the formation of the famous parties in Holland,\nknown as Kabbeljauws (Cods) and Hoeks (Hooks); the former, the burgher\nparty, were the supporters of William (possibly the name was derived\nfrom the light blue, scaly looking Bavarian coat of arms), the latter\nthe party of the disaffected nobles, who wanted to catch and devour the\nfat burgher fish. In 1350 such was the disorder in the land that\nMargaret, at the request of the nobles, came to Holland to take into her\nown hands the reins of government. The struggle between the nobles and\nthe cities broke out into civil war. Edward III. came to Margaret's aid,\nwinning a sea-fight off Veere in 1351; a few weeks later the Hooks and\ntheir English allies were defeated by William and the Cods at\nVlaardingen--an overthrow which ruined Margaret's cause. Edward III.\nshortly afterwards changed sides, and the empress saw herself compelled\n(1354) to come to an understanding with her son, he being recognized as\ncount of Holland and Zeeland, she of Hainaut. Margaret died two years\nlater, leaving William, who had married Matilda of Lancaster, in\npossession of the entire Holland-Hainaut inheritance (July 1356). His\ntenure of power was, however, very brief. Before the close of 1357 he\nshowed such marked signs of insanity that his wife, with his own consent\nand the support of both parties, invited Duke Albert of Bavaria, younger\nbrother of William V., to be regent, with the title of Ruward (1358).\nWilliam lived in confinement for 31 years. Albert died in 1404, having\nruled the land well and wisely for 46 years, first as Ruward, then as\ncount. Despite outbreaks from time to time of the Hook and Cod troubles,\nhe was able to make his authority respected, and to help forward in many\nways the social progress of the country. The influence of the towns was\nsteadily on the increase, and their government began to fall into the\nhands of the burgher patrician class, who formed the Cod party. Opposed\nto them were the nobility and the lower classes, forming the Hook party.\nIn Albert's latter years a fresh outbreak of civil war (1392-1395) was\ncaused by the count's espousing the side of the Cods, while the Hooks\nhad the support of his eldest son, William. Albert was afterwards\nreconciled to his son, who succeeded him as William VI. in 1404. On his\naccession to power William upheld the Hooks, and secured their\nascendancy. His reign was much troubled with civil discords, but he was\na brave soldier, and was generally successful in his enterprises. He\ndied in 1417, leaving an only child, a daughter, Jacqueline (or Jacoba),\nwho had in her early youth been married to John, heir to the throne of\nFrance. At a gathering held at the Hague (August 15, 1416) the nobles\nand representatives of the cities of Holland and Zeeland had promised at\nWilliam's request to support his daughter's claims to the succession.\nBut John of France died (April 1417), and William VI. about a month\nlater, leaving the widowed Jacqueline at 17 years of age face to face\nwith a difficult situation. She was at first welcomed in Holland and\nZeeland, but found her claims opposed by her uncle, John of Bavaria,\nsupported by the Cod party. Every one from whom she might have expected\nhelp betrayed her in turn, her second husband John IV. of Brabant, her\nthird husband Humphrey of Gloucester, her cousin Philip the Good of\nBurgundy, all behaved shamefully to her. Her romantic and sad life has\nrendered the courageous and accomplished Jacqueline the most picturesque\nfigure in the whole history of Holland. She struggled long against her\npowerful kinsfolk, nor did she know happiness till near the end of her\nlife, when she abandoned the unequal strife, and found repose with\nFrancis of Borselen, Ruward of Holland, her fourth husband. Him Philip\nthe Good, duke of Burgundy, craftily seized; and thereby in 1433 the\nDuchess Jacqueline was compelled to cede her rights over the counties of\nHolland and Hainaut. Consequently at her death in 1436, as she left no\nchildren, Philip succeeded to the full and undisputed possession of her\nlands. He had already acquired by inheritance, purchase or force almost\nall the other Netherland states; and now, with the extinction of the\nBavarian line of counts, Holland ceased to have an independent existence\nand became an outlying province of the growing Burgundian power (see\nBURGUNDY). During the years that followed the accession to the\nsovereignty of Duke Philip, Holland plays but an insignificant part. It\nwas governed by a stadholder, and but small respect was shown for its\nchartered rights and privileges. The quarrels between the Hook and Cod\nfactions still continued, but the outbreaks of civil strife were quickly\nrepressed by the strong hand of Philip. Holland during this time\ncontented herself with growing material prosperity. Her herring fishery,\nrendered more valuable by the curing process discovered or introduced by\nBenkelszoon, brought her increasing wealth, and her fishermen were\nalready laying the foundations of her future maritime greatness. It was\nin the days of Duke Philip that Lorenz Koster of Haarlem contributed his\nshare to the discovery of printing. During the reign of Charles the Bold\n(1467-1477) the Hollanders, like the other subjects of that warlike\nprince, suffered much from the burden of taxation An outbreak at Hoorn\nwas by Charles sternly repressed. The Hollanders were much aggrieved by\nthe establishment of a high court of justice for the entire Netherlands\nat Mechlin. (1474). This was regarded as a serious breach of their\nprivileges. The succession of Mary of Burgundy led to the granting to\nHolland as to the other provinces of the Netherlands, of the Great\nPrivilege of March 1477, which restored the most important of their\nancient rights and liberties (see NETHERLANDS). A high court of justice\nwas established for Holland, Zeeland and Friesland, and the use of the\nnative language was made official. The Hook and Cod troubles again\ndisturbed the country. Hook uprisings took place at Leiden and Dordrecht\nand had to be repressed by armed force.\n\n\n Maximilian of Austria.\n\n Philip II. the Fair.\n\n The Emperor Charles V. (Charles III.).\n\n Philip III.\n\n William of Orange Stadholder.\n\n The revolt of the Netherlands.\n\n Union of Utrecht.\n\n Abjuration of Philip's Sovereignty.\n\nBy the sudden death of the Duchess Mary in 1482 her possessions,\nincluding the county of Holland, passed to her infant son Philip, under\nthe guardianship of his father the Archduke Maximilian of Austria. Thus\nthe Burgundian dynasty was succeeded by that of the Habsburgs. During\nthe regency of Maximilian the turbulence of the Hooks caused much strife\nand unrest in Holland. Their leaders. Francis of Brederode and John of\nNaaldwijk, seized Rotterdam and other places. Their overthrow finally\nended the strife between Hooks and Cods. The \"Bread and Cheese War,\" an\nuprising of the peasants in North Holland caused by famine, is a proof\nof the misery caused by civil discords and oppressive taxation. In 1494,\nMaximilian having been elected emperor, Philip was declared of age. His\nassumption of the government was greeted with joy in Holland, and in his\nreign the province enjoyed rest and its fisheries benefited from the\ncommercial treaty concluded with England. The story of Holland during\nthe long reign of his son and successor Charles III. (1506-1555), better\nknown as the emperor Charles V., belongs to the general history of the\nNetherlands (see NETHERLANDS). On the abdication of Charles, his son\nPhilip II. of Spain became Philip III., count of Holland, the ruler\nwhose arbitrary rule in church and state brought about the revolt of the\nNetherlands. His appointment of William, prince of Orange, as stadholder\nof Holland and Zeeland was destined to have momentous results to the\nfuture of those provinces (see WILLIAM THE SILENT). The capture of Brill\nand of Flushing in 1572 by the Sea-Beggars led to the submission of the\ngreater part of Holland and Zeeland to the authority of the prince of\nOrange, who, as stadholder, summoned the states of Holland to meet at\nDordrecht. This act was the beginning of Dutch independence. From this\ntime forward William made Holland his home. It became the bulwark of the\nProtestant faith in the Netherlands, the focus of the resistance to\nSpanish tyranny. The sieges of Haarlem, Alkmaar and Leiden saved Holland\nfrom being overwhelmed by the armies of Alva and Requesens and stemmed\nthe tide of Spanish victory. The act of federation between Holland and\nZeeland brought about by the influence of William was the germ of the\nlarger union of Utrecht between the seven northern provinces in 1579.\nBut within the larger union the inner and closer union between Holland\nand Zeeland continued to subsist. In 1580, when the sovereignty of the\nNetherlands was offered to the duke of Anjou, the two maritime provinces\nrefused to acquiesce, and forced William to accept the title of count of\nHolland and Zeeland. In the following year William in the name of the\ntwo provinces solemnly abjured the sovereignty of the Spanish king (July\n24). After the assassination of William (1584) the title of count of\nHolland was never revived.\n\n\n Government of Holland.\n\n Johan van Oldenbarneveldt.\n\n Contest between the Principles of National and Provincial Sovereignty.\n\nIn the long struggle of the united provinces with Spain, which followed\nthe death of Orange, the brunt of the conflict fell upon Holland. More\nthan half the burden of the charges of the war fell upon this one\nprovince; and with Zeeland it furnished the fleets which formed the\nchief defence of the country. Hence the importance attached to the vote\nof Holland in the assembly of the States-General. That vote was given by\ndeputies at the head of whom was the advocate (in later times called the\ngrand pensionary) of Holland, and who were responsible to, and the\nspokesmen of, the provincial states. These states, which met at the\nHague in the same building as the States-General, consisted of\nrepresentatives of the burgher oligarchies (regents) of the principal\ntowns, together with representatives of the nobles, who possessed one\nvote only. The advocate was the paid minister of the states. He presided\nover their meetings, kept their minutes and conducted all\ncorrespondence, and, as stated above, was their spokesman in the\nStates-General. The advocate (or grand pensionary) of Holland therefore,\nif an able man, had opportunities for exercising a very considerable\ninfluence, becoming in fact a kind of minister of all affairs. It was\nthis influence as exerted by the successive advocates of Holland, Paul\nBuys and Johan van Oldenbarneveldt, which rendered abortive the\nwell-meant efforts of the earl of Leicester to centralize the government\nof the United Provinces. After his departure (1587) the advocate of\nHolland, Oldenbarneveldt, became the indispensable statesman of the\nstruggling republic. The multiplicity of his functions gave to the\nadvocate an almost unlimited authority in the details of administration,\nand for thirty years the conduct of affairs remained in his hands (see\nOLDENBARNEVELDT). This meant the undisputed hegemony of Holland in the\nfederation, in other words of the burgher oligarchies who controlled the\ntown corporations of the province, and especially of Amsterdam. This\nauthority of Holland was, however, more than counterbalanced by the\nextensive powers with which the stadholder princes of Orange were\ninvested; and the chief crises in the internal history of the Dutch\nrepublic are to be found in the struggles for supremacy between two, in\nreality, different principles of government. On the one side the\nprinciple of provincial sovereignty which gave to the voice of Holland a\npreponderating weight that was decisive; on the other side the principle\nof national sovereignty personified in the princes of Orange, to whom\nthe States-General and the provincial states delegated executive powers\nthat were little less than monarchical.\n\n\n Maurice Prince of Orange and John of Oldenbarneveldt.\n\n Frederick Henry Prince of Orange.\n\n William II. Prince of Orange.\n\n John de Witt.\n\n William III. Prince of Orange.\n\n William IV. Prince of Orange.\n\nThe conclusion of the twelve years' truce in 1609 was a triumph for\nOldenbarneveldt and the province of Holland over the opposition of\nMaurice, prince of Orange. In 1617 the outbreak of the religious dispute\nbetween the Remonstrant and Contra-remonstrant parties brought on a life\nand death struggle between the sovereign province of Holland and the\nStates-General of the union. The sword of Maurice decided the issue in\nfavour of the States-General. The claims of Holland were overthrown and\nthe head of Oldenbarneveldt fell upon the scaffold (1619). The\nstadholder, Frederick Henry of Orange, ruled with well-nigh monarchical\nauthority (1625-1647), but even he at the height of his power and\npopularity had always to reckon with the opposition of the states of\nHolland and of Amsterdam, and many of his plans of campaign were\nthwarted by the refusal of the Hollanders to furnish supplies. His son\nWilliam II. was but 21 years of age on succeeding to the stadholdership,\nand the states of Holland were sufficiently powerful to carry through\nthe negotiations for the peace of Munster (1648) in spite of his\nopposition. A life and death conflict again ensued, and once more in\n1650 the prince of Orange by armed force crushed the opposition of the\nHollanders. The sudden death of William in the hour of his triumph\ncaused a complete revolution in the government of the republic. He left\nno heir but a posthumous infant, and the party of the burgher regents of\nHolland was once more in the ascendant. The office of stadholder was\nabolished, and John de Witt, the grand pensionary (_Raad-Pensionaris_)\nof Holland, for two decades held in his hands all the threads of\nadministration, and occupied the same position of undisputed authority\nin the councils of the land as Oldenbarneveldt had done at the beginning\nof the century. Amsterdam during this period was the centre and head of\nthe United Provinces. The principle of provincial sovereignty was\ncarried to its extreme point in the separate treaty concluded with\nCromwell in 1654, in which the province of Holland agreed to exclude for\never the prince of Orange from the office of stadholder of Holland or\ncaptain-general of the union. In 1672 another revolution took place.\nJohn de Witt was murdered, and William III. was called to fill the\noffice of dignity and authority which had been held by his ancestors of\nthe house of Orange, and the stadholdership was declared to be\nhereditary in his family. But William died without issue (see WILLIAM\nIII.) and a stadholderless period, during which the province of Holland\nwas supreme in the union, followed till 1737. This change was effected\nsmoothly, for though William had many differences with Amsterdam, he had\nin Anthony Heinsius (van der Heim), who was grand pensionary of Holland\nfrom 1690 to his death in 1720, a statesman whom he thoroughly trusted,\nwho worked with him in the furtherance of his policy during life and who\ncontinued to carry out that policy after his death. In 1737 there was\nonce more a reversion to the stadholdership in the person of William\nIV., whose powers were strengthened and declared hereditary both in the\nmale and female line in 1747. But until the final destruction of the\nfederal republic by the French armies, the perennial struggle went on\nbetween the Holland or federal party (_Staatsgesinden_) centred at\nAmsterdam--out of which grew the patriot party under William V.--and the\nOrange or unionist party (_Oranjegesinden_), which was strong in the\nsmaller provinces and had much popular support among the lower classes.\nThe French conquest swept away the old condition of things never to\nreappear; but allegiance to the Orange dynasty survived, and in 1813\nbecame the rallying point of a united Dutch people. At the same time the\nleading part played by the province of Holland in the history of the\nrepublic has not been unrecognized, for the country ruled over by the\nsovereigns of the house of Orange is always popularly, and often\nofficially, known as Holland.\n\n\n Constitution of the States of Holland.\n\n The Grand Pensionary.\n\n College of Deputed Councillors.\n\nThe full title of the states of Holland in the 17th and 18th centuries\nwas: _de Edele Groot Mogende Heeren Staaten van Holland en\nWestfriesland_. After 1608 this assembly consisted of nineteen members,\none representing the nobility (_ridderschap_), and eighteen, the towns.\nThe member for the nobles had precedence and voted first. The interests\nof the country districts (_het platte land_) were the peculiar charges\nof the member for the nobles. The nobles also retained the right of\nappointing representatives to sit in the College of Deputed Councillors,\nin certain colleges of the admiralty, and upon the board of directors of\nthe East India Company, and to various public offices. The following\neighteen towns sent representatives: South Quarter--(1) Dordrecht, (2)\nHaarlem, (3) Delft, (4) Leiden, (5) Amsterdam, (6) Gouda, (7) Rotterdam,\n(8) Gorinchem, (9) Schiedam, (10) Schoonhoven, (11) Brill; North\nQuarter:--(12) Alkmaar, (13) Hoorn, (14) Enkhuizen, (15) Edam, (16)\nMonnikendam, (17) Medemblik, (18) Purmerend. Each town (as did also the\nnobles) sent as many representatives as they pleased, but the nineteen\nmembers had only one vote each. Each town's deputation was headed by its\npensionary, who was the spokesman on behalf of the representatives.\nCertain questions such as peace and war, voting of subsidies, imposition\nof taxation, changes in the mode of government, &c., required unanimity\nof votes. The grand pensionary (_Raad-Pensionaris_) was at once the\npresident and chief administrative officer of the states. He presided\nover all meetings, conducted the business, kept the minutes, and was\ncharged with the maintenance of the rights of the states, with the\nexecution of their resolutions and with the entire correspondence. Nor\nwere his functions only provincial. He was the head and the spokesman of\nthe deputation of the states to the States-General of the union; and in\nthe stadholderless period the influence of such grand pensionaries of\nHolland as John de Witt and Anthony Heinsius enabled the complicated and\nintricate machinery of government in a confederacy of many sovereign and\nsemi-sovereign authorities without any recognized head of the state, to\nwork with comparative smoothness and a remarkable unity of policy. This\nwas secured by the indisputable predominance in the union of the\nprovince of Holland. The policy of the states of Holland swayed the\npolicy of the generality, and historical circumstances decreed that the\npolicy of the states of Holland during long and critical periods should\nbe controlled by a succession of remarkable men filling the office of\ngrand pensionary. The states of Holland sat at the Hague in the months\nof March, July, September and November. During the periods of\nprorogation the continuous oversight of the business and interests of\nthe province was, however, never neglected. This duty was confided to a\nbody called the College of Deputed Councillors (_het Kollegie der\nGekommitteerde Raden_), which was itself divided into two sections, one\nfor the south quarter, another for the north quarter. The more\nimportant--that for the south quarter--consisted of ten members, (1) the\nsenior member of the nobility, who sat for life, (2) representatives\n(for periods of three years) of the eight towns: Dordrecht, Haarlem,\nDelft, Leiden, Amsterdam, Gouda, Rotterdam and Gorinchem, with a tenth\nmember (usually elected biennially) for the towns of Schiedam,\nSchoonhoven and Brill conjointly. The grand pensionary presided over the\nmeetings of the college, which had the general charge of the whole\nprovincial administration, especially of finance, the carrying out of\nthe resolutions of the states, the maintenance of defences, and the\nupholding of the privileges and liberties of the land. With particular\nregard to this last-named duty the college deputed two of its members to\nattend all meetings of the states-general, to watch the proceedings and\nreport at once any proposals which they held to be contrary to the\ninterests or to infringe upon the rights of the province of Holland. The\ninstitution of the College of Deputed Councillors might thus be\ndescribed as a vigilance committee of the states in perpetual session.\nThe existence of the college, with its many weighty and important\nfunctions, must never be lost sight of by students who desire to have a\nclear understanding of the remarkable part played by the province of\nHolland in the history of the United Netherlands. (G. E.)\n\n\n\n\nHOLLAND, a city of Ottawa county, Michigan, U.S.A., on Macatawa Bay\n(formerly called Black Lake), near Lake Michigan, and 25 m. W.S.W. of\nGrand Rapids. Pop. (1890) 3945; (1900) 7790, of whom a large portion\nwere of Dutch descent; (1904) 8966; (1910) 10,490. It is served by the\nPere Marquette Railroad, by steamboat lines to Chicago and other lake\nports, and by electric lines connecting with Grand Rapids, Saugatuck,\nand the neighbouring summer resorts. On Macatawa Bay are Ottawa Beach,\nMacatawa Park, Jenison Park, Central Park, Castle Park and Waukezoo. In\nthe city itself are Hope College (co-educational; founded in 1851 and\nincorporated as a college in 1866), an institution of the (Dutch)\nReformed Church in America; and the Western Theological Seminary (1869;\nsuspended 1877-1884) of the same denomination. Holland is a grain and\nfruit shipping centre, and among its manufactures are furniture,\nleather, grist mill products, iron, beer, pickles, shoes, beet sugar,\ngelatine, biscuit (Holland rusk), electric and steam launches, and\npianos. In 1908 seven weekly, one daily, and two monthly papers (four\ndenominational) were published at Holland, five of them in Dutch. The\nmunicipality owns its water-works and electric-lighting plant. Holland\nwas founded in 1847 by Dutch settlers, under the leadership of the Rev.\nA. C. Van Raalte, and was chartered as a city in 1867. In 1871 much of\nit was destroyed by a forest fire.\n\n\n\n\nHOLLAND, a cloth so called from the country where it was first made. It\nwas originally a fine plain linen fabric of a brownish colour--unbleached\nflax. Several varieties are now made: hollands, pale hollands and fine\nhollands. They are used for aprons, blinds, shirts, blouses and dresses.\n\n\n\n\nHOLLAR, WENZEL or WENCESLAUS [VACLAF HOLAR] (1607-1677), Bohemian etcher,\nwas born at Prague on the 13th of July 1607, and died in London, being\nburied at St Margaret's church, Westminster, on the 28th of March 1677.\nHis family was ruined by the capture of Prague in the Thirty Years' War,\nand young Hollar, who had been destined for the law, determined to become\nan artist. The earliest of his works that have come down to us are dated\n1625 and 1626; they are small plates, and one of them is a copy of a\nVirgin and Child by Durer, whose influence upon Hollar's work was always\ngreat. In 1627 he was at Frankfort, working under Matthew Merian, an\netcher and engraver; thence he passed to Strassburg, and thence, in 1633,\nto Cologne. It was there that he attracted the notice of the famous\namateur Thomas, earl of Arundel, then on an embassy to the imperial\ncourt; and with him Hollar travelled to Vienna and Prague, and finally\ncame in 1637 to England, destined to be his home for many years. Though\nhe lived in the household of Lord Arundel, he seems to have worked not\nexclusively for him, but to have begun that slavery to the publishers\nwhich was afterwards the normal condition of his life. In his first year\nin England he made for Stent, the printseller, the magnificent View of\nGreenwich, nearly a yard long, and received thirty shillings for the\nplate,--perhaps a twentieth part of what would now be paid for a single\ngood impression. Afterwards we hear of his fixing the price of his work\nat fourpence an hour, and measuring his time by a sandglass. The Civil\nWar had its effect on his fortunes, but none on his industry. Lord\nArundel left England in 1642, and Hollar passed into the service of the\nduke of York, taking with him a wife and two children. With other\nroyalist artists, notably Inigo Jones and Faithorne, he stood the long\nand eventful siege of Basing House; and as we have some hundred plates\nfrom his hand dated during the years 1643 and 1644 he must have turned\nhis enforced leisure to good purpose. Taken prisoner, he escaped or was\nreleased, and joined Lord Arundel at Antwerp, and there he remained eight\nyears, the prime of his working life, when he produced his finest plates\nof every kind, his noblest views, his miraculous \"muffs\" and \"shells,\"\nand the superb portrait of the duke of York. In 1652 he returned to\nLondon, and lived for a time with Faithorne the engraver near Temple Bar.\nDuring the following years were published many books which he\nillustrated:--Ogilby's _Virgil_ and _Homer_, Stapylton's _Juvenal_, and\nDugdale's _Warwickshire_, _St Paul's_ and _Monasticon_ (part i.). The\nbooksellers continued to impose on the simple-minded foreigner,\npretending to decline his work that he might still further reduce the\nwretched price he charged them. Nor did the Restoration improve his\nposition. The court did nothing for him, and in the great plague he lost\nhis young son, who, we are told, might have rivalled his father as an\nartist. After the great fire he produced some of his famous \"Views of\nLondon\"; and it may have been the success of these plates which induced\nthe king to send him, in 1668, to Tangier, to draw the town and forts.\nDuring his return to England occurred the desperate and successful\nengagement fought by his ship the \"Mary Rose,\" under Captain Kempthorne,\nagainst seven Algerine men-of-war,--a brilliant affair which Hollar\netched for Ogilby's _Africa_. He lived eight years after his return,\nstill working for the booksellers, and retaining to the end his wonderful\npowers; witness the large plate of Edinburgh (dated 1670), one of the\ngreatest of his works. He died in extreme poverty, his last recorded\nwords being a request to the bailiffs that they would not carry away the\nbed on which he was dying.\n\nHollar's variety was boundless; his plates number some 2740, and include\nviews, portraits, ships, religious subjects, heraldic subjects,\nlandscapes, and still life in a hundred different forms. No one that\never lived has been able to represent fur, or shells, or a butterfly's\nwing as he has done. His architectural drawings, such as those of\nAntwerp and Strassburg cathedrals, and his views of towns, are\nmathematically exact, but they are pictures as well. He could reproduce\nthe decorative works of other artists quite faultlessly, as in the\nfamous chalice after Mantegna's drawing. His _Theatrum mulierum_ and\nsimilar collections reproduce for us with literal truth the outward\naspects of the people of his day; and his portraits, a branch of art in\nwhich he has been unfairly disparaged, are of extraordinary refinement\nand power.\n\n Almost complete collections of Hollar's works exist in the British\n Museum and in the library at Windsor Castle. Two admirable catalogues\n of his plates have been made, one in 1745 (2nd ed. 1759) by George\n Vertue, and one in 1853 by Parthey. The latter, published at Berlin,\n is a model of German thoroughness and accuracy.\n\n\n\n\nHOLLES, DENZIL HOLLES, BARON (1599-1680), English statesman and writer,\nsecond son of John Holles, 1st earl of Clare (c. 1564-1637), by Anne,\ndaughter of Sir Thomas Stanhope, was born on the 31st of October 1599.\nThe favourite son of his father and endowed with great natural\nabilities, Denzil Holles grew up under advantageous circumstances.\nDestined to become later one of the most formidable antagonists of King\nCharles's arbitrary government, he was in early youth that prince's\nplaymate and intimate companion. The earl of Clare was, however, no\nfriend to the Stuart administration, being especially hostile to the\nduke of Buckingham; and on the accession of Charles to the throne the\nking's offers of favour were rejected. In 1624 Holles was returned to\nparliament for Mitchell in Cornwall, and in 1628 for Dorchester. He had\nfrom the first a keen sense of the humiliations which attended the\nforeign policy of the Stuart kings. Writing to Strafford, his\nbrother-in-law, on the 29th of November 1627, he severely censures\nBuckingham's conduct of the expedition to the Isle of Rhe; \"since\nEngland was England,\" the declared, \"it received not so dishonourable a\nblow\"; and he joined in the demand for Buckingham's impeachment in 1628.\nTo these discontents were now added the abuses arising from the king's\narbitrary administration. On the 2nd of March 1629, when Sir John Finch,\nthe speaker, refused to put Sir John Eliot's Protestations and was about\nto adjourn the House by the king's command, Holles with another member\nthrust him back into the chair and swore \"he should sit still till it\npleased them to rise.\" Meanwhile Eliot, on the refusal of the speaker to\nread the Protestations, had himself thrown them into the fire; the usher\nof the black rod was knocking at the door for admittance, and the king\nhad sent for the guard. But Holles, declaring that he could not render\nthe king or his country better service, put the Protestations to the\nHouse from memory, all the members rising to their feet and applauding.\nIn consequence a warrant was issued for his arrest with others on the\nfollowing day. They were prosecuted first in the Star Chamber and\nsubsequently in the King's Bench. When brought upon his _habeas corpus_\nbefore the latter court Holles offered with the rest to give bail, but\nrefused sureties for good behaviour, and argued that the court had no\njurisdiction over offences supposed to have been committed in\nparliament. On his refusal to plead he was sentenced to a fine of 1000\nmarks and to imprisonment during the king's pleasure. Holles had at\nfirst been committed and remained for some time a close prisoner in the\nTower of London. The \"close\" confinement, however, was soon changed to a\n\"safe\" one, the prisoner then having leave to take the air and exercise,\nbut being obliged to maintain himself at his own expense. On the 29th of\nOctober Holles, with Eliot and Valentine, was transferred to the\nMarshalsea. His resistance to the king's tyranny did not prove so stout\nas that of some of his comrades in misfortune. Among the papers of the\nsecretary Sir John Coke is a petition of Holles, couched in humble and\nsubmissive terms, to be restored to the king's favour;[1] having given\nthe security demanded for his good behaviour, he was liberated early in\n1630, and on the 30th of October was allowed bail. Being still banished\nfrom London he retired to the country, paying his fine in 1637 or 1638.\nThe fine was repaid by the parliament in July 1644, and the judgment was\nrevised on a writ of error in 1668. In 1638 we find him, notwithstanding\nhis recent experiences, one of the chief leaders in his county of the\nresistance to ship money, though it would appear that he subsequently\nmade submission.\n\nHolles was a member of the Short and Long Parliaments assembled in 1640.\nAccording to Laud he was now \"one of the great leading men in the House\nof Commons,\" and in Clarendon's opinion he was \"a man of more\naccomplished parts than any of his party\" and of most authority. He was\nnot, however, in the confidence of the republican party. Though he was\nat first named one of the managers for the impeachment of Strafford,\nHolles had little share in his prosecution. According to Laud he held\nout to Strafford hopes of saving his life if he would use his influence\nwith the king to abolish episcopacy, but the earl refused, and Holles\nadvised Charles that Strafford should demand a short respite, of which\nhe would take advantage to procure a commutation of the death sentence.\nIn the debate on the attainder he spoke on behalf of Strafford's family,\nand later obtained some favours from the parliament for his eldest son.\nIn all other matters in parliament Holles took a principal part. He was\none of the chief movers of the Protestation of the 3rd of May 1641,\nwhich he carried up to the Lords, urging them to give it their approval.\nAlthough, according to Clarendon, he did not wish to change the\ngovernment of the church, he showed himself at this time decidedly\nhostile to the bishops. He took up the impeachment of Laud to the House\nof Peers, supported the Londoners' petition for the abolition of\nepiscopacy and the Root and Branch Bill, and afterwards urged that the\nbishops impeached for their conduct in the affair of the late canons\nshould be accused of treason. He showed equal energy in the affairs of\nIreland at the outbreak of the rebellion, supported strongly the\nindependence and purity of the judicial bench, and opposed toleration of\nthe Roman Catholics. On the 9th of July 1641 he addressed the Lords on\nbehalf of the queen of Bohemia, expressing great loyalty to the king and\nroyal family and urging the necessity of supporting the Protestant\nreligion everywhere. Together with Pym, Holles drew up the Grand\nRemonstrance, and made a vigorous speech in its support on the 22nd of\nNovember 1641, in which he argued for the right of one House to make a\ndeclaration, and asserted: \"If kings are misled by their counsellors we\nmay, we must tell them of it.\" On the 15th of December he was a teller\nin the division in favour of printing it. On the great subject of the\nmilitia he also showed activity. He supported Hesilriges' Militia Bill\nof the 7th of December 1641, and on the 31st of December he took up to\nthe king the Commons' demand for a guard under the command of Essex.\n\"Holles's force and reputation,\" said Sir Ralph Verney, \"are the two\nthings that give the success to all actions.\" After the failure of the\nattempt by the court to gain over Holles and others by offering them\nposts in the administration, he was one of the \"five members\" impeached\nby the king.[2] Holles at once grasped the full significance of the\nking's action, and after the triumphant return to the House of the five\nmembers, on the 11th of January, threw himself into still more\npronounced opposition to the arbitrary policy of the crown. He demanded\nthat before anything further was done the members should be cleared of\ntheir impeachment; was himself leader in the impeachment of the duke of\nRichmond; and on the 31st of January, when taking up the militia\npetition to the House of Lords, he adopted a very menacing tone, at the\nsame time presenting a petition of some thousands of supposed starving\nartificers of London, congregated round the House. On the 15th of June\nhe carried up the impeachment of the nine Lords who had deserted the\nparliament; and he was one of the committee of safety appointed on the\n4th of July.\n\nOn the outbreak of the Civil War (see GREAT REBELLION) Holles, who had\nbeen made lieutenant of Bristol, was sent with Bedford to the west\nagainst the marquess of Hertford, and took part in the unsuccessful\nsiege of the latter at Sherborne Castle. He was present at Edgehill,\nwhere his regiment of Puritans recruited in London was one of the few\nwhich stood firm and saved the day for the parliament. On the 13th of\nNovember his men were surprised at Brentford during his absence, and\nrouted after a stout resistance. In December he was proposed for the\ncommand of the forces in the west, an appointment which he appears to\nhave refused. Notwithstanding his activity in the field for the cause of\nthe parliament, the appeal to arms had been distasteful to Holles from\nthe first. As early as September he surprised the House by the marked\nabatement of his former \"violent and fiery spirit,\" and his changed\nattitude did not escape the taunts of his enemies, who attributed it\nscornfully to his disaster at Brentford or to his new wife. He probably\nforesaw that, to whichever side victory fell, the struggle could only\nterminate in the suppression of the constitution and of the moderate\nparty on which all his hopes were based. His feelings and political\nopinions, too, were essentially aristocratic, and he regarded with\nhorror the transference of the government of the state from the king and\nthe ruling families to the parliamentary leaders. He now advocated peace\nand a settlement of the disputes by concessions on both sides; a\nproposal full of danger because impracticable, and one therefore which\ncould only weaken the parliamentary resistance and prolong the struggle.\nHe warmly supported the peace negotiations on the 21st of November and\nthe 22nd of December, and his attitude led to a breach with Pym and the\nmore determined party. In June 1643 he was accused of complicity in\nWaller's plot, but swore to his innocency; and his arrest with others of\nthe peace party was even proposed in August, when Holles applied for a\npass to leave the country. The king's successes, however, for the moment\nput a stop to all hopes of peace; and in April 1644 Holles addressed the\ncitizens of London at the Guildhall, calling upon them \"to join with\ntheir purses, their persons, and their prayers together\" to support the\narmy of Essex. In November Holles and Whitelocke headed the commission\nappointed to treat with the king at Oxford. He endeavoured to convince\nthe royalists of the necessity of yielding in time, before the \"new\nparty of hot men\" should gain the upper hand. Holles and Whitelocke had\na private meeting with the king, when at Charles's request they drew up\nthe answer which they advised him to return to the parliament. This\ninterview was not communicated to the other commissioners or to\nparliament, and though doubtless their motives were thoroughly\npatriotic, their action was scarcely compatible with their position as\ntrustees of the parliamentary cause. Holles was also appointed a\ncommissioner at Uxbridge in January 1645 and endeavoured to overcome the\ncrucial difficulty of the militia by postponing its discussion\naltogether. As leader of the moderate (or Presbyterian) party Holles now\ncame into violent antagonism with Cromwell and the army faction. \"They\nhated one another equally\"; and Holles would not allow any merit in\nCromwell, accusing him of cowardice and attributing his successes to\nchance and good fortune. With the support of Essex and the Scottish\ncommissioners Holles endeavoured in December 1644 to procure Cromwell's\nimpeachment as an incendiary between the two nations, and \"passionately\"\nopposed the self-denying ordinance. In return Holles was charged with\nhaving held secret communications with the king at Oxford and with a\ncorrespondence with Lord Digby; but after a long examination by the\nHouse he was pronounced innocent on the 19th of July 1645. Determined on\nCromwell's destruction, he refused to listen to the prudent counsels of\nSir Anthony Ashley Cooper, who urged that Cromwell was too strong to be\nresisted or provoked, and on the 29th of March 1647 drew up in\nparliament a hasty proclamation declaring the promoters of the army\npetition enemies to the state; in April challenging Ireton to a duel.\n\nThe army party was now thoroughly exasperated against Holles. \"They were\nresolved one way or other to be rid of him,\" says Clarendon. On the 16th\nof June 1647 eleven members including Holles were charged by the army\nwith various offences against the state, followed on the 23rd by fresh\ndemands for their impeachment and for their suspension, which was\nrefused. On the 26th, however, the eleven members, to avoid violence,\nasked leave to withdraw. Their reply to the charges against them was\nhanded into the House on the 19th of July, and on the 20th Holles took\nleave of the House in _A grave and learned speech..._. After the riot of\nthe apprentices on the 26th, for which Holles disclaimed any\nresponsibility, the eleven members were again (30th of July) recalled to\ntheir seats, and Holles was one of the committee of safety appointed. On\nthe flight of the speaker, however, and part of the parliament to the\narmy, and the advance of the latter to London, Holles, whose party and\npolicy were now entirely defeated, left England on the 22nd of August\nfor Sainte-Mere Eglise in Normandy. On the 26th of January 1648 the\neleven members, who had not appeared when summoned to answer the charges\nagainst them, were expelled. Not long afterwards, however, on the 3rd of\nJune, these proceedings were annulled; and Holles, who had then returned\nand was a prisoner in the Tower with the rest of the eleven members, was\ndischarged. He returned to his seat on the 14th of August.\n\nHolles was one of the commissioners appointed to treat with the king at\nNewport on the 18th of September 1648. Aware of the plans of the extreme\nparty, Holles threw himself at the king's feet and implored him not to\nwaste time in useless negotiations, and he was one of those who stayed\nbehind the rest in order to urge Charles to compliance. On the 1st of\nDecember he received the thanks of the House. On the occasion of Pride's\nPurge on the 6th of December Holles absented himself and escaped again\nto France. From his retirement there he wrote to Charles II. in 1651,\nadvising him to come to terms with the Scots as the only means of\neffecting a restoration; but after the alliance he refused Charles's\noffer of the secretaryship of state. In March 1654 Cromwell, who in\nalarm at the plots being formed against him was attempting to reconcile\nsome of his opponents to his government, sent Holles a pass \"with\nnotable circumstances of kindness and esteem.\" His subsequent movements\nand the date of his return to England are uncertain, but in 1656\nCromwell's resentment was again excited against him as the supposed\nauthor of a tract, really written by Clarendon. He appears to have been\nimprisoned, for his release was ordered by the council on the 2nd of\nSeptember 1659.\n\nHolles took part in the conference with Monk at Northumberland House,\nwhen the Restoration was directly proposed, and with the secluded\nmembers took his seat again in parliament on the 21st of February 1660.\nOn the 23rd of February he was chosen one of the council to carry on the\ngovernment during the interregnum; on the 2nd of March the votes passed\nagainst him and the sequestration of his estates were repealed, and on\nthe 7th he was made custos rotulorum for Dorsetshire. He took a leading\npart in bringing about the Restoration, was chairman of the committee of\nseven appointed to prepare an answer to the king's letter, and as one of\nthe deputed Lords and Commons he delivered at the Hague the invitation\nto Charles to return. He preceded Charles to England to prepare for his\nreception, and was sworn of the privy council on the 5th of June. He was\none of the thirty-four commissioners appointed to try the regicides in\nSeptember and October. On the 20th of April 1661 he was created Baron\nHolles of Ifield in Sussex, and became henceforth one of the leading\nmembers of the Upper House.\n\nHolles, who was a good French scholar, was sent as ambassador to France\non the 7th of July 1663. He was ostentatiously English, and a zealous\nupholder of the national honour and interests; but his position was\nrendered difficult by the absence of home support. On the 27th of\nJanuary 1666 war was declared, but Holles was not recalled till May.\nPepys remarks on the 14th of November: \"Sir G. Cartaret tells me that\njust now my Lord Holles had been with him and wept to think in what a\ncondition we are fallen.\" Soon afterwards he was employed on another\ndisagreeable mission in which the national honour was again at stake,\nbeing sent to Breda to make a peace with Holland in May 1667. He\naccomplished his task successfully, the articles being signed on the\n21st of June.\n\nOn the 12th of December he protested against Lord Clarendon's banishment\nand was nearly put out of the council in consequence. In 1668 he was\nmanager for the Lords in the celebrated Skinner's case, in which his\nknowledge of precedents was of great service, and on which occasion he\npublished the tract _The Grand Question concerning the Judicature of the\nHouse of Peeres_ (1669). Holles, who was honourably distinguished by\nCharles as a \"stiff and sullen man,\" and as one who would not yield to\nsolicitation, now became with Halifax and Shaftesbury a leader in the\nresistance to the domestic and foreign policy of the court. Together\nwith Halifax he opposed both the arbitrary Conventicle Act of 1670 and\nthe Test Oath of 1675, his objection to the latter being chiefly founded\non the invasion of the privileges of the peers which it involved; and he\ndefended with vigour the right of the Peers to record their protests. On\nthe 7th of January 1676 Holles with Halifax was summarily dismissed from\nthe council. On the occasion of the Commons petitioning the king in\nfavour of an alliance with the Dutch, Holles addressed a Letter to Van\nBeuninghen at Amsterdam on \"Love to our Country and Hatred of a Common\nEnemy,\" enlarging upon the necessity of uniting in a common defence\nagainst French aggression and in support of the Protestant religion.\n\"The People are strong but the Government is weak,\" he declares; and he\nattributes the cause of weakness to the transference of power from the\nnobility to the people, and to a succession of three weak princes. \"Save\nwhat (the Parliament) did, we have not taken one true step nor struck\none true stroke since Queen Elizabeth.\" He endeavoured to embarrass the\ngovernment this year in his tract on _Some Considerations upon the\nQuestion whether the parliament is dissolved by its prorogation for 15\nmonths_. It was held by the Lords to be seditious and scandalous; while\nfor publishing another pamphlet written by Holles entitled _The Grand\nQuestion concerning the Prorogation of this Parliament_ (otherwise _The\nLong Parliament dissolved_) the corrector of the proof sheets was\ncommitted to the Tower and fined L1000. In order to bring about the\ndownfall of Danby (afterwards duke of Leeds) and the disbanding of the\narmy, which he believed to be intended for the suppression of the\nnational liberties, Holles at this time (1677-1679) engaged, as did many\nothers, in a dangerous intrigue with Courtin and Barillon, the French\nenvoys, and Louis XIV.; he refused, however, the latter's presents on\nthe ground that he was a member of the council, having been appointed to\nSir William Temple's new modelled cabinet in 1679. Barillon described\nhim as at this period in his old age \"the man of all England for whom\nthe different cabals have the most consideration,\" and as firmly opposed\nto the arbitrary designs of the court. He showed moderation in the\nPopish Plot, and on the question of the exclusion followed Halifax\nrather than Shaftesbury. His long and eventful career closed by his\ndeath on the 17th of February 1680.\n\nThe character of Holles has been drawn by Burnet, with whom he was on\nterms of friendship. \"Hollis was a man of great courage and of as great\npride.... He was faithful and firm to his side and never changed through\nthe whole course of his life.... He argued well but too vehemently; for\nhe could not bear contradiction. He had the soul of an old stubborn\nRoman in him. He was a faithful but a rough friend, and a severe but\nfair enemy. He had a true sense of religion; and was a man of an\nunblameable course of life and of a sound judgment when it was not\nbiased by passion.\"[3] Holles was essentially an aristocrat and a Whig\nin feeling, making Cromwell's supposed hatred of \"Lords\" a special\ncharge against him; regarding the civil wars rather as a social than as\na political revolution, and attributing all the evils of his time to the\ntransference of political power from the governing families to the\n\"meanest of men.\" He was an authority on the history and practice of\nparliament and the constitution, and besides the pamphlets already\nmentioned was the author of _The Case Stated concerning the Judicature\nof the House of Peers in the Point of Appeals_ (1675); _The Case Stated\nof the Jurisdiction of the House of Lords in the point of Impositions_\n(1676); _Letter of a Gentleman to his Friend showing that the Bishops\nare not to be judges in Parliament in Cases Capital_ (1679); _Lord\nHolles his Remains, being a 2nd letter to a Friend concerning the\njudicature of the Bishops in Parliament..._.[4] He also published _A\nTrue Relation of the unjust accusation of certain French gentlemen_\n(1671), an account of Holles's intercession on their behalf and of his\ndispute with Lord Chief Justice Keeling; and he left _Memoirs_, written\nin exile in 1649, and dedicated \"to the unparalleled Couple, Mr Oliver\nSt John ... and Mr Oliver Cromwell....\" published in 1699 and reprinted\nin Baron Maseres's _Select Tracts relating to the Civil Wars_, i. 189.\nSeveral speeches of Holles were printed and are extant, and his Letter\nto Van Beuninghen has been already quoted.\n\nHolles married (1) in 1628 Dorothy, daughter and heiress of Sir Francis\nAshley; (2) in 1642 Jane, daughter and co-heiress of Sir John Shirley of\nIfield in Sussex and widow of Sir Walter Covert of Slougham, Sussex; and\n(3) in 1666 Esther, daughter and co-heiress of Gideon Le Lou of\nColumbiers in Normandy, widow of James Richer. By his first wife he left\none son, Francis, who succeeded him as 2nd baron. He had no children by\nhis other wives, and the peerage became extinct in the person of his\ngrandson Denzil, 3rd Baron Holles, in 1694, the estates devolving on\nJohn Holles (1662-1711), 4th earl of Clare and duke of Newcastle.\n\nHolles's brother, JOHN HOLLES, 2nd earl of Clare (1595-1666), was member\nof parliament for East Retford in three parliaments before succeeding to\nthe peerage in 1637. He took some part in the Civil War, but \"he was\nvery often of both parties, and never advantaged either.\" The earldom of\nClare, which had been granted in 1624 by James I. to his father, John\nHolles, in return for the payment of L5000, became merged in the dukedom\nof Newcastle in 1694, when John Holles, the 4th earl, was created duke\nof Newcastle.\n\n Holles's Life has been written by C. H. Firth in the _Dictionary of\n National Biography_; by Horace Walpole in _Royal and Noble Authors_,\n ii. 28; by Guizot in _Monk's Contemporaries_ (Eng. trans., 1851); and\n by A. Collins in _Historical Collections of Noble Families_ (1752),\n and in the _Biographia Britannica_. See also S. R. Gardiner, _History\n of England_ (1883-1884), and _History of the Great Civil War_ (1893);\n Lord Clarendon, _History of the Rebellion_, edited by W. D. Macray; G.\n Burnet, _History of His Own Time_ (1833); and B. Whitelock,\n _Memorials_ (1732). (P. C. Y.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [1] _Hist. MSS. Comm., MSS. of Earl Cowper_, i. 422.\n\n [2] The speech of January 5 attributed to him and printed in\n _Thomason Tracts_, E 199 (55), is a forgery.\n\n [3] Burnet's _History of His Own Times_, vi. 257, 268.\n\n [4] The rough draft, apparently in Holles's handwriting, is in\n _Egerton MSS._ ff. 136-149.\n\n\n\n\nHOLLOWAY, THOMAS (1800-1883), English patent-medicine vendor and\nphilanthropist, was born at Devonport, on the 22nd of September 1800, of\nhumble parents. Until his twenty-eighth year he lived at Penzance, where\nhe assisted his mother and brother in the baker's shop which his father,\nonce a warrant officer in a militia regiment, had left them at his\ndeath. On coming to London he made the acquaintance of Felix Albinolo,\nan Italian, from whom he obtained the idea for the ointment which was to\ncarry his name all over the world. The secret of his enormous success in\nbusiness was due almost entirely to advertisement, in the efficacy of\nwhich he had great faith. He soon added the sale of pills to that of the\nointment, and began to devote the larger part of his profits to\nadvertising. Holloway's first newspaper announcement appeared on the\n15th of October 1837, and in 1842 his yearly expenses for publicity had\nreached the sum of L5000; this expenditure went on steadily increasing\nas his sales increased, until it had reached the figure of L50,000 per\nannum at the time of his death. It is, however, chiefly by the two\nprincely foundations--the Sanatorium and the College for Women at Egham\n(q.v.), endowed by Holloway towards the close of his life--that his name\nwill be perpetuated, more than a million sterling having been set apart\nby him for the erection and permanent endowment of these institutions.\nIn the deed of gift of the college the founder credited his wife, who\ndied in 1875, with the advice and counsel that led him to provide what\nhe hoped might ultimately become the nucleus of a university for women.\nThe philanthropic and somewhat eccentric donor (he had an unconcealed\nprejudice against doctors, lawyers and parsons) died of congestion of\nthe lungs at Sunninghill on the 26th of December 1883.\n\n\n\n\nHOLLY (_Ilex Aquifolium_), the European representative of a large genus\nof trees and shrubs of the natural order Ilicineae, containing about 170\nspecies. The genus finds its chief development in Central and South\nAmerica; is well developed in Asia, especially the Chinese-Japanese\narea, and has but few species in Europe, Africa and Australia. In\nEurope, where _I. Aquifolium_ is the sole surviving species, the genus\nwas richly represented during the Miocene period by forms at first South\nAmerican and Asiatic, and later North American in type (Schimper,\n_Paleont. veget._ iii. 204, 1874). The leaves are generally leathery and\nevergreen, and are alternate and stalked; the flowers are commonly\ndioecious, are in axillary cymes, fascicles or umbellules, and have a\npersistent four- to five-lobed calyx, a white, rotate four- or rarely\nfive- or six-cleft corolla, with the four or five stamens adherent to\nits base in the male, sometimes hypogynous in the female flowers, and a\ntwo- to twelve-celled ovary; the fruit is a globose, very seldom ovoid,\nand usually red drupe, containing two to sixteen one-seeded stones.\n\n[Illustration: _Ilex Aquifolium._ Shoot bearing leaves and fruit about\n1/2 nat. size.\n\n 1. Flower with abortive stamens.\n 2. Flower with abortive pistil.\n 3. Floral diagram showing arrangement of parts in horizontal section.\n 4. Fruit.\n 5. Fruit cut transversely showing the four one-seeded stones.]\n\nThe common holly, or Hulver (apparently the [Greek: kelastros] of\nTheophrastus;[1] Ang.-Sax. _holen_ or _holegn_; Mid. Eng. _holyn_ or\n_holin_, whence _holm_ and _holmtree_;[2] Welsh, _celyn_; Ger.\n_Stechpalme_, _Hulse_, _Hulst_; O. Fr. _houx_; and Fr. _houlx_),[3] _I.\nAquifolium_, is an evergreen shrub or low tree, having smooth,\nash-coloured bark, and wavy, pointed, smooth and glossy leaves, 2 to 3\nin. long, with a spinous margin, raised and cartilaginous below, or, as\ncommonly on the upper branches of the older trees, entire--a peculiarity\nalluded to by Southey in his poem _The Holly Tree_. The flowers, which\nappear in May, are ordinarily dioecious, as in all the best of the\ncultivated varieties in nurseries (_Gard. Chron._, 1877, i. 149). Darwin\n(_Diff. Forms of Flow._, 1877, p. 297) says of the holly: \"During\nseveral years I have examined many plants, but have never found one that\nwas really hermaphrodite.\" Shirley Hibberd, however (_Gard. Chron._,\n1877, ii. 777), mentions the occurrence of \"flowers bearing globose\nanthers well furnished with pollen, and also perfect ovaries.\" In his\nopinion, _I. Aquifolium_ changes its sex from male to female with age.\nIn the female flowers the stamens are destitute of pollen, though but\nslightly or not at all shorter than in the male flowers; the latter are\nmore numerous than the female, and have a smaller ovary and a larger\ncorolla, to which the filaments adhere for a greater length. The corolla\nin male plants falls off entire, whereas in fruit-bearers it is broken\ninto separate segments by the swelling of the young ovary. The holly\noccurs in Britain, north-east Scotland excepted, and in western and\nsouthern Europe, from as high as 62 deg. N. lat. in Norway to Turkey and\nthe Caucasus and in western Asia. It is found generally in forest glades\nor in hedges, and does not flourish under the shade of other trees. In\nEngland it is usually small, probably on account of its destruction for\ntimber, but it may attain to 60 or 70 ft. in height, and Loudon mentions\none tree at Claremont, in Surrey, of 80 ft. Some of the trees on Bleak\nHill, Shropshire, are asserted to be 14 ft. in girth at some distance\nfrom the ground (_N. and Q._, 5th ser., xii. 508). The holly is abundant\nin France, especially in Brittany. It will grow in almost any soil not\nabsolutely wet, but flourishes best in rather dry than moist sandy loam.\nBeckmann (_Hist. of Invent._, 1846, i. 193) says that the plant which\nfirst induced J. di Castro to search for alum in Italy was the holly,\nwhich is there still considered to indicate that its habitat is\naluminiferous. The holly is propagated by means of the seeds, which do\nnot normally germinate until their second year, by whip-grafting and\nbudding, and by cuttings of the matured summer shoots, which, placed in\nsandy soil and kept under cover of a hand-glass in sheltered situations,\ngenerally strike root in spring. Transplantation should be performed in\ndamp weather in September and October, or, according to some writers, in\nspring or on mild days in winter, and care should be taken that the\nroots are not dried by exposure to the air. It is rarely injured by\nfrosts in Britain, where its foliage and bright red berries in winter\nrender it a valuable ornamental tree. The yield of berries has been\nnoticed to be less when a warm spring, following on a wet winter season,\nhas promoted excess of growth. There are numerous varieties of the\nholly. Some trees have yellow, and others white or even black fruit. In\nthe fruitless variety _laurifolia_, \"the most floriferous of all\nhollies\" (Hibberd), the flowers are highly fragrant; the form known as\n_femina_ is, on the other hand, remarkable for the number of its\nberries. The leaves in the unarmed varieties _aureo-marginata_ and\n_albo-marginata_ are of great beauty, and in _ferox_ they are studded\nwith sharp prickles. The holly is of importance as a hedge-plant, and is\npatient of clipping, which is best performed by the knife. Evelyn's\nholly hedge at Say's Court, Deptford, was 400 ft. long, 9 ft. high and 5\nft. in breadth. To form fences, for which Evelyn recommends the\nemployment of seedlings from woods, the plants should be 9 to 12 in. in\nheight, with plenty of small fibrous roots, and require to be set 1 to\n1(1/2) ft. apart, in well-manured and weeded ground and thoroughly\nwatered.\n\nThe wood of the holly is even-grained and hard, especially when from the\nheartwood of large trees, and almost as white as ivory, except near the\ncentre of old trunks, where it is brownish. It is employed in inlaying\nand turning, and, since it stains well, in the place of ebony, as for\nteapot handles. For engraving it is inferior to box. When dry it weighs\nabout 47(1/2) lb. per cub. ft. From the bark of the holly bird-lime is\nmanufactured. From the leaves are obtainable a colouring matter named\n_ilixanthin_, _ilicic acid_, and a bitter principle, _ilicin_, which has\nbeen variously described by different analytical chemists. They are\neaten by sheep and deer, and in parts of France serve as a winter fodder\nfor cattle. The berries provoke in man violent vomiting and purging, but\nare eaten with immunity by thrushes and other birds. The larvae of the\nmoths _Sphinx ligustri_ and _Phoxopteryx naevana_ have been met with on\nholly. The leaves are mined by the larva of a fly, _Phytomyza ilicis_,\nand both on them and the tops of the young twigs occurs the plant-louse\n_Aphis ilicis_ (Kaltenbach, _Pflanzenfeinde_, 1874, p. 427). The custom\nof employing holly and other plants for decorative purposes at Christmas\nis one of considerable antiquity, and has been regarded as a survival of\nthe usages of the Roman Saturnalia, or of an old Teutonic practice of\nhanging the interior of dwellings with evergreens as a refuge for sylvan\nspirits from the inclemency of winter. A Border proverb defines an\nhabitual story-teller as one that \"lees never but when the hollen is\ngreen.\" Several popular superstitions exist with respect to holly. In\nthe county of Rutland it is deemed unlucky to introduce it into a house\nbefore Christmas Eve. In some English rural districts the prickly and\nnon-prickly kinds are distinguished as \"he\" and \"she\" holly; and in\nDerbyshire the tradition obtains that according as the holly brought at\nChristmas into a house is smooth or rough, the wife or the husband will\nbe master. Holly that has adorned churches at that season is in\nWorcestershire and Herefordshire much esteemed and cherished, the\npossession of a small branch with berries being supposed to bring a\nlucky year; and Lonicerus mentions a notion in his time vulgarly\nprevalent in Germany that consecrated twigs of the plant hung over a\ndoor are a protection against thunder.\n\n Among the North American species of _Ilex_ are _I. opaca_, which\n resembles the European tree, the Inkberry, _I. (Prinos) glabra_, and\n the American Black Alder, or Winterberry, _I. (Prinos) verticillata_.\n Hooker (_Fl. of Brit. India_, i. 598, 606) enumerates twenty-four\n Indian species of _Ilex_. The Japanese _I. crenata_, and _I.\n latifolia_, a remarkably hardy plant, and the North American _I.\n Cassine_, are among the species cultivated in Britain. The leaves of\n several species of _Ilex_ are used by dyers. The member of the genus\n most important economically is _I. paraguariensis_, the prepared\n leaves of which constitute Paraguay tea, or MATE (q.v.). Knee holly is\n _Ruscus aculeatus_, or butcher's broom (see BROOM); sea holly,\n _Eryngium maritimum_, an umbelliferous plant; and the mountain holly\n of America, _Nemopanthes canadensis_, also a member of the order\n Ilicineae.\n\n Besides the works above mentioned, see Louden, _Arboretum_, ii. 506\n (1844).\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [1] _Hist. Plant._ i. 9. 3, iii. 3. 1, and 4. 6, _et passim_. On the\n _aquifolium_ or _aquifolia_ of Latin authors, commonly regarded as\n the holly, see A. de Grandsagne, _Hist. Nat. de Pline_, bk. xvi.,\n \"Notes,\" pp. 199, 206.\n\n [2] The term \"holm,\" as indicative of a prevalence of holly, is\n stated to have entered into the names of several places in Britain.\n From its superficial resemblance to the holly, the tree _Quercus\n Ilex_, the evergreen oak, received the appellation of \"holm-oak.\"\n\n [3] Skeat (_Etymolog. Dict._, 1879) with reference to the word holly\n remarks: \"The form of the base KUL (= Teutonic HUL) is probably\n connected with Lat. _culmen_, a peak, _culmus_, a stalk; perhaps\n because the leaves are 'pointed.'\" Grimm (_Deut. Worterb._ Bd. iv.)\n suggests that the term _Hulst_, as the O.H.G. _Hulis_, applied to the\n butcher's broom, or knee-holly, in the earliest times used for\n hedges, may have reference to the holly as a protecting (_hullender_)\n plant.\n\n\n\n\nHOLLYHOCK (from M.E. _holi_--doubtless because brought from the Holy\nLand, where it is indigenous (Wedg.)--and A.-S. _hoc_, a mallow),\n_Althaea rosea_, a perennial plant of the natural order _Malvaceae_, a\nnative of the East, which has been cultivated in Great Britain for about\nthree centuries. The ordinary hollyhock is single-blossomed, but the\nflorists' varieties have all double flowers, of white, yellow, rose,\npurple, violet and other tints, some being almost black. The plant is in\nits prime about August, but by careful management examples may be\nobtained in blossom from July to as late as November. Hollyhocks are\npropagated from seed, or by division of the root, or by planting out in\nrich sandy soil, in a close frame, with a gentle bottom heat, single\neyes from woodshoots, or cuttings from outgrowths of the old stock or of\nthe lateral offsets of the spike. The seed may be sown in October under\ncover, the plants obtained being potted in November, and kept under\nglass till the following April, or, if it be late-gathered, in May or\nJune, in the open ground, whence, if required, the plants are best\nremoved in October or April. In many gardens, when the plants are not\ndisturbed, self-sown seedlings come up in abundance about April and May.\nSeedlings may also be raised in February or March, by the aid of a\ngentle heat, in a light and rich moist soil; they should not be watered\ntill they have made their second leaves, and when large enough for\nhandling should be pricked off in a cold frame; they are subsequently\ntransferred to the flower-bed. Hollyhocks thrive best in a well-trenched\nand manured sandy loam. The spikes as they grow must be staked; and\nwater and, for the finest blossoms, liquid manure should be liberally\nsupplied to the roots. Plants for exhibition require the side growths to\nbe pinched out; and it is recommended, in cold, bleak or northerly\nlocalities, when the flowering is over, and the stalks have been cut off\n4 to 6 in. above the soil, to earth up the crowns with sand. Some of the\nfinest double-flowered kinds of hollyhock do not bloom well in Scotland.\nThe plant is susceptible of great modification under cultivation. The\nforms now grown are due to the careful selection and crossing of\nvarieties. It is found that the most diverse varieties may be raised\nwith certainty from plants growing near together.\n\nThe young shoots of the hollyhock are very liable to the attacks of\nslugs, and to a disease occasioned by a fungus, _Puccinia malvacearum_,\nwhich is a native of Chile, attained notoriety in the Australian\ncolonies, and finally, reaching Europe in 1869, threatened the\nextermination of the hollyhock, the soft parts of the leaves of which it\ndestroys, leaving the venation only remaining. It has been found\nespecially hurtful to the plant in dry seasons. It is also parasitic on\nthe wild mallows. The disease appears on the leaves as minute hard\npale-brown pustules, filled with spores which germinate without a\nresting-period, but when produced late in the season may last as\nresting-spores until next spring. Spraying early in the season with\nBordeaux mixture is an effective preventive, but the best means of\ntreatment is to destroy all leaves as soon as they show signs of being\nattacked, and to prevent the growth of other host-plants such as\nmallows, in the neighbourhood. In hot dry seasons, red-spider injures\nthe foliage very much, but may be kept at bay by syringing the plants\nfrequently with plenty of clean water.\n\n\n\n\nHOLLY SPRINGS, a city and the county-seat of Marshall county,\nMississippi, U.S.A., in the N. part of the state, 45 m. S.E. of Memphis.\nPop. (1890) 2246; (1900) 2815 (1559 negroes); (1910) 2192. Holly Springs\nis served by the Illinois Central and the Kansas City, Memphis &\nBirmingham (Frisco System) railways. The city has broad and well-shaded\nstreets, and a fine court-house and court-house square. It is the seat\nof Rust University (opened in 1867), a Methodist Episcopal institution\nfor negroes; of the Mississippi Synodical College (1905; Presbyterian),\nfor white girls; and of the North Mississippi Agricultural Experiment\nStation. The principal industries are the ginning, compressing and\nshipping of cotton, and the manufacture of cotton-seed oil, but the city\nalso manufactures pottery and brick from clay obtained in the vicinity,\nand has an ice factory, bottling works and marble works. The\nmunicipality owns and operates its water-works and electric-lighting\nplant. Holly Springs was founded in 1837 and was chartered as a city in\n1896. Early in December 1862 General Grant established here a large\ndepot of supplies designed for the use of the Federal army while on its\nmarch toward Vicksburg, but General Earl Van Dorn, with a brigade of\ncavalry, surprised the post at daylight on the 20th of this month,\nburned the supplies and took 1500 prisoners. Holly Springs was the home\nand is the burial-place of Edward Cary Walthall (1831-1898), a\nDemocratic member of the United States Senate in 1885-1894 and in\n1895-1898.\n\n\n\n\nHOLMAN, JAMES (1786-1857), known as the \"Blind Traveller,\" was born at\nExeter on the 15th of October 1786. He entered the British navy in 1798\nas first-class volunteer, and was appointed lieutenant in April 1807. In\n1810 he was invalided by an illness which resulted in total loss of\nsight. In consideration of his helpless circumstances he was in 1812\nappointed one of the royal knights of Windsor, but the quietness of such\na life harmonized so ill with his active habits and keen interests that\nhe requested leave of absence to go abroad, and in 1819, 1820 and 1821\njourneyed through France, Italy, Switzerland, the parts of Germany\nbordering on the Rhine, Belgium and the Netherlands. On his return he\npublished _The Narrative of a Journey through France_, &c. (London,\n1822). He again set out in 1822 with the design of making the circuit of\nthe world, but after travelling through Russia into Siberia, he was\nsuspected of being a spy, was arrested when he had managed to penetrate\n1000 m. beyond Smolensk, and after being conducted to the frontiers of\nPoland, returned home by Austria, Saxony, Prussia and Hanover. He now\nissued _Travels through Russia, Siberia_, &c. (London, 1825). Shortly\nafterwards he again set out to accomplish by a somewhat different method\nthe design which had been frustrated by the Russian authorities; and an\naccount of his remarkable achievement was published in four volumes in\n1834-1835, under the title of _A Voyage round the World, including\nTravels in Africa, Asia, Australasia, America, &c., from 1827 to 1832_.\nHis last journeys were through Spain, Portugal, Moldavia, Montenegro,\nSyria and Turkey; and he was engaged in preparing an account of this\ntour when he died in London on the 29th of July 1857.\n\n\n\n\nHOLMES, OLIVER WENDELL (1809-1894), American writer and physician, was\nborn on the 29th of August 1809 at Cambridge, Mass. His father, Abiel\nHolmes (1763-1837), was a Calvinist clergyman, the writer of a useful\nhistory, _Annals of America_, and of much very dull poetry. His mother\n(the second wife of Abiel) was Sarah Wendell, of a distinguished New\nYork family. Through her Dr Holmes was descended from Governors Thomas\nDudley and Simon Bradstreet of Massachusetts, and from her he derived\nhis cheerfulness and vivacity, his sympathetic humour and wit. From\nPhillips (Andover) Academy he entered Harvard in the \"famous class of\n'29,\" made further illustrious by the charming lyrics which he wrote for\nthe anniversary dinners from 1851 to 1889, closing with the touching\n\"After the Curfew.\" After graduation he studied law perfunctorily for a\nyear and dabbled in literature, winning the public ear by a spirited\nlyric called forth by the order to destroy the old frigate\n_Constitution_. These verses were sung all over the land, and induced\nthe Navy Department to revoke its order and save the old ship. Turning\nnext to medicine, and convinced by a brief experience in Boston that he\nliked it, he went to Paris in March 1833. He studied industriously under\nLouis and other famous physicians and surgeons in France, and in his\nvacations visited the Low Countries, England, Scotland and Italy.\nReturning to Boston at the close of 1835, filled with a high\nprofessional ambition, he sought practice, but achieved only moderate\nsuccess. Social, brilliant in conversation, and a writer of gay little\npoems, he seemed to the grave Bostonians not sufficiently serious. He\nwon prizes, however, for professional papers, and lectured on anatomy at\nDartmouth College. He wrote two papers on homoeopathy, which he attacked\nwith trenchant wit; also a valuable paper on the malarial fevers of New\nEngland. In 1843 he published his essay on the _Contagiousness of\nPuerperal Fever_, which stirred up a fierce controversy and brought upon\nhim bitter personal abuse; but he maintained his position with dignity,\ntemper and judgment; and in time he was honoured as the discoverer of a\nbeneficent truth. The volume of his medical essays holds some of his\nmost sparkling wit, his shrewdest observation, his kindliest humanity.\nIn 1840 he married Amelia Lee Jackson, daughter of the Hon. Charles\nJackson (1775-1855), formerly associate justice of the State supreme\njudicial court, a lady of rare charm alike of mind and character. She\ndied in the winter of 1887-1888. Their first-born child, Oliver Wendell\nHolmes, afterwards became chief justice of that same bench on which his\ngrandfather sat. In 1847 Dr Holmes was appointed professor of anatomy\nand physiology In the Medical School of Harvard University, the duties\ninvolving the giving of instruction also in kindred departments, so\nthat, as he said, he occupied \"not a chair, but a settee in the school.\"\nHe delivered the anatomical lectures until November 1882, and in later\nyears these were his only link with the medical profession. They were\nfresh, witty and lively; and the students were sent to him at the end of\nthe day, when they were fagged, because he alone could keep them awake.\nIn later years he made few finished contributions to medical knowledge;\nhis eager and impetuous temperament caused him to leave more patient\ninvestigators to push to ultimate results the suggestions thrown out by\nhis fertile and imaginative mind.\n\nIn 1836, being in that year the Phi Beta Kappa poet at Harvard\nUniversity, he published his first volume of _Poems_, which afterwards\nreached a second edition. Among these earlier lyrics was \"The Last\nLeaf,\" one of the most delicate combinations of pathos and humour in\nliterature. His collected poetry fills three volumes. In 1856-1857 a\nBoston publishing house (Phillips, Sampson, and Co.) invited James\nRussell Lowell to edit a new magazine, which he agreed to do on\ncondition that he could secure the assistance of Dr Holmes. By this\nurgent invitation the Doctor was equally surprised and flattered, for\nheretofore he had stood rather outside the literary coterie of Cambridge\nand Boston. He accepted with pleasure, and at once threw himself into\nthe enterprise with zeal. He christened it _The Atlantic Monthly_; and,\nas Mr Howells afterwards said, he \"not only named but made\" it, for in\neach number of its first volume there appeared one of the papers of the\n_Autocrat of the Breakfast Table_. The opening of the _Autocrat_--\"I was\njust going to say when I was interrupted\"--is explained by the fact that\nin the old _New England Magazine_ (1831 to 1833) the Doctor had\npublished two _Autocrat_ papers, which, by his wish, have never been\nreprinted. In the commercial panic of 1857 the new magazine would\ninevitably have failed had it not been for these fascinating essays.\nTheir originality of conception, their wit and humour, their suggestions\nof what then seemed bold ideas, and their expression of New Englandism,\nall combined to make them so popular that the most harassed merchant in\nthat gloomy winter purchased them as a dose of cheering medicine. Thus\nDr Holmes made _The Atlantic Monthly_, which in return made him. A\nsuccess so immediate and so splendid settled the rest of his career; he\nceased to be a physician and became an author. These twelve papers were\nimmediately (1858) published as a volume. No sooner was the _Autocrat_\nsilent than the _Professor_ (1859) succeeded him at the breakfast table.\nThe _Professor_ was preferred by more thoughtful readers, though it has\nhardly been so widely popular as the _Autocrat_. Its theology, which\nseemed in those days audacious, frightened many of the strict and\nold-fashioned religionists of New England, though to-day it seems mild\nenough. Twelve years later, in 1871, the Landlady had another boarder,\nwho took the vacant chair--the _Poet_ (published 1872). But here Holmes\nfell a little short. In these three books, especially in the _Autocrat_\nand the _Professor_, the Doctor wrote as he talked at many a dinner\ntable in Boston, but less well. The animation and clash of talk roused\nhim. The dinners of the Saturday Club are among Boston's proudest\ntraditions, as they were the chief pleasure of Dr Holmes's life. There\nhe met Emerson, Longfellow, Whittier, Lowell, Sumner, Agassiz, Motley,\nand many other charming talkers, and among them all he was admitted to\nbe the best.\n\nThere were characters and incidents, but hardly a story, in the\n_Autocrat_ and the _Professor_. Holmes had an ambition for more\nsustained work, and in 1861 his novel, _Elsie Venner_, at first called\n_The Professor's Story_, was published. The book was illuminated\nthroughout by admirable pictures of character and society in the typical\nNew England town. But the rattlesnake element was unduly extravagant,\nand in other respects the book was open to criticism as a work of art.\nIt was written with the same purpose which informed the greatest part of\nthe Doctor's literary work, and which had already been scented and\nnervously condemned by the religious world. By heredity the Doctor was a\ntheologian; no other topic enchained him more than did the stern and\nmerciless dogmas of his Calvinist forefathers. His humanity revolted\nagainst them, his reason condemned them, and he set himself to their\ndestruction as his task in literature. The religious world of his time\nwas still so largely under the control of old ideas that he was assailed\nas a freethinker and a subverter of Christianity; though before his\ndeath opinions had so changed that the bitterness of the attacks upon\nhim seemed incredible, even to some of those who had most vehemently\nmade them. None the less, undaunted and profoundly earnest, he returned,\nsix years later, to the same line of thought in his second novel, _The\nGuardian Angel_ (published 1867). This, though less well known than\n_Elsie Venner_, is in many respects better. No more lifelike and\ncharming picture of the society of the New England country-town of the\nmiddle third of the 19th century has ever been drawn, and every page\nsparkles with wit and humour. In 1884 and 1885 it was followed, still in\nthe same line, by _A Mortal Antipathy_, a production inferior to its\npredecessors.\n\nHolmes generally held himself aloof from politics, and from those\n\"causes\" of temperance, abolition and woman's rights which enthralled\nmost of his contemporaries in New England. The Civil War, however,\naroused him for the time; finding him first a strenuous Unionist, it\nquickly converted him into an ardent advocate of emancipation. His\ninterest was enhanced by the career of his elder son Oliver (see below),\nwho was three times severely wounded, and finally rose to the rank of\nlieut.-colonel in the Northern army. He wrote some ringing war lyrics,\nand in 1863 delivered the Fourth of July oration in Boston, which showed\na masterly appreciation of the stirring public questions of the day. In\n1878 Dr Holmes wrote a memoir of the historian John Lothrop Motley, an\naffectionate tribute to one who had been his dear friend. In 1884 he\ncontributed the life of Emerson to the American \"Men of Letters\" series.\nHe admired the \"Sage of Concord,\" but was not quite in intellectual\nsympathy with him. Both were Liberals in thought, but in widely\ndifferent ways. But in spite of this handicap the volume proved very\npopular. In 1888 he began the papers which he happily christened _Over\nthe Tea Cups_. As a _tour de force_ on the part of a man of nearly\nfourscore years they are very remarkable.\n\nAfter his return from Paris in 1835 Dr Holmes lived in Boston, with\nsummer sojournings at Pittsfield and Beverly Farms, and occasional trips\nto neighbouring cities, until 1886. He then undertook a four months'\njourney in Europe, and in England had a sort of triumphal progress. On\nhis return he wrote _Our Hundred Days in Europe_ (1887), a courteous\nrecognition of the hospitality and praise which had been accorded to\nhim. During this visit Cambridge University made him Doctor of Letters,\nEdinburgh University made him Doctor of Laws, and Oxford University made\nhim Doctor of Civil Law. Already, in 1880, Harvard University had made\nhim Doctor of Laws. He died on the 7th of October 1894, and was buried\nfrom King's Chapel, Boston, in the cemetery of Mount Auburn.\n\nHis eldest son Oliver Wendell (b. 1841), who graduated from Harvard in\n1861 and fought in the Civil War, retiring from the army as brevet\nlieut.-colonel in 1864, took up the study of law and was admitted to the\nbar in Boston in 1866. He was for some years editor of the _American Law\nReview_, and after being professor in the Harvard Law School in 1882 was\nappointed in the same year a judge of the Massachusetts supreme court,\nrising to be chief justice in 1899. In 1902 he was made a judge of the\nUnited States Supreme Court. His work on _The Common Law_ (1881) and his\nedition (1873) of Kent's _Commentaries_ are his principal publications;\nand he became widely recognized as one of the great jurists of his day.\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Holmes's _Complete Works_, in 13 volumes, were\n published at Boston in 1891. See J. T. Morse, _Life and Letters of\n Oliver Wendell Holmes_ (London, 1896); G. B. Ives, _Bibliography_\n (Boston, 1907); and the bibliography in P. K. Foley's _American\n Authors_ (Boston, 1897). An essay by Sir Leslie Stephen is prefixed to\n the \"Golden Treasury\" edition (1903) of _The Autocrat of the Breakfast\n Table_. See also monographs by William Sloane Kennedy (Boston, 1882);\n Emma E. Brown (Boston, 1884). (J. T. Mo.)\n\n\n\n\nHOLMFIRTH, an urban district in the Holmfirth parliamentary division of\nthe West Riding of Yorkshire, England, on and Holme and the Ribble, 6 m.\nS. of Huddersfield, and on the Lancashire and Yorkshire railway. Pop.\n(1901) 8977. The valley, walled by bold hills, is very picturesque. In\n1852 great destruction was wrought in the town by the bursting of a\nreservoir in the vicinity. The large industrial population is employed\nin woollen manufactories, and in the neighbouring stone quarries.\n\n\n\n\nHOLOCAUST (Gr. [Greek: holokauston], or [Greek: holokauton], wholly\nburnt), strictly a sacrifice wholly destroyed by fire, such as the\nsacrifices of the Jews, described in the Pentateuch as \"whole burnt\nofferings\" (see SACRIFICE). The term is now often applied to a\ncatastrophe on a large scale, whether by fire or not, or to a massacre\nor slaughter.\n\n\n\n\nHOLOCENE (from Gr. [Greek: holos], whole, [Greek: kainos], recent), in\ngeology, the time division which embraces the youngest of all the\nformations; it is equivalent to the \"Recent\" of some authors. The name\nwas proposed in 1860 by P. Gervais. The oldest deposits that may be\nincluded are those containing neolithic implements; deposits of historic\ntimes should also be grouped here; presumably the youngest are those to\nbe chronicled by the last man. The Holocene formations obviously include\nall the varieties of deposits which are accumulating at the present day:\nthe gravels and alluvia of rivers; boulder clays, moraines and\nfluvio-glacial deposits; estuarine, coastal and abyssal deposits of the\nseas, and their equivalents in lakes; screes, taluses, wind-borne dust\nand sand and desert formations; chemical deposits from saline waters;\npeat, diatomite, marls, foraminiferal and other oozes; coral, algal and\nshell banks, and other organic deposits; mud, lava and dust deposits of\nvolcanic origin and extrusions of asphalt and pitch; to all these must\nbe added the works of man.\n\n\n\n\nHOLROYD, SIR CHARLES (1861- ), British artist, was born in Leeds on the\n9th of April 1861. He received his art education under Professor Legros\nat the Slade School, University College, London, where he had a\ndistinguished career. After passing six months at Newlyn, where he\npainted his first picture exhibited in the Royal Academy, \"Fishermen\nMending a Sail\" (1885), he obtained a travelling scholarship and studied\nfor two years in Italy, a sojourn which greatly influenced his art. At\nhis return, on the invitation of Legros, he became for two years\nassistant-master at the Slade School, and there devoted himself to\npainting and etching. Among his pictures may be mentioned \"The Death of\nTorrigiano\" (1886), \"The Satyr King\" (1889), \"The Supper at Emmaus,\"\nand, perhaps his best picture, \"Pan and Peasants\" (1893). For the church\nof Aveley, Essex, he painted a triptych altarpiece, \"The Adoration of\nthe Shepherds,\" with wings representing \"St Michael\" and \"St Gabriel,\"\nand designed as well the window, \"The Resurrection.\" His portraits, such\nas that of \"G. F. Watts, R.A.,\" in the Legros manner, show much dignity\nand distinction. Sir Charles Holroyd has made his chief reputation as an\netcher of exceptional ability, combining strength with delicacy, and a\nprofound technical knowledge of the art. Among the best known are the\n\"Monte Oliveto\" series, the \"Icarus\" series, the \"Monte Subasio\" series,\nand the \"Eve\" series, together with the plates, \"The Flight into Egypt,\"\n\"The Prodigal Son,\" \"A Barn on Tadworth Common\" (etched in the open\nair), and \"The Storm.\" His etched heads of \"Professor Legros,\" \"Lord\nCourtney\" and \"Night,\" are admirable alike in knowledge and in likeness.\nHis principal dry-point is \"The Bather.\" In all his work Holroyd\ndisplays an impressive sincerity, with a fine sense of composition, and\nof style, allied to independent and modern feeling. He was appointed the\nfirst keeper of the National Gallery of British Art (Tate Gallery), and\non the retirement of Sir Edward Poynter in 1906 he received the\ndirectorship of the National Gallery. He was knighted in 1903. His\n_Michael Angelo Buonarotti_ (London, Duckworth, 1903) is a scholarly\nwork of real value.\n\n\n\n\nHOLSTEIN, FRIEDRICH VON (1837-1909), German statesman, for more than\nthirty years head of the political department of the German Foreign\nOffice. Holstein's importance began with the dismissal of Bismarck in\n1890. The new chancellor, Caprivi, was ignorant of foreign affairs; and\nHolstein, as the repository of the Bismarckian tradition, became\nindispensable. This reluctance to emerge into publicity has been\nascribed to the part he had played under Bismarck in the Arnim affair,\nwhich had made him powerful enemies; it was, however, possibly due to a\nshrinking from the responsibility of office. Yet the weakness of his\nposition lay just in the fact that he was not ultimately responsible. He\nprotested against the despatch of the \"Kruger telegram,\" but protested\nin vain. On the other hand, where his ideas were acceptable, he was\ngenerally able to realize them. Thus it was almost entirely due to him\nthat Germany acquired Kiao-chau and asserted her interests in China, and\nthe acquisition of Samoa was also largely his work. If the skill and\npertinacity with which Holstein carried through his plans in these\nmatters was learned in the school of Bismarck, he had not acquired\nBismarck's faculty for foreseeing their ulterior consequences. This is\ntrue of his Chinese policy, and true also of his part in the Morocco\ncrisis. The emperor William II.'s journey to Tangier was undertaken on\nhis advice, as a protest against the supposed attempt at the isolation\nof Germany; but of the later developments of German policy in the\nMorocco question he did not approve, on the ground that the result would\nmerely be to strengthen the Anglo-French _entente_; and from the 12th of\nMarch 1906 onwards he took no active part in the matter. To the last he\nbelieved that the position of Germany would remain unsafe until an\nunderstanding had been arrived at with Great Britain, and it was this\nbelief that determined his attitude towards the question of the fleet,\n\"beside which,\" he wrote in February 1909, \"all other questions are of\nlesser account.\" His views on this question were summarized in a\nmemorandum of December 1907, of which Herr von Rath gives a _resume_. He\nobjected to the programme of the German Navy League on three main\ngrounds: (1) the ill-feeling likely to be aroused in South Germany, (2)\nthe inevitable dislocation of the finances through the huge additional\ncharges involved, (3) the suspicion of Germany's motives in foreign\ncountries, which would bind Great Britain still closer to France. As for\nthe idea that Germany's power would be increased, this--he wrote in\nreply to a letter from Admiral Galster--was \"a simple question of\narithmetic\"; for how would the sea-power of Germany be relatively\nincreased if for every new German ship Great Britain built two? Herr von\nHolstein retired on the resignation of Prince Bulow, and died on the 8th\nof May 1909.\n\n See Hermann von Rath, \"Erinnerungen an Herrn von Holstein\" in the\n _Deutsche Revue_ for October 1909. He is also frequently mentioned\n _passim_ in Prince Chlodwig Hohenlohe's _Memoirs_.\n\n\n\n\nHOLSTEIN, formerly a duchy of Germany. Until about 1110 the county of\nHolstein formed part of the duchy of Saxony, and it was made a duchy in\n1472. From 1460 to 1864 it was ruled by members of the house of\nOldenburg, some of whom were also kings of Denmark. It is now the\nsouthern part of the Prussian province of Schleswig-Holstein. (See\nSCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN, and for history SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN QUESTION.)\n\n\n\n\nHOLSTEN, KARL CHRISTIAN JOHANN (1825-1897), German theologian, was born\nat Gustrow, Mecklenburg, on the 31st of March 1825, and educated at\nLeipzig, Berlin and Rostock, where in 1852 he became a teacher of\nreligion in the Gymnasium. In 1870 he went to Bern as professor of New\nTestament studies, passing thence in 1876 to Heidelberg, where he\nremained until his death on the 26th of January 1897. Holsten was an\nadherent of the Tubingen school, and held to Baur's views on the alleged\nantagonism between Petrinism and Paulinism.\n\n Among his writings are _Zum Evangelium d. Paulus und d. Petrus_\n (1867); _Das Evangelium des Paulus dargestellt_ (1880); _Die\n synoptischen Evangelien nach der Form ihres Inhalts_ (1886).\n\n\n\n\nHOLSTENIUS, LUCAS, the Latinized name of Luc Holste (1596-1661), German\nhumanist, geographer and theological writer, was born at Hamburg. He\nstudied at Leiden university, where he became intimate with the most\nfamous scholars of the age--J. Meursius, D. Heinsius and P. Cluverius,\nwhom he accompanied on his travels in Italy and Sicily. Disappointed at\nhis failure to obtain a post in the gymnasium of his native town, he\nleft Germany for good. Having spent two years in Oxford and London, he\nwent to Paris. Here he obtained the patronage of N. de Peiresc, who\nrecommended him to Cardinal Francesco Barberini, papal nuncio and the\npossessor of the most important private library in Rome. On the\ncardinal's return in 1627 he took Holstenius to live with him in his\npalace and made him his librarian. Although converted to Roman\nCatholicism in 1625, Holstenius showed his liberal-mindedness by\nstrenuously opposing the strict censorship exercised by the Congregation\nof the Index. He was appointed librarian of the Vatican by Innocent X.,\nand was sent to Innsbruck by Alexander VII. to receive Queen Christina's\nabjuration of Protestantism. He died in Rome on the 2nd of February\n1661. Holstenius was a man of unwearied industry and immense learning,\nbut he lacked the persistency to carry out the vast literary schemes he\nhad planned. He was the author of notes on Cluvier's _Italia antiqua_\n(1624); an edition of portions of Porphyrius (1630), with a dissertation\non his life and writings, described as a model of its kind; notes on\nEusebius _Against Hierocles_ (1628), on the Sayings of the later\nPythagoreans (1638), and the _De diis et mundo_ of the neo-Platonist\nSallustius (1638); _Notae et castigationes in Stephani Bysantini\nethnica_ (first published in 1684); and _Codex regularum, Collection of\nthe Early Rules of the Monastic Orders_ (1661). His correspondence\n(_Epistolae ad diversos_, ed. J. F. Boissonade, 1817) is a valuable\nsource of information on the literary history of his time.\n\n See N. Wilckens, _Leben des gelehrten Lucae Holstenii_ (Hamburg,\n 1723); Johann Moller, _Cimbria literata_, iii. (1744).\n\n\n\n\nHOLSTER, a leather case to hold a pistol, used by a horseman and\nproperly fastened to the saddle-bow, but sometimes worn in the belt. The\nsame word appears in Dutch, from which the English word probably\ndirectly derives. The root is _hel_- or _hul_- to cover, and is seen in\nthe O. Eng. _heolster_, a place of shelter or concealment, and in \"hull\"\na sheath or covering. The German word for the same object, _holfter_,\nis, according to the New _English Dictionary_, from a different root.\n\n\n\n\nHOLT, SIR JOHN (1642-1710), lord chief justice of England, was born at\nThame, Oxfordshire, on the 30th of December 1642. His father, Sir Thomas\nHolt, possessed a small patrimonial estate, but in order to supplement\nhis income had adopted the profession of law, in which he was not very\nsuccessful, although he became sergeant in 1677, and afterwards for his\npolitical services to the \"Tories\" was rewarded with knighthood. After\nattending for some years the free school of the town of Abingdon, of\nwhich his father was recorder, young Holt in his sixteenth year entered\nOriel College, Oxford. He is said to have spent a very dissipated youth,\nand even to have been in the habit of taking purses on the highway, but\nafter entering Gray's Inn about 1660 he applied himself with exemplary\ndiligence to the study of law. He was called to the bar in 1663. An\nardent supporter of civil and religious liberty, he distinguished\nhimself in the state trials which were then so common by the able and\ncourageous manner in which he supported the pleas of the defendants. In\n1685-1686 he was appointed recorder of London, and about the same time\nhe was made king's sergeant and received the honour of knighthood. His\ngiving a decision adverse to the pretensions of the king to exercise\nmartial law in time of peace led to his dismissal from the office of\nrecorder, but he was continued in the office of king's sergeant in order\nto prevent him from becoming counsel for accused persons. Having been\none of the judges who acted as assessors to the peers in the Convention\nparliament, he took a leading part in arranging the constitutional\nchange by which William III. was called to the throne, and after his\naccession he was appointed lord chief justice of the King's Bench. His\nmerits as a judge are the more apparent and the more remarkable when\ncontrasted with the qualities displayed by his predecessors in office.\nIn judicial fairness, legal knowledge and ability, clearness of\nstatement and unbending integrity he has had few if any superiors on the\nEnglish bench. Over the civil rights of his countrymen he exercised a\njealous watchfulness, more especially when presiding at the trial of\nstate prosecutions, and he was especially careful that all accused\npersons should be treated with fairness and respect. He is, however,\nbest known for the firmness with which he upheld his own prerogatives in\nopposition to the authority of the Houses of Parliament. On several\noccasions his physical as well as his moral courage was tried by extreme\ntests. Having been requested to supply a number of police to help the\nsoldiery in quelling a riot, he assured the messenger that if any of the\npeople were shot he would have the soldiers hanged, and proceeding\nhimself to the scene of riot he was successful in preventing bloodshed.\nWhile steadfast in his sympathies with the Whig party, Holt maintained\non the bench entire political impartiality, and always held himself\naloof from political intrigue. On the retirement of Somers from the\nchancellorship in 1700 he was offered the great seal, but declined it.\nHis death took place in London on the 5th of March 1710. He was buried\nin the chancel of Redgrave church.\n\n _Reports of Cases determined by Sir John Holt_ (1681-1710) appeared at\n London in 1738; and _The Judgments delivered in the case of Ashby v.\n White and others, and in the case of John Paty and others, printed\n from original MSS._, at London (1837). See Burnet's _Own Times_;\n _Tatler_, No. xiv.; a _Life_, published in 1764; Welsby, _Lives of\n Eminent English Judges of the 17th and 18th Centuries_ (1846);\n Campbell's _Lives of the Lord Chief Justices_; and Foss, _Lives of the\n Judges_.\n\n\n\n\nHOLTEI, KARL EDUARD VON (1798-1880), German poet and actor, was born at\nBreslau on the 24th of January 1798, the son of an officer of Hussars.\nHaving served in the Prussian army as a volunteer in 1815, he shortly\nafterwards entered the university of Breslau as a student of law; but,\nattracted by the stage, he soon forsook academic life and made his debut\nin the Breslau theatre as Mortimer in Schiller's _Maria Stuart_. He led\na wandering life for the next two years, appearing less on the stage as\nan actor than as a reciter of his own poems. In 1821 he married the\nactress Luise Rogee (1800-1825), and was appointed theatre-poet to the\nBreslau stage. He next removed to Berlin, where his wife fulfilled an\nengagement at the Court theatre. During his sojourn here he produced the\nvaudevilles _Die Wiener in Berlin_ (1824), and _Die Berliner in Wien_\n(1825), pieces which enjoyed at the time great popular favour. In 1825\nhis wife died; but soon after her death he accepted an engagement at the\nKonigsstadter theatre in Berlin, when he wrote a number of plays,\nnotably _Lenore_ (1829) and _Der alte Feldherr_ (1829). In 1830 he\nmarried Julie Holzbecher (1809-1839), an actress engaged at the same\ntheatre, and with her played in Darmstadt. Returning to Berlin in 1831\nhe wrote for the composer Franz Glaser (1798-1861) the text of the opera\n_Des Adlers Horst_ (1835), and for Ludwig Devrient the drama, _Der dumme\nPeter_ (1837). In 1833 Holtei again went on the stage and toured with\nhis wife to various important cities, Hamburg, Leipzig, Dresden, Munich\nand Vienna. In the last his declamatory powers as a reciter,\nparticularly of Shakespeare's plays, made a furore, and the poet-actor\nwas given the appointment of manager of the Josefstadter theatre in the\nlast-named city. Though proud of his successes both as actor and\nreciter, Holtei left Vienna in 1836, and from 1837 to 1839 conducted the\ntheatre in Riga. Here his second wife died, and after wandering through\nGermany reciting and accepting a short engagement at Breslau, he settled\nin 1847 at Graz, where he devoted himself to a literary life and\nproduced the novels _Die Vagabunden_ (1851), _Christian Lammfell_ (1853)\nand _Der letzte Komodiant_ (1863). The last years of his life were spent\nat Breslau, where being in poor circumstances he found a home in the\n_Kloster der barmherzigen Bruder_, and here he died on the 12th of\nFebruary 1880.\n\nAs a dramatist Holtei may be said to have introduced the \"vaudeville\"\ninto Germany; as an actor, although remaining behind the greater artists\nof his time, he contrived to fascinate his audience by the dramatic\nforce of his exposition of character; as a reciter, especially of\nShakespeare, he knew no rival. August Lewald said of Holtei that by the\nenergy of his poetic conception and plastic force he brought his\naudience round to his own ideas; and he added, \"an eloquence such as his\nI have never met with in any other German.\"\n\nHoltei was not only a stage-poet but a lyric-writer of great charm.\nNotable among such productions are _Schlesische Gedichte_ (1830; 20th\ned., 1893), _Gedichte_ (5th ed., 1861), _Stimmen des Waldes_ (2nd ed.,\n1854). Mention ought also to be made of Holtei's interesting\nautobiography, _Vierzig Jahre_ (8 vols., 1843-1850; 3rd ed., 1862) with\nthe supplementary volume _Noch ein Jahr in Schlesien_ (1864).\n\n Holtei's _Theater_ appeared in 6 vols. (1867); his _Erzahlende\n Schriften_, 39 vols. (1861-1866). See M. Kurnick, _Karl von Holtei,\n ein Lebensbild_ (1880); F. Wehl, _Zeit und Menschen_ (1889); O.\n Storch, _K. von Holtei_ (1898).\n\n\n\n\nHOLTY, LUDWIG HEINRICH CHRISTOPH (1748-1776), German poet, was born on\nthe 21st of December 1748 at the village of Mariensee in Hanover, where\nhis father was pastor. In 1769 he went to study theology at Gottingen.\nHere he formed a close friendship with J. M. Miller, J. H. Voss, H.\nBoie, the brothers Stolberg and others, and became one of the founders\nof the famous society of young poets known as the _Gottinger\nDichterbund_ or _Hain_. When in 1774 he left the university he had\nabandoned all intention of becoming a clergyman; but he was not destined\nto enter any other profession. He died of consumption on the 1st of\nSeptember 1776 at Hanover. Holty was the most gifted lyric poet of the\nGottingen circle. He was influenced both by Uz and Klopstock, but his\nlove for the Volkslied and his delight in nature preserved him from the\nartificiality of the one poet and the unworldliness of the other. A\nstrain of melancholy runs through all his lyrics. His ballads are the\npioneers of the rich ballad literature on English models, which sprang\nup in Germany during the next few years. Among his most familiar poems\nmay be mentioned _Ub' immer Treu' und Redlichkeit_, _Tanzt dem schonen\nMai entgegen_, _Rosen auf dem Weg gestreut_, and _Wer wollte sich mit\nGrillen plagen?_\n\n Holty's _Gedichte_ were published by his friends Count Friedrich\n Leopold zu Stolberg and J. H. Voss (Hamburg, 1783); a new edition,\n enlarged by Voss, with a biography (1804); a more complete but still\n imperfect edition by F. Voigts (Hanover, 1857). The first complete\n edition was that of Karl Halm (Leipzig, 1870), who had access to MSS.\n not hitherto known. See H. Ruete, _Holty, sein Leben und Dichten_\n (Guben, 1883), and A. Sauer, _Der Gottinger Dichterbund_, vol. ii.\n (Stuttgart, 1894), where an excellent selection of Holty's poetry will\n be found.\n\n\n\n\nHOLTZENDORFF, JOACHIM WILHELM FRANZ PHILIPP VON (1829-1889), German\njurist, born at Vietmannsdorf, in the Mark of Brandenburg, on the 14th\nof October 1829, was descended from a family of the old nobility. He was\neducated at Berlin and at Pforta, afterwards studying law at the\nuniversities of Bonn, Heidelberg and Berlin. The struggles of 1848\ninspired him with youthful enthusiasm, and he remained for the rest of\nhis life a strong advocate of political liberty. In 1852 he graduated\nLL.D. at Berlin; in 1857 he became a Privatdocent, and in 1860 he was\nnominated a professor extraordinary. The predominant party in Prussia\nregarded his political opinions with mistrust, and he was not offered an\nordinary professorship until February 1873, after he had decided to\naccept a chair at the university of Munich. At Munich he passed the last\nnineteen years of his life. During the thirty years that he was\nprofessor he successively taught several branches of jurisprudence, but\nhe was chiefly distinguished as an authority on criminal and\ninternational law. He was especially well fitted for organizing\ncollective work, and he has associated his name with a series of\npublications of the first value. While acting as editor he often\nreserved for himself, among the independent monographs of which the work\nwas composed, only those on subjects distasteful to his collaborators on\naccount of their obscurity or lack of importance. Among the compilations\nwhich he superintended may be mentioned his _Encyclopadie der\nRechtswissenschaft_ (Leipzig, 1870-1871, 2 vols.); his _Handbuch des\ndeutschen Strafrechts_ (Berlin, 1871-1877, 4 vols.), and his _Handbuch\ndes Volkerrechts auf Grundlage europaischer Staatspraxis_ (Berlin,\n1885-1890, 4 vols.). Among his many independent works may be mentioned:\n_Das irische Gefangnissystem_ (Leipzig, 1859), _Franzosische\nRechtszustande_ (Leipzig, 1859), _Die Deportation als Strafmittel_\n(Leipzig, 1859), _Die Kurzungsfahigkeit der Freiheitsstrafen_ (Leipzig,\n1861), _Die Reform der Staatsanwaltschaft in Deutschland_ (Berlin,\n1864), _Die Umgestaltung der Staatsanwaltschaft_ (Berlin, 1865), _Die\nPrincipien der Politik_ (Berlin, 1869), _Das Verbrechen des Mordes und\ndie Todesstrafe_ (Berlin, 1875), _Rumaniens Uferrechte an der Donau_\n(Leipzig, 1883; French edition, 1884). He also edited or assisted in\nediting a number of periodical publications on legal subjects. From 1866\nto the time of his death he was associated with Rudolf Ludwig Carl\nVirchow in editing _Sammlung gemeinverstandlicher wissenschaftlicher\nVortrage_ (Berlin). Von Holtzendorff died at Munich on the 4th of\nFebruary 1889.\n\n\n\n\nHOLTZMANN, HEINRICH JULIUS (1832- ), German Protestant theologian, son\nof Karl Julius Holtzmann (1804-1877), was born on the 17th of May 1832\nat Karlsruhe, where his father ultimately became prelate and counsellor\nto the supreme consistory. He studied at Berlin, and eventually (1874)\nwas appointed professor ordinarius at Strassburg. A moderately liberal\ntheologian, he became best known as a New Testament critic and exegete,\nbeing the author of the Commentary on the Synoptics (1889; 3rd ed.,\n1901), the Johannine books (1890; 2nd ed., 1893), and the Acts of the\nApostles (1901), in the series _Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament_. On\nthe question of the relationship of the Synoptic Gospels, Holtzmann in\nhis early work, _Die synoptischen Evangelien, ihr Ursprung und\ngeschichtlicher Charakter_ (1863), presents a view which has been widely\naccepted, maintaining the priority of Mark, deriving Matthew in its\npresent form from Mark and from Matthew's earlier \"collection of\nSayings,\" the Logia of Papias, and Luke from Matthew and Mark in the\nform in which we have them.\n\n Other noteworthy works are the _Lehrbuch der histor.-kritischen\n Einleitung in das Neue Testament_ (1885, 3rd ed., 1892), and the\n _Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie_ (2 vols., 1896-1897). He\n also collaborated with R. Zopffel in the preparation of a small\n _Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirchenwesen_ (1882; 3rd ed., 1895), and in\n 1893 became editor of the _Theol. Jahresbericht_.\n\n\n\n\nHOLUB, EMIL (1847-1902), Bohemian traveller in south-central Africa, was\nborn at Holitz, eastern Bohemia, on the 7th of October 1847. He was\neducated at Prague University, where he graduated M.D. In 1872 he went\nto the Kimberley diamond-fields, and with the money earned by his\npractice as a surgeon undertook expeditions into the northern Transvaal,\nMashonaland and through Bechuanaland to the Victoria Falls, making\nextensive natural history collections, which he brought to Europe in\n1879 and distributed among over a hundred museums and schools. In 1883\nhe went back to South Africa with his wife, intending to cross the\ncontinent to Egypt. In June 1886 the party crossed the Zambezi west of\nthe Victoria Falls, and explored the then almost unknown region between\nthat river and its tributary the Kafue. When beyond the Kafue the camp\nwas attacked by the Mashukulumbwe, and Holub was obliged to retrace his\nsteps. He returned to Austria in 1887 with a collection of great\nscientific interest, of over 13,000 objects, now in various museums.\nHolub died at Vienna on the 21st of February 1902.\n\n His principal works are: _Eine Culturskizze des\n Marutse-Mambunda-reichs_ (Vienna, 1879); _Sieben Jahre in Sudafrika_,\n &c. (2 vols., Vienna, 1880-1881), of which an English translation\n appeared; _Die Colonisation Afrikas_ (Vienna, 1882); and _Von der\n Kapstadt ins Land der Maschukulumbe_ (2 vols., Vienna, 1818-1890).\n\n\n\n\nHOLY, sacred, devoted or set apart for religious worship or observance;\na term characteristic of the attributes of perfection and sinlessness of\nthe Persons of the Trinity, as the objects of human worship and\nreverence, and hence transferred to those human persons who, either by\ntheir devotion to a spiritual ascetic life or by their approximation to\nmoral perfection, are considered worthy of reverence. The word in Old\nEnglish was _halig_, and is common to other Teutonic languages; cf. Ger.\nand Dutch _heilig_, Swed. _helig_, Dan. _hellig_. It is derived from\n_hal_, hale, whole, and cognate with \"health.\" The _New English\nDictionary_ suggests that the sense-development may be from \"whole,\"\ni.e. inviolate, from \"health, well-being,\" or from \"good-omen,\"\n\"augury.\" It is impossible to get behind the Christian uses, in which\nfrom the earliest times it was employed as the equivalent of the Latin\n_sacer_ and _sanctus_.\n\n\n\n\nHOLY ALLIANCE, THE. The famous treaty, or declaration, known by this\nname was signed in the first instance by Alexander I., emperor of\nRussia, Francis I., emperor of Austria, and Frederick William III., king\nof Prussia, on the 26th of September 1815, and was proclaimed by the\nemperor Alexander the same day at a great review of the allied troops\nheld on the Champ des Vertus near Paris. The English version of the text\nis as follows:--\n\n In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity.\n\n _Holy Alliance of Sovereigns of Austria, Prussia and Russia._\n\n Their Majesties the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, and the\n Emperor of Russia, having, in consequence of the great events which\n have marked the course of the three last years in Europe, and\n especially of the blessings which it has pleased Divine Providence to\n shower down upon those States which place their confidence and their\n hope on it alone, acquired the intimate conviction of the necessity of\n settling the steps to be observed by the Powers, in their reciprocal\n relations, upon the sublime truths which the Holy Religion of our\n Saviour teaches;\n\n _Government and Political Relations._\n\n They solemnly declare that the present Act has no other object than to\n publish, in the face of the whole world, their fixed resolution, both\n in the administration of their respective States, and in their\n political relations with every other Government, to take for their\n sole guide the precepts of that Holy Religion, namely, the precepts of\n Justice, Christian Charity and Peace, which, far from being applicable\n only to private concerns, must have an immediate influence on the\n councils of Princes, and guide all their steps, as being the only\n means of consolidating human institutions and remedying their\n imperfections. In consequence, their Majesties have agreed on the\n following Articles:--\n\n _Principles of the Christian Religion._\n\n Art. I. Conformably to the words of the Holy Scriptures which command\n all men to consider each other as brethren, the Three contracting\n Monarchs will remain united by the bonds of a true and indissoluble\n fraternity, and, considering each other as fellow countrymen, they\n will, on all occasions and in all places, lend each other aid and\n assistance; and, regarding themselves towards their subjects and\n armies as fathers of families, they will lead them, in the same spirit\n of fraternity with which they are animated, to protect Religion, Peace\n and Justice.\n\n _Fraternity and Affection._\n\n Art. II. In consequence, the sole principle of force, whether between\n the said Governments or between their Subjects, shall be that of doing\n each other reciprocal service, and of testifying by unalterable good\n will the mutual affection with which they ought to be animated, to\n consider themselves all as members of one and the same Christian\n nation; the three allied Princes looking on themselves as merely\n delegated by Providence to govern three branches of the One family,\n namely, Austria, Prussia and Russia, thus confessing that the\n Christian world, of which they and their people form a part, has in\n reality no other Sovereign than Him to whom alone power really\n belongs, because in Him alone are found all the treasures of love,\n science and infinite wisdom, that is to say, God, our Divine Saviour,\n the Word of the Most High, the Word of Life. Their Majesties\n consequently recommend to their people, with the most tender\n solicitude, as the sole means of enjoying that Peace which arises from\n a good conscience, and which alone is durable, to strengthen\n themselves every day more and more in the principles and exercise of\n the duties which the Divine Saviour has taught to mankind.\n\n _Accession of Foreign Powers._\n\n Art. III. All the Powers who shall choose solemnly to avow the sacred\n principles which have dictated the present Act, and shall acknowledge\n how important it is for the happiness of nations, too long agitated,\n that these truths should henceforth exercise over the destinies of\n mankind all the influence which belongs to them, will be received with\n equal ardour and affection into this Holy Alliance.\n\nThe credit for inspiring this singular document was claimed by the\nBaroness von Krudener (q.v.); in any case it was the outcome of the\ntsar's mood of evangelical exaltation, and was in its inception\nperfectly sincere. Neither Frederick William nor Francis signed\nwillingly, the latter remarking that \"if it was a question of politics,\nhe must refer it to his chancellor, if of religion, to his confessor.\"\nMetternich called it a \"loud-sounding nothing,\" Castlereagh, \"a piece of\nsublime mysticism and nonsense.\" None the less, in accordance with its\nlast article, the signatures of all the European sovereigns were invited\nto the instrument, the pope and the Ottoman sultan alone being excepted.\nThe prince regent courteously declined to sign, on the constitutional\nground that all acts of the British crown required the counter-signature\nof a minister, but he sent a letter expressing his \"entire concurrence\nwith the principles laid down by the 'august sovereigns' and stating\nthat it would always be his endeavour to regulate his conduct by their\n'sacred maxims.'\" With these exceptions, all the European sovereigns\nsooner or later appended their names.\n\nIn popular parlance, which has found its way into the language of\nserious historians, the \"Holy Alliance\" soon became synonymous with the\ncombination of the great powers by whom Europe was ruled in concert\nduring the period of the congresses, and associated with the policy of\nreaction which gradually dominated their counsels. For the understanding\nof the inner history of the diplomacy of this period, however, a clear\ndistinction must be drawn between the Holy Alliance and the Grand, or\nQuadruple (Quintuple) Alliance. The Grand Alliance was established on\ndefinite treaties concluded for definite purposes, of which the chief\nwas the preservation of peace on the basis of the territorial settlement\nof 1815. The Holy Alliance was a general treaty--hardly indeed a treaty\nat all--which bound its signatories to act on certain vague principles\nfor no well-defined end; and in its essence it was so far from\nnecessarily reactionary that the emperor Alexander at one time declared\nthat it involved the grant of liberal constitutions by princes to their\nsubjects. Its main significance was due to the persistent efforts of the\ntsar to make it the basis of the \"universal union,\" or general\nconfederation of Europe, which he wished to substitute for the actual\ncommittee of the great powers, efforts which were frustrated by the\nvigorous diplomacy of Castlereagh, acting as the mouthpiece of the\nBritish government (see EUROPE: _History_; ALEXANDER I. of Russia;\nLONDONDERRY, ROBERT STEWART, 2ND MARQUIS OF).\n\nAs a diplomatic instrument the Holy Alliance never, as a matter of fact,\nbecame effective. None the less, its principles and the fact of its\nsignature powerfully affected the course of European diplomacy during\nthe 19th century. It strongly influenced the emperor Nicholas I. of\nRussia, to whom the brotherhood of sovereigns by divine right was an\narticle of faith, inspiring the principles of the convention of Berlin\n(between Russia, Austria and Prussia) in 1833, and the tsar's\nintervention in 1849 to crush the Hungarian insurrection on behalf of\nhis brother of Austria. That it had become synonymous with a conspiracy\nagainst popular liberties was, however, a mere accident of the point of\nview of those who interpreted its principles. It was capable of other\nand more noble interpretations, and it was avowedly the inspiration of\nthe famous rescript of the emperor Nicholas II., embodied in the\ncircular of Count Muraviev to the European courts (August 4th, 1898),\nwhich issued in the first international peace conference at the Hague in\n1899. (W. A. P.)\n\n\n\n\nHOLYHEAD (Caergybi, the fort of Cybi, the saint mentioned by Matthew\nArnold as meeting St Seiriol of Penmon, Anglesey), a seaport and\nmarket-town of Anglesey, N. Wales, situated on the small Holy Island, at\nthe western end of the county. Pop. of urban district (1901) 10,079.\nHere the London and North-Western railway has a terminus, 263(1/2) m.\nfrom London by rail. Holy Island is connected with Anglesey by an\nembankment, 3/4 m. long, over which pass the railway and main road, the\ntide flowing fast under the central piers. Once a small fishing village,\nthe town has since William IV.'s reign acquired importance as the Dublin\nmail steam station. Its magnificent harbour of refuge was begun in 1847\nand opened in September 1873. The east breakwater scheme, which would\nhave covered the Platter's rocks--still very troublesome--and the\nSkinner's, was abandoned for buoys which mark the spots. The north\nbreakwater is 7860 ft. long (instead of 5360, as originally planned).\nThe roadstead (400 acres) and enclosed area (267 acres) together make a\nmagnificent shelter for shipping. The rubble mound of the breakwater was\nvery costly to the railway company, as time after time it was swept away\nby storms. On it is a central wall of some 38 ft. above low water, and\non the wall a promenade sheltered by a parapet. The lighthouse is at the\nend of the breakwater, of which the whole cost was nearly 1(1/2) million\nsterling. Additional works, begun in 1873 by the company, to extend the\nold harbour and lengthen the quay by 4000 ft., were opened by King\nEdward VII. (as prince of Wales) in 1880. These cost another half\nmillion. George IV. passed through Holyhead in 1821 on his way to\nIreland, and there is a commemorative tablet on the old harbour pier.\nThe church is said to occupy the site of the old monastery (6th or early\n7th century) of St Cybi, of whom there is a rude figure in the porch.\nThe churchyard wall, 6 ft. thick, is possibly partly Roman. On the south\nof the harbour is an obelisk in memory of Captain Skinner, of the steam\npackets, washed overboard in 1833. Pen Caergybi rises perpendicularly\nfrom the sea to the height of 719 ft., at some 2 m. from the town; it is\na mass of serpentine rocks, off which lie the North and South Stacks,\neach with a lighthouse with a revolving light, visible for 20 m., and\n197 ft. above high water on the South Stack. On the hill are traces of\nBritish fortification, including a circular building, probably a Roman\nwatch-tower. Coasting trade and fishing, with some shipbuilding and the\nIrish traffic, occupy most of the inhabitants.\n\n See Hon. W. Stanley's _Holy Island and Holyhead_.\n\n\n\n\nHOLY ISLAND, or LINDISFARNE, an irregularly shaped island in the North\nSea, 2 m. from the coast of Northumberland, in which county it is\nincluded. Pop. (1901) 405. It is joined to the mainland at low water by\nflat sands, over which a track, marked by wooden posts and practicable\nfor vehicles, leads to the island. There is a station on the\nNorth-Eastern railway at Beak 9 m. S.E. of Berwick, opposite the island,\nbut 1(1/4) m. inland. The island measures 3 m. from E. to W. and 1(1/2)\nN. to S., extreme distances. Its total area is 1051 acres. On the N. it\nis sandy and barren, but on the S. very fertile and under cultivation.\nLarge numbers of rabbits have their warrens among the sands, and, with\nfish, oysters and agricultural produce, are exported. There are several\nfresh springs on the island, and in the north-east is a lake of 6 acres.\nAt the south-west angle is the little fishing village (formerly much\nlarger) which is now a favourite summer watering-place. Here is the\nharbour, offering good shelter to small vessels. Holy Island derives its\nname from a monastery founded on it by St Aidan, and restored in 1082 as\na cell of the Benedictine monastery at Durham. Its ruins, still\nextensive and carefully preserved, justify Scott's description of it as\na \"solemn, huge and dark-red pile.\" An islet, lying off the S.W. angle,\nhas traces of a chapel upon it, and is believed to have offered a\nretreat to St Cuthbert and his successors. The castle, situated east of\nthe village, on a basaltic rock about 90 ft. high, dates from _c._ 1500.\n\nWhen St Aidan came at the request of King Oswald to preach to the\nNorthumbrians he chose the island of Lindisfarne as the site of his\nchurch and monastery, and made it the head of the diocese which he\nfounded in 635. For some years the see continued in peace, numbering\namong its bishops St Cuthbert, but in 793 the Danes landed on the island\nand burnt the settlement, killing many of the monks. The survivors,\nhowever, rebuilt the church and continued to live there until 883, when,\nthrough fear of a second invasion of the Danes, they fled inland, taking\nwith them the body of St Cuthbert and other holy relics. The church and\nmonastery were again destroyed and the bishop and monks, on account of\nthe exposed situation of the island, determined not to return to it, and\nsettled first at Chester-le-Street and finally at Durham. With the fall\nof the monastery the island appears to have become again untenanted, and\nprobably continued so until the prior and convent of Durham established\nthere a cell of monks from their own house. The inhabitants of Holy\nIsland were governed by two bailiffs at least as early as the 14th\ncentury, and, according to J. Raine in his _History of North Durham_\n(1852), are called \"burgesses or freemen\" in a private paper dated 1728.\nIn 1323 the bailiffs and community of Holy Island were commanded to\ncause all ships of the burthen of thirty tons or over to go to Ereswell\nwith their ships provisioned for a month at least and under double\nmanning to be ready to set out on the kings service. Towards the end of\nthe 16th century the fort on Holy Island was garrisoned for fear of\nforeign invasion by Sir William Read, who found it very much in need of\nrepair, the guns being so decayed that the gunners \"dare not give fire\nbut by trayne,\" and the master gunner had been \"miserably slain\" in\ndischarging one of them. During the Civil Wars the castle was held for\nthe king until 1646, when it was taken and garrisoned by the\nparliamentarians. The only other historical event connected with the\nisland is the attempt made by two Jacobites in 1715 to hold it for the\nPretender.\n\n\n\n\nHOLYOAKE, GEORGE JACOB (1817-1906), English secularist and co-operator,\nwas born at Birmingham, on the 13th of April 1817. At an early age he\nbecame an Owenite lecturer, and in 1841 was the last person convicted\nfor blasphemy in a public lecture, though this had no theological\ncharacter and the incriminating words were merely a reply to a question\naddressed to him from the body of the meeting. He nevertheless underwent\nsix months' imprisonment, and upon his release invented the inoffensive\nterm \"secularism\" as descriptive of his opinions, and established the\n_Reasoner_ in their support. He was also the last person indicted for\npublishing an unstamped newspaper, but the prosecution dropped upon the\nrepeal of the tax. His later years were chiefly devoted to the promotion\nof the co-operative movement among the working classes. He wrote the\nhistory of the Rochdale Pioneers (1857), _The History of Co-operation in\nEngland_ (1875; revised ed., 1906), and _The Co-operative Movement of\nTo-day_ (1891). He also published (1892) his autobiography, under the\ntitle of _Sixty Years of an Agitator's Life_, and in 1905 two volumes of\nreminiscences, _Bygones worth Remembering_. He died at Brighton on the\n22nd of January 1906.\n\n See J. McCabe, _Life and Letters of G. J. Holyoake_ (2 vols., 1908);\n C. W. F. Goss, _Descriptive Bibliography of the Writings of G. J.\n Holyoake_ (1908).\n\n\n\n\nHOLYOKE, a city of Hampden county, Massachusetts, U.S.A., in a bend of\nthe Connecticut river, about 8 m. N. of Springfield. Pop. (1880) 21,915;\n(1890) 35,637; (1900) 45,712; (1910 census) 57,730. Of the total\npopulation in 1900, 18,921 were foreign-born, including 6991\nFrench-Canadians, 5650 Irish, 1602 Germans and 1118 English; and 33,626\nwere of foreign parentage (both parents foreign-born), including 12,370\nof Irish and 11,050 of French-Canadian parentage. The city's area is\nabout 17 sq. m. The city is served by the Boston & Maine, and the New\nYork, New Haven & Hartford railways, and by an interurban line. Holyoke\nis characteristically an industrial and mercantile city; it has some\nhandsome public buildings (the city hall and the public library, founded\nin 1870, being especially noteworthy) and attractive environs. Holyoke\nis the railway station for Mt Holyoke College, in South Hadley, about 4\nm. N. by E. of Holyoke; the city is connected with South Hadley by an\nelectric line. Just above Holyoke the Connecticut leaves the rugged\nhighlands through a rift between Mt Tom (1214 ft.; ascended by a\nmountain-railway from Holyoke) and Mt Holyoke (954 ft.), and begins a\nmeandering valley course, falling (in the Hadley halls) in great volume\nsome 60 ft. in about 1(1/2) m. The water-power was unutilized until 1849,\nwhen a great dam (1017 ft. long) was completed, which enabled vast power\nto be developed along a series of canals laid out from the river. This\nwas, in its day, a colossal undertaking; and its success transformed\nHolyoke from a farming village into a great manufacturing centre--in\n1900 and 1905 the ninth largest of the commonwealth. In 1900 a stone dam\n(1020 ft.), said to be the second largest in New England, was completed\nat a cost of about $750,000. Cotton manufactures first, and later paper\nproducts were chief in importance, and Holyoke now leads all the cities\nin the United States in the manufacture of fine paper. In 1905 the total\nvalue of all factory products was $30,731,332, of which $10,620,255 (or\n34.6% of the total) represented paper and wood pulp; $5,019,817, cotton\ngoods; $1,318,409, woollen goods; $1,756,473, book binding and blank\nbooks, and $2,022,759, foundry and machine-shop products. Silk and\nworsted goods are other important manufactures. Opposite Holyoke, in\nHampshire county, is South Hadley Falls. The municipality owns and\noperates the gas and electric-lighting plants and the water works (the\nwater-supply being derived from natural ponds, some of which are outside\nthe city limits), and owns and leases (to the New York, New Haven &\nHartford railroad) a railway extending (10.3 m.) to Westfield, Mass.\nHolyoke was originally a part of Springfield, and after 1774 of West\nSpringfield. In 1850 it was incorporated as a township, and in 1873 was\nchartered as a city.\n\n\n\n\nHOLYSTONE, a soft kind of sandstone used by sailors for scrubbing and\ncleaning the decks of ships. The origin of the word is doubtful. Some\nauthorities hold that it arose from the general practice of scrubbing\nthe decks for Sunday service; while others think the name arises from\nthe fact that the stone so employed is naturally porous and full of\nholes. A small flint or stone having a natural hole in it, and worn as a\ncharm, is also called a holystone.\n\n\n\n\nHOLY WATER, technically the water with which Christian believers sign\nthe cross on their foreheads on entering or leaving church. The edict of\nGratian lays down that it should be exorcized and blessed by the priest\nand sprinkled with exorcized salt. This rite is found in the Gelasian,\nGregorian and other sacramentaries. In the East the water was blessed\nonce a month, in the Latin Church it is now blessed every Sunday. In the\n4th century in the East it was usual to wash the hands on entering the\nchurch (see ABLUTION).\n\nIn the early church water was not expressly consecrated for baptisms and\nother lustrations. \"Water,\" says Tertullian in his tract on baptism,\n\"was the abode at the first of the divine Spirit, being more acceptable\nthen (to God) than the other elements.\" He pictures the world in the\nbeginning: \"total darkness, formless as yet, without tending of stars,\nthe melancholy abyss, the earth unprepared, the heaven undevelopt. The\nliquid alone an ever perfect material, smiling, simple, pure in its own\nright, as a worthy vehicle underlay the God.\" Water was similarly pure\nin itself in the old Persian religion.\n\nThe _Canons of Hippolytus_, or Egyptian church order, of about A.D. 250,\ngive no prayer for consecration of fonts, but enact that \"at cock crow\nthe baptismal party shall take their stand near waving water, pure,\nprepared, sacred, of the sea.\" The _Teaching of the Apostles_, _c._ 100,\nmerely insists on \"living,\" that is, clear and running water. The\nancient feeling, especially Jewish, was that in lustrations the same\nwater must not pass twice over the body. A stagnant pool was useless.\nBubbling waters too seemed to have a spirit in them.\n\nEither because running water was not always at hand, or as part of the\ngrowing tendency of the church to multiply ceremonies, rituals arose\nlate in the 3rd century for consecrating water. The sacramentary of\nSerapion, _c._ 350, provides a prayer asking that the divine Word may\ndescend into the water and hallow it, as of old it hallowed the Jordan.\nIn the Roman order of baptism the priest prays that \"the font may\nreceive the grace of the only begotten Son from the holy Spirit, and\nthat the latter may impregnate with hidden admixture of His light this\nwater prepared for the regeneration of mankind, to the end that man\nthrough a sanctification conceived from the immaculate womb of the\ndivine font, may emerge a heavenly offspring reborn as a new creature.\"\nThe water is then exorcized and evil spirits warned off, and lastly\nblessed. During the prayer the priest twice signs the water with the\ncross, and once blows upon it.\n\nThe first mention of a special consecration of water for other ends than\nbaptism is in the _Acts of Thomas_ (? A.D. 200); it is for the purgation\nof a youth already baptized who had killed his mistress because she\nwould not live chastely with him. The apostle prays: \"Fountain sent unto\nus from Rest, Power of Salvation from that Power proceeding which\novercomes and subjects all to its own will, come and dwell within these\nwaters, that the _Charisma_ (gift) of the holy Spirit may be fully\nperfected through them.\" The youth then washes his hands, which on\ntouching the sacrament had withered up, and is healed.\n\nThe church shared the universal belief that holiness or the holy Spirit\nis quasi-material and capable of being held in suspense in water, just\nas sin is a half material infection, absorbed and carried away by it. So\nTertullian writes: \"The water which carried the Spirit of God (probably\nregarded as a shadow or reflection-soul) borrowed holiness from that\nwhich was carried upon it; for every underlying matter must needs absorb\nand take up the quality of that matter which overhangs it; especially\ndoes a corporeal so absorb a spiritual, as this can easily penetrate and\nsettle into it owing to the subtlety of its substance.\"\n\n\"Water,\" he continues, \"was generically hallowed by the Spirit of God\nbrooding over it at creation, and therefore all special waters are holy,\nand at once obtain the sacrament of sanctification when God is invoked\n(over them.) For the Spirit from heaven instantly supervenes and is upon\nthe waters, hallowing them out of itself, and being so hallowed they\ndrink up a power of hallowing.\"\n\nWhat is done in material semblance, he then argues, is repeated in the\nunseen medium of the Spirit. The stains of idolatry, vice and fraud are\nnot visible on the flesh, yet they resemble real dirt. \"The waters are\nmedicated in a manner through the intervention of the angel, and the\nSpirit is corporeally washed in the water and the flesh is spiritually\npurified in the same.\"\n\nTertullian believed that an angel was sent down, when God was invoked,\nlike that which stirred the pool of Bethesda. As regards rival Isiac and\nMithraic baptisms, he asserts that their waters are destitute of divine\npower; nay, are rather tenanted by the devil who in this matter sets\nhimself to rival God. \"Without any religious rite at all,\" he urges,\n\"unclean spirits brood upon waters, aspiring to repeat that primordial\ngestation of the divine Spirit.\" And he instances the \"darkling springs\nand lonely rivers which are said to snatch, to wit by force of a harmful\nspirit.\" In the sequel he defines the role of the angel of baptism who\ndoes not infuse himself in waters, already holy from the first; but\nmerely presides over the washing of the faithful, and ensures their\nbeing made pure for the reception of the holy Spirit in the rite of\nconfirmation which immediately follows. \"The devil who till now ruled\nover us, we leave behind overwhelmed in the water.\"\n\nFrom all this we conclude that what is poetry to us--akin to the\nfolk-lore of water-sprites, naiads, kelpies, river-gods and\nwater-worship in general--was to Tertullian and to the generations of\nbelievers who fashioned the baptismal rites, ablutions and beliefs of\nthe church, nothing less than grim reality and unquestionable fact.\n\n See John, marquess of Bute, and E. A. Wallis Budge, _The Blessing of\n the Waters_ (London, 1901); E. B. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_ (London,\n 1903). (F. C. C.)\n\n\n\n\nHOLY WEEK ([Greek: hebdomas megale, hagia] or [Greek: ton hagion,\nxerophagias, apraktos], also [Greek: hemerai pathematon, hemerai\nstaurosimai]: _hebdomas_ [or _septimana_] _major_, _sancta_,\n_authentica_ [i.e. _canonizata_, du Cange], _ultima_, _poenosa_,\n_luctuosa_, _nigra_, _inofficiosa_, _muta_, _crucis_, _lamentationum_,\n_indulgentiae_), in the Christian ecclesiastical year the week\nimmediately preceding Easter. The earliest allusion to the custom of\nmarking this week as a whole with special observances is to be found in\nthe _Apostolical Constitutions_ (v. 18, 19), dating from the latter half\nof the 3rd century A.D. Abstinence from wine and flesh is there\ncommanded for all the days, while for the Friday and Saturday an\nabsolute fast is enjoined. Dionysius Alexandrinus also, in his canonical\nepistle (260 A.D.), refers to the six fasting days ([Greek: hex ton\nnesteion hemerai]) in a manner which implies that the observance of them\nhad already become an established usage in his time. There is some doubt\nabout the genuineness of an ordinance attributed to Constantine, in\nwhich abstinence from public business was enforced for the seven days\nimmediately preceding Easter Sunday, and also for the seven which\nfollowed it; the _Codex Theodosianus_, however, is explicit in ordering\nthat all actions at law should cease, and the doors of all courts of law\nbe closed during those fifteen days (l. ii. tit. viii.). Of the\nparticular days of the \"great week\" the earliest to emerge into special\nprominence was naturally Good Friday. Next came the Sabbatum Magnum\n(Holy Saturday or Easter Eve) with its vigil, which in the early church\nwas associated with an expectation that the second advent would occur on\nan Easter Sunday.\n\n For details of the ceremonial observed in the Roman Catholic Church\n during this week, reference must be made to the _Missal_ and\n _Breviary_. In the Eastern Church the week is marked by similar\n practices, but with less elaboration and differentiation of rite. See\n also EASTER, GOOD FRIDAY, MAUNDY THURSDAY, PALM SUNDAY and PASSION\n WEEK.\n\n\n\n\nHOLYWELL (_Tre'ffynnon_, well-town), a market town and contributory\nparliamentary borough of Flintshire, N. Wales, situated on a height near\nthe left bank of the Dee estuary, 196 m. from London by the London &\nNorth-Western railway (the station being 2 m. distant). Pop. of urban\ndistrict (1901) 2652. The parish church (1769) has some columns of an\nearlier building, interesting brasses and strong embattled tower. The\nremains of Basingwerk Abbey (_Maes glas_, green field), partly Saxon and\npartly Early English, are near the station. It is of uncertain origin\nbut was used as a monastery before 1119. In 1131 Ranulph, 2nd earl of\nChester, introduced the Cistercians. In 1535, when Its revenues were\nL150, 7s. 3d., it was dissolved, but revived under Mary I. and used as a\nRoman Catholic burial place in 1647. Scarcely any traces remain of\nBasingwerk castle, an old fort. Small up to the beginning of the 19th\ncentury, Holywell has increasingly prospered, thanks to lime quarries,\nlead, copper and zinc mines, smelting works, a shot manufactory, copper,\nbrass, iron and zinc works; brewing, tanning and mineral water, flannel\nand cement works. St Winifred's holy well, one of the wonders of Wales,\nsends up water at the rate of 21 tons a minute, of an almost unvarying\ntemperature, higher than that of ordinary spring water. To its curative\npowers many crutches and _ex voto_ objects, hung round the well, as in\nthe Lourdes Grot, bear ample witness. The stones at the bottom are\nslightly reddish, owing to vegetable substances. The well itself is\ncovered by a fine Gothic building, said to have been erected by\nMargaret, countess of Richmond and mother of Henry VII., with some\nportions of earlier date. The chapel (restored) is used for public\nservice. Catholics and others visit it in great numbers. There are\nswimming baths for general use. In 1870 a hospice for poorer pilgrims\nwas erected. Other public buildings are St Winifred's (Catholic) church\nand a convent, a town hall and a market-hall. The export trade is\nexpedited by quays on the Dee.\n\n\n\n\nHOLYWOOD, a seaport of county Down, Ireland, on the east shore of\nBelfast Lough, 4(1/2) m. N.E. from Belfast by the Belfast & County Down\nrailway. Its pleasant situation renders it a favourite residential\nlocality of the wealthier classes in Belfast. There was a religious\nsettlement here from the 7th century, which subsequently became a\nFranciscan monastery. The old church dating from the late 12th or early\n13th century marks its site. A Solemn League and Covenant was signed\nhere in 1644 for the defence of the kingdom, and the document is\npreserved at Belfast.\n\n\n\n\nHOLZMINDEN, a town of Germany, in the duchy of Brunswick, on the right\nbank of the Weser, at the foot of the Sollinger Mountains, at the\njunction of the railways Scherfede-Holzminden and Soest-Borssum, 56 m.\nS.W. of Brunswick. Pop. (1905) 9938. It has an Evangelical and a Roman\nCatholic church, a gymnasium, an architectural school and a school of\nengineering. The prosperity of the town depends chiefly on agriculture\nand the manufacture of iron and steel wares, and of chemicals, but\nweaving and the making of pottery are also carried on, and there are\nbaryta mills and polishing-mills for sandstone. By means of the Weser it\ncarries on a lively trade. Holzminden obtained municipal rights from\nCount Otto of Eberstein in 1245, and in 1410 it came into the possession\nof Brunswick.\n\n\n\n\nHOLZTROMPETE (Wooden Trumpet), an instrument somewhat resembling the\nAlpenhorn (q.v.) in tone-quality, designed by Richard Wagner for\nrepresenting the natural pipe of the peasant in _Tristan and Isolde_.\nThis instrument is not unlike the cor anglais in rough outline, being a\nconical tube of approximately the same length, terminating in a small\nglobular bell, but having neither holes nor keys; it is blown through a\ncup-shaped mouthpiece made of horn. The Holztrompete is in the key of C;\nthe scale is produced by overblowing, whereby the upper partials from\nthe 2nd to the 6th are produced. A single piston placed at a third of\nthe distance from the mouthpiece to the bell gives the notes D and F.\nWagner inserted a note in the score concerning the cor anglais for which\nthe part was originally scored, and advised the use of oboe or clarinet\nto reinforce the latter, the effect intended being that of a powerful\nnatural instrument, unless a wooden instrument with a natural scale be\nspecially made for the part, which would be preferable. The Holztrompete\nwas used at Munich for the first performance of _Tristan and Isolde_,\nand was still in use there in 1897. At Bayreuth it was also used for the\nTristan performances at the festivals of 1886 and 1889, but in 1891 W.\nHeckel's clarina, an instrument partaking of the nature of both oboe and\nclarinet, was substituted for the Holztrompete and has been retained\never since, having been found more effective.[1] (K. S.)\n\n[Illustration: Harmonic Series.]\n\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [1] Communicated by Madame Wagner, December 28th, 1897.\n\n\n\n\nHOMAGE (from _homo_, through the Low Lat. _hominaticum_, which occurs in\na document of 1035), one of the ceremonies used in the granting of a\nfief, and indicating the submission of a vassal to his lord. It could be\nreceived only by the suzerain in person. With head uncovered the vassal\nhumbly requested to be allowed to enter into the feudal relation; he\nthen laid aside his sword and spurs, ungirt his belt, and kneeling\nbefore his lord, and holding his hands extended and joined between the\nhands of his lord, uttered words to this effect: \"I become your man from\nthis day forth, of life and limb, and will hold faith to you for the\nlands I claim to hold of you.\" The oath of fealty, which could be\nreceived by proxy, followed the act of homage; then came the ceremony of\ninvestiture, either directly on the ground or by the delivery of a turf,\na handful of earth, a stone, or some other symbolical object. Homage was\ndone not only by the vassal to whom feudal lands were first granted but\nby every one in turn by whom they were inherited, since they were not\ngranted absolutely but only on condition of military and other service.\nAn infant might do homage, but he did not thus enter into full\npossession of his lands. The ceremony was of a preliminary nature,\nsecuring that the fief would not be alienated; but the vassal had to\ntake the oath of fealty, and to be formally invested, when he reached\nhis majority. The obligations involved in the act of homage were more\ngeneral than those associated with the oath of fealty, but they provided\na strong moral sanction for more specific engagements. They essentially\nresembled the obligations undertaken towards a Teutonic chief by the\nmembers of his \"comitatus\" or \"gefolge,\" one of the institutions from\nwhich feudalism directly sprang. Besides _homagium ligeum_, there was a\nkind of homage which imposed no feudal duty; this was _homagium per\nparagium_, such as the dukes of Normandy rendered to the kings of\nFrance, and as the dukes of Normandy received from the dukes of\nBrittany. The act of liege homage to a particular lord did not interfere\nwith the vassal's allegiance as a subject to his sovereign, or with his\nduty to any other suzerain of whom he might hold lands.\n\nThe word is also used of the body of tenants attending a manorial court,\nor of the court in a court baron (consisting of the tenants that do\nhomage and make inquiries and presentments, termed a _homage jury_).\n\n\n\n\nHOMBERG, WILHELM (1652-1715), Dutch natural philosopher, was the son of\nan officer of the Dutch East India Company, and was born at Batavia\n(Java) on the 8th of January 1652. Coming to Europe with his family in\n1670, he studied law at Jena and Leipzig, and in 1674 became an advocate\nat Magdeburg. In that town he made the acquaintance of Otto von\nGuericke, and under his influence determined to devote himself to\nnatural science. He, therefore, travelled in various parts of Europe for\nstudy, and after graduating in medicine at Wittenberg, settled in Paris\nin 1682. From 1685 to 1690 he practised as a physician at Rome; then\nreturning to Paris in 1691, he was elected a member of the Academy of\nSciences and appointed director of its chemical laboratory. Subsequently\nhe became teacher of physics and chemistry (1702), and private physician\n(1705) to the duke of Orleans. His death occurred at Paris on the 24th\nof September 1715. Homberg was not free from alchemistical tendencies,\nbut he made many solid contributions to chemical and physical knowledge,\nrecording observations on the preparation of Kunkel's phosphorus, on the\ngreen colour produced in flames by copper, on the crystallization of\ncommon salt, on the salts of plants, on the saturation of bases by\nacids, on the freezing of water and its evaporation _in vacuo_, &c. Much\nof his work was published in the _Recueil de l'Academie des Sciences_\nfrom 1692 to 1714. The _Sal Sedativum Hombergi_ is boracic acid, which\nhe discovered in 1702, and \"Homberg's phosphorus\" is prepared by fusing\nsal-ammoniac with quick lime.\n\n\n\n\nHOMBURG-VOR-DER-HOHE, a town and watering-place of Germany, in the\nPrussian province of Hesse-Nassau, prettily situated at the south-east\nfoot of the Taunus Mountains, 12 m. N. of Frankfort-on-Main, with which\nit is connected by rail. Pop. (1905) 13,740. Homburg consists of an old\nand a new town, the latter, founded by the landgrave of Hesse-Homburg\nFrederick II. (d. 1708), being regular and well-built. Besides the\npalatial edifices erected in connexion with the mineral water-cure,\nthere are churches of various denominations, Lutheran, Roman Catholic,\nRussian-Greek and Anglican, schools and benevolent institutions. On a\nneighbouring hill stands the palace of the former landgraves, built in\n1680 and subsequently enlarged and improved. The White Tower, 183 ft. in\nheight, is said to date from Roman times, and certainly existed under\nthe lords of Eppstein, who held the district in the 12th century. The\npalace is surrounded by extensive grounds, laid out in the manner of an\nEnglish park. The eight mineral springs which form the attraction of the\ntown to strangers belong to the class of saline acidulous chalybeates\nand contain a considerable proportion of carbonate of lime. Their use is\nbeneficial for diseases of the stomach and intestines, and externally,\nfor diseases of the skin and rheumatism. The establishments connected\nwith the springs are arranged on a scale of great magnificence, and\ninclude the Kurhaus (built 1841-1843), with a theatre, the Kaiser\nWilhelmsbad and the Kurhausbad. They lie grouped round a pretty park\nwhich also furnishes the visitors with facilities for various\nrecreations, such as lawn tennis, croquet, polo and other games. The\nindustries of Homburg embrace iron founding and the manufacture of\nleather and hats, but they are comparatively unimportant, the prosperity\nof the town being almost entirely due to the annual influx of visitors,\nwhich during the season from May to October inclusive averages 12,000.\nIn the beautiful neighbourhood lies the ancient Roman castle of\nSaalburg, which can be reached by an electric tramway.\n\nHomburg first came into repute as a watering-place in 1834, and owing to\nits gaming-tables, which were set up soon after, it rapidly became one\nof the favourite and most fashionable health-resorts of Europe. In 1849\nthe town was occupied by Austrian troops for the purpose of enforcing\nthe imperial decree against gambling establishments, but immediately on\ntheir withdrawal the bank was again opened, and play continued unchecked\nuntil 1872, when the Prussian government refused to renew the lease for\ngambling purposes, which then expired. As the capital of the former\nlandgraviate of Hesse-Homburg, the town shared the vicissitudes of that\nstate.\n\nHomburg is also the name of a town in Bavaria. Pop. (1900) 4785. It has\na Roman Catholic and an Evangelical church, and manufactures of iron\ngoods. In the neighbourhood are the ruins of the castles of Karlsberg\nand of Hohenburg. The family of the counts of Homburg became extinct in\nthe 15th century. The town came into the possession of Zweibrucken in\n1755 and later into that of Bavaria.\n\n See Supp, _Bad Homburg_ (7th ed., Homburg, 1903); Baumstark, _Bad\n Homburg und seine Heilquellen_ (Wiesbaden, 1901); Schiek, _Homburg und\n Umgebung_ (Homburg, 1896); Will, _Der Kurort Homburg, seine\n Mineralquellen_ (Homburg, 1880); Hoeben, _Bad Homburg und sein\n Heilapparat_ (Homburg, 1901); and N. E. Yorke-Davies, _Homburg and its\n Waters_ (London, 1897).\n\n\n\n\nHOME, EARLS OF. Alexander Home or Hume, 1st earl of Home (c. 1566-1619),\nwas the son of Alexander, 5th Lord Home (d. 1575), who fought against\nMary, queen of Scots, at Carberry Hill and at Langside, but was\nafterwards one of her most stalwart supporters, being taken prisoner\nwhen defending Edinburgh castle in her interests in 1573 and probably\ndying in captivity. He belonged to an old and famous border family, an\nearly member of which, Sir Alexander Home, was killed at the battle of\nVerneuil in 1424. This Sir Alexander was the father of Sir Alexander\nHome (d. 1456), warden of the marches and the founder of the family\nfortunes, whose son, another Sir Alexander (d. 1491), was created a lord\nof parliament as Lord Home in 1473, being one of the band of nobles who\ndefeated the forces of King James III. at the battle of Sauchieburn in\n1488. Other distinguished members of the family were: the first lord's\ngrandson and successor, Alexander, 2nd Lord Home (d. 1506), chamberlain\nof Scotland; and the latter's son, Alexander, 3rd Lord Home (d. 1516), a\nperson of great importance during the reign of James IV., whom he served\nas chamberlain. He fought at Flodden, but before the death of the king\nhe had led his men away to plunder. During the minority of the new king,\nJames V., he was engaged in quarrelling with the regent, John Stewart,\nduke of Albany, and in intriguing with England. In September 1516 he was\nseized, was charged with treachery and beheaded, his title and estates\nbeing restored to his brother George in 1522. George, who was killed in\nSeptember 1547 during a skirmish just before the battle of Pinkie, was\nthe father of Alexander, the 5th lord.\n\nAlexander Home became 6th Lord Home on his father's death in August\n1575, and took part in many of the turbulent incidents which marked the\nreign of James VI. He was warden of the east marches, and was often at\nvariance with the Hepburns, a rival border family whose head was the\nearl of Bothwell; the feud between the Homes and the Hepburns was an old\none, and it was probably the main reason why Home's father, the 5th\nlord, sided with the enemies of Mary during the period of her intimacy\nwith Bothwell. Home accompanied James to England in 1603 and was created\nearl of Home in 1605; he died in April 1619.\n\nHis son James, the 2nd earl, died childless in 1633 when his titles\npassed to a distant kinsman, Sir James Home of Coldingknows (d. 1666), a\ndescendant of the 1st Lord Home. This earl was in the Scottish ranks at\nthe battle of Preston and lost his estates under the Commonwealth, but\nthese were restored to him in 1661. His descendant, William, the 8th\nearl (d. 1761) fought on the English side at Prestonpans, and from his\nbrother Alexander, the 9th earl (d. 1786), the present earl of Home is\ndescended. In 1875 Cospatrick Alexander, the 11th earl (1799-1881), was\ncreated a peer of the United Kingdom as Baron Douglas, and his son\nCharles Alexander, the 12th earl (b. 1834), took the additional name of\nDouglas. The principal strongholds of the Homes were Douglas castle in\nHaddington and Home castle in Berwickshire.\n\n See H. Drummond, _Histories of Noble British Families_ (1846).","title":"Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, \"Hinduism\" to \"Home, Earls of\": Volume 13, Slice 5","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":186185}