Articles in This Slice

625

HOME, DANIEL DUNGLAS (1833-1886), Scottish spiritualist, was born near Edinburgh on the 20th of March 1833, his father being said to be a natural son of the 10th earl of Home, and his mother a member of a family credited with second sight. He went with his mother to America, and on her death was adopted by an aunt. In the United States he came out as a spiritualistic medium, though, it should be noted, he never sought to make money out of his exhibitions. In 1855 he came to England and gave numerous séances, which were attended by many well-known people. Robert Browning, the poet, went to one of these, but without altering his contempt for spiritualism, and he subsequently gave his impression of Home in the unflattering poem of “Sludge the Medium” (1864); Home, nevertheless, had many disciples, and gave séances at several European courts. He became a Roman Catholic, but was expelled from Rome as a sorcerer. In 1866 Mrs Lyon, a wealthy widow, adopted him as her son, and settled £60,000 upon him. Repenting, however, of her action, she brought a suit for the return of her money, 626 on the ground that it had been obtained by “spiritual” influence. It was held that the burden of establishing the validity of the gift lay on Home, and as he failed to do so the case was decided against him. He continued, however, to give séances, mostly on the Continent, and in 1871 appeared before the tsar of Russia and two Russian scientists, who attested the phenomena evoked. Returning to England he submitted to a series of experiments designed to test his pretensions before Professor (subsequently Sir William) Crookes, which the latter declared to be thoroughly genuine; and Professor von Boutlerow, of the Russian Academy of Science, after witnessing a similar series of experiments, expressed the same opinion. Home published two volumes of Incidents of my Life and Lights and Shadows of Spiritualism. He married successively two well-connected Russian ladies. He died at Auteuil, France, on the 21st of June 1886.

HOME, JOHN (1722-1808), Scottish dramatic poet, was born on the 22nd of September 1722 at Leith, where his father, Alexander Home, who was distantly related to the earls of Home, filled the office of town-clerk. He was educated at the grammar school of his native town, and at the university of Edinburgh, where he graduated M.A. in 1742. Though he showed a fondness for the profession of arms, he studied divinity, and was licensed by the presbytery of Edinburgh in 1745. In the same year he joined as a volunteer against the Pretender, and was taken prisoner at the battle of Falkirk (1746). With many others he was carried to the castle of Doune in Perthshire, but soon effected his escape. In July 1746 Home was presented to the parish of Athelstaneford, Haddingtonshire, vacant by the death of Robert Blair, the author of The Grave. He had leisure to visit his friends and became especially intimate with David Hume who belonged to the same family as himself. His first play, Agis: a tragedy, founded on Plutarch’s narrative, was finished in 1747. He took it to London and submitted it to Garrick for representation at Drury Lane, but it was rejected as unsuitable for the stage. The tragedy of Douglas was suggested to him by hearing a lady sing the ballad of Gil Morrice or Child Maurice (F. J. Child, Popular Ballads, ii. 263). The ballad supplied him with the outline of a simple and striking plot. After five years’ labour he completed his play, which he took to London for Garrick’s opinion. It also was rejected, but on his return to Edinburgh his friends resolved that it should be brought out in that city. It was produced on the 14th of December 1756 with overwhelming success, in spite of the opposition of the presbytery, who summoned Alexander Carlyle to answer for having attended its representation. Home wisely resigned his charge in 1757, after a visit to London, where Douglas was brought out at Covent Garden on the 14th of March. Peg Woffington played Lady Randolph, a part which found a later exponent in Mrs Siddons. David Hume summed up his admiration for Douglas by saying that his friend possessed “the true theatric genius of Shakespeare and Otway, refined from the unhappy barbarism of the one and licentiousness of the other.” Gray, writing to Horace Walpole (August, 1757), said that the author “seemed to have retrieved the true language of the stage, which has been lost for these hundred years,” but Samuel Johnson held aloof from the general enthusiasm, and averred that there were not ten good lines in the whole play (Boswell, Life, ed. Croker, 1848, p. 390). In 1758 Home became private secretary to Lord Bute, then secretary of state, and was appointed tutor to the prince of Wales; and in 1760 his patron’s influence procured him a pension of £300 per annum and in 1763 a sinecure worth another £300. Garrick produced Agis at Drury Lane on the 21st of February 1758. By dint of good acting and powerful support, according to Genest (Short Account &c., iv. 513 seq.), the piece kept the stage for eleven days, but it was lamentably inferior to Douglas. In 1760 his tragedy, The Siege of Aquileia, was put on the stage, Garrick taking the part of Aemilius. In 1769 his tragedy of The Fatal Discovery had a run of nine nights; Alonzo also (1773) had fair success in the representation; but his last tragedy, Alfred (1778), was so coolly received that he gave up writing for the stage. In 1778 he joined a regiment formed by the duke of Buccleuch. He sustained severe injuries in a fall from horseback which permanently affected his brain, and was persuaded by his friends to retire. From 1767 he resided either at Edinburgh or at a villa which he built at Kilduff near his former parish. It was at this time that he wrote his History of the Rebellion of 1745, which appeared in 1802. Home died at Merchiston Bank, near Edinburgh, on the 5th of September 1808, in his eighty-sixth year.

HOMEL, or Gomel, a town of Russia, in the government of Mogilev, and 132 m. by rail S.S.E. of the town of Mogilev, on the Sozh, a tributary of the Dnieper. Pop. (1900) 45,081, nearly half of whom are Jews. It is an important junction of the railways from Vilna to Odessa and from Orel to Poland, and is in steamer communication with Kiev and Mogilev. In front of Prince Paskevich’s castle stands an equestrian statue of the Polish general Joseph Poniatowski, and in the cathedral is the tomb of the chancellor Nikolai Petrovich Rumantsev, by Canova. The town carries on a brisk trade in hops, corn and timber; there are also paper-pulp mills and oil factories. Homel was founded in the 12th century, and after changing hands several times between Poles and Russians was annexed to Russia in 1772. In 1648 it suffered at the hands of the Cossack chieftain Bogdan Chmielnicki.

HOME OFFICE, a principal government department in the United Kingdom, the creation of which dates from 1782, when the conduct of foreign affairs, which had previously been divided between the northern and southern secretaries, was handed over to the northern department (see Foreign Office). The home department retained control of Irish and colonial affairs, and of war business until 1794, when an additional secretary of state was re-appointed. In 1801 the colonial business was transferred from the home department, which now attends only to domestic affairs. The head of the department, the principal secretary of state for home affairs, or home secretary, is a member of the government for the time being, and of the cabinet, receiving a salary of £5000 a year. He is the proper medium of communication between the sovereign and the subject, and receives petitions addressed to the crown. He is responsible for the maintenance of the king’s peace and attends to the administration of criminal justice, police and prisons, and through him the sovereign exercises his prerogative of mercy. Within his department is the supervision of lunatic asylums, reformatories and industrial schools, and it is his duty to see after the internal well-being of the country, to enforce the rules made for the health or safety of the community generally, and especially of those classes employed in special trades or dangerous occupations. He is assisted by a permanent under-secretary, a parliamentary secretary and several assistant under-secretaries.

HOMER1 (Ὃμηρος), the great epic poet of Greece. Many of the works once attributed to him are lost; those which remain are the two great epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey, thirty-three Hymns, a mock epic (the Battle of the Frogs and Mice), and some pieces of a few lines each (the so-called Epigrams).

Ancient Accounts of Homer.—Of the date of Homer probably no record, real or pretended, ever existed. Herodotus (ii. 53) maintains that Hesiod and Homer lived not more than 400 years 627 before his own time, consequently not much before 850 B.C. From the controversial tone in which he expresses himself it is evident that others had made Homer more ancient; and accordingly the dates given by later authorities, though very various, generally fall within the 10th and 11th centuries B.C. But none of these statements has any claim to the character of external evidence.

The extant lives of Homer (edited in Westermann’s Vitarum Scriptores Graeci minores) are eight in number, including the piece called the Contest of Hesiod and Homer. The longest is written in the Ionic dialect, and bears the name of Herodotus, but is certainly spurious. In all probability it belongs to the time which was fruitful beyond all others in literary forgeries, viz. the 2nd century of our era.2 The other lives are certainly not more ancient. Their chief value consists in the curious short poems or fragments of verse which they have preserved—the so-called Epigrams, which used to be printed at the end of editions of Homer. These are easily recognized as “Popular Rhymes,” a form of folk-lore to be met with in most countries, treasured by the people as a kind of proverbs.3 In the Homeric epigrams the interest turns sometimes on the characteristics of particular localities—Smyrna and Cyme (Epigr. iv.), Erythrae (Epigr. vi., vii.), Mt Ida (Epigr. x.). Neon Teichos (Epigr. i.); others relate to certain trades or occupations—potters (Epigr. xiv.), sailors, fishermen, goat herds, &c. Some may be fragments of longer poems, but evidently they are not the work of any one poet. The fact that they were all ascribed to Homer merely means that they belong to a period in the history of the Ionian and Aeolian colonies when “Homer” was a name which drew to itself all ancient and popular verse.

Again, comparing the “epigrams” with the legends and anecdotes told in the Lives of Homer, we can hardly doubt that they were the chief source from which these Lives were derived. Thus in Epigr. iv. we find a blind poet, a native of Aeolian Smyrna, through which flows the water of the sacred Meles. Here is doubtless the source of the chief incident of the Herodotean Life—the birth of Homer “Son of the Meles.” The epithet Aeolian implies high antiquity, inasmuch as according to Herodotus Smyrna became Ionian about 688 B.C. Naturally the Ionians had their own version of the story—a version which made Homer come out with the first Athenian colonists.

The same line of argument may be extended to the Hymns, and even to some of the lost works of the post-Homeric or so-called “Cyclic” poets. Thus:—

1. The hymn to the Delian Apollo ends with an address of the poet to his audience. When any stranger comes and asks who is the sweetest singer, they are to answer with one voice, the “blind man that dwells in rocky Chios; his songs deserve the prize for all time to come.” Thucydides, who quotes this passage to show the ancient character of the Delian festival, seems to have no doubt of the Homeric authorship of the hymn. Hence we may most naturally account for the belief that Homer was a Chian.

2. The Margites—a humorous poem which kept its ground as the reputed work of Homer down to the time of Aristotle—began with the words, “There came to Colophon an old man, a divine singer, servant of the Muses and Apollo.” Hence doubtless the claim of Colophon to be the native city of Homer—a claim supported in the early times of Homeric learning by the Colophonian poet and grammarian Antimachus.

3. The poem called the Cypria was said to have been given by Homer to Stasinus of Cyprus as a daughter’s dowry. The connexion with Cyprus appears further in the predominance given in the poem to Aphrodite.

4. The Little Iliad and the Phocaïs, according to the Herodotean life, were composed by Homer when he lived at Phocaea with a certain Thestorides, who carried them off to Chios and there gained fame by reciting them as his own. The name Thestorides occurs in Epigr. v.

5. A similar story was told about the poem called the Taking of Oechalia (Οἰχαλίας Ἅλωσις), the subject of which was one of the exploits of Heracles. It passed under the name of Creophylus, a friend or (as some said) a son-in-law of Homer; but it was generally believed to have been in fact the work of the poet himself.

6. Finally the Thebaid always counted as the work of Homer. As to the Epigoni, which carried on the Theban story, some doubt seems to have been felt.

These indications render it probable that the stories connecting Homer with different cities and islands grew up after his poems had become known and famous, especially in the new and flourishing colonies of Aeolis and Ionia. The contention for Homer, in short, began at a time when his real history was lost, and he had become a sort of mythical figure, an “eponymous hero,” or personification of a great school of poetry.

An interesting confirmation of this view from the negative side is furnished by the city which ranked as chief among the Asiatic colonies of Greece, viz. Miletus. No legend claims for Miletus even a visit from Homer, or a share in the authorship of any Homeric poem. Yet Arctinus of Miletus was said to have been a “disciple of Homer,” and was certainly one of the earliest and most considerable of the “Cyclic” poets. His Aethiopis was composed as a sequel to the Iliad; and the structure and general character of his poems show that he took the Iliad as his model. Yet in his case we find no trace of the disputed authorship which is so common with other “Cyclic” poems. How has this come about? Why have the works of Arctinus escaped the attraction which drew to the name of Homer such epics as the Cypria, the Little Iliad, the Thebaid, the Epigoni, the Taking of Oechalia and the Phocais. The most obvious account of the matter is that Arctinus was never so far forgotten that his poems became the subject of dispute. We seem through him to obtain a glimpse of an early post-Homeric age in Ionia, when the immediate disciples and successors of Homer were distinct figures in a trustworthy tradition—when they had not yet merged their individuality in the legendary “Homer” of the Epic Cycle.

Recitation of the Poems.—The recitation of epic poetry was called in historical times “rhapsody” (ῥαψῳδία). The word ῥαψῳδός is post-Homeric, but was known to Pindar, who gives two different explanations of it—“singer of stitched verse” (ῥαπτῶν ἐπέων ἀοιδοί), and “singer with the wand” (ῥαβδός). Of these the first is etymologically correct (except that it should rather be “stitcher of verse”); the second was suggested by the fact, for which there is early evidence, that the reciter was accustomed to hold a wand in his hand—perhaps, like the sceptre in the Homeric assembly, as a symbol of the right to a hearing.4

The first notice of rhapsody meets us at Sicyon, in the reign of Cleisthenes (600-560 B.C.), who “put down the rhapsodists on account of the poems of Homer, because they are all about Argos and the Argives” (Hdt. v. 67). This description applies very well to the Iliad, in which Argos and Argives occur on almost every page. It may have suited the Thebaid still better, but there is no need to understand it only of that poem, as Grote does. The incident shows that the poems of the Ionic Homer had gained in the 6th century B.C., and in the Doric parts of the Peloponnesus, the ascendancy, the national importance and the almost canonical character which they ever afterwards retained.

At Athens there was a law that the Homeric poems should be recited (ῥαψῳδεῖσθαι) on every occasion of the Panathenaea. This law is appealed to as an especial glory of Athens by the orator Lycurgus (Leocr. 102). Perhaps therefore the custom of public recitation was exceptional,5 and unfortunately we do not know when or by whom it was introduced. The Platonic dialogue Hipparchus attributes it to Hipparchus, son of Peisistratus. This, however, is part of the historical romance of 628 which the dialogue mainly consists. The author makes (perhaps wilfully) all the mistakes about the family of Peisistratus which Thucydides notices in a well-known passage (vi. 54-59). In one point, however, the writer’s testimony is valuable. He tells us that the law required the rhapsodists to recite “taking each other up in order (ἐξ ὑπολήψεως ἐφεξῆς), as they still do.” This recurs in a different form in the statement of Diogenes Laertius (i. 2. 57) that Solon made a law that the poems should be recited “with prompting” (ἐξ ὑποβολῆς). The question as between Solon and Hipparchus cannot be settled; but it is at least clear that a due order of recitation was secured by the presence of a person charged to give the rhapsodists their cue (ὑποβάλλειν). It was necessary, of course, to divide the poem to be recited into parts, and to compel each contending rhapsodist to take the part assigned to him. Otherwise they would have chosen favourite or show passages.

The practice of poets or rhapsodists contending for the prize at the great religious festivals is of considerable antiquity, though apparently post-Homeric. It is brought vividly before us in the Hymn to Apollo (see the passage mentioned above), and in two Hymns to Aphrodite (v. and ix.). The latter of these may evidently be taken to belong to Salamis in Cyprus and the festival of the Cyprian Aphrodite, in the same way that the Hymn to Apollo belongs to Delos and the Delian gathering. The earliest trace of such contests is to be found in the story of Thamyris, the Thracian singer, who boasted that he could conquer even the Muses in song (Il. ii. 594 ff.).

Much has been made in this part of the subject of a family or clan (γένος) of Homeridae in the island of Chios. On the one hand, it seemed to follow from the existence of such a family that Homer was a mere “eponymus,” or mythical ancestor; on the other hand, it became easy to imagine the Homeric poems handed down orally in a family whose hereditary occupation it was to recite them, possibly to add new episodes from time to time, or to combine their materials in new ways, as their poetical gifts permitted. But, although there is no reason to doubt the existence of a family of “Homeridae,” it is far from certain that they had anything to do with Homeric poetry. The word occurs first in Pindar (Nem. 2. 2), who applies it to the rhapsodists (Ὁμηρίδαι ῥαπτῶν ἐπέων ἀοίδοί). On this a scholiast says that the name “Homeridae” denoted originally descendants of Homer, who sang his poems in succession, but afterwards was applied to rhapsodists who did not claim descent from him. He adds that there was a famous rhapsodist, Cynaethus of Chios, who was said to be the author of the Hymn to Apollo, and to have first recited Homer at Syracuse about the 69th Olympiad. Nothing here connects the Homeridae with Chios. The statement of the scholiast is evidently a mere inference from the patronymic form of the word. If it proves anything, it proves that Cynaethus, who was a Chian and a rhapsodist, made no claim to Homeric descent. On the other hand our knowledge of Chian Homeridae comes chiefly from the lexicon of Harpocration, where we are told that Acusilaus and Hellanicus said that they were so called from the poet; whereas Seleucus pronounced this to be an error. Strabo also says that the Chians put forward the Homeridae as an argument in support of their claim to Homer. These Homeridae, then, belonged to Chios, but there is no indication of their being rhapsodists. On the contrary, Plato and other Attic writers use the word to include interpreters and admirers—in short, the whole “spiritual kindred”—of Homer. And although we hear of “descendants of Creophylus” as in possession of the Homeric poems, there is no similar story about descendants of Homer himself. Such is the evidence on which so many inferences are based.

The result of the notices now collected is to show that the early history of epic recitation consists of (1) passages in the Homeric hymns showing that poets contended for the prize at the great festivals, (2) the passing mention in Herodotus of rhapsodists at Sicyon, and (3) a law at Athens, of unknown date, regulating the recitation at the Panathenaea. Let us now compare these data with the account given in the Homeric poems. The word “rhapsode” does not yet exist; we hear only of the “singer” (ἀοιδός), who does not carry a wand or laurel-branch, but the lyre (φόρμιγξ), with which he accompanies his “song.” In the Iliad even the epic “singer” is not met with. It is Achilles himself who sings the stories of heroes (κλέα ἀνδρῶν) in his tent, and Patroclus is waiting (respondere paratus), to take up the song in his turn (Il. ix. 191). Again we do not hear of poetical contests (except in the story of Thamyris already mentioned) or of recitation of epic poetry at festivals. The Odyssey gives us pictures of two great houses, and each has its singer. The song is on a subject taken from the Trojan war, at some point chosen by the singer himself, or by his hearers. Phemius pleases the suitors by singing of the calamitous return of the Greeks; Demodocus sings of a quarrel between Ulysses and Achilles, and afterwards of the wooden horse and the capture of Troy.

It may be granted that the author of the Odyssey can hardly have been just such a singer as he himself describes. The songs of Phemius and Demodocus are too short, and have too much the character of improvisations. Nor is it necessary to suppose that epic poetry, at the time to which the picture in the Odyssey belongs, was confined to the one type represented. Yet in several respects the conditions under which the singer finds himself in the house of a chieftain like Odysseus or Alcinous are more in harmony with the character of Homeric poetry than those of the later rhapsodic contests. The subdivision of a poem like the Iliad or Odyssey among different and necessarily unequal performers must have been injurious to the effect. The highly theatrical manner of recitation which was fostered by the spirit of competition, and by the example of the stage, cannot have done justice to the even movement of the epic style. It is not certain indeed that the practice of reciting a long poem by the agency of several competitors was ancient, or that it prevailed elsewhere than at Athens; but as rhapsodists were numerous, and popular favour throughout Greece became more and more confined to one or two great works, it must have become almost a necessity. That it was the mode of recitation contemplated by the author of the Iliad or Odyssey it is impossible to believe.

The difference made by substituting the wand or branch of laurel for the lyre of the Homeric singer is a slighter one, though not without significance. The recitation of the Hesiodic poems was from the first unaccompanied by the lyre, i.e. they were confessedly said, not sung; and it was natural that the example should be extended to Homer. For it is difficult to believe that the Homeric poems were ever “sung” in the strict sense of the word. We can only suppose that the lyre in the hands of the epic poet or reciter was in reality a piece of convention, a “survival” from the stage in which narrative poetry had a lyrical character. Probably the poets of the Homeric school—that which dealt with war and adventure—were the genuine descendants of minstrels whose “lays” or “ballads” were the amusement of the feasts in an earlier heroic age; whereas the Hesiodic compositions were non-lyrical from the first, and were only in verse because that was the universal form of literature.

It seems, then, that if we imagine Homer as a singer in a royal house of the Homeric age, but with more freedom regarding the limits of his subject, and a more tranquil audience than is allowed him in the rapid movement of the Odyssey, we shall probably not be far from the truth.

Time and Place of Homer.—The oldest direct references to the Iliad and Odyssey are in Herodotus, who quotes from both poems (ii. 53). The quotation from the Iliad is of interest because it is made in order to show that Homer supported the story of the travels of Paris to Egypt and Sidon (whereas the Cyclic poem called the Cypria ignored them), and also because the part of the Iliad from which it comes is cited as the “Aristeia of Diomede.” This was therefore a recognized part of the poem.

The earliest mention of the name of Homer is found in a fragment of the philosopher Xenophanes (of the 6th century B.C., or possibly earlier), who complains of the false notions implanted through the teaching of Homer. The passage shows, not merely that Homer was well known at Colophon in the time of Xenophanes, but also that the great advance in moral and 629 religious ideas which forced Plato to banish Homer from his republic had made itself felt in the days of the early Ionic philosophers.

Failing external testimony, the time and place of the Homeric poems can only be determined (if at all) by internal evidence. This is of two main kinds: (a) evidence of history, consisting in a comparison of the political and social condition, the geography, the institutions, the manners, arts and ideas of Homer with those of other times; (b) evidence of language, consisting in a comparison with later dialects, in respect of grammar and vocabulary. To these may be added, as occasionally of value, (c) much evidence of the direct influence of Homer upon the subsequent course of literature and art.

(a) The political condition of Greece in the earliest times known to history is separated from the Greece of Homer by an interval which can hardly be overestimated. The great national names are different: instead of Achaeans, Argives, Danai, we find Hellenes, subdivided into Dorians, Ionians, Aeolians—names either unknown to Homer, or mentioned in terms more significant than silence. At the dawn of Greek history Mycenae is no longer the seat of empire; new empires, polities and civilizations have grown up—Sparta with its military discipline, Delphi with its religious supremacy, Miletus with its commerce and numberless colonies, Aeolis and Ionia, Sicily and Magna Graecia.

While the political centre of Homeric Greece is at Mycenae, the real centre is rather to be found In Boeotia. The Catalogue of the Ships begins with Boeotia; the list of Boeotian towns is much the longest; and they sail, not from the bay of Argos, but from the Boeotian harbour of Aulis. This position is not due to its chiefs, who are all of inferior rank. The importance of Boeotia for Greek civilization is further shown by the ancient worship of the Muses on Mount Helicon, and the fact that the oldest poet whose birthplace was known was the Boeotian Hesiod. Next to Boeotia and the neighbouring countries, it appears that the Peloponnesus, Crete and Thessaly were the most important seats of Greek population.

In the Peloponnesus the face of things was completely altered by the Dorian conquest, no trace of which is found in Homer. The only Dorians known in Homer are those that the Odyssey (xix. 177) places in Crete. It is difficult to connect them with the Dorians of history.

The eastern shores of the Aegean, which the earliest historical records represent to us as the seat of a brilliant civilization, giving way before the advance of the great military empires (Lydia and afterwards Persia), are almost a blank in Homer’s map. The line of settlements can be traced in the Catalogue from Crete to Rhodes, and embraces the neighbouring islands of Cos and Calymnos. The colonization of Rhodes by Tlepolemus is related (Il. ii. 661 ff.), and seems to mark the farthest point reached in the Homeric age. Between Rhodes and the Troad Homer knows of but one city, Miletus—which is a Carian ally of Troy—and the mouth of one river, the Cayster. Even the Cyclades—Naxos, Paros, Melos—are unknown to the Homeric world. The disposition of the Greeks to look to the west for the centres of religious feeling appears in the mention of Dodona and the Dodonaean Zeus, put in the mouth of the Thessalian Achilles.

To the north we find the Thracians, known from the stories of Thamyris the singer (Il. ii. 595), and Lycurgus, the enemy of the young god Dionysus (Il. vi. 130). Here the Trojan empire begins. It does not appear, however, that the Trojans are thought of as people of a different language. As this is expressly said of the Carians, and of the Trojan allies who were “summoned from afar,” the contrary rather is implied regarding Troy itself.

The mixed type of government described by Homer—consisting of a king guided by a council of elders, and bringing all important resolutions before the assembly of the fighting men—does not seem to have been universal in Indo-European communities, but to have grown up in many different parts of the world under the stress of similar conditions. The king is the commander in war, and the office probably owed its existence to military necessities. It is not surrounded with any special sacredness. There were ruling families, laying claim to divine descent, from whom the king was naturally chosen, but his own fitness is the essence of his title. The aged Laertes is set aside; the young Telemachus does not succeed as a matter of course. Nor are any very definite rights attached to the office. Each tribe in the army before Troy was commanded by its own king (or kings); but Agamemnon was supreme, and was “more a king” (βασιλείτερος) than any other. The assembly is summoned on all critical occasions, and its approval is the ultimate sanction. A king therefore stands in almost as much need of oratory as of warlike skill and prowess. Even the division of the spoil is not made in the Iliad by Agamemnon, but by “the Achaeans” (Il. i. 162, 368). The taking of Briseïs from Achilles was an arbitrary act, and against all rule and custom. The council is more difficult to understand. The “elders” (γέροντες) of the Iliad are the same as the subordinate “kings”; they are summoned by Agamemnon to his tent, and form a small council of nine or ten persons. In Troy we hear of elders of the people (δημογέροντες) who are with Priam, and are men past the military age. So in Ithaca there are elders who have not gone to Troy with the army. It would seem therefore that the meeting in Agamemnon’s tent was only a copy or adaptation of the true constitutional “council of elders,” which indeed was essentially unfitted for the purposes of military service. The king’s palace, if we may judge from Tiryns and Mycenae, was usually in a strong situation on an “acropolis.” In the later times of democracy the acropolis was reserved for the temples of the principal gods.

Priesthood in Homer is found in the case of particular temples, where an officer is naturally wanted to take charge of the sacred inclosure and the sacrifices offered within it. It is perhaps an accident that we do not hear of priests in Ithaca. Agamemnon performs sacrifice himself, not because a priestly character was attached to the kingly office, but simply because he was “master in his own house.”

The conception of “law” is foreign to Homer. The later words for it (νόμος, ῥήτρα) are unknown, and the terms which he uses (δίκη and θέμις) mean merely “custom.” Judicial functions are in the hands of the elders, who “have to do with suits” (δικασπόλοι), and “uphold judgments” (θέμιστας εἰρύαται). On such matters as the compensation in cases of homicide, it is evident that there were no rules, but merely a feeling, created by use and wont, that the relatives of the slain man should be willing to accept payment. The sense of anger which follows a violation of custom has the name of “Nemesis”—righteous displeasure.

As there is no law in Homer, so there is no morality. That is to say, there are no general principles of action, and no words which indicate that acts have been classified as good or bad, right or wrong. Moral feeling, indeed, existed and was denoted by “Aidos”; but the numerous meanings of this word—shame, veneration, pity—show how rudimentary the idea was. And when we look to practice we find that cruel and even treacherous deeds are spoken of without the least sense that they deserve censure. The heroes of Homer are hardly more moral agents than the giants and enchanters of a fairy tale.

The religious ideas of Homer differ in some important points from those of later Greece. The Apollo of the Iliad has the character of a local Asiatic deity—“ruler of Chryse and goodly Cilla and Tenedos.” He may be compared with the Clarian and the Lycian god, but he is unlike the Apollo of Dorian times, the “deliverer” and giver of oracles. Again, the worship of Dionysus, and of Demeter and Persephone, is mainly or wholly post-Homeric. The greatest difference, however, lies in the absence of hero-worship from the Homeric order of things. Castor and Polydeuces, for instance, are simply brothers of Helen who died before the expedition to Troy (Il. iii. 243.)

The military tactics of Homer belong to the age when the chariot was the principal engine of warfare. Cavalry is unknown, and the battles are mainly decided by the prowess of the chiefs. The use of the trumpet is also later. It has been supposed indeed that the art of riding was known in Homer’s own time, because it occurs in comparisons. But the riding which he 630 describes (Il. xv. 679) is a mere exhibition of skill, such as we may see in a modern circus. And though he mentions the trumpet (Il. xviii. 219), there is nothing to show that it was used, as in historical times, to give the signal for the charge.

The chief industries of Homeric times are those of the carpenter (τέκτων), the worker in leather (σκυτοτόμος), the smith or worker in metal (χαλκεύς)—whose implements are the hammer and pincers—and the potter (κεραμεύς); also spinning and weaving, which were carried on by the women. The fine arts are represented by sculpture in relief, carving in wood and ivory, embroidery. Statuary is later; it appears to have come into existence in the 7th century, about the time when casting in metal was invented by Rhoecus of Samos. In general, as was well shown by A. S. Murray,6 Homeric art does not rise above the stage of decoration, applied to objects in common use; while in point of style it is characterized by a richness and variety of ornament which is in the strongest contrast to the simplicity of the best periods. It is the work, in short, not of artists but of skilled workmen; the ideal artist is “Daedalus,” a name which implies mechanical skill and intricate workmanship, not beauty of design.

One art of the highest importance remains. The question whether writing was known in the time of Homer was raised in antiquity, and has been debated with especial eagerness ever since the appearance of Wolf’s Prolegomena. In this case we have to consider not merely the indications of the poems, but also the external evidence which we possess regarding the use of writing in Greece. This latter kind of evidence is much more considerable now than it was in Wolf’s time. (See Writing elsewhere in these volumes.)

The oldest known stage of the Greek alphabet appears to be represented by inscriptions of the islands of Thera, Melos and Crete, which are referred to the 40th Olympiad (620 B.C.). The oldest specimen of a distinctively Ionian alphabet is the famous inscription of the mercenaries of Psammetichus, in Upper Egypt, as to which the only doubt is whether the Psammetichus in question is the first or the second, and consequently whether the inscription is to be dated Ol. 40 or Ol. 47. Considering that the divergence of two alphabets (like the difference of two dialects) requires both time and familiar use, we may gather from these facts that writing was well known in Greece early in the 7th century B.C.7

The rise of prose composition in the 6th century B.C. has been thought to mark the time when memory was practically superseded by writing as a means of preserving literature—the earlier use of letters being confined to short documents, such as lists of names, treaties, laws, &c. This conclusion, however, is by no means necessary. It may be that down to comparatively late rimes poetry was not commonly read, but was recited from memory. But the question is—From what time are we to suppose that the preservation of long poems was generally secured by the existence of written copies? Now, without counting the Homeric poems—which doubtless had exceptional advantages in their fame and popularity—we find a body of literature dating from the 8th century B.C. to which the theory of oral transmission is surely inapplicable. In the Trojan cycle alone we know of the two epics of Arctinus, the Little Iliad of Lesches, the Cypria, the Nostoi. The Theban cycle is represented by the Thebaid (which Callinus, who was of the 7th century, ascribed to Homer) and the Epigoni. Other ancient epics—ancient enough to have passed under the name of Homer—are the Taking of Oechalia, and the Phocaïs. Again, there are the numerous works attributed to Hesiod and other poets of the didactic, mythological and quasi-historical schools—Eumelus of Corinth, Cinaethon of Sparta, Agias of Troezen, and many more. The preservation of this vast mass can only be attributed to writing, which must therefore have been in use for two centuries or more before there was any considerable prose literature. Nor is this in itself improbable.

The further question, whether the Iliad and Odyssey were originally written, is much more difficult. External evidence does not reach back so far, and the internal evidence is curiously indecisive. The only passage which can be interpreted as a reference to writing occurs in the story of Bellerophon, told by Glaucus in the sixth book of the Iliad. Proetus, king of Corinth, sent Bellerophon to his father-in-law the king of Lycia, and gave him “baneful tokens” (σήματα λυγρά, i.e. tokens which were messages of death), “scratching on a folded tablet many spirit-destroying things, and bade him show this to his father-in-law, that he might perish.” The king of Lycia asked duly (on the tenth day from the guest’s coming) for a token (ᾔτεε σῆμα ἰδέσθαι), and then knew what Proetus wished to be done. In this account there is nothing to show exactly how the message of Proetus was expressed. The use of writing for the purpose of the token between “guest-friends” (tessera hospitalis) is certainly very ancient. Mommsen (Röm. Forsch. i. 338 ff.) aptly compares the use in treaties, which are the oldest species of public documents. But we may suppose that tokens of some kind—like the marks which the Greek chiefs make on the lots (Il. vii. 175 ff.)—were in use before writing was known. In any system of signs there were doubtless means of recommending a friend, or giving warning of the presence of an enemy. There is no difficulty, therefore, in understanding the message of Proetus without alphabetical writing. But, on the other hand, there is no reason for so understanding it.

If the language of Homer is so ambiguous where the use of writing would naturally be mentioned, we cannot expect to find more decisive references elsewhere. Arguments have been founded upon the descriptions of the blind singers in the Odyssey, with their songs inspired directly by the Muse; upon the appeals of the poet to the Muses, especially in such a place as the opening of the Catalogue; upon the Catalogue itself, which is a kind of historical document put into verse to help the memory; upon the shipowner in the Odyssey, who has “a good memory for his cargo,” &c. It may be answered, however, that much of this is traditional, handed down from the time when all poetry was unwritten. Moreover it is one thing to recognize that a literature is essentially oral in its form, characteristic of an age which was one of hearing rather than of reading, and quite another to hold that the same literature was preserved entirely by oral transmission.

The result of these various considerations seems to be that the age which we may call the Homeric—the age which is brought before us in vivid outlines in the Iliad and Odyssey—lies beyond the earliest point to which history enables us to penetrate. And so far as we can draw any conclusion as to the author (or authors) of the two poems, it is that the whole debate between the cities of Aeolis and Ionia was wide of the mark. The author of the Iliad, at least, was evidently a European Greek who lived before the colonization of Asia Minor; and the claims of the Asiatic cities mean no more than that in the days of their prosperity these were the chief seats of the fame of Homer.

(b) The dialect of Homer is an early or “primitive” form of the language which we know as that of Attica in the classical age of Greek literature. The proof of this proposition is to be obtained chiefly by comparing the grammatical formation and the syntax of Homer with those of Attic. The comparison of the vocabulary is in the nature of things less conclusive on the question of date. It would be impossible to give the evidence in full without writing a Homeric grammar, but a few specimens may be of interest.

These are not, speaking generally, the differences that are produced by the gradual divergence of dialects in a language. They are rather to be classed with those which we find between the earlier and the later stages of every language which has had a long history. The Homeric dialect has passed into New Ionic and Attic by gradual but ceaseless development of the same kind as that which brought about the change from Vedic to classical Sanskrit, or from old high German to the present dialects of Germany.

The points that have been mentioned, to which many others might be added, make it clear that the Homeric and Attic dialects are separated by differences which affect the whole structure of the language, and require a considerable time for their development. At the same time there is hardly one of these differences which cannot be accounted for by the natural growth of the language. It has been thought indeed that the Homeric dialect was a mixed one, mainly Ionic, but containing Aeolic and even Doric forms; this, however, is a mistaken view of the processes of language. There are doubtless many Homeric forms which were unknown to the later Ionic and Attic, and which are found in Aeolic or other dialects. In general, however, these are older forms, which must have existed in Ionic at one time, and may very well have belonged to the Ionic of Homer’s time. So too the digamma is called “Aeolic” by grammarians, and is found on Aeolic and Doric inscriptions. But the letter was one of the original alphabet, and was retained universally as a numeral. It can only have fallen into disuse by degrees, as the sound which it denoted ceased to be pronounced. The fact that there are so many traces of it in Homer is a strong proof of the antiquity of the poems, but no proof of admixture with Aeolic.

There is one sense, however, in which an admixture of dialects may be recognized. It is clear that the variety of forms in Homer is too great for any actual spoken dialect. To take a single instance: it is impossible that the genitives in -οιο and in -ου should both have been in everyday use together. The form in -οιο must have been poetical or literary, like the old English forms that survive in the language of the Bible. The origin of such double forms is not far to seek. The effect of dialect on style was always recognized in Greece, and the dialect which had once been adopted by a particular kind of poetry was ever afterwards adhered to. The Epic of Homer was doubtless formed originally from a spoken variety of Greek, but became literary and conventional with time. It is Homer himself who tells us, in a striking passage (Il. iv. 437) that all the Greeks spoke the same language—that is to say, that they understood one another, in spite of the inevitable local differences. Experience shows how some one dialect in a country gains a literary supremacy to which the whole nation yields. So Tuscan became the type of Italian, and Anglian of English. But as soon as the dialect is adopted, it begins to diverge from the colloquial form. Just as modern poetical Italian uses many older grammatical forms peculiar to itself, so the language of poetry, even in Homeric times, had formed a deposit (so to speak) of archaic grammar. There were doubtless poets before Homer, as well as brave men before Agamemnon; and indeed the formation of a poetical dialect such as the Homeric must have been the work of several generations. The use of that dialect (instead of Aeolic) by the Boeotian poet Hesiod, in a kind of poetry which was not of the Homeric type, tends to the conclusion that the literary ascendancy of the epic dialect was anterior to the Iliad and Odyssey, and independent of the influence exercised by these poems.

What then was the original language of Homer? Where and when was it spoken? [The answer given to this question by Aug. Fick (in 1883) and still held, with modifications, by some European scholars can no longer be maintained. Fick’s original statement was that in or about the 6th century B.C. 632 the poems, which had originally worn an Aeolic dress, were transposed into Ionic. To this it is easily answered that such an event is not only unique in history, but contrary to all that we know of the Greek genius. At the period in question an Aeolic literature, the lyrics of Sappho and Alcaeus, were in existence. If it was found necessary to transpose the Aeolic Homer, why did the Aeolic lyric verse escape? If, however, as is the view of some of Fick’s followers, the transposition took place several centuries earlier, before species of literature had appropriated particular dialects, then the linguistic facts upon which Fick relied to distinguish the “Aeolic” and “Ionic” elements in Homer disappear. We have no means of knowing what the Aeolic and Ionic of say the 9th century were, or if there were such dialects at all. Certain prominent historical differences between Aeolic and Ionic (the digamma and α) are known to be unoriginal. The view that Homer underwent at any time a passage from one dialect to another may be dismissed. The tendency of modern dialectologists is to divide the Greek dialects into Dorian and non-Dorian. The non-Dorian dialects, Ionic, Attic and the various forms of Aeolic, are regarded as relatively closely akin, and go by the common name “Achaean.” They formed the common language of Greece before the Doric invasion. As the scene which Homer depicts is prae-Dorian Greece, it is reasonable to call his language Achaean. The historical divergences of Achaean into Aeolian and Ionic were later than the Migration, and were due to the well-known effects of change of soil and air.

To what local variety of Achaean Homeric Greek belonged it is idle to ask. Thessaly, Boeotia and Mycenae have equal claims. It seems clearer that when once this local variety of Achaean had been used by poets of eminence as their vehicle for national history, it established its right to be considered the one poetical language of Hellas. As the dialect of the Arno in Italy, of Castille in Spain, by the virtue of the genius of the singers who used them, became literary “Italian” and “Spanish,” so this variety of Achaean elevated itself to the position of the volgare illustre of Greece.8]

(c) The influence of Homer upon the subsequent course of Greek literature is a large subject, even if we restrict it to the centuries which immediately followed the Homeric age. It will be enough to observe that in the earliest elegiac poets, such as Archilochus, Tyrtaeus and Theognis, reminiscences of Homeric language and thought meet us on every page. If the same cannot be said of the ancient epic poems, that is because of the extreme scantiness of the existing fragments. Much, however, is to be gathered from the arguments of the Trojan part of the Epic Cycle (preserved in the Codex Venetus of the Iliad, a full discussion of which will be found in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1884, pp. 1-40). An examination of these arguments throws light on two chief aspects of the relation between Homer and his “cyclic” successors.

1. The later poets sought to complete the story of the Trojan war by supplying the parts which did not fall within the Iliad and Odyssey—the so-called ante-homerica and post-homerica. They did so largely from hints and passing references in Homer. Thus the successive episodes of the siege related at length in the Little Iliad, and ending with the story of the Wooden Horse, are nearly all taken from passages in the Odyssey. Much the same may be said of the Nosti.

2. With this process of expansion and development (so to speak) of Homeric themes is combined the addition of new characters. Such, in the Little Iliad (e.g.), are the story of the Palladium and of the treachery of Sinon. Such, too, in the Cypria are the new legendary figures—Palamedes, Iphigenia, Telephus, Laocoon. These new elements in the narrative are evidently due not only to the natural growth of legend in a people highly endowed with imagination, but in a large proportion also to the new races and countries with which the Greeks came into contact, as well as to their own rapid advance in wealth and civilization. It will be observed that the two poems of Arctinus are remarkable for the proportion of new matter of the latter kind. The Aethiopis shows us the allies of Troy reinforced by two peoples that are evidently creations of oriental fancy, the Amazons and Memnon with his Aethiopians. The Iliu Persis, again, was the oldest authority for the story of Laocoon and of the consequent escape of Aeneas—a story which connected a surviving branch of the house of Priam with the later inhabitants of the Troad. On the other hand the fate of Creusa (sed me magna deum genetrix his detinet oris) is a link with the worship of Cybele. The journey of Calchas to Colophon and his death there, as told in the Nosti, is another instance of the kind. These facts point to a familiarity with the Greek colonies in Asia which contrasts strongly with the silence of the Iliad and Odyssey.

Structure of the Iliad.—The subject of the Iliad, as the first line proclaims, is the “anger of Achilles.” The manner in which this subject is worked out will appear from the following summary in which we distinguish (1) the plot, i.e. the story of the quarrel, (2) the main course of the war, which forms a sort of underplot, and (3) subordinate episodes.

Such is the “action” (πρᾶξις) which in Aristotle’s opinion showed the superiority of Homer to all later epic poets. But the proof that his scheme was the work of a great poet does not depend merely upon the artistic unity which excited the wonder of Aristotle. A number of separate “lays” might conceivably be arranged and connected by a man of poetical taste in a manner that would satisfy all requirements. In such a case, however, the connecting passages would be slight and weak. Now, in the Iliad these passages are the finest and most characteristic. The element of connexion and unity is the story of the “wrath of Achilles”; and we have only to look at the books which give the story of the wrath to see how essential they are. Even if the ninth book is rejected (as Grote proposed), there remain the speeches of the first, sixteenth and nineteenth books. These speeches form the cardinal points in the action of the Iliad—the framework into which everything else is set; and they have also the best title to the name of Homer.

The further question, however, remains,—What shorter narrative piece fulfilling the conditions of an independent poem has Lachmann succeeded in disengaging from the existing Iliad? It must be admitted that when tried by this test his “lays” generally fail. The “quarrel of the chiefs,” the “muster of the army,” the “duel of Paris and Menelaus,” &c., are excellent beginnings, but have no satisfying conclusion. And the reason is not far to seek. The Iliad is not a history, nor is it a series of incidents in the history, of the siege. It turns entirely upon a single incident, occupying a few days only. The several episodes of the poem are not so many distinct stories, each with an interest of its own. They are only parts of a single main event. Consequently the type of epic poem which would be produced by an aggregation of shorter lays is not the type which we have in the Iliad. Rather the Iliad is itself a single lay which has grown with the growth of poetical art to the dimensions of an epic.

But the original nucleus and parts of the incidents may be the work of a single great poet, and yet other episodes may be of different authorship, wrought into the structure of the poem in later times. Various theories have been based on this supposition. Grote in particular held that the original poem, which he called the Achilleïs, did not include books ii.-vii., ix., x., xxiii., xxiv. Such a view may be defended somewhat as follows.

Of the books which relate the events during the absence of Achilles from the Greek ranks (ii.-xv.), the last five are directly related to the main action. They describe the successive steps by which the Greeks are driven back, first from the plain to the rampart, then to their ships. Moreover, three of the chief heroes, Agamemnon, Diomede and Ulysses, are wounded, and this circumstance, as Lachmann himself admitted, is steadily kept in mind throughout. It is otherwise with the earlier books (especially ii.-vii.). The chief incidents in that part of the poem—the panic rush to the ships, the duels of Paris and Menelaus, and of Hector and Ajax, the Aristeia of Diomede—stand in no relation to the mainspring of the poem, the promise made by Zeus to Thetis. It is true that in the thirteenth and fourteenth books the purpose of Zeus is thwarted for a time by other gods; but in books ii.-vii. it is not so much thwarted as ignored. Further, the events follow without sufficient connexion. The truce of the third book is broken by Pandarus, and Agamemnon passes along the Greek ranks with words of encouragement, but without a hint of the treachery just committed. The Aristeia of Diomede ends in the middle of the sixth book; he is uppermost in all thoughts down to ver. 311, but from this point, in the meetings of Hector with Helen and Andromache, and again in the seventh book when Hector challenges the Greek chiefs, his prowess is forgotten. Once more, some of the incidents seem to belong properly to the beginning of the war. The joy of Menelaus on seeing Paris, Priam’s ignorance of the Greek leaders, the speeches of Agamemnon in his review of the ranks (in book iv.), the building of the wall—all these are in place after the Greek landing, but hardly in the ninth year of the siege.

On the other hand, it may be said, the second book opens with a direct reference to the events of the first, and the mention of Achilles in the speech of Thersites (ii. 239 sqq.) is sufficient to keep the main course of events in view. The Catalogue is connected with its place in the poem by the lines about Achilles (686-694). When Diomede is at the height of his Aristeia Helenus says (Il. vi. 99), “We did not so fear even Achilles.” And when in the third book Priam asks Helen about the Greek captains, or when in the seventh book nine champions come forward to contend with Hector, the want of the greatest hero of all is sufficiently felt. If these passages do not belong to the period of the wrath of Achilles, how are we to account for his conspicuous absence?

Further, the want of smoothness and unity which is visible in this part of the Iliad may be due to other causes than difference of date or authorship. A national poet such as the author of the Iliad cannot always choose or arrange his matter at his own will. He is bound by the traditions of his art, and by the feelings and expectations of his hearers. The poet who brought the exploits of Diomede into the Iliad doubtless had his reasons for doing so, which were equally strong whether he was the poet of the Achilleïs or a later Homerid or rhapsodist. And if some of the incidents (those of the third book in particular) seem to belong to the beginning of the war, it must be considered that poetically, and to the hearers of the Iliad, the war opens in the third book, and the incidents are of the kind that is required in such a place. The truce makes a pause which heightens the interest of the impending battle; the duel and the scene on the walls are effective in bringing some of the leading characters on the stage, and in making us acquainted with the previous history. The story of Paris and Helen especially, and the general position of affairs in Troy, is put before us in a singularly vivid manner. The book in short forms so good a prologue to the action of the war that we can hardly be wrong in attributing it to the genius which devised the rest of the Iliad.

The case against the remaining books is of a different kind. The ninth and tenth seem like two independent pictures of the night before the great battle of xi.-xvii. Either is enough to fill the space in Homer’s canvas; and the suspicion arises (as when two Platonic dialogues bear the same name) that if either had been genuine, the other would not have come into existence. If one of the two is to be rejected it must be the tenth, which is certainly the less Homeric. It relates a picturesque adventure, conceived in a vein more approaching that of comedy than any other part of the Iliad. Moreover, the language in several places exhibits traces of post-Homeric date. The ninth book, on the other hand, was rejected by Grote, chiefly on the grounds that the embassy to Achilles ought to have put an end to the quarrel, and that it is ignored in later passages, especially in the speeches 636 of Achilles (xi. 609; xvi. 72, 85). His argument, however, rests on an assumption which we are apt to bring with us to the reading of the Iliad, but which is not borne out by its language, viz. that there was some definite atonement demanded by Achilles, or due to him according to the custom and sentiment of the time. But in the Iliad the whole stress is laid on the anger of Achilles, which can only be satisfied by the defeat and extreme peril of the Greeks.12 He is influenced by his own feeling, and by nothing else. Accordingly, in the ninth book, when they are still protected by the rampart (see 348 sqq.), he rejects gifts and fair words alike; in the sixteenth he is moved by the tears and entreaties of Patroclus, and the sight of the Greek ships on fire; in the nineteenth his anger is quenched in grief. But he makes no conditions, either in rejecting the offers of the embassy or in returning to the Greek army. And this conduct is the result, not only of his fierce and inexorable character, but also (as the silence of Homer shows) of the want of any general rules or principles, any code of morality or of honour, which would have required him to act in a different way.

Finally, Grote objected to the two last books that they prolong the action of the Iliad beyond the exigencies of a coherent scheme. Of the two, the twenty-third could more easily be spared. In language, and perhaps in style and manner, it is akin to the tenth; while the twenty-fourth is in the pathetic vein of the ninth, and like it serves to bring out new aspects of the character of Achilles.

Structure of the Odyssey.—In the Odyssey, as in the Iliad, the events related fall within a short space of time. The difficulty of adapting the long wanderings of Ulysses to a plan of this type is got over by the device—first met with in the Odyssey—of making the hero tell the story of his own adventures. In this way the action is made to begin almost immediately before the actual return of Ulysses. Up to the time when he reaches Ithaca it moves on three distinct scenes: we follow the fortunes of Ulysses, of Telemachus on his voyage in the Peloponnesus, and of Penelope with the suitors. The art with which these threads are woven together was recognized by Wolf himself, who admitted the difficulty of applying his theory to the “admirabilis summa et compages” of the poem. Of the comparatively few attempts which have been made to dissect the Odyssey, the most moderate and attractive is that of Professor A. Kirchhoff of Berlin.13

Chorizontes.—When we are satisfied that each of the great Homeric poems is either wholly or mainly the work of a single poet, a question remains which has been matter of controversy in ancient as well as modern times—Are they the work of the same poet? Two ancient grammarians, Xeno and Hellanicus, were known as the “separators” (οἱ χωρίζοντες); and Aristarchus appears to have written a treatise against their heresy. In modern times some of the greatest names have been on the side of the “Chorizontes.”

If, as has been maintained in the preceding pages, the external evidence regarding Homer is of no value, the problem now before us may be stated in this form: Given two poems of which nothing is known except that they are of the same school of poetry, what is the probability that they are by the same author? We may find a fair parallel by imagining two plays drawn at hazard from the works of the great tragic writers. It is evident that the burden of proof would rest with those who held them to be by the same hand.

The arguments used in this discussion have been of very various calibre. The ancient Chorizontes observed that the messenger of Zeus is Iris in the Iliad, but Hermes in the Odyssey; that the wife of Hephaestus is one of the Charites in the Iliad, but Aphrodite in the Odyssey; that the heroes in the Iliad do not eat fish; that Crete has a hundred cities according to the Iliad, and only ninety according to the Odyssey; that προπάροιθε is used in the Iliad of place, in the Odyssey of time, &c. Modern scholars have added to the list, especially by making careful comparisons of the two poems in respect of vocabulary and 637 grammatical forms. Nothing is more difficult than to assign the degree of weight to be given to such facts. The difference of subject between the two poems is so great that it leads to the most striking differences of detail, especially in the vocabulary. For instance, the word φόβος, which in Homer means “flight in battle” (not “fear”), occurs thirty-nine times in the Iliad, and only once in the Odyssey; but then there are no battles in the Odyssey. Again, the verb ῥήγνυμι, “to break,” occurs forty-eight times in the Iliad, and once in the Odyssey,—the reason being that it is constantly used of breaking the armour of an enemy, the gate of a city, the hostile ranks, &c. Once more, the word σκότος, “darkness,” occurs fourteen times in the Iliad, once in the Odyssey. But in every one of the fourteen places it is used of “darkness” coming over the sight of a fallen warrior. On the other side, if words such as ἀσάμινθος, “a bath,” χέρνιψ, “a basin for the hands,” λέσχη, “a place to meet and talk,” &c., are peculiar to the Odyssey, we have only to remember that the scene in the Iliad is hardly ever laid within any walls except those of a tent. These examples will show that mere statistics of the occurrence of words prove little, and that we must begin by looking to the subject and character of each poem. When we do so, we at once find ourselves in the presence of differences of the broadest kind. The Iliad is much more historical in tone and character. The scene of the poem is a real place, and the poet sings (as Ulysses says of Demodocus) as though he had been present himself, or had heard from one who had been. The supernatural element is confined to an interference of the gods, which to the common eye hardly disturbs the natural current of affairs. The Odyssey, on the contrary, is full of the magical and romantic—“speciosa miracula,” as Horace called them. Moreover, these marvels—which in their original form are doubtless as old as anything in the Iliad, since in fact they are part of the vast stock of popular tales (Märchen) diffused all over the world—are mixed up in the Odyssey with the heroes of the Trojan war. This has been especially noticed in the case of the story of Polyphemus, one that is found in many countries, and in versions which cannot all be derived from Homer. W. Grimm has pointed out that the behaviour of Ulysses in that story is senseless and foolhardy, utterly beneath the wise and much-enduring Ulysses of the Trojan war. The reason is simple; he is not the Ulysses of the Trojan war, but a being of the same world as Polyphemus himself—the world of giants and ogres. The question then is—How long must the name of Ulysses have been familiar in the legend (Sage) of Troy before it made its way into the tales of giants and ogres (Märchen), where the poet of the Odyssey found it?

Again, the Trojan legend has itself received some extension between the time of the Iliad and that of the Odyssey. The story of the Wooden Horse is not only unknown to the Iliad, but is of a kind which we can hardly imagine the poet of the Iliad admitting. The part taken by Neoptolemus seems also to be a later addition. The tendency to amplify and complete the story shows itself still more in the Cyclic poets. Between the Iliad and these poets the Odyssey often occupies an intermediate position.

This great and significant change in the treatment of the heroic legends is accompanied by numerous minor differences (such as the ancients remarked) in belief, in manners and institutions, and in language. These differences bear out the inference that the Odyssey is of a later age. The progress of reflection is especially shown in the higher ideas entertained regarding the gods. The turbulent Olympian court has almost disappeared. Zeus has acquired the character of a supreme moral ruler; and although Athena and Poseidon are adverse influences in the poem, the notion of a direct contest between them is scrupulously avoided. The advance of morality is shown in the more frequent use of terms such as “just” (δίκαιος), “piety” (ὁσίη), “insolence” (ὕβρις), “god-fearing” (θεουδής), “pure” (ἁγνός); and also in the plot of the story, which is distinctly a contest between right and wrong. In matters bearing upon the arts of life it is unsafe to press the silence of the Iliad. We may note, however, the difference between the house of Priam, surrounded by distinct dwellings for his many sons and daughters, and the houses of Ulysses and Alcinous, with many chambers under a single roof. The singer, too, who is so prominent a figure in the Odyssey can hardly be thought to be absent from the Iliad merely because the scene is laid in a camp.

Style of Homer.—A few words remain to be said on the style and general character of the Homeric poems, and on the comparisons which may be made between Homer and analogous poetry in other countries.

The cardinal qualities of the style of Homer have been pointed out once for all by Matthew Arnold. “The translator of Homer,” he says, “should above all be penetrated by a sense of four qualities of his author—that he is eminently rapid; that he is eminently plain and direct, both in the evolution of his thought and in the expression of it, that is, both in his syntax and in his words; that he is eminently plain and direct in the substance of his thought, that is, in his matter and ideas; and, finally, that he is eminently noble” (On Translating Homer, p. 9).

The peculiar rapidity of Homer is due in great measure to his use of the hexameter verse. It is characteristic of early literature that the evolution of the thought—that is, the grammatical form of the sentence—is guided by the structure of the verse; and the correspondence which consequently obtains between the rhythm and the grammar—the thought being given out in lengths, as it were, and these again divided by tolerably uniform pauses—produces a swift flowing movement, such as is rarely found when the periods have been constructed without direct reference to the metre. That Homer possesses this rapidity without falling into the corresponding faults—that is, without becoming either “jerky” or monotonous—is perhaps the best proof of his unequalled poetical skill. The plainness and directness, both of thought and of expression, which characterize Homer were doubtless qualities of his age; but the author of the Iliad (like Voltaire, to whom Arnold happily compares him) must have possessed the national gift in a surpassing degree. The Odyssey is in this respect perceptibly below the level of the Iliad.

Rapidity or ease of movement, plainness of expression and plainness of thought, these are not the distinguishing qualities of the great epic poets—Virgil, Dante, Milton. On the contrary, they belong rather to the humbler epico-lyrical school for which Homer has been so often claimed. The proof that Homer does not belong to that school—that his poetry is not in any true sense “ballad-poetry”—is furnished by the higher artistic structure of his poems (already discussed), and as regards style by the fourth of the qualities distinguished by Arnold—the quality of nobleness. It is his noble and powerful style, sustained through every change of idea and subject, that finally separates Homer from all forms of “ballad-poetry” and “popular epic.”14

But while we are on our guard against a once common error, we may recognize the historical connexion between the Iliad and Odyssey and the “ballad” literature which undoubtedly preceded them in Greece. It may even be admitted that the swift-flowing movement, and the simplicity of thought and style, which we admire in the Iliad are an inheritance from the earlier “lays”—the κλέα ἀνδρῶν such as Achilles and Patroclus sang to the lyre in their tent. Even the metre—the hexameter verse—may be assigned to them. But between these lays and Homer we must place the cultivation of epic poetry as an art.15 The pre-Homeric lays doubtless furnished the elements of such a poetry—the alphabet, so to speak, of the art; but they must have been refined and transmuted before they formed poems like the Iliad and Odyssey.

A single example will illustrate this. In the scene on the walls of Troy, in the third book of the Iliad, after Helen has pointed out Agamemnon, Ulysses and Ajax in answer to Priam’s 638 questions, she goes on unasked to name Idomeneus. Lachmann, whose mind is full of the ballad manner, fastens upon this as an irregularity. “The unskilful transition from Ajax to Idomeneus, about whom no question had been asked,” he cannot attribute to the original poet of the lay (Betrachtungen, p. 15, ed. 1865). But, as was pointed out by A. Römer16, this is exactly the variation which a poet would introduce to relieve the primitive ballad-like sameness of question and answer; and moreover it forms the transition to the lines about the Dioscuri by which the scene is so touchingly brought to a close.

Analogies.—The development of epic poetry (properly so called) out of the oral songs or ballads of a country is a process which in the nature of things can seldom be observed. It seems clear, however, that the hypothesis of epics such as the Iliad and Odyssey having been formed by putting together or even by working up shorter poems finds no support from analogy.

Narrative poetry of great interest is found in several countries (such as Spain and Servia), in which it has never attained to the epic stage. In Scandinavia, in Lithuania, in Russia, according to Gaston Paris (Histoire poétique de Charlemagne, p. 9), the national songs have been arrested in a form which may be called intermediate between contemporary poetry and the epic. The true epics are those of India, Persia, Greece, Germany, Britain and France. Most of these, however, fail to afford any useful points of comparison, either from their utter unlikeness to Homer, or because there is no evidence of the existence of anterior popular songs. The most instructive, perhaps the only instructive, parallel is to be found in the French “chansons de geste,” of which the Chanson de Roland is the earliest and best example. These poems are traced back with much probability to the 10th century. They are epic in character, and were recited by professional jongleurs (who may be compared to the ἀοιδοί of Homer). But as early as the 7th century we come upon traces of short lays (the so-called cantilènes) which were in the mouths of all and were sung in chorus. It has been held that the chansons de geste were formed by joining together “bunches” of these earlier cantilènes, and this was the view taken by Léon Gautier in the first edition of Les Épopées françaises (1865). In the second edition, of which the first volume appeared in 1878, he abandoned this theory. He believes that the epics were generally composed under the influence of earlier songs. “Our first epic poets,” he says, “did not actually and materially patch together pre-existent cantilènes. They were only inspired by these popular songs; they only borrowed from them the traditional and legendary elements. In short, they took nothing from them but the ideas, the spirit, the life; they ‘found’ (ils ont trouvé) all the rest” (p. 80). But he admits that “some of the old poems may have been borrowed from tradition, without any intermediary” (ibid.); and when it is considered that the traces of the “cantilènes” are slight, and that the degree in which they inspired the later poetry must be a matter of impression rather than of proof, it does not surprise us to find other scholars (notably Paul Meyer) attaching less importance to them, or even doubting their existence.17

When Léon Gautier shows how history passes into legend, and legend again into romance, we are reminded of the difference noticed above between the Iliad and the Odyssey, and between Homer and the early Cyclic poems. And the peculiar degradation of Homeric characters which appears in some poets (especially Euripides) finds a parallel in the later chansons de geste.18

The comparison of Homer with the great literary epics calls for more discursive treatment than would be in place here. Some external differences have been already indicated. Like the French epics, Homeric poetry is indigenous, and is distinguished by this fact, and by the ease of movement and the simplicity which result from it, from poets such as Virgil, Dante and Milton. It is also distinguished from them by the comparative absence of underlying motives or sentiment. In Virgil’s poetry a sense of the greatness of Rome and Italy is the leading motive of a passionate rhetoric, partly veiled by the “chosen delicacy” of his language. Dante and Milton are still more faithful exponents of the religion and politics of their time. Even the French epics are pervaded by the sentiment of fear and hatred of the Saracens. But in Homer the interest is purely dramatic. There is no strong antipathy of race or religion; the war turns on no political event; the capture of Troy lies outside the range of the Iliad. Even the heroes are not the chief national heroes of Greece. The interest lies wholly (so far as we can see) in the picture of human action and feeling.

HOMER, WINSLOW (1836-1910), American painter, was born in Boston, U.S.A., on the 24th of February 1836. At the age of nineteen he was apprenticed to a lithographer. Two years later he opened a studio in Boston, and devoted much of his time to making drawings for wood-engravers. In 1859 he removed to New York, where he studied in the night-school of the National Academy of Design. During the American Civil War he was with the troops at the front, and contributed sketches to Harper’s Weekly. The war also furnished him with the subjects for the first two pictures which he exhibited (1863), one of which was “Home, Sweet Home.” His “Prisoners from the Front”—perhaps his most generally popular picture—was exhibited in New York in 1865, and also in Paris in 1867, where he was spending the year in study. Among his other paintings in oil are “Snap the Whip” (which was exhibited at the Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition of 1876, and, in company with “The Country Schoolroom,” at the Paris Salon the following year), “Eating Water-melon,” “The Cotton Pickers,” “Visit from the Old Mistress, Sunday Morning,” “The Life-Line” and “The Coming of the Gale.” His genius, however, has perhaps shown better in his works in water-colour, among which are his marine studies painted at Gloucester, Mass., and his “Inside the Bar,” “The Voice from the Cliffs” (pictures of English fisherwomen), “Tynemouth,” “Wrecking of a Vessel” and “Lost on the Grand Banks.” His work, which principally consists of genre pictures, is characterized by strength, rugged directness and unmistakable freshness and originality, rather than by technical excellence, grace of line or beauty of colour. He was little affected by European influences. His types and scenes, apart from his few English pictures, are distinctly American—soldiers in blue, New England children, negroes in the land of cotton, Gloucester fishermen and stormy Atlantic seas. Besides being a member of the Society of Painters in Water-color, New York, he was elected in 1864 an associate and the following year a member of the National Academy of Design.

HOMESTEAD, a borough of Allegheny county, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., on the Monongahela river, 8 m. S.E. of Pittsburg. Pop. (1890) 7911; (1900) 12,554, of whom 3604 were foreign-born and 640 were negroes; (U.S. census, 1910) 18,713. It is served by the Pennsylvania and the Pittsburg & Lake Erie railways, and by the short Union Railroad, which connects with the Bessemer & Lake Erie and the Wabash railways. The borough has a Carnegie library and the C.M. Schwab Manual Training School. Partly in Homestead but chiefly in the adjoining borough of Munhall (and therefore not reported as in Homestead by the U.S. Census) is one of the largest plants in the United States for the manufacture of steel used in the construction of bridges and steel-frame buildings and of steel armour-plate, and this is its chief industry; among Homestead’s other manufactures are glass and fire-bricks. The water-works are owned and operated by the municipality. Homestead was first settled in 1871, and it was incorporated in 1880. In 1892 a labour strike lasting 143 days and one of the most serious in the history of the United States was carried on here by the National Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers of the United States against the Carnegie Steel Company. The arrival (on the 6th of July) of a force of about 200 Pinkerton detectives from New York and Chicago resulted in a fight in which about 10 men were killed, and to restore order two brigades of the state militia were called out. See Strikes and Lockouts.

HOMESTEAD AND EXEMPTION LAWS, laws (principally in the United States) designed primarily either to aid the head of a family to acquire title to a place of residence or to protect the owner against loss of that title through seizure for debt. These laws have all been enacted in America since about the middle of the 19th century, and owe their origin to the demand for a population of the right sort in a new country, to the conviction that the freeholder rather than the tenant is the natural supporter of popular government, to the effort to prevent insolvent debtors from becoming useless members of society, and to the belief that such laws encourage the stability of the family.

By the cessions of several of the older states, and by various treaties with foreign countries, public lands have been acquired for the United States in every state and territory of the Union except the original thirteen, and Maine, Vermont, Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas. For a time they were regarded chiefly as a source of revenue, but about 1820, as the need of revenue for the payment of the national debt decreased and the inhabitants of an increasing number of new states became eager to have the vacant lands within their bounds occupied, the demand that the public lands should be disposed of more in the interest of the settler became increasingly strong, and the homestead idea originated. Until the advent of railways, however, the older states of the North were opposed to promoting the development of the West in this manner, and soon afterwards the Southern representatives in Congress opposed the general homestead bills in the interests of slavery, so that except in isolated cases where settlers were desired to protect some frontier, as in Florida and Oregon, and to a limited extent in the case of the Pre-emption Act of 1841 (see below), the homestead principle was not applied by the national government until the Civil War had begun. A general homestead bill was passed by Congress in 1860, but this was vetoed by President James Buchanan; two years later, however, a similar bill became a law. The act of 1862 originally provided that any citizen of the United States, or applicant for citizenship, who was the head of a family, or 640 twenty-one years of age, or, if younger, had served not less than fourteen days in the army or navy of the United States during an actual war, might apply for 160 acres or less of unappropriated public lands, and might acquire title to this amount of land by residing upon and cultivating it for five years immediately following, and paying such fees as were necessary to cover the cost of administration; a homestead acquired in this manner was exempted from seizure for any debt contracted prior to the date of issuing the patent. A commutation clause of this act permitted title to be acquired after only six months of residence by paying $1.25 per acre, as provided in the Pre-emption Act of 1841. Act of 1872, amended in 1901, allows any soldier or seaman, who has served at least ninety days in the army or navy of the United States during the Civil War, the Spanish-American War or in the suppression of the insurrection in the Philippines, and was honourably discharged, to apply for a homestead, and permits the deduction of the time of such service, or, if discharged on account of wounds or other disability incurred in the line of duty, the full term of his enlistment, from the five years otherwise required for perfecting title, except that in any case he shall have resided upon and cultivated the land at least one year before the passing of title. Since 1866 mineral lands have been for the most part excluded from entry as homesteads.

In accordance with the provisions of the homestead law, 718,930 homesteads, containing 96,495,414 acres, were established in forty-two years, and besides this principal act, Congress has passed several minor ones of a like nature, that is, acts designed to benefit the actual settler who improves the land. Thus the Pre-emption Act of 1841 gave to any head of a family or any single person over twenty-one years of age, who was a citizen of the United States or had declared his intention to become one, permission to purchase not to exceed 160 acres of public lands after he had resided upon and improved the same for six months; the Timber-Culture Act of 1873 allowed title to 160 acres of public prairie-land to be given to any one who should plant upon it 40 acres of timber, and keep the same in good growing condition for ten years; and the Desert-Land Act of 1877 gave to any citizen of the United States, or to any person who had declared his intention to become one, the privilege of acquiring title to 640 acres of such public land as was not included in mineral or timber lands, and would not without irrigation produce an agricultural crop, by paying twenty-five cents an acre and creating for the tract an artificial water-supply. These several land acts, however, invited fraud to such an extent that in time they promoted the establishment of large land holdings by ranchmen and others quite as much as they encouraged settlement and cultivation, and so great was this evil that in 1891 the Timber-Culture and Pre-emption Acts were repealed, the total amount of land that could be acquired by any one person under the several land laws was limited to 320 acres, the Desert-Land Act was so amended as to require an expenditure of at least three dollars an acre for irrigation, and the original Homestead Act was so amended as to disqualify any person who was already proprietor of more than 160 acres in any state or Territory of the Union for acquiring any more land under its provisions; and in 1896 a residence of fourteen months was required before permitting commutation or the purchase of title. But even these measures were inadequate to prevent fraud. In 1894 Congress, in what is known as the Carey Act, donated to California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico and the Dakotas so much of 1,000,000 acres each of desert-lands as each should cause to be irrigated, reclaimed and occupied within ten years,1 not less than 20 acres of each 160 acres to be cultivated by actual settlers; and in several of these states and territories irrigating companies have been formed and land offered to settlers in amounts not exceeding 160 acres to each, on terms requiring the settler to purchase ample and perpetual water-rights. In 1902, Congress appropriated the proceeds of the sales of public lands in these states and territories to form a reclamation fund to be used for the construction and maintenance of irrigation works, and lands reclaimed by this means are open to homestead entries, the entry-man being required to pay for the cost of reclamation in ten equal annual instalments without interest. When Texas was admitted to the Union the disposal of its public lands was reserved to the state, and under its laws every person who is the head of a family and without a homestead may acquire title to 160 acres of land by residing upon and improving it for three years; every unmarried man eighteen years of age or over may acquire title to 80 acres in the same way.

A short time before the National Homestead Act for aiding citizens to acquire homesteads went into operation, some of the state legislatures had passed homestead and exemption laws designed to protect homesteads or a certain amount of property against loss to the owners in case they should become insolvent debtors, and by the close of the century the legislature of nearly every state in the Union had passed a law of this nature. These laws vary greatly. In most states the exemption of a homestead or other property from liability for debts can be claimed only by the head of a family, but in Georgia it may be claimed by any aged or infirm person, by any trustee of a family of minor children, or by any person on whom any woman or girls are dependent for support; and in California, although the head of a family may claim exemption for a homestead valued at $5000, any other person may claim exemption for a homestead valued at $1000. In some states exemptions may be claimed either for a farm limited to 40, 80, 160 or 200 acres, or for a house and one or more lots, usually limited in size, in a town, village or city; in other states the homestead for which exemption may be claimed is limited in value, and this value varies from $500 to $5000. With the homestead are usually included the appurtenances thereto, and the courts invariably interpret the law liberally; but many states also exempt a specified amount of personal property, including wearing apparel, furniture, provisions, tools, libraries and in some cases domestic animals and stock in trade. A few states exempt no homestead and only a small amount of personal property; Maryland, for example, exempts only $100 worth of property besides money payable in the nature of insurance, or for relief, in the event of sickness, injury or death. To some debts the exemption does not usually apply; the most common of these are taxes, purchase money, a debt secured by mortgage on the homestead and debts contracted in making improvements upon it; in Maryland the only exception is a judgment for breach of promise to marry or in case of seduction. If the homestead belongs to a married person, the consent of both husband and wife is usually required to mortgage it. Finally, some states require that the homestead for which exemption is to be claimed shall be previously entered upon record, others require only occupancy, and still others permit the homestead to be designated whenever a claim is presented.

Following the example of either the United States Congress or the state legislatures, the governments of several British colonial states and provinces have passed homestead laws. In Quebec every settler on public lands is allowed, after receiving a patent, an exemption of not to exceed 200 acres from that of his widow, of his, her or their children and descendants in the direct line. In Ontario an applicant for a homestead may have not to exceed 200 acres of unappropriated public land for farming purposes by building a house thereon, occupying it for five years, and bringing at least fifteen acres under cultivation; the exemption of such a homestead from liability to seizure for debts is, however, limited to twenty years from the date of application for the land, and does not extend even during that period to rates or taxes. Manitoba, British Columbia, Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia, West Australia and New Zealand also have liberal homestead and exemption laws.

HOMEYER, KARL GUSTAV (1795-1874), German jurist, was born on the 13th of August 1795 at Wolgast in Pomerania. After studying law at the universities of Berlin, Göttingen and Heidelberg (1813-1817), he settled as a Privatdocent, in 1821, at the university of Berlin, where he became ordinary professor of law in 1827. His principal works are his edition of the Sachsenspiegel (in 3 vols., 1827, 3rd ed., 1861, containing also some other important sources of Saxon or Low German law), which is still unsurpassed in accuracy and sagacity of research, and his book on Die Haus- und Hofmarken (1870), in which he has given a history of the use of trade-marks among all the Teutonic nations of Europe, and which is full of important elucidations of the history of law and also contains valuable contributions to the history of art and civilization. In 1850 Homeyer was elected a member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, in the Transactions of which he published various papers exhibiting profound learning (Über die Heimat, 1852; Genealogie der Handschriften des Sachsenspiegels, 1859; Die Stadtbücher des Mittelalters, 1860; Der Dreissigste, 1864, &c.). He died on the 20th of October 1874.

HOMICIDE (Lat. homicidium), the general and neutral term for the killing of one human being by another. The nature of the responsibility of the slayer to the state and to the relatives of the slain has been one of the chief concerns of all systems of law from the earliest times, and it has been variously considered from the points of view of the sanctity of human life, the interests of the sovereign, the injury to the family of the slain and the moral guilt, i.e. the motives and intentions, of the slayer.

The earliest recorded laws (those of Khammurabi) do not contain any sweeping general provision as to the punishment of homicide. The death penalty is freely imposed but not for homicide. “If a man strike a gentleman’s daughter that she dies, his own daughter is to be put to death, if a poor man’s the slayer pays ½ mina.” In the Mosaic law the general command “Thou shalt not kill” of the Decalogue is in terms absolute. In primitive law homicide, however innocent, subjected the slayer to the lawful vengeance of the kindred of the slain, unless he could make some composition with him. This lex talionis (a life for a life) resulted: (1) in a course of private justice which still survives in the vendetta of Corsica and Albania, and the blood feuds arising out of “difficulties” in the southern and western parts of the United States; (2) in the recognition of sanctuaries and cities of refuge within which the avenger of blood might not penetrate to kill an innocent manslayer; and (3) in the system of wite, bote and wer, by which the life of every man had its assessed price payable to his chief and his next of kin.

It took long to induce the relatives of the slain to appreciate anything beyond the fact of the death of their kinsman or to discriminate between intentional and accidental homicide. By the laws of Khammurabi (206, 208) striking a man in a quarrel without deadly intent but with fatal effect was treated as a matter for compensation according to the rank of the slain. The Pentateuch discriminates between the man “who lieth in wait for” or “cometh presumptuously” on “his neighbour to slay him with guile” (Exodus xxi. 13, 14), and the man “who killeth his neighbour ignorantly whom he hated not in time past” (Deut. xix. 4). But even killing by misadventure exposed the slayer to the avenger of blood. “As a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down a tree and the head slippeth from the helve and lighteth upon his neighbour that he die: he shall flee into one of these cities (of refuge) and live” (Deut. xix. 5).

Under the early laws of Teutonic and Celtic communities the inconveniences of the blood feud were gradually mitigated (see Criminal Law) by the system of wite and wer (or eric), but the blood feud continued long in Friesland and Lower Saxony, and in parts of Switzerland until the 16th century. In England under the Norman system homicide became a plea of the crown, and the rights of the kindred to private vengeance and to compensation were gradually superseded in favour of the right of the king to forfeitures where the homicide amounted to a crime (felony).

Though homicide was thus made a public offence and not a matter for private vengeance, it took long to discriminate between those forms of homicide which should and those which should not be punished.

The terms of act in English law used to describe criminal homicide are murder (mord, meurtre, murdrum), manslaughter and felo de se (or suicide by a person of sound mind).

The original meaning of the word “murder” seems to have been secret homicide,—“Murdrum proprie dicitur mors alicujus occulta cujus interfector ignoratur” (Dialogus de Scaccario i, x.); and Glanville says: Duo sunt genera homicidii, unum est quod dicitur murdrum quod nullo vidente nullo sciente clam perpetratur, ita quod non assignatur clamor popularis (hue and cry), est et aliud homicidium quod diciter simplex homicidium. After the Conquest, and for the protection of the ruling race, a fine (also called murdrum) was levied for the king on the hundred or other district in which a stranger was found dead, if the slayer was not brought to justice and the blood kin of the slain did not present Englishry, there being a presumption (in favour of the Exchequer) that the deceased was a Frenchman. After the assize of Clarendon (1166) the distinction between the killing of Normans and Englishmen gradually evaporated and the term murder came to acquire its present meaning of deliberate as distinct from secret homicide. In 1267 it was provided that the murder fine should not be levied in cases of death by “misadventure” (per infortunium).1 But at that date and for long afterwards homicide in self-defence or by misadventure or even while of unsound mind involved at the least a forfeiture of goods, and required a pardon. These pardons, and restitution of the goods, became a matter of course, and the judges appear at a later date to have been in the habit of directing an acquittal in such cases. But it was not until 1828 that the innocence of excusable homicide was expressly declared. The rule is now expressed in s. 7 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861: “No punishment or forfeiture shall be incurred by any person who shall kill another by misfortune, or in his own defence, or in any other manner without felony.”

The further differentiation between different degrees of criminal homicide was marked by legislation of Henry VIII. (1531) taking away benefit of clergy in the case of “wilful murder with malice prepensed” (aforethought), and that phrase is still the essential element in the definition of “wilful murder,” which is committed “when a person of sound memory and discretion unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature or being and under the king’s peace with malice aforethought either express or implied” (3 Co. Inst. 47). The whole development of the substantive law as to murder rests on judicial rulings as to the meaning of malice prepense coupled with the extrajudicial commentaries of Coke, Hale and Foster; for parliament, though often tempted by bills and codes, has never ventured on a legislative definition. Much discussion has ranged round the phrase “malice aforethought,” and it has undoubtedly been expanded by judicial decision so as to create what is described as “constructive” murder. According to the view of the criminal code commissioners of 1879 (Parl. Pap., 1879, c. 23, 45, p. 23) the term “malice aforethought” is now a common name for all the following states of mind:—

642

The third form of malice aforethought has been much controverted. When it was first recognized as creating a liability for wilful murder almost all felonies were capital offences: but even at the end of the 17th century Lord Holt expressed a view that it should be limited to felonies involving violence or danger to life, e.g. assault with intent to rob, or setting fire to a dwelling-house. And Sir James Stephen’s opinion is that, to justify conviction of murder by an act done with intent to commit a felony, the act done must be one dangerous to life or known to be likely to cause death.

Starting with the definition above given, English law still retains so much of its medieval character as to presume all homicide to be “malicious, and therefore murder, unless it is either justified by the command or permission of the law, excused on the ground of accident or self-preservation, or alleviated into manslaughter by being the involuntary consequence of some act not strictly lawful or occasioned by some sudden and sufficiently violent provocation.” The truth of the facts alleged in justification, excuse or alleviation, is for the jury to determine: the question whether if true they support the plea for which they are put forward is for the court.

In the administration of the English criminal law as to homicide the consequences of too strict an adherence to the technical definitions of the offences are avoided (a) by the exercise of the jury of their powers to convict of manslaughter only even in cases where they are directed that the offence is murder or nothing; (b) by the report of the judge as to the particular circumstances of each case in which a conviction of murder has been followed by the statutory sentence of death; (c) by the examination of all the evidence in the case by the Home Office in order to enable the secretary of state to determine whether the prerogative of mercy should be exercised.

Homicide is justifiable and not criminal when the killing is done in the execution of the law. The most important case of justifiable homicide is the execution of a criminal in due course of public justice. This condition is most stringently interpreted. “To kill the greatest of malefactors deliberately, uncompelled, and extrajudicially is murder.... And further, if judgment of death be given by a judge not authorized by lawful commission, and execution is done accordingly, the judge is guilty of murder” (Stephen’s Commentaries, book vi. c. iv.). The execution must be carried out by the proper officer or his deputy: any person executing the sentence without such authority, were it the judge himself, would be guilty of murder. And the sentence must be strictly pursued: to execute a criminal by a kind of death other than that to which he has been judicially condemned is murder.

Homicide committed by an officer of justice in the course of carrying out his duty, as such, is also justifiable; e.g. where a felon resists a legal arrest and is killed in the effort to arrest him (see 2 Pollock and Maitland, 476); where officers in dispersing a riotous assemblage kill any of the mob, &c. (see Riot). In these cases the homicide must be shown to have been absolutely necessary. Again, homicide is justifiable if committed in the defence of person or property against forcible and heinous crime, such as murder, violent robbery, rape or burglary. In this connexion there has been much discussion as to whether the person attacked is under a duty to retreat: and in substance the justification depends on the continuous necessity of attack or defence In order to prevent the commission by the deceased of the crime threatened.

Homicide is excusable and not criminal at all when committed either by misadventure or in self-defence. In the former case the homicide is excused; where a man in the course of doing some lawful work, accidentally and without intention kills another, e.g. shooting at a mark and undesignedly hitting and killing a man. The act must be strictly lawful, and death by misadventure in unlawful sports is not a case of excusable homicide. Homicide in self-defence is excusable when the slayer is himself in immediate danger of death, and has done all he could to avoid the assault. Accordingly, if he strikes and kills his assailant after the assault is over, this is not excusable homicide. But if the assault has been premeditated, as in the ease of a duel, the death of either antagonist has under English law always been held to be murder and not excusable homicide. The excuse of self-defence covers the case in which a person in defence of others whom it is his duty to protect—children, wife, master, &c.—kills an assailant. It has been considered doubtful whether the plea of self-defence is available to one who has himself provoked a fray, in the course of which he is so pressed by his antagonist that his only resource is to kill him.

In English law the term “manslaughter” is applied to those forms of homicide which though neither justifiable nor excusable are attended by alleviating circumstances which bring them short of wilful murder. The offence is not defined by statute, but only by judicial rulings. Its punishment is as a maximum penal servitude for life, and as a minimum a fine or recognizances to be of good behaviour. The quantum of punishment between the limits above stated is in the discretion of the court, and not, as under continental codes, with fixed minima; and the offence includes acts and omissions of very varying gravity, from acts which only by the charitable appreciation of a jury fall short of wilful murder, to acts or omissions which can only technically be described as criminal, e.g. where one of two persons engaged in poaching, by pure accident gets caught in a hedge so that his gun goes off and kills his fellow-poacher. This may be described as an extreme instance of “constructive crime.”

There are two main forms of “manslaughter”:—

1. “Voluntary” homicide under grave and sudden provocation or on a sudden quarrel in the heat of passion, without the slayer taking undue advantage or acting in an unusual manner. The substance of the alleviation of guilt lies in the absence of time for cool reflection or the formation of a premeditated design to kill. Under English law the provocation must be by acts and not by words or gestures, and must be serious and not trivial, and the killing must be immediately after provocation and while the slayer has lost his self-control in consequence of the provocation. The provocation need not be by assault or violence, and perhaps the best-recognized example is the slaying by a husband of a man found committing adultery with the slayer’s wife. In the case of a sudden quarrel it does not matter who began or provoked the quarrel. This used to be called “chance medley.”

2. “Involuntary” homicide as a result of great rashness or gross negligence in respect of matters involving danger to human life, e.g. in driving trains or vehicles, or in dealing with dangerous weapons, or in performing surgical operations, or in taking care of the helpless.

The innumerable modes in which criminal liability for killing others has been adjudged under the English definitions of murder and manslaughter cannot be here stated, and can only be studied by reference to the judicial decisions collected and discussed in Russell on Crimes and other English text-books, and in the valuable work by Mr J. D. Mayne on the criminal law of India, in which the English common law rulings are stated side by side with the terms and interpretations of the Indian penal code. Much labour has been expended by many jurists in efforts to create a scientific and acceptable classification of the various forms of unlawful homicide which shall properly define the cases which should be punishable by law and the appropriate punishment. Their efforts have resulted in the establishment in almost every state except the United Kingdom of statutory definitions of the crime, beginning with the French penal code and going down to the criminal code of Japan. In the case of England, as a result of the labours of Sir James Stephen, a code bill was submitted to parliament in 1878. In 1879 a draft code was prepared by Blackburn, Lush and Barry, and was presented to parliament. It was founded on and prepared with Sir J. Stephen, and is a revision of his digest of the criminal law.

After defining homicide and culpable homicide, the draft code (cl. 174) declares culpable homicide to be murder in the following cases: (a) if the offender means to cause the death of the person killed; (b) if the offender means to cause to the person killed any bodily injury which is known to the offender to be likely to cause death, and if the offender, whether he does 643 or does not mean to cause death, is reckless whether death ensues or not; (c) if the offender means to cause death or such bodily injury as aforesaid to one person, so that if that person be killed the offender would be guilty of murder, and by accident or mistake the offender kills another person though he does not mean to hurt the person killed; (d) if the offender for any unlawful object does an act which he knows or ought to have known to be likely to cause death, and thereby kills any person, though he may have desired that his object should be effected without hurting any one.

Further (cl. 175), it is murder (whether the offender means or not death to ensue, or knows or not that death is likely to ensue) in the following cases:—“(a) if he means to inflict grievous bodily injury for the purpose of facilitating the commission of any of the offences hereinafter mentioned, or the flight of the offender upon the commission or attempted commission thereof, and death ensues from his violence; (b) if he administers any stupefying thing for either of the purposes aforesaid and death ensues from the effects thereof; (c) if he by any means wilfully stops the breath of any person for either of the purposes aforesaid and death ensues from such stopping of the breath.” The following are the offences referred to:—“high treason and other offences against the king’s authority, piracy and offences deemed to be piracy, escape or rescue from prison or lawful custody, resisting lawful apprehension, murder, rape, forcible abduction, robbery, burglary, arson.” Cl. 176 reduces culpable homicide to manslaughter if the person who causes death does so “in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation”; and “any wrongful act or insult of such a nature as to be sufficient to deprive any ordinary person of the power of self-control may be provocation if the offender acts upon it on the sudden, and before there has been time for his passion to cool. Whether any particular wrongful act or insult amounts to provocation and whether the offender was deprived of self-control shall be questions of fact; but no one shall be deemed to give provocation by doing that which he had a legal right to do, or which the offender incited him to do in order to provide an excuse for killing him or doing grievous bodily harm to any person.” Further, “an arrest shall not necessarily reduce the offence from murder to manslaughter because an arrest was illegal, but if the illegality was known to the offender it may be evidence of provocation”; (cl. 177) “culpable homicide not amounting to murder is manslaughter.”

The definitions embodied in these clauses though not yet accepted by the British legislature, have in substance been embodied in the criminal codes of Canada (1892 ss. 227-230), New Zealand (1893, ss. 163-166), Queensland (1899, ss. 300-305), and Western Australia (1901, ss. 275-280).

From the point of view of civil as distinct from criminal responsibility homicide does not by the common law give any cause of action against the person causing the death of another in favour of the wife or blood relations of the deceased. In early law this was otherwise; and the wer or eric of the deceased came historically before the right of chief or state. But under English law the rights of relations, except by way of appeal for felony,2 were swept aside in favour of the crown, on the principle that every homicide is presumed felonious (murder) unless the contrary is proved, and that in all cases of homicide not justifiable by law a forfeiture was incurred. The rights of the relatives were also defeated by application of the maxim “actio personalis moritur cum personâ” (“a personal action dies with the person”) to all proceedings for injury to the person or to reputation. In Scotland the old theory was preserved in the law as to assythement.

In England the law was altered at the instance of Lord Campbell in 1846 (9 & 10 V. c. 93) so as to give a right of a claim by the husband, wife, parent or child of a person killed by a wrongful (or even criminal) act, neglect or default by another which would have given the deceased if he had survived a cause of action against the wrongdoer. The compensation payable is what the surviving relative has lost by the death, and under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906 (in all cases to which it applies) the employer is liable even without negligence to compensate the dependants of an employee killed by an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment; and in such cases even if the death was due to serious and wilful misconduct by the employee, compensation is payable.

In the Indian penal code the definitions of murder are so drawn as to limit the offences to cases where it was actually intended to cause death or bodily injury by the acts or omissions of the slayer, and the definition of culpable homicide short of murder is so drawn as to exclude the forms of unintentional manslaughter due to neglect of duty, e.g. in the conduct of trains or ships or vehicles. This last omission was supplied in 1870. The Indian code does not treat as murder either duelling or helping Hindu widows to commit suttee (s. 301, exception 5). In most of the British possessions in Asia and in east Africa the Indian definitions of homicide have been adopted. In the rest of the colonies, except South Africa, the law of homicide depends on the English common law as modified by colonial codes or statutes. In South Africa it rests mainly on the Roman Dutch law.

Europe.—In European codes distinctions corresponding to those of the English law are drawn between premeditated and other forms of criminal homicide; but more elaborate distinctions are drawn between the degrees of deliberation or criminality manifested in the slaying, and the minimum or maximum penalty is varied accordingly.

In the French penal code voluntary homicide is called murder (meurtre, art. 295): but if committed with premeditation or lying in wait is styled assassinat (guet-apens) (296-298). Poisoning (even if the poison is not fatal), is specially punished, as is parricide (on the lines of the obsolete English offence of petty treason), and infanticide, i.e. the killing of newly-born infants. Assassination, poisoning and parricide are at present capital offences; but a bill to abolish the death sentence has been laid before the French parliament.

The German code distinguishes between voluntary homicide which is done with deliberation and such homicide committed without deliberation (ss. 211, 212), and provides for mitigation of punishment where the slaying was provoked without fault in the slayer by any wrongful act or serious insult upon the slayer or his relatives by the slain (213). Parricide and infanticide are specially punished (214, 215), as is killing another person at his express and earnest request (216)—an offence which would in England be murder—and it is a separate offence to cause the death of another, the penalty being increased if the offender was peculiarly bound by office, calling or trade to use a care which he did not use (222).

The Italian code punishes as homicide those who with intention to kill cause the death of another (364). The death penalty is not imposed, but scales of punishment are provided to deal with aggravated forms of the offence. Thus ergastolo (penal servitude for life) is the punishment in the case of homicide of ascendants and descendants, or with premeditation, or under the sole impulse of brutal ferocity or with gross cruelty (gravi sevizie), or by means of arson, inundation, drowning and certain other crimes, or to secure the gains or conceal the commission, or to secure immunity from the consequences, of another crime (366). Personal violence resulting in death inflicted without intention to kill is punishable minore poenâ (368), and it is criminal to cause the death of another by imprudence, negligence or lack of skill in an art or profession (imperitia nella propria arte o professione), or by non-observance of regulations, orders or instructions.

The Spanish code has like those of Italy and France special punishments for parricide (417) and for assassination, in which are included killing for reward or promise of reward or by inundation (418), and for aiding another to commit suicide (421). Both the Italian and the Spanish codes afford a special mitigation 644 to infanticide committed to avoid dishonour to the mother of the infant or her family.

America.—The most notable difference between England and the United States in regard to the law on this subject is the recognition by state legislation of degrees in murder. English law treats all unlawful killing not reducible to manslaughter as of the same degree of guilt in law. American statutes seek to discriminate for purposes of punishment between the graver and the less culpable forms of murder. Thus an act of the legislature of Pennsylvania (22nd of April 1794) declares “all murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison or by lying in wait or by any other kind of wilful, deliberate and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate any arson, rape, robbery or burglary shall be deemed murder of the first degree; and all other kinds of murder shall be deemed murder of the second degree.” This legislation has been copied or adopted in many if not most of the other states. There are also statutory degrees of manslaughter in the legislation of some of the states. The differences of legislation, coupled with the power of the jury in some states to determine the sentence, and the limitations on the right of the judges to comment on the testimony adduced, lead to very great differences between the administration of the law as to homicide in the two countries.

HOMILETICS (Gr. ὁμιλητικός, from ὁμιλεῖν, to assemble together), in theology the application of the general principles of rhetoric to the specific department of public preaching. It may be further defined as the science that treats of the analysis, classification, preparation, composition and delivery of sermons. The formation during recent years of such lectureships as the “Lyman Beecher” course at Yale University has resulted in increased attention being given to homiletics, and the published volumes of this series are the best contribution to the subject.

HOMILY, a simple religious address, less elaborate than a sermon, and confining itself to the practical exposition of some ethical topic or some passage of Scripture. The word ὁμιλία from ὁμιλεῖν (ὁμοῦ, εἴλω), meaning communion, intercourse, and especially interchange of thought and feeling by means of words (conversation), was early employed in classical Greek to denote the instruction which a philosopher gave to his pupils in familiar talk (Xenophon, Memorabilia, I. ii. 6. 15). This usage of the word was long preserved (Aelian, Varia Historia, iii. 19); and the ὁμιλήσας of Acts xx. 11 may safely be taken to assign not only a free and informal but also a didactic character to the apostle Paul’s discourse in the upper chamber of Troas, when “he talked a long while, even till break of day.” That the “talk” on that occasion partook of the nature of the “exposition” (דרשה) of Scripture, which, undertaken by a priest, elder or other competent person, had become a regular part of the service of the Jewish synagogue,1 may also with much probability be assumed. The custom of delivering expositions or comments more or less extemporaneous on the lessons of the day at all events passed over soon and readily into the Christian Church, as may be gathered from the first Apology (c. 67) of Justin Martyr, where we read that, in connexion with the practice of reading portions from the collected writings of the prophets and from the memoirs of the apostles, it had by that time become usual for the presiding minister to deliver a discourse in which “he admonishes the people, stirring them up to an imitation of the good works which have been brought before their notice.” This discourse, from its explanatory character, and from the easy conversational manner of its delivery, was for a long time called ὁμιλία rather than λόγος: it was regarded as part of the regular duty of the bishop, but he could devolve it, if he thought fit, on a presbyter or deacon, or even on a layman. An early and well-known instance of such delegation is that mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. vi. 19) in the case of Origen (216 A.D.).2 In course of time the exposition of the lesson for the day came more frequently to assume a more elaborate character, and to pass into the category of a λόγος or even φιλοσοφία or φιλοσόφημα; but when it did so the fact was as far as possible denoted by a change of name, the word ὁμιλία being reserved for the expository or exegetical lecture as distinguished from the pulpit oration or sermon.3 While the church of the 3rd and 4th centuries could point to a brilliant succession of great preachers, whose discourses were wont to be taken down in shorthand and circulated among the Christian public as edifying reading, it does not appear that the supply of ordinary homiletical talent kept pace with the rapidity of church extension throughout the Roman empire. In the smaller and remoter communities it not uncommonly happened that the minister was totally unqualified to undertake the work of preaching; and though, as is curiously shown by the case of Rome (Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. vii. 19), the regular exposition of the appointed lessons was by no means regarded as part of the necessary business of a church, it was generally felt to be advisable that some provision should be made for the public instruction of congregations. Even in Jerome’s time (De Vir. Ill. c. 115), accordingly, it had become usual to read, in the regular meetings of the churches which were not so fortunate as to possess a competent preacher, the written discourses of celebrated fathers; and at a considerably later period we have on record the canon of at least one provincial council (that of Vaux, probably the third, held in 529 A.D.), positively enjoining that if the presbyter through any infirmity is unable himself to preach, “homilies of the holy fathers” (homiliae sanctorum patrum) are to be read by the deacons. Thus the finally fixed meaning of the word homily as an ecclesiastical term came to be a written discourse (generally possessing the sanction of some great name) read in church by or for the officiating clergyman when from any cause he was unable to deliver a sermon of his own. As the standard of clerical education sank during the dark ages, the habit of using the sermons of others became almost universal. Among the authors whose works were found specially serviceable in this way may be mentioned the Venerable Bede, who is credited with no fewer than 140 homilies in the Basel and Cologne editions of his works, and who certainly was the author of many Homiliae de Tempore which were much in vogue during the 8th and following centuries. Prior to Charlemagne it is probable that several other collections of homilies had obtained considerable popularity, but in the time of that emperor these had suffered so many mutilations and corruptions that an authoritative revision was felt to be imperatively necessary. The result was the well-known Homiliarium, prepared by Paul Warnefrid, otherwise known as Paulus Diaconus (q.v.).4 It consists of 645 176 homilies arranged in order for all the Sundays and festivals of the ecclesiastical year; and probably was completed before the year 780. Though written in Latin, its discourses were doubtless intended to be delivered in the vulgar tongue; the clergy, however, were often too indolent or too ignorant for this, although by more than one provincial council they were enjoined to exert themselves so that they might be able to do so.5 Hence an important form of literary activity came to be the translation of the homilies approved by the church into the vernacular. Thus we find Alfred the Great translating the homilies of Bede; and in a similar manner arose Ælfric’s Anglo-Saxon Homilies and the German Homiliarium of Ottfried of Weissenburg. Such Homiliaria as were in use in England down to the end of the 15th century were at the time of the Reformation eagerly sought for and destroyed, so that they are now extremely rare, and the few copies which have been preserved are generally in a mutilated or imperfect form.6

The Books of Homilies referred to in the 35th article of the Church of England originated at a convocation in 1542, at which it was agreed “to make certain homilies for stay of such errors as were then by ignorant preachers sparkled among the people.” Certain homilies, accordingly, composed by dignitaries of the lower house, were in the following year produced by the prolocutor; and after some delay a volume was published in 1547 entitled Certain sermons or homilies appointed by the King’s Majesty to be declared and read by all parsons, vicars, or curates every Sunday in their churches where they have cure. In 1563 a second Book of Homilies was submitted along with the 39 Articles to convocation; it was issued the same year under the title The second Tome of Homilies of such matters as were promised and instituted in the former part of Homilies, set out by the authority of the Queen’s Majesty, and to be read in every Parish Church agreeably. Of the twelve homilies contained in the first book, four (the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th) are probably to be attributed to Cranmer, and one (the 12th) possibly to Latimer; one (the 6th) is by Bonner; another (the 5th) is by John Harpsfield, archdeacon of London, and another (the 11th) by Thomas Becon, one of Cranmer’s chaplains. The authorship of the others is unknown. The second book consists of twenty-one homilies, of which the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th, 9th, 16th and 17th have been assigned to Jewel, the 4th to Grindal, the 5th and 6th to Pilkington and the 18th to Parker. See the critical edition by Griffiths, Oxford, 1869. The homilies are not now read publicly, though they are sometimes appealed to in controversies affecting the doctrines of the Anglican Church.

HOMOEOPATHY (from the Greek ὅμοιος, like, and πάθος, feeling). The distinctive system of therapeutics which bears the name of homoeopathy is based upon the law similia similibus curentur,1 the originator of which was S. C. F. Hahnemann, a native of Meissen in Germany, who discovered his new principle while he was experimenting with cinchona bark in 1790, and announced it in 1796.2 The essential tenets of homoeopathy—with which is contrasted the “allopathy” (ἄλλος, other) of the “orthodox” therapeutics—are that the cure of disease is effected by drugs that are capable of producing in a healthy individual symptoms similar to those of the disease to be treated, and that to ascertain the curative virtues of any drug it must be “proved” upon healthy persons—that is, taken by individuals of both sexes in a state of health in gradually increasing doses. The manifestations of drug action thus produced are carefully recorded, and this record of “drug-diseases,” after being verified by repetition on many “provers,” constitutes the distinguishing feature of the homoeopathic materia medica, which, while it embraces the sources, preparation and uses of drugs as known to the orthodox pharmacopoeia, contains, in addition, the various “provings” obtained in the manner above described.

Besides the promulgation of the doctrine of similars, Hahnemann also enunciated a theory to account for the origin of all chronic diseases, which he asserted were derived either directly or remotely from psora (the itch), syphilis (venereal disease) or sycosis (fig-wart disease). This doctrine, although at first adopted by some of the enthusiastic followers of Hahnemann, was almost immediately discarded by very many who had a firm belief in his law of cure. In the light of advancing science such theories are entirely untenable, and it was unfortunate for the system of medicine which he founded that Hahnemann should have promulgated such an hypothesis. It served as a target for the shafts of ridicule showered upon the system by those who were its opponents, and even at the present time there still exists in the minds of many misinformed persons the conviction that homoeopathy is a system of medicine that bases the origin of all chronic disease on the itch or on syphilis or fig-warts.

Another peculiar feature of homoeopathy is its posology or theory of dose. It may be asserted that homoeopathic posology has nothing more to do with the original law of cure than the psora (itch) theory has, and that it was one of the later creations of Hahnemann’s mind. Most homoeopathists believe more or less in the action of minute doses of medicine, but it must not be considered as an integral part of the system. The dose is the corollary, not the principle. Yet in the minds of many, infinitesimal doses of medicine stand for homoeopathy itself, the real law of cure being completely put into the background. The question of dose has also divided the members of the homoeopathic school into bitter factions, and is therefore a matter for careful consideration. Many employ low potencies,3 i.e. mother 646 tinctures, first, second, sixth dilutions, &c., while others use hundred-thousandths and millionths.

Some homoeopathists of the present day still believe with Hahnemann that, even after the material medicinal particles of a drug have been subdivided to the fullest extent, the continuation of the dynamization or trituration or succussion develops a spiritual acurative agency, and that the higher the potency, the more subtle and more powerful is the curative action. Hahnemann says (Organon, 3rd American edition, p. 101), “It is only by means of the spiritual influence of a morbific agent that our spiritual vital power can be diseased, and in like manner only by the spiritual operation of medicine can health be restored.” This is absolutely denied by others. Thus there exist two schools among the adherents of homoeopathy. On the one hand there are the Hahnemannians, the “Purists” or “High Potency” men, who still profess to regard the Organon as their Bible, who believe in all the teachings of Hahnemann, who adhere in their prescriptions to the single dose, the single medicine, and the highest possible potency, and regard the doctrine of the spiritual dynamization acquired by trituration and succussion as indubitable. On the other side there are the “Rational” or “Low Potency” men, who believe in the universality of the law of cure, but think that it cannot always be applied, on account of an imperfect materia medica and a lack of knowledge on the part of the physician. They believe that in many cases of severe and acute pain palliatives are required, and that they are free to use all the adjuvants at present known to science for the relief of suffering humanity—massage, balneology, electricity, hygiene, &c. The American Institute of Homoeopathy, the national body of the United States, has adopted the following resolution and ordered it to be published conspicuously in each number of the Transactions of the society: “A homoeopathic physician is one who adds to his knowledge of medicine a special knowledge of homoeopathic therapeutics. All that pertains to the great field of medical learning is his by tradition, by inheritance, by right.”

It is claimed that the effect produced upon both the laity and the general profession of medicine by the introduction of homoeopathy was salutary in many ways. It diminished the quantity of medicine that was formerly considered necessary for the eradication of disease, and thus revealed the fact that the vis medicatrix naturae is often sufficient, with occasional and gentle assistance, to cure many diseases, especially those fevers that run a definite and regular course. Corroboration of the law similia similibus curentur is seen, according to homoeopathists, in the adoption of the serum therapy, which consists in the treatment of the most malignant diseases (diphtheria, lock-jaw, typhoid fever, tuberculosis, bubonic plague) by introducing into the system a modified form (similar) of those poisons that produce them in the healthy individual. Hahnemann undoubtedly deserves the credit of being the first to break decidedly with the old school of medical practice, in which, forgetful of the teachings of Hippocrates, nature was either overlooked or rudely opposed by wrong and ungentle methods. We can scarcely now estimate the force of character and of courage which was implied in his abandoning the common lines of medicine. More than this, he and his followers showed results in the treatment of disease which compared very favourably with the results of contemporary orthodox practice.

Homoeopathy has given prominence to the therapeutical side of medicine, and has done much to stimulate the study of the physiological action of drugs. It has done service in directing more special attention to various powerful drugs, such as aconite, nux vomica, belladonna, and to the advantage of giving them in simpler forms than were common before the days of Hahnemann. But in the medical profession homoeopathy nevertheless remains under the stigma of being a dissenting sect. It has been publicly announced that if the homoeopathists would abolish the name “homoeopathy,” and remove it from their periodicals, colleges, hospitals, dispensaries and asylums, they would be received within the fold of the regular profession. These conditions have been accepted by a few homoeopathists who have become members of the most prominent medical association in the United States.

Homoeopathy as it exists to-day can, in the opinion of its adherents, stand by itself, and its progress for a century in face of prolonged and determined opposition appears to its upholders to be evidence of its truth. There are still, indeed, in both schools of medical thought, men who stand fast by their old principles. There are homoeopathists who can see nothing but evil in the practice of their brothers of the orthodox school, as there are allopathists who still regard homoeopathy as a humbug and a sham. There are, however, liberal-minded men in both schools, who look upon the adoption of any safe and efficient method of curing disease as the birthright of the true physician, and who allow every man to prescribe for his patients as his conscience may dictate, and, provided he be educated in all the collateral branches of medical science, are ready to exchange views for the good of suffering humanity.

HOMONYM (Gr. ὁμώνομος, having the same name, from ὅμος, same, alike, and ὄνομα, name), a term in philology for those words which differ in sense but are alike either in sound or spelling or both. Words alike only in spelling but not in sound, e.g. “bow,” are sometimes called homographs; and words alike only in sound but not in spelling, e.g. “meat,” “meet,” homophones. Skeat (Etymol. Dict.) gives a list of English homonyms.

HOMS, or Hums (anc. Emesa or Emessa, near the Hittite Kadesh), a town of Syria, on the right bank of the Orontes, and capital of a sanjak in the vilayet of Syria (Damascus). Pop. 30,000 (20,000 Moslem, 10,000 Christian). The importance of the place arises from its command of the great north road from Egypt, Palestine and Damascus by the Orontes valley. Invading armies from the south have often been opposed near Homs, from the time of Rameses II., who had to fight the battle of Kadesh, to that of Ibrahim Pasha, who broke the first line of Ottoman defence in 1831 by his victory there. Ancient Emesa, in the district of Apamea, was a very old Syrian city, devoted to the worship of Baal, the sun god, of whose great temple the emperor Heliogabalus was originally a priest (A.D. 218). As a centre of native influences it was overawed by the Seleucid foundation of Apamea; but it opposed the Roman advance. There Aurelian crushed, in A.D. 272, the Syrian national movement led by Zenobia. Caracalla made it a Roman colony, and later it became the Capital of a small province, Phoenicia Libanesia or ad Libanum. About 630 it was captured by the Moslem leader, Khalid ibn Walid, who is buried there. It now became the capital of a jund, or military district, which under the Omayyad Caliphs extended from Palmyra to the sea. Under the Arabs it was one of the largest cities in Syria, with walls and a strong citadel, which stood on a hill, occupying perhaps the site of the great sun temple. The ruins of this castle, blown up by Ibrahim Pasha, are still the most conspicuous feature of Homs, and contain many remains of ancient buildings. Its men were noted for their courage in war, and its women for their beauty. The climate was extolled for its excellence, and the land for its fertility. A succession of gardens bordered the Orontes, and the vineyards were remarkable for their abundant yield of grapes. When the place capitulated the great church of St John was divided between the Christians and Moslems, an arrangement which apparently lasted until the arrival of the Turks. At the end of the 11th century it fell into crusading hands, but was recovered by the Moslems under Saladin in 1187. Its decay probably dates from the invasion of the Mongols (1260), who fought two important battles with the Egyptians (1281 and 1299) in its vicinity. The construction of a carriage road to Tripoli led to a partial revival of prosperity and to an export of cereals and fruit, and this growth has, in turn, been accentuated by the railway, which now connects it with Aleppo and the Damascus-Beirut line. The district is well planted with mulberries and produces much silk, most of which is worked up on the spot.

HO-NAN, a central province of China, bounded N. partly by the Hwang-ho (which it crosses to the west of Ho-nan Fu, forming an arm northwards between the provinces of Shan-si and Chih-li), on the W. by Shen-si, on the S. by Hu-peh, and on the E. by Ngan-hui. It occupies an area of 81,000 sq. m., with a population of about 22,100,000, and contains nine prefectural cities. Its capital is K’ai-fêng Fu. The prefecture of Hwai-k’ing, north of the Hwang-ho, consists of a fertile plain, “rendered park-like by numerous plantations of trees and shrubs, among which thick bosquets of bamboo contrast with the gloomy groves of cypress.” All kinds of cereals grow luxuriantly, and the general productiveness of the district is indicated by the extreme denseness of the population. The most noticeable feature in that portion of the province which is properly called Ho-nan is the Fu-niu Shan range, which runs east and west across this part of the province. Coal is found on the south of the Hwang-ho in the districts of Ho-nan Fu, the ancient capital, Lushan and Ju Chow. The chief products of the province are, however, agricultural, especially in the valley of the Tang-ho and Pai-ho, which is an extensive and densely populated plain running north and south from the Fu-niu Shan. Cotton is also grown extensively and forms the principal article of export, and a considerable quantity of wild silk is produced from the Fu-niu Shan. Three roads from the east and south unite at Ho-nan Fu, and one from the west. The southern road leads to Ju Chow, where it forks, one branch going to Shi-ki-chên, connecting the trade from Fan-cheng, Han-kow, and the Han river generally, and the other to Chow-kia-k’ow near the city of Ch’ên-chow Fu, at the confluence of the three rivers which unite to form the Sha-ho; the second road runs parallel with the Hwang-ho to K’ai-fêng Fu; the third crosses the Hwang-ho at Mêngching Hien, and passes thence in a north-easterly direction to Hwai-k’ing Fu, Sew-wu Hien and Wei-hui Fu, at which place it joins the high road from Peking to Fan-cheng; and the western road follows the southern bank of the Hwang-ho for 250 m. to its great bend at the fortified pass known as the Tung-kwan, where it joins the great wagon road leading through Shan-si from Peking to Si-gan Fu. Ho-nan is now traversed north to south by the Peking-Hankow railway (completed 1905). The line crosses the Hwang-ho by Yung-tse and runs east of the Fu-niu Shan. Branch lines serve Ho-nan Fu and K’ai-fêng Fu.

HONAVAR, or Onore, a seaport of British India, in the North Kanara district of Bombay. Pop. (1901) 6929. It is mentioned as a place of trade as early as the 16th century, and is associated with two interesting incidents in Anglo-Indian history. In 1670, the English factors here had a bull-dog which unfortunately killed a sacred bull, in revenge for which they were all murdered, to the number of eighteen persons, by an enraged mob. In 1784 it was bravely defended for three months by Captain Torriano and a detachment of sepoys against the army of Tippoo Sultan.

HONDA, or San Bartolomeo de Honda, a town of the department of Tolima, Colombia, on the W. bank of the Magdalena river, 580 m. above its mouth. In 1906 Mr F. Loraine Petre 649 estimated the population at 7000. It is about 650 ft. above sea-level and stands at the entrance to a narrow valley formed by spurs of the Central Cordillera, through which a picturesque little stream, called the Guali, flows into the Magdalena. The town overlooks the rapids of the Magdalena, and is shut in closely by spurs of the Eastern and Central Cordilleras. The climate is hot and damp and the temperature frequently rises to 102° F. in the shade. Honda dates back to the beginning of the 17th century, and has been one of the important centres of traffic in South America for three hundred years. Within the city there is an iron bridge across the Guali, and there is a suspension bridge across the Magdalena at the head of the rapids. A railway 18 m. long connects with the landing place of La Dorada, or Las Yeguas, where the steamers of the lower Magdalena discharge and receive their cargoes (the old landing at Carocali nearer the rapids having been abandoned), and with Arrancaplumas, 1½ m. above, where navigation of the upper river begins. Up to 1908 the greater part of the traffic for Bogotá crossed the river at this point, and was carried on mule-back over the old camino real, which was at best only a rough bridlepath over which transportation to Bogotá (67 m. distant) was laborious and highly expensive; now the transshipment is made to smaller steamboats on the upper river for carriage to Girardot, 93 m. distant, from which place a railway runs to the Bogotá plateau. Honda was nearly destroyed by an earthquake in 1808.

HONDECOETER, MELCHIOR D’ (c. 1636-1695), Dutch painter, was born at Utrecht, it is said, about 1636, and died at Amsterdam on the 3rd of April 1695. Old historians say that, being the grandson of Gillis and son of Gisbert d’Hondecoeter, as well as nephew of J. B. Weenix, he was brought up by the last two to the profession of painting. Of Weenix we know that he married one Josina d’Hondecoeter in 1638. Melchior was, therefore, related to Weenix, who certainly influenced his style. As to Gillis and Gisbert some points still remain obscure, and it is difficult to accept the statement that they stood towards each other in the relation of father and son, since both were registered as painters at Utrecht in 1637. Both it appears had practised art before coming to Utrecht, but where they resided or what they painted is uncertain. Unhappily pictures scarcely help us to clear up the mystery. In the Fürstenberg collection at Donaueschingen there is a “Concert of Birds” dated 1620, and signed with the monogram G. D. H.; and we may presume that G. D. H. is the man whose “Hen and Chickens in a Landscape” in the gallery of Rotterdam is inscribed “G. D. Hondecoeter, 1652”; but is the first letter of the monogram to stand for Gillis or Gisbert? In the museums of Dresden and Cassel landscapes with sportsmen are catalogued under the name of Gabriel de Heusch (?), one of them dated 1529, and certified with the monogram G. D. H., challenging attention by resemblance to a canvas of the same class inscribed G. D. Hond. in the Berlin Museum. The question here is also whether G. means Gillis or Gisbert. Obviously there are two artists to consider, one of whom paints birds, the other landscapes and sportsmen. Perhaps the first is Gisbert, whose son Melchior also chose birds as his peculiar subject. Weenix too would naturally teach his nephew to study the feathered tribe. Melchior, however, began his career with a different speciality from that by which he is usually known. Mr de Stuers affirms that he produced sea-pieces. One of his earliest works is a “Tub with Fish,” dated 1655, in the gallery of Brunswick. But Melchior soon abandoned fish or fowl. He acquired celebrity as a painter of birds only, which he represented not exclusively, like Fyt, as the gamekeeper’s perquisite after a day’s shooting, or stock of a poulterer’s shop, but as living beings with passions, joys, fears and quarrels, to which naturalists will tell us that birds are subject. Without the brilliant tone and high finish of Fyt, his Dutch rival’s birds are full of action; and, as Bürger truly says, Hondecoeter displays the maternity of the hen with as much tenderness and feeling as Raphael the maternity of Madonnas. But Fyt was at home in depicting the coat of deer and dogs us well as plumage. Hondecoeter cultivates a narrower field, and seldom goes beyond a cock-fight or a display of mere bird life. Very few of his pictures are dated, though more are signed. Amongst the former we should note the “Jackdaw deprived of his Borrowed Plumes” (1671), at the Hague, of which Earl Cadogan has a variety; or “Game and Poultry” and “A Spaniel hunting a Partridge” (1672), in the gallery of Brussels; or “A Park with Poultry” (1686) at the Hermitage of St Petersburg. Hondecoeter, in great favour with the magnates of the Netherlands, became a member of the painters’ academy at the Hague in 1659. William III. employed him to paint his menagerie at Loo, and the picture, now at the Hague museum, shows that he could at a pinch overcome the difficulty of representing India’s cattle, elephants and gazelles. But he is better in homelier works, with which he adorned the royal chateaux of Bensberg and Oranienstein at different periods of his life (Hague and Amsterdam). In 1688 Hondecoeter took the freedom of the city of Amsterdam, where he resided till his death. His earliest works are more conscientious, lighter and more transparent than his later ones. At all times he is bold Of touch and sure of eye, giving the motion of birds with great spirit and accuracy. His masterpieces are at the Hague and at Amsterdam. But there are fine examples in private collections in England, and in the public galleries of Berlin, Caen, Carlsruhe, Cassel, Cologne, Copenhagen, Dresden, Dublin, Florence, Glasgow, Hanover, London, Lyons, Montpellier, Munich, Paris, Rotterdam, Rouen, St Petersburg, Stuttgart and Vienna.

HONDURAS, a republic of Central America, bounded on the N. by the Caribbean Sea, E. by Nicaragua, S. by Nicaragua, the Pacific Ocean and Salvador, and W. by Guatemala. (For map see Central America.) Pop. (1905) 500,136; area, about 46,500 sq. m. Honduras is said to owe its name, meaning in Spanish “depths,” to the difficulty experienced by its original Spanish explorers in finding anchorage off its shores; Cape Gracias à Dios (Cape “Thanks to God”) is the name bestowed, for analogous reasons, on its easternmost headland, which shelters a small harbour, now included in Nicaragua. Modern navigators are not confronted by the same difficulty; for, although the north coast is unbroken by any remarkable inlet except the Carataska Lagoon, a land-locked lake on the east, with a narrow entrance from the sea, there are many small bays and estuaries, such as those of Puerto Cortes, Omoa, Ulua, La Ceiba and Trujillo, which serve as harbours. The broad basin of the Caribbean Sea, bounded by Honduras, Guatemala and British Honduras, is known as the bay or gulf of Honduras. Several islets and the important group of the Bay Islands (q.v.) belong to the republic. On the Pacific the Hondurian littoral is short but of great commercial value; for it consists of a frontage of some 60 m. on the Bay of Fonseca (q.v.), one of the finest natural harbours in the world. The islands of Tigre, Sacate Grande and Gueguensi, in the bay, belong to Honduras.

The frontier which separates the republic from Nicaragua extends across the continent from E.N.E to W.S.W. It is defined by the river Segovia, Wanks or Coco, for about one-third of the distance; it then deflects across the watershed on the east and south of the river Choluteca, crosses the main Nicaraguan Cordillera (mountain chain) and follows the river Negro to the Bay of Fonseca. The line of separation from Salvador is irregularly drawn, first in a northerly and then in a westerly direction; beginning at the mouth of the river Goascoran, in the Bay of Fonseca, it ends 12 m. W. of San Francisco city. At this point begins the Guatemalan frontier, the largest section of which is delimited along the crests of the Sierra de Merendon. On the Caribbean seaboard the estuary of the Motagua forms the boundary between Honduras and Guatemala.

Inhabitants.—The inhabitants of Honduras are in many cases of the Indian or aboriginal type, and the European element is very small, although it shares in the social, political and economic preponderance of the Spanish-speaking half-castes (Ladinos or Mestizos), who are the most numerous section of the population. Throughout the country there are many interesting relics of the native civilization which was destroyed by the Spanish invaders in the 16th century. In the eastern portion of the state, between the Rio Roman, Cape Gracias à Dios, and the Segovia river, the country is almost exclusively occupied by native Indian tribes, known under the general names of Xicaques and Poyas. In many districts the Indians are known as Lencas, a generic name which includes several tribes akin to the Mayans of Guatemala. Portions of all of these tribes have accepted the Roman Catholic religion, and live in peaceful neighbourhood and good understanding with the white inhabitants. There are, however, considerable numbers, probably about 90,000 in all, who live among the mountains and still conform closely to the aboriginal modes of life. They all cultivate the soil, and are good and industrious labourers. A small portion of the coast, above Cape Gracias, is occupied by the Sambos, a mixed race of Indians and negroes, which, however, is fast disappearing. Spreading along the entire north coast are the Caribs, a vigorous race, descendants of the Caribs of St Vincent, one of the Windward Islands. These, to the number of 5000, were deported in 1796 by the English and landed on the island of Roatan. They still retain their native language, although it tends to disappear and be replaced by Spanish and a bastard dialect of English; they are active, industrious and provident, forming the chief reliance of the mahogany cutters on the coast. A portion of them, who have a mixture of negro blood, are called the Black Caribs. They profess the Roman Catholic religion, but retain many of their native rites and superstitions. In the departments of Gracias, Comayagua and Choluteca are many purely Indian towns.

The aggregate population, according to an official estimate made in 1905, is 500,136, but a complete and satisfactory census cannot be taken throughout the country, since the ignorant masses of the people, and especially the Indians, avoid a census as in some way connected with military conscription or taxation. The bulk of the Spanish population exists on the Pacific slope of the continent, while on the Atlantic declivity the country is uninhabited or but sparsely occupied by Indian tribes, of which the number is wholly unknown. In 1905 there were fewer than 11 inhabitants per sq. m., but all the available data tend to show that the population increases rapidly, owing to the continuous excess of births over deaths. The first census, taken in 1791, gave the total population as only 95,500. There is little emigration or immigration.

Chief Towns.—The capital is Tegucigalpa (pop. 1905, about 35,000); other important towns are Jutigalpa (18,000), Comayagua (8000), and the seaports of Amapala (4000), Trujillo (4000), and Puerto Cortes (2500). These are described in separate articles. The towns of Nacaome, La Esperanza, Choluteca and Santa Rosa have upwards of 10,000 inhabitants.

Constitution and Government.—The constitution of Honduras, promulgated in 1839 and frequently amended, was to a great extent recast in 1880. It was again remodelled in 1894, when a new charter was proclaimed. This instrument gives the legislative power to a congress of deputies elected for four years by popular vote, in the ratio of one member for every 10,000 inhabitants. Congress meets on the 1st of January and sits for sixty consecutive days. The executive is entrusted to the president, who is nominated and elected for four years by popular vote, and is re-eligible for a second but not for a third consecutive term. He is assisted by a council of ministers representing the departments of the interior, war, finance, public works, education and justice. For purposes of local administration the republic is divided into sixteen departments. The highest judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, which consists of five popularly elected judges; there are also four Courts of Appeal, besides subordinate departmental and district tribunals. The active army consists of about 500 regular soldiers and 20,000 militia, recruited by conscription from all able-bodied males between the ages of twenty and thirty. Service in the reserve is obligatory for a further period of ten years.

History.—It was at Cape Honduras that Columbus first landed on the American continent in 1502, and took possession of the country on behalf of Spain. The first settlement was made in 1524 by order of Hernando Cortes, who had heard rumours of rich and populous empires in this region, and sent his lieutenant Christobal de Olid to found a Spanish colony. Olid endeavoured to establish an independent principality, and, in order to resume control of the settlers, Cortes was compelled to undertake the long and arduous march across the mountains of southern Mexico and Guatemala. In the spring of 1525 he reached the colony and founded the city which is now Puerto Cortes. He entrusted the administration to a new governor, whose successors were to be nominated by the king, and returned to Mexico in 1526. By 1539, when Honduras was incorporated in the captaincy-general of Guatemala, the mines of the province had proved to be the richest as yet discovered in the New World and several large cities had come into existence. The system under which Honduras was administered from 1539 to 1821, when it repudiated the authority of the Spanish crown, the effects of that system, the part subsequently played by Honduras in the protracted struggle for Central American unity, and the invasion by William Walker and his fellow-adventurers (1856-1860), are fully described under Central America.

War and revolution had stunted the economic growth of the country and retarded every attempt at social or political reform; its future was mortgaged by the assumption of an enormous burden of debt in 1869 and 1870. A renewal of war with Guatemala in 1871, and a revolution three years later in the interests of the ex-president Medina, brought about the intervention of the neighbouring states and the provisional appointment to the presidency of Marco Aurelio Soto, a nominee of Guatemala. This appointment proved successful and was confirmed by popular vote in 1877 and 1880, when a new constitution was issued and the seat of government fixed at Tegucigalpa. Fresh outbreaks of civil war occurred frequently between 1883 and 1903; the republic was bankrupt and progress again at a standstill. In 1903 Manuel Bonilla, an able, popular and experienced general, gained the presidency and seemed likely to repeat the success of Soto in maintaining order. As his term of office drew to a close, and his re-election appeared certain, the supporters of rival candidates and some of his own dissatisfied adherents intrigued to secure the co-operation of Nicaragua for his overthrow. Bonilla welcomed the opportunity of consolidating his own position which a successful war would offer; José Santos Zelaya, the president of Nicaragua, was equally ambitious; and several alleged violations of territory had embittered popular feeling on both sides. The United States and Mexican governments endeavoured to secure a peaceful settlement without intervention, but failed. At the outbreak of hostilities in February 1907 the Hondurian forces were commanded by Bonilla in person and by General Sotero Barahona his minister of war. One of their chief subordinates was Lee Christmas, an adventurer from Memphis, Tennessee, who had previously been a locomotive-driver. Honduras received active support from his ally, Salvador, and was favoured by public opinion throughout Central America. But from the outset the Nicaraguans proved victorious, largely owing to their remarkable mobility. Their superior naval force enabled them to capture Puerto Cortes and La Ceiba, and to threaten other cities on the Caribbean coast; on land they were aided by a body of Hondurian rebels, who also established a provisional government. Zelaya captured Tegucigalpa after severe fighting, and besieged Bonilla in Amapala. Lee Christmas was killed. The surrender of Amapala on the 11th of April practically ended the war. Bonilla took refuge on board the United States cruiser “Chicago.” A noteworthy feature of the war was the attitude of the American naval officers, who landed marines, arranged the surrender of Amapala, and prevented Nicaragua prolonging hostilities. Honduras was now evacuated by the Nicaraguans and her provisional government was recognized by Zelaya. Miguel R. Davila was president in 1908 and 1909.

HONE, NATHANIEL (1718-1784), British painter, was the son of a merchant at Dublin, and without any regular training acquired in his youth much skill as a portrait-painter. Early in his career he left Dublin for England and worked first in various provincial towns, but ultimately settled in London, where he soon made a considerable reputation. His oil-paintings were decidedly popular, but he gained his chief success by his miniatures and enamels, which he executed with masterly capacity. He became a member of the Incorporated Society of Artists and afterwards a foundation member of the Royal Academy; but he had several disagreements with his fellow-members of that institution, and on one occasion they rejected two of his pictures, one of which was regarded as a satire on Reynolds and the other on Angelica Kauffman. Most of his contributions to the Academy exhibitions were portraits. The quality of his work varied greatly, but the merit of his miniatures and enamels entitles him to a place among the ablest artists of the British school. He executed also a few mezzotint plates of reasonable importance, and some etchings. His portrait, painted by himself two years before his death, is in the possession of the Royal Academy.

HONE, WILLIAM (1780-1842), English writer and bookseller, was born at Bath on the 3rd of June 1780. His father brought up his children with the sectarian narrowness that so frequently produces reaction. Hone received no systematic education, and was taught to read from the Bible only. His father having removed to London in 1783, he was in 1790 placed in an attorney’s office. After two and a half years spent in the office of a solicitor at Chatham he returned to London to become clerk to a solicitor in Gray’s Inn. But he disliked the law, and had already acquired a taste for free-thought and political agitation. Hone married in 1800, and started a book and print shop with a circulating Library in Lambeth Walk. He soon removed to St Martin’s Churchyard, where he brought out his first publication, Shaw’s Gardener (1806). It was at this time that he and his friend, John Bone, tried to realize a plan for the establishment of popular savings banks, and even had an interview on the subject with the president of the Board of Trade. This scheme, however, failed. Bone joined him next in a bookseller’s business; but Hone’s habits were not those of a tradesman, and bankruptcy was the result. He was in 1811 chosen by the booksellers as auctioneer to the trade, and had an office in Ivy Lane. Independent investigations carried on by him into the condition of lunatic asylums led again to business difficulties and failure, but he took a small lodging in the Old Bailey, keeping himself and his now large family by contributions to magazines and reviews. He hired a small shop, or rather box, in Fleet Street but this was on two separate nights broken into, and valuable books lent for show were stolen. In 1815 he started the Traveller newspaper, and endeavoured vainly to exculpate Eliza Fenning, a poor girl, apparently quite guiltless, who was executed on a charge of poisoning. From February 1 to October 25, 1817, he published the Reformer’s Register, writing in it as the serious critic of the state abuses, which he soon after attacked in the famous political squibs and parodies, illustrated by George Cruikshank. In April 1817 three ex-officio informations were filed against him by the attorney-genera, Sir William Garrow. Three separate trials took place in the Guildhall before special juries on the 18th, 19th and 20th of December 1817. The first, for publishing Wilkes’s Catechism of a Ministerial Member (1817), was before Mr Justice Abbot (afterwards Lord Tenterden); the second, for parodying the litany and libelling the prince regent, and the third, for publishing the Sinecurist’s Creed (1817), a parody on the Athanasian creed, were before Lord Ellenborough (q.v.). The prosecution took the ground that the prints were calculated to injure public morals, and to bring the prayer-book and even religion itself into contempt. But there can be no doubt that the real motives of the prosecution were political; Hone had ridiculed the habits and exposed the corruption of the prince regent and of other persons in power. He went to the root of the matter when he wished the jury “to understand that, had he been a publisher of ministerial parodies, he would not then have been defending himself on the floor of that court.” In spite of illness and exhaustion Hone displayed great courage and ability, speaking on each of the three days for about seven hours. Although his judges were biassed against him he was acquitted on each count, and the result was received with enthusiastic cheers by immense crowds within and without the court. Soon after the trials a subscription was begun which enabled Hone to get over the difficulties caused by his prosecution. Among Hone’s most successful political satires were The Political House that Jack built (1819), The Queen’s Matrimonial Ladder (1820), in favour of Queen Caroline, The Man in the Moon (1820), The Political Showman (1821), all illustrated by Cruikshank. Many of his squibs are directed against a certain “Dr Slop,” a nickname given by him to Dr (afterwards Sir John) Stoddart, of The Times. In researches for his defence he had come upon some curious and at that time little trodden literary ground, and the results were shown by his publication in 1820 of his Apocryphal New Testament, and in 1823 of his Ancient Mysteries Explained. In 1826 he published the Every-day Book, in 1827-1828 the Table-Book, and in 1829 the Year-Book; all three were collections of curious information on manners, antiquities and various other subjects. These are the works by which Hone is best remembered. In preparing them he had the approval of Southey and the assistance of Charles Lamb, but pecuniarily they were not successful, and Hone was lodged in King’s Bench prison for debt. Friends, however, again came to his assistance, and he was established in a coffee-house in Gracechurch Street; but this, like most of his enterprises, ended in failure. Hone’s attitude of mind had gradually changed to that of extreme devoutness, and during the latter years of his life he frequently preached in Weigh House Chapel, Eastcheap. In 1830 he edited Strutt’s Sports and Pastimes, and he contributed to the first number of the Penny Magazine. He was also for some years sub-editor of the Patriot. He died at Tottenham on the 6th of November 1842.

HONE (in O. Eng. hán, cognate with Swed. hen; the root appears in Skt. çána, ço to sharpen), a variety of finely siliceous stone employed for whetting or sharpening edge tools, and for abrading steel and other hard surfaces. Synonyms are honestone, whetstone, oilstone and sharpening stone. Hones are generally prepared in the form of flat slabs or small pencils or rods, but some are made with the outline of the special instrument they are designed to sharpen. Their abrading action is due to the quartz or silica which is always present in predominating proportion, some kinds consisting of almost pure quartz, while in others the siliceous element is very intimately mixed with aluminous or calcareous matter, forming a uniform compact stone, the extremely fine siliceous particles of which impart a remarkably keen edge to the instruments for the sharpening of which they are applied. In some cases the presence of minute garnets or magnetite assists in the cutting action. Hones are used either dry, with water, or with oil, and generally the object to be sharpened is drawn with hand pressure backward and forward over the surface of the hone; but sometimes the stone is moved over the cutting edge.

The coarsest type of stone which can be included among hones is the bat or scythe stone, a porous fine-grained sandstone used for sharpening scythes and cutters of mowing machines, and for other like purposes. Next come the ragstones, which consist of quartzose mica-schist, and give a finer edge than any sandstone. Under the head of oilstones or hones proper the most famous and best-known qualities are the German razor hone, the Turkey oilstone, and the Arkansas stone. The German razor hone, used, as its name implies, chiefly for razors, is obtained from the slate mountains near Ratisbon, where it forms a yellow vein of from 1 to 18 in. in the blue slate. It is sawn into thin slabs, and these are cemented to slabs of slate which serve as a support. Turkey oilstone is a close-grained bluish stone 653 containing from 70 to 75% of silica in a state of very fine division, intimately blended with about 20 to 25% of calcite. It is obtained only in small pieces, frequently flawed and not tough, so that the slabs must have a backing of slate or wood. It is one of the most valuable of all whetstones, abrading the hardest steel, and possessing sufficient compactness to resist the pressure required for sharpening gravers. The stone comes from the interior of Asia Minor, whence it is carried to Smyrna. Of Arkansas stones there are two varieties, both found in the same district, Garland and Saline counties, Arkansas, United States. The finer kind, known as Arkansas hone, is obtained in small pieces at the Hot Springs, and the second quality, distinguished as Washita stone, comes from Washita or Ouachita river. The hones yield on analysis 98% of silica, with small proportions of alumina, potash and soda, and mere traces of iron, lime, magnesia and fluorine. They are white in colour, extremely hard and keen in grit, and not easily worn down or broken. Geologically the materials are called novaculites, and are supposed to be metamorphosed sandstone silt, chert or limestone resulting from the permeation through the mass of heated alkaline siliceous waters. The finer kind is employed for fine cutting instruments, and also for polishing steel pivots of watch-wheels and similar minute work, the second and coarser quality being used for common tools. Both varieties are largely exported from the United States in the form of blocks, slips, pencils, rods and wheels. Other honestones are obtained in the United States from New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Ohio (Deerlick stone) and Indiana (Hindostan or Orange stone). Among hones of less importance in general use may be noted the Charley Forest stone—or Whittle Hill honestone—a good substitute for Turkey oilstone; Water of Ayr stone, Scotch stone, or snake stone, a pale grey carboniferous shale hardened by igneous action, used for tools and for polishing marble and copper-plates; Idwal or Welsh oilstone, used for small articles; and cutlers’ greenstone from Snowdon, very hard and close in texture, used for giving the last edge to lancets.

HONEY (Chin. mē; Sansk. madhu, mead, honey; cf. A.S. medo, medu, mead; Gr. μέλι, in which θ or δ is changed into λ; Lat. mel; Fr. miel; A.S. hunig; Ger. Honig),1 a sweet viscid liquid, obtained by bees (see Bee, Bee-keeping) chiefly from the nectaries of flowers, i.e. those parts of flowers specially constructed for the elaboration of honey, and, after transportation to the hive in the proventriculus or crop of the insects, discharged by them into the cells prepared for its reception. Whether the nectar undergoes any alteration within the crop of the bee is a point on which authors have differed. Some wasps, e.g. Myrapetra scutellaris2 and the genus Nectarina, collect honey. A honey-like fluid, which consists of a nearly pure solution of uncrystallizable sugar having the formula C6H14O7 after drying in vacuo, and which is used by the Mexicans in the preparation of a beverage, is yielded by certain inactive individuals of Myrmecocystus mexicanus, Wesmael, the honey-ants or pouched ants (hormigas mieleras or mochileras) of Mexico.3 The abdomen in these insects, owing to the distensibility of the membrane connecting its segments, becomes converted into a globular thin-walled sac by the accumulation within it of the nectar supplied to them by their working comrades (Wesmael, Bull. de l’Acad. Roy. de Brux. v. 766, 1838). By the Rev. H. C. M‘Cook, who discovered the insect in the Garden of the Gods, Colorado, the honey-bearers were found hanging by their feet, in groups of about thirty, to the roofs of special chambers in their underground nests, their large globular abdomens causing them to resemble “bunches of small Delaware grapes” (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., 1879, p. 197). A bladder-like formation on the metathorax of another ant, Crematogaster inflatus (F. Smith, Cat. of Hymenoptera, pt. vi. pp. 136 and 200, pl. ix. fig. 1), which has a small circular orifice at each posterior lateral angle, appears to possess a function similar to that of the abdomen in the honey-ant.

It is a popular saying that where is the best honey there also is the best wool; and a pastoral district, since it affords a greater profusion of flowers, is superior for the production of honey to one under tillage.4 Dry warm weather is that most favourable to the secretion of nectar by flowers. This they protect from rain by various internal structures, such as papillae, cushions of hairs and spurs, or by virtue of their position (in the raspberry, drooping), or the arrangement of their constituent parts. Dr A. W. Bennett (How Flowers are Fertilized, p. 31, 1873) has remarked that the perfume of flowers is generally derived from their nectar; the blossoms of some plants, however, as ivy and holly, though almost scentless, are highly nectariferous. The exudation of a honey-like or saccharine fluid, as has frequently been attested, is not a function exclusively of the flowers in all plants. A sweet material, the manna of pharmacy, e.g. is produced by the leaves and stems of a species of ash, Fraxinus Ornus; and honey-secreting glands are to be met with on the leaves, petioles, phyllodes, stipules (as in Vicia sativa), or bracteae (as in the Maregraviaceae) of a considerable number of different vegetable forms. The origin of the honey-yielding properties manifested specially by flowers among the several parts of plants has been carefully considered by Darwin, who regards the saccharine matter in nectar as a waste product of chemical changes in the sap, which, when it happened to be excreted within the envelopes of flowers, was utilized for the important object of cross-fertilization, and subsequently was much increased in quantity, and stored in various ways (see Cross and Self Fertilization of Plants, pp. 402 sq., 1876). It has been noted with respect to the nectar of the fuchsia that it is most abundant when the anthers are about to dehisce, and absent in the unexpanded flower.

Honey contains dextroglucose and laevoglucose (the former practically insoluble, the latter soluble in 1⁄8 pt. of cold strong alcohol), cane-sugar (according to some), mucilage, water, wax, essential oil, colouring bodies, a minute quantity of mineral matter and pollen. By a species of fermentation, the cane-sugar is said to be gradually transformed into inverted sugar (laevoglucose with dextroglucose). The pollen, as a source of nitrogen, is of importance to the bees feeding on the honey. It may be obtained for examination as a sediment from a mixture of honey and water. Other substances which have been discovered in honey are mannite (Guibourt), a free acid which precipitates the salts of silver and of lead, and is soluble in water and alcohol (Calloux), and an uncrystallizable sugar, nearly related to inverted sugar (Soubeiran, Compt. Rend. xxviii. 774-775, 1849). Brittany honey contains couvain, a ferment which determines its active decomposition (Wurtz, Dict. de Chem. ii. 430). In the honey of Polybia apicipennis, a wasp 654 of tropical America, cane-sugar occurs in crystals of large size (Karsten, Pogg. Ann., C. 550). Dr J. Campbell Brown (“On the Composition of Honey,” Analyst iii. 267, 1878) is doubtful as to the presence of cane-sugar in any one of nine samples, from various sources, examined by him. The following average percentage numbers are afforded by his analyses: laevulose, 36.45; dextrose, 36.57; mineral matter, .15; water expelled at 100° C., 18.5, and at a much higher temperature, with loss, 7.81: the wax, pollen and insoluble matter vary from a trace to 2.1%. The specific gravity of honey is about 1.41. The rotation of a polarized ray by a solution of 16.26 grammes of crude honey in 100 c.c. of water is generally from −3.2° to −5° at 60° F.; in the case of Greek honey it is nearly −5.5°. Almost all pure honey, when exposed for some time to light and cold, becomes more or less granular in consistency. Any liquid portion can be readily separated by straining through linen. Honey sold out of the comb is commonly clarified by heating and skimmimg; but according to Bonner it is always best in its natural state. The mel depuratum of British pharmacy is prepared by heating honey in a water-bath, and straining through flannel previously moistened with warm water.

The term “virgin-honey” (A.-S., hunigtear) is applied to the honey of young bees which have never swarmed, or to that which flows spontaneously from honeycomb with or without the application of heat. The honey obtained from old hives, considered inferior to it in quality, is ordinarily darker, thicker and less pleasant in taste and odour. The yield of honey is less in proportion to weight in old than in young or virgin combs. The far-famed honey of Narbonne is white, very granular and highly aromatic; and still finer honey is that procured from the Corbières Mountains, 6 to 9 m. to the south-west. The honey of Gâtinais is usually white, and is less odorous and granulates less readily than that of Narbonne. Honey from white clover has a greenish-white, and that from heather a rich golden-yellow hue. What is made from honey-dew is dark in colour, and disagreeable to the palate, and does not candy like good honey. “We have seen aphide honey from sycamores,” says F. Cheshire (Pract. Bee-keeping, p. 74), “as deep in tone as walnut liquor, and where much of it is stored the value of the whole crop is practically nil.” The honey of the stingless bees (Meliponia and Trigona) of Brazil varies greatly in quality according to the species of flowers from which it is collected, some kinds being black and sour, and others excellent (F. Smith, Trans. Ent. Soc., 3d ser., i. pt. vi., 1863). That of Apis Peronii, of India and Timor, is yellow, and of very agreeable flavour and is more liquid than the British sorts. A. unicolor, a bee indigenous to Madagascar, and naturalized in Mauritius and the island of Réunion, furnishes a thick and syrupy, peculiarly scented green honey, highly esteemed in Western India. A rose-coloured honey is stated (Gard. Chron., 1870, p. 1698) to have been procured by artificial feeding. The fine aroma of Maltese honey is due to its collection from orange blossoms. Narbonne honey being harvested chiefly from Labiate plants, as rosemary, an imitation of it is sometimes prepared by flavouring ordinary honey with infusion of rosemary flowers.

Honey is mildly laxative in properties. Some few kinds are poisonous, as frequently the reddish honey stored by the Brazilian wasp Nectarina (Polistes, Latr.5) Lecheguana, Shuck., the effects of which have been vividly described by Aug. de Saint-Hilaire,6 the spring honey of the wild bees of East Nepaul, said to be rendered noxious by collection from rhododendron flowers (Hooker, Himalayan Journals, i. 190, ed. 1855), and the honey of Trebizond, which from its source, the blossoms, it is stated, of Azalea pontica and Rhododendron ponticum (perhaps to be identified with Pliny’s Aegolethron), acquires the qualities of an irritant and intoxicant narcotic, as described by Xenophon (Anab. iv. 8). Pliny (Nat. Hist. xxi. 45) describes as noxious a livid-coloured honey found in Persia and Gaetulia. Honey obtained from Kalmia latifolia, L., the calico bush, mountain laurel or spoon-wood of the northern United States, and allied species, is reputed deleterious; also that of the sour-wood is by some good authorities considered to possess undeniable griping properties; and G. Bidie (Madras Quart. Journ. Med. Sci., Oct, 1861, p. 399) mentions urtication, headache, extreme prostration and nausea, and intense thirst among the symptoms produced by a small quantity only of a honey from Coorg jungle. A South African species of Euphorbia, as was experienced by the missionary Moffat (Miss. Lab. p. 32, 1849), yields a poisonous honey. The nectar of certain flowers is asserted to cause even in bees a fatal kind of vertigo. As a demulcent and flavouring agent, honey is employed in the oxymel, oxymel scillae, mel boracis, confectio piperis, conf. scammonii and conf. terebinthinae of the British Pharmacopoeia. To the ancients honey was of very great importance as an article of diet, being almost their only available source of sugar. It was valued by them also for its medicinal virtues; and in recipes of the Saxon and later periods it is a common ingredient.7 Of the eight kinds of honey mentioned by the great Indian surgical writer Susruta, four are not described by recent authors, viz. argha or wild honey, collected by a sort of yellow bee; chhatra, made by tawny or yellow wasps; audálaka, a bitter and acrid honey-like substance found in the nest of white ants; and dála or unprepared honey occurring on flowers. According to Hindu medical writers, honey when new is laxative, and when more than a year old astringent (U. C. Dutt, Mat. Med. of the Hindus, p. 277, 1877). Ceromel, formed by mixing at a gentle heat one part by weight of yellow wax with four of clarified honey, and straining, is used in India and other tropical countries as a mild stimulant for ulcers in the place of animal fats, which there rapidly become rancid and unfit for medicinal purposes. The Koran, in the chapter entitled “The Bee,” remarks with reference to bees and their honey: “There proceedeth from their bellies a liquor of various colour, wherein is a medicine for men” (Sale’s Koran, chap. xvi.). Pills prepared with honey as an excipient are said to remain unindurated, however long they may be kept (Med. Times, 1857, i. 269). Mead, of yore a favourite beverage in England (vol. iv. p. 264), is made by fermentation of the liquor obtained by boiling in water combs from which the honey has been drained. In the preparation of sack-mead, an ounce of hops is added to each gallon of the liquor, and after the fermentation a small quantity of brandy. Metheglin, or hydromel, is maufactured by fermenting with yeast a solution of honey flavoured with boiled hops (see Cooley, Cyclop.). A kind of mead is largely consumed in Abyssinia (vol. i. p. 64), where it is carried on journeys in large horns (Stern, Wanderings, p. 317, 1862). In Russia a drink termed lipez is made from the delicious honey of the linden. The mulsum of the ancient Romans consisted of honey, wine and water boiled together. The clarre, or piment, of Chaucer’s time was wine mixed with honey and spices, and strained till clear; a similar drink was bracket, made with wort of ale instead of wine. L. Maurial (L’Insectologie Agricole for 1868, p. 206) reports unfavourably as to the use of honey for the production of alcohol; he recommends it, however, as superior to sugar for the thickening of liqueurs, and also as a means of sweetening imperfectly ripened vintages. It is occasionally employed for giving strength and flavour to ale. In ancient Egypt it was valued as an embalming material; and in the East, for the preservation of fruit, and the making of cakes, sweetmeats, 655 and other articles of food, it is largely consumed. Grafts, seeds and birds’ eggs, for transmission to great distances, are sometimes packed in honey. In India a mixture of honey and milk, or of equal parts of curds, honey and clarified butter (Sansk., madhu-parka), is a respectful offering to a guest, or to a bridegroom on his arrival at the door of the bride’s father; and one of the purificatory ceremonies of the Hindus (Sansk., madhu-prāsana) is the placing of a little honey in the mouth of a newborn male infant. Honey is frequently alluded to by the writers of antiquity as food for children; it is not to this, however, as already mentioned, that Isa. vii. 15 refers. Cream or fresh butter together with honey, and with or without bread, is a favourite dish with the Arabs.

Among the observances at the Fandròana or New Year’s Festival, in Madagascar, is the eating of mingled rice and honey by the queen and her guests; in the same country honey is placed in the sacred water of sprinkling used at the blessing of the children previous to circumcision (Sibree, The Great African Is. pp. 219, 314, 1880). Honey was frequently employed in the ancient religious ceremonies of the heathen, but was forbidden as a sacrifice in the Jewish ritual (Lev. ii. 11). With milk or water it was presented by the Greeks as a libation to the dead (Odyss. xi. 27; Eurip. Orest. 115). A honey-cake was the monthly food of the fabled serpent-guardian of the Acropolis (Herod, viii. 41). By the aborigines of Peru honey was offered to the sun.

HONEYCOMB, a cloth, so called because of the particular arrangement of the crossing of the warp and weft threads which form cells somewhat similar to those of the real honeycomb. They differ from the latter in that they are rectangular instead of hexagonal. The bottom of the cell is formed by those threads and picks which weave “plain,” while the ascending sides of the figure are formed by the gradually increasing length of float of the warp and weft yarns.

HONEY-EATER, or Honey-sucker, names applied by many writers in a very loose way to a large number of birds, some of which, perhaps, have no intimate affinity; here they are used in a more restricted sense for what, in the opinion of a good many recent authorities,1 should really be deemed the family Meliphagidae—excluding therefrom the Nectariniidae or Sun-birds (q.v.) as well as the genera Promerops and Zosterops with whatever allies they may possess. Even with this restriction, the extent of the family must be regarded as very indefinite, owing to the absence of materials sufficient for arriving at a satisfactory conclusion, though the existence of such a family is probably indisputable. Making allowance, then, for the imperfect light in which they must at present be viewed, what are here called Meliphagidae include some of the most characteristic forms of the ornithology of the great Australian region—members of the family inhabiting almost every part of it, and a single species only, Ptilotis limbata, being said to occur outside its limits. They all possess, or are supposed to possess, a long 656 protrusible tongue with a brush-like tip, differing, it is believed, in structure from that found in any other bird—Promerops perhaps excepted—and capable of being formed into a suctorial tube, by means of which honey is absorbed from the nectary of flowers, though it would seem that insects attracted by the honey furnish the chief nourishment of many species, while others undoubtedly feed to a greater or less extent on fruits. The Meliphagidae, as now considered, are for the most part small birds, never exceeding the size of a missel thrush; and they have been divided into more than 20 genera, containing above 200 species, of which only a few can here be particularized. Most of these species have a very confined range, being found perhaps only on a single island or group of islands in the region, but there are a few which are more widely distributed—such as Glycyphila rufifrons, the white-throated2 honey-eater, found over the greater part of Australia and Tasmania. In plumage they vary much. Most of the species of Ptilotis are characterized by a tuft of white, or in others of yellow, feathers springing from behind the ear. In the greater number of the genus Myzomela3 the males are recognizable by a gorgeous display of crimson or scarlet, which has caused one species, M. sanguinolenta, to be known as the soldier-bird to Australian colonists; but in others no brilliant colour appears, and those of several genera have no special ornamentation, while some have a particularly plain appearance. One of the most curious forms is Prosthemadera—the tui or parson-bird of New Zealand, so called from the two tufts of white feathers which hang beneath its chin in great contrast to its dark silky plumage, and suggest a likeness to the bands worn by ministers of several religious denominations when officiating.4 The bell-bird of the same island, Anthornis melanura—whose melody excited the admiration of Cook the morning after he had anchored in Queen Charlotte’s Sound—is another member of this family, and unfortunately seems to be fast becoming extinct. But it would be impossible here to enter much further into detail, though the wattle-birds, Anthochaera, of Australia have at least to be named. Mention, however, must be made of the friar-birds, Tropidorhynchus, of which nearly a score of species, five of them belonging to Australia, have been described. With their stout bills, mostly surmounted by an excrescence, they seem to be the most abnormal forms of the family, and most of them are besides remarkable for the baldness of some part at least of their head. They assemble in troops, sitting on dead trees, with a loud call, and are very pugnacious, frequently driving away hawks and crows. A. R. Wallace (Malay Archipelago, ii. 150-153) discovered the curious fact that two species of this genus—T. bourensis and T. subcornutus—respectively inhabiting the islands of Bouru and Ceram, were the object of natural “mimicry” on the part of two species of oriole of the genus Mimeta, M. bourouensis and M. forsteni, inhabiting the same islands, so as to be on a superficial examination identical in appearance—the honey-eater and the oriole of each island presenting exactly the same tints—the black patch of bare skin round the eyes of the former, for instance, being copied in the latter by a patch of black feathers, and even the protuberance on the beak of the Tropidorhynchus being imitated by a similar enlargement of the beak of the Mimeta. The very reasonable explanation which Wallace offers is that the pugnacity of the former has led the smaller birds of prey to respect it, and it is therefore an advantage for the latter, being weaker and less courageous, to be mistaken for it.

HONEY-GUIDE, a bird so called from its habit of pointing out to man and to the ratel (Mellivora capensis) the nests of bees. Stories to this effect have been often told, and may be found in the narratives of many African travellers, from Bruce to Livingstone. But Layard says (B. South Africa, p. 242) that the birds will not infrequently lead any one to a leopard or a snake, and will follow a dog with vociferations, though its noisy cry and antics unquestionably have in many cases the effect signified by its English name. If not its first discoverer, Sparrman, in 1777, was the first who described and figured this bird, which he met with in the Cape Colony (Phil. Trans., lxvii. 42-47, pl. i.), giving it the name of Culculus indicator, its zygodactylous feet with the toes placed in pairs—two before and two behind—inducing the belief that it must be referred to that genus. Vicillot in 1816 elevated it to the rank of a genus, Indicator; but it was still considered to belong to the family Cuculidae (its asserted parasitical habits lending force to that belief) by all systematists except Blyth and Jerdon, until it was shown by Blanford (Obs. Geol. and Zool. Abyssinia, pp. 308, 309) and Sclater (Ibis, 1870, pp. 176-180) that it was more allied to the barbets, Capitonidae, and, in consequence, was then made the type of a distinct family, Indicatoridae. In the meanwhile other species had been discovered, some of them differing sufficiently to warrant Sundevall’s foundation of a second genus, Prodotiscus, of the group. The honey-guides are small birds, the largest hardly exceeding a lark in size, and of plain plumage, with what appears to be a very sparrow-like bill. Bowdler Sharpe, in a revision of the family published in 1876 (Orn. Miscellany, i. 192-209), recognizes ten species of the genus Indicator, to which another was added by Dr Reichenow (Journ. für Ornithologie, 1877, p. 110), and two of Prodotiscus. Four species of the former, including I. sparrmani, which was the first made known, are found in South Africa, and one of the latter. The rest inhabit other parts of the same continent, except I. archipelagicus, which seems to be peculiar to Borneo, and I. xanthonotus, which occurs on the Himalayas from the borders of Afghanistan to Bhutan. The interrupted geographical distribution of this genus is a very curious fact, no species having been found in the Indian or Malayan peninsula to connect the outlying forms with those of Africa, which must be regarded as their metropolis.

HONEY LOCUST, the popular name of a tree, Gleditsia triacanthos, a member of the natural order Leguminosae, and a native of the more eastern United States of North America. It reaches from 75 to 140 ft. in height with a trunk 2 or 3, or sometimes 5 or 6 ft. in diameter, and slender spreading branches which form a broad, flattish crown. The branchlets bear numerous simple or three-forked (whence the species-name triacanthos) sharp stiff spines, 3 to 4 in. long, at first red in colour, then chestnut brown; they are borne above the leaf-axils and represent undeveloped branchlets; sometimes they are borne also on the trunk and main branches. The long-stalked leaves are 7 to 8 in. long with eight to fourteen pairs of narrowly oblong leaflets. The flowers, which are of two kinds, are borne in racemes in the leaf-axils; the staminate flowers in larger numbers. The brown pods are often 12 to 18 in. long, have thin, tough walls, and contain a quantity of pulp between the seeds; they contract spirally when drying. The tree was first cultivated in Europe towards the end of the 17th century by Bishop Compton in his garden at Fulham, near London, and is now extensively planted as an ornamental tree. The name of the genus commemorates Johann Gottlieb Gleditsch (1714-1786), a friend of Linnaeus, and the author of one of the earliest works on scientific forestry.

HONEYMOON, the first month after marriage. Lord Avebury in his Origin of Civilization suggests that the seclusion usually associated with this period is a survival of marriage by capture, and answers to the period during which the husband kept his wife in retirement, to prevent her from appealing to her relatives 657 for release. Others suggest that as the moon commences to wane as soon as it is at its full, so does the mutual affection of the wedded pair, the “honeymoon” (with this derivation) not necessarily referring to any definite period of time.

HONEYSUCKLE (Mid. Eng., honysocle, i.e. any plant from which honey may be sucked,—cf. A.-S. huni-suge, privet; Ger. Geissblatt; Fr. chèvrefeuille), botanical name Lonicera, a genus of climbing, erect or prostrate shrubs, of the natural order Caprifoliaceae, so named after the 16th-century German botanist Adam Lonicer. The British species is L. Periclymenum, the woodbine; L. Caprifolium and L. Xylosteum are naturalized in a few counties in the south and east of England. Some of the garden varieties of the woodbine are very beautiful, and are held in high esteem for their delicious fragrance, even the wild plant, with its pale flowers, compensating for its sickly looks “with never-cloying odours.” The North American sub-evergreen L. sempervirens, with its fine heads of blossoms, commonly called the trumpet honeysuckle, the most handsome of all the cultivated honeysuckles, is a distinct and beautiful species producing both scarlet and yellow flowered varieties, and the Japanese L. flexuosa var. aureoreticulata is esteemed for its charmingly variegated leaves netted with golden yellow. The fly honeysuckle, L. Xylosteum, a hardy shrub of dwarfish, erect habit, and L. tatarica, of similar habit, both European, are amongst the oldest English garden shrubs, and bear axillary flowers of various colours, occurring two on a peduncle. There are numerous other species, many of them introduced to our gardens, and well worth cultivating in shrubberies or as climbers on walls and bowers, either for their beauty or the fragrance of their blossoms.

In the western counties of England, and generally by agriculturists, the name honeysuckle is applied to the meadow clover, Trifolium pratense. Another plant of the same family (Leguminosae) Hedysarum coronarium, a very handsome hardy biennial often seen in old-fashioned collections of garden plants, is commonly called the French honeysuckle. The name is moreover applied with various affixes to several other totally different plants. Thus white honeysuckle and false honeysuckle are names for the North American Azalea viscosa; Australian or heath honeysuckle is the Australian Banksia serrata, Jamaica honeysuckle, Passiflora laurifolia, dwarf honeysuckle the widely spread Cornus suecica, Virgin Mary’s honeysuckle the European Pulmonaria officinalis, while West Indian honeysuckle is Tecoma capensis, and is also a name applied to Desmodium.

The wood of the fly honeysuckle is extremely hard, and the clear portions between the joints of the stems, when their pith has been removed, were stated by Linnaeus to be utilized in Sweden for making tobacco-pipes. The wood is also employed to make teeth for rakes; and, like that of L. tatarica, it is a favourite material for walking-sticks.

Honeysuckles (Lonicera) flourish in any ordinary garden soil, but are usually sadly neglected in regard to pruning. This should be done about March, cutting out some of the old wood, and shortening back some of the younger growths of the preceding year.

HONFLEUR, a seaport of north-western France, in the department of Calvados, 57 m. N.E. of Caen by rail. Pop. (1906) 8735. The town is situated at the foot of a semicircle of hills, on the south shore of the Seine estuary, opposite Havre, with which it communicates by steamboat. Honfleur, with its dark narrow lanes and old houses, has the typical aspect of an old-fashioned seaport. The most noteworthy of its buildings is the church of St Catherine, constructed entirely of timber work, with the exception of the façade added in the 18th century, and consisting of two parallel naves, of which the more ancient is supposed to date from the end of the 15th century. Within the church are several antique statues and a painting by J. Jordaens—“Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.” The church tower stands on the other side of a street. St Leonard’s dates from the 17th century, with the exception of its fine ogival portal and rose-window belonging to the 16th, and its octagonal tower erected in the 18th. The ruins of a 16th-century castle known as the Lieutenance and several houses of the same period are also of antiquarian interest. The hôtel de ville contains a library and a museum. On the rising ground above the town is the chapel of Nôtre-Dame-de-Grâce, a shrine much resorted to by pilgrim sailors, which is said to have been founded in 1034 by Robert the Magnificent of Normandy and rebuilt in 1606. The town has a tribunal and a chamber of commerce and a communal college. The port, which is protected from the west winds by the height known as the Côte de Grâce, consists of the tidal harbour and four floating basins—The West basin, dating from the 17th century, and the Centre, East and Carnot basins. A reservoir affords the means of sluicing the channel and supplying the basins. The surface available for vessels is about 27 acres. Numerous fishing and coasting vessels frequent the harbour. In 1907 there entered 375 vessels, of 133,872 tons, more than half this tonnage being British. The exports go mainly to England and include poultry, butter, eggs, cheese, chocolate, vegetables, fruit, seeds and purple ore. There is regular communication by steamer with Southampton. Timber from Scandinavia, English coal and artificial manures form the bulk of the imports. There are important saw-mills, as well as shipbuilding yards, manufactories of chemical manures and iron foundries.

Honfleur dates from the 11th century and is thus four or five hundred years older than its rival Havre, by which it was supplanted during the 18th century. During the Hundred Years’ War it was frequently taken and re-taken, the last occupation by the English ending in 1440. In 1562 the Protestant forces got possession of it only after a regular siege of the suburb of St Leonard; and though Henry IV. effected its capture in 1590 he had again to invest it in 1594 after all the rest of Normandy had submitted to his arms. In the earlier years of the 17th century Honfleur colonists founded Quebec, and Honfleur traders established factories in Java and Sumatra and a fishing establishment in Newfoundland.

HONG-KONG (properly Hiang-Kiang, the place of “sweet lagoons”), an important British island-possession, situated off the south-east coast of China, opposite the province of Kwang-tung, on the east side of the estuary of the Si-kiang, 38 m. E. of Macao and 75 S.E. of Canton, between 22° 9′ and 22° 1′ N., and 114° 5′ and 114° 18′ E. It is one of a small cluster named by the Portuguese “Ladrones” or Thieves, on account of the notorious habits of their old inhabitants. Extremely irregular in outline, it has an area of 29 sq. m., measuring 10½ m. in extreme length from N.E. to S.W., and varying in breadth from 2 to 5 m. A good military road about 22 m. long encircles the island. From the mainland it is separated by a narrow channel, which at Hong-Kong roads, between Victoria, the island capital), and Kowloon Point, is about 1 m. broad, and which narrows at Ly-ee-mun Pass to little over a ¼ m. The southern coast in particular is deeply indented; and there two bold peninsulas, extending for several miles into the sea, form two capacious natural harbours, namely, Deep Water Bay, with the village of Stanley to the east, and Tytam Bay, which has a safe, well-protected entrance showing a depth of 658 10 to 16 fathoms. An in-shore island on the west coast, called Aberdeen, or Taplishan, affords protection to the Shekpywan or Aberdeen harbour, an inlet provided with a granite graving dock, the caisson gate of which is 60 ft. wide, and the Hope dock, opened in 1867, with a length of 425 ft. and a depth of 24 ft. Opposite the same part of the coast, but nearly 2 m. distant, rises the largest of the surrounding islands, Lamma, whose conspicuous peak, Mount Stenhouse, attains a height of 1140 ft. and is a landmark for local navigation. On the northern shore of Hong-Kong there is a patent slip at East or Matheson Point, which is serviceable during the north-east monsoon, when sailing vessels frequently approach Victoria through the Ly-ee-mun Pass. The ordinary course for such vessels is from the westward, on which side they are sheltered by Green Island and Kellett Bank. There is good anchorage throughout the entire channel separating the island from the mainland, except in the Ly-ee-mun Pass, where the water is deep; the best anchorage is in Hong-Kong roads, in front of Victoria, where, over good holding ground, the depth is 5 to 9 fathoms. The inner anchorage of Victoria Bay, about ½ m. off shore and out of the strength of the tide, is 6 to 7 fathoms. Victoria, the seat of government and of trade, is the chief centre of population, but a tract on the mainland is covered with public buildings and villa residences. Practically an outlying suburb of Victoria, Kowloon or (Nine Dragons) is free from the extreme heat of the capital, being exposed to the south-west monsoon. Numerous villas have also been erected along the beautiful western coast of the island, while Stanley, in the south, is favoured as a watering-place.

The island is mountainous throughout, the low granite ridges, parted by bleak, tortuous valleys, leaving in some places a narrow strip of level coast-land, and in others overhanging the sea in lofty precipices. From the sea, and especially from the magnificent harbour which faces the capital, the general aspect of Hong-Kong is one of singular beauty. Inland the prospect is wild, dreary and monotonous. The hills have a painfully bare appearance from the want of trees. The streams, which are plentiful, are traced through the uplands and glens by a line of straggling brushwood and rank herbage. Nowhere is the eye relieved by the evidences of cultivation or fertility. The hills, which are mainly composed of granite, serpentine and syenite, rise in irregular masses to considerable heights, the loftiest point, Victoria Peak, reaching an altitude of 1825 ft. The Peak lies immediately to the south-west of the capital, in the extreme north-west corner of the island, and is used as a station for signalling the approach of vessels. Patches of land, chiefly around the coast, have been laid under rice, sweet potatoes and yams, but the island is hardly able to raise a home-supply of vegetables. The mango, lichen, pear and orange are indigenous, and several fruits and esculents have been introduced. One of the chief products is building-stone, which is quarried by the Chinese. The animals are few, comprising a land tortoise, the armadillo, a species of boa, several poisonous snakes and some woodcock. The public works suffer from the ravages of white ants. Water everywhere abounds, and is supplied to the shipping by means of tanks.

Under the Peking Treaty of 1860 the peninsula of Kowloon (about 5 m. in area) was added to Hong-Kong. The population is about 27,000. There are several docks and warehouses, and manufactures are being developed. Mainland territory. Granite is quarried in the peninsula. An agreement was entered into in 1898 whereby China leased to Great Britain for ninety-nine years the territory behind Kowloon peninsula up to a line drawn from Mirs Bay to Deep Bay and the adjoining islands, including Lantao. The new district, which extends to 376 sq. m. in area, is mountainous, with extensive cultivated valleys of great fertility, and the coastline is deeply indented by bays. The alluvial soil of the valleys yields two crops of rice in the year. Sugar-cane, indigo, hemp, peanuts, potatoes of different varieties, yam, taro, beans, sesamum, pumpkins and vegetables of all kinds are also grown. The mineral resources are as yet unknown. The population is estimated at about 100,000. It consists of Puntis (or Cantonese), Hakkas (“strangers”) and Tankas. The Puntis are agricultural and inhabit the valleys, and they make excellent traders. The Hakkas are a hardy and frugal race, belonging mainly to the hill districts. The Tankas are the boat people or floating population. In the government of the new territory the existing organization is as far as possible utilized.

Hong-Kong or Victoria harbour constantly presents an animated appearance, as many as 240 guns having been fired as salutes in a single day. Its approaches are strongly fortified. The steaming distance from Singapore is Victoria. 1520 m. Victoria, the capital, often spoken of as Hong-Kong (population over 166,000, of whom about 6000 are European or American), stretches for about 4 m. along the north coast. Its breadth varies from ½ m. in the central portions to 200 or 300 yds. in the eastern and western portions. The town is built in three layers. The “Praya” or esplanade, 50 ft. wide, is given up to shipping. The Praya reclamation scheme provided for the extension of the land frontage of 250 ft. and a depth of 20 ft. at all states of the tide. A further extension of the naval dockyard was begun in 1902, and a new commercial pier was opened in 1900. The main commercial street runs inland parallel with the Praya. Beyond the commercial portion, on each side, lie the Chinese quarters, wherein there is a closely packed population. In 1888, 1600 people were living in the space of a single acre, and over 100,000 were believed to be living within an area not exceeding ½ m.; and the overcrowding does not tend to diminish, for in one district, in 1900, it was estimated that there were at the rate of 640,000 persons on the sq. m. The average, however, for the whole of the city is 126 per acre, or 80,640 per sq. m. The second stratum of the town lies ten minutes’ climb up the side of the island. Government house and other public buildings are in this quarter. There abound “beautifully laid out gardens, public and private, and solidly constructed roads, some of them bordered with bamboos and other delicately-fronded trees, and fringed with the luxuriant growth of semi-tropical vegetation.” Finally, the third layer, known as “the Peak,” and reached by a cable tramway, is dotted over with private houses and bungalows, the summer health resort of those who can afford them; here a new residence for the governor was begun in 1900. Excellent water is supplied to the town from the Pokfolum and Tytam reservoirs, the former containing 68 million gallons, the latter 390 millions.

HONITON, a market town and municipal borough in the Honiton parliamentary division of Devonshire, England, pleasantly situated on rising ground on the left bank of the Otter, 16½ m. E.N.E. of Exeter by the London & South-Western railway. Pop. (1901) 3271. The town consists of one wide street, down which a stream of water runs, extending for about 1 m., and crossed at right angles by a lesser street. The restored church of St Michael, formerly a parish church, but standing on a hill about ½ m. from the town, was built by Courtenay, bishop of Exeter, about 1482. It retains a curiously carved screen, and the black marble tomb of Queen Elizabeth’s physician, Marwood, who attained the age of 105. Allhallows Grammar School, founded in 1614, was enlarged in 1893; St Margaret’s hospital, founded as a lazar-house in the 14th century, is converted into almshouses. Honiton is famous for its lace industry, established by refugees from Flanders under Queen Elizabeth. The delicate fabric made by hand on the pillow was long in demand; its sale was, however, greatly diminished by the competition of cheaper machine-made goods, and a school of lace-making was opened to promote its recovery. The town possesses breweries, tanneries, malthouses, flour-mills, saw-mills, brick and tile works, potteries and an iron foundry; its trade in butter is considerable. It is governed by a mayor, 6 aldermen and 18 councillors. Area, 3134 acres.

Honiton (Honetona, Huneton) is situated on the British Icknield Street, and was probably the site of an early settlement, but it does not appear in history before the Domesday Survey, when it was a considerable manor, held by Drew (Drogo) under the count of Mortain, who had succeeded Elmer the Saxon, with a subject population of 33, a flock of 80 sheep, a mill and 2 salt-workers. The borough was founded before 1217 by William de Vernon, earl of Devon, whose ancestor Richard de Redvers had received the manor from Henry I. In the 14th century it passed to the Courtenays, and in 1698 Sir William Courtenay was confirmed in the right of holding court leet, view of frank-pledge and the nomination of a portreeve, these privileges having been surrendered to James II. The borough was represented by two members in parliament in 1300 and 1311, and then not again till 1640, from which date it returned two members until disfranchised by the act of 1868, the returning officer being the portreeve, who was also the chief magistrate of the borough until its incorporation by charter of 1846. In 1221 Falkes de Breauté, then custodian of the borough, rendered a palfrey for holding a three days’ fair at the feast of All Saints, transferred in 1247 to the feast of St Margaret, and still held under that grant. A great market for corn and other produce is still held on Saturday by prescription. The wool manufacture flourished at Honiton in the reign of Henry VII., and it is said to have been the first town at which serges were made, but the industry entirely declined during the 19th century. The lace manufacture was introduced by Flemish refugees, and was flourishing in the reign of Charles I.

HONNEF, a town and climatic health resort of Germany, beautifully situated on the right bank of the Rhine, at the foot of the Siebengebirge, 8 m. above Bonn by the railway Cologne-Königswinter-Horchheim. Pop. (1905) 6183. It has an Evangelical and a Roman Catholic church, a sanatorium for consumptives, and does a considerable trade in wine. The town is surrounded by vineyards and orchards, and has annually a large number of visitors. A mineral spring called the Drachenquelle is used both for drinking and bathing.

HONOLULU, a city, port of entry, and the capital of Hawaii, situated in the “city and county of Honolulu,” on the S. coast of the island of Oahu, at the mouth of Nuuanu Valley, 2100 m. S.W. of San Francisco. Pop. (1890) 22,907; (1900) 39,306, of whom 24,746 were males, 14,560 were females; about 10,000 were Hawaiians, 15,000 Asiatics, and 5000 Portuguese; (1910) 52,183. Honolulu is served by the Oahu railway, by electric lines to the principal suburbs, and by steamship lines to San Francisco, Seattle, Vancouver, Manila, Salina Cruz (Mexico), Victoria, Sydney, and Chinese and Japanese ports. The business section and the older residence quarters occupy low ground, but many of the newer residences are built on the sides of neighbouring hills and mountains, of which there are several from 500 to 2000 ft. in height. The Punch Bowl (behind the city), a hill rising about 500 ft. above the sea, Diamond Head, a crater about 760 ft. in height, 4 m. to the S.E., and the Nuuanu Pali, a lofty and picturesque precipice 6 m. up the valley, are especially known for their commanding views. In front of the city is the small harbour, well protected from all winds except those from the S.; in and after 1892 the Hawaiian government 660 deepened its entrance from 21 ft. to 30 ft. Six miles to the W. is the much more spacious Pearl Harbor (a U.S. Naval Station), the bar at the entrance of which was removed (1903) by the U.S. government. Pearl Harbor and the harbour of Honolulu are the only safe ports in the archipelago. The streets of Honolulu are wide, and are macadamized with crushed or broken lava. The business houses are mostly of brick or stone, and range from two to six storeys in height. About most of the residences there are many tropical trees, flowering shrubs and plants. Wood is the most common material of which the residences are built; a large portion of these residences are one-storey cottages; broad verandahs are common; and of the more pretentious residences the lanai, a semi-outdoor drawing-room with conservatories adjoining, is a notable feature. Throughout the city there is a marked absence of poverty and squalor. There are good hotels in the city and its suburbs. The government buildings are extensive and have a pleasing appearance; that of the executive, in a beautiful park, was formerly the royal palace and still contains many relics of royalty. Facing the judiciary building is an heroic statue in bronze of Kamehameha the Great. About 2 m. W. of the business centre of the city is the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, a fine stone building on a commanding site, and containing a large collection of Hawaiian and Polynesian relics and curios, especially Hawaiian feather-work, and notable collections of fish and of Hawaiian land shells and birds. Four miles S.E. of the business centre, at the foot of Diamond Head, is Waikiki sea-beach, noted for its surf-riding, boating and bathing, and Kapiolani Park, a pleasure resort, near which is a famous aquarium of tropical fishes. Honolulu has other parks, a fine Botanical Garden, created by the Bureau of Agriculture, several public squares, several hospitals, a maternity home, the Lunalilo Home for aged Hawaiians, an asylum for the insane, several schools of high rank both public and private—notably Oahu College on the E. edge of the city, first founded as a school for the children of missionaries in 1841; the Honolulu High School, founded in 1833 as the Oahu Charity School, to teach English to the half whites; the Royal School, which was founded in 1840 for the sons of chiefs; and the Normal School, housed in what was in 1906 the most expensive building on the island of Oahu—a library containing about 14,000 volumes and the collections of the Hawaiian Historical Society, a number of benevolent, literary, social and political societies, and an art league, and is the see of both an Anglican and a Roman Catholic bishop. In 1907 the Pacific Scientific Institution for the advancement of scientific knowledge of the Pacific, its islands and their people, was established here. Among the clubs of the city are the Pacific Club, founded in 1853 as the British Club; the Scottish Thistle Club (1891), of which Robert Louis Stevenson was a member; the Hawaii Yacht Club, and the Polo, Country and University Clubs. There are various journals and periodicals, five languages being represented. The chief industries are the manufacture of machinery (especially machinery for sugar-refineries) and carriages, rice-milling and ship-building. Honolulu’s total exports for the fiscal year 1908 were valued at $42,238,455, and its imports at $19,985,724. There is a privately owned electric street car service in the city. The water-works and electric-lighting plant are owned and operated by the Territorial government, and to the plentiful water-supply is partly due the luxuriant vegetation of the city. Honolulu’s safe harbour, discovered in 1794, made it a place of resort for vessels (especially whalers) and traders from the beginning of the 19th century. Kamehameha I. (the Great) lived here from 1803 until 1811. In 1816 was built a fort which stood until 1857. In 1820 the city became the principal residence of the sovereign and soon afterwards of foreign consuls, and thus practically the seat of government. In 1907 an act was passed by which the former county of Oahu, including the island of Oahu and the small islands adjacent, was made a municipal corporation under the name of the “city and county of Honolulu”; this act came into effect on the 1st of January 1909.

HONORIUS, the name of four popes and one antipope (Honorius II; i.e. 2 below).

1. Honorius I., pope from 625 to 638, was of a noble Roman family, his father Petronius having been consul. He was very active in carrying on the work of Gregory the Great, especially in England; Bede (Hist. Eccl. ii. 17) gives a letter of his to King Edwin of Northumbria, in which he admonishes him diligently to study Gregory’s writings; and it was at Edwin’s request that Honorius conferred the pallium on the bishops of Canterbury and York (ib. ii. 18). He also admonished the Irish for not following the custom of the Catholic Church in the celebration of Easter (ib. ii. 19), and commissioned Birinus to preach Christianity in Wessex (ib. iii. 7). It is, however, in connexion with the Monothelite heresy that Honorius is most remembered, his attitude in this matter having acquired fresh importance during the controversy raised by the promulgation of the dogma of papal infallibility in 1870. In his efforts to consolidate the papal power in Italy, Honorius had been hampered by the schism of “the three chapters” in Istria and Venetia, a schism that was ended by the deposition in 628 of the schismatic patriarch Fortunatus of Aquileia-Grado and the elevation of a Roman sub-deacon to the patriarchate. It is suggested that help rendered to him in this matter by the emperor Heraclius, or by the Greek exarch, may have inclined the pope to take the emperor’s side in the Monothelite controversy, which broke out shortly afterwards in consequence of the formula proposed by the emperor with a view to reconciling the Monophysites and the Catholics. However that may be, he joined the patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria in supporting the doctrine of “one will” in Christ, and expounded this view forcibly, if somewhat obscurely, in two letters to the patriarch Sergius (Epist. 4 and 5 in Migne, Patrologia. Ser. Lat. lxxx. 470, 474). For this he was, more than forty years after his death (October 638), anathematized by name along with the Monothelite heretics by the council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 681; and this condemnation was subsequently confirmed by more than one pope, particularly by Leo II. See Hefele, Die Irrlehre des Honorius u. die vaticanische Lehre der Unfehlbarkeit (1871), who, however, modified his view in his Conciliengeschichte (1877). Honorius I. was succeeded by Severinus.

2. Honorius II. (d. 1072), antipope, was the name taken by Peter Cadalus, who was born at Verona and became bishop of Parma in 1046. After the death of Pope Nicholas II. in July 1061 he was chosen pope by some German and Lombard bishops at Basel in opposition to Alexander II., who had been elected by the party led by Hildebrand, afterwards Pope Gregory VII. Taking the name of Honorius II., Cadalus was thus the representative of those who were opposed to reforms in the Church. Early in 1062 he advanced towards Rome, and though his supporters defeated the forces of his rival outside the city, he soon returned to Parma to await the decision of the advisers of the young German king, Henry IV., whose mother Agnes had supported his election. About this time, however, Agnes was deprived of her power, and the chief authority in Germany passed to Anno, archbishop of Cologne, who was hostile to Cadalus. Under these circumstances the antipope again marched towards Rome in 1063 and entered the city, but was soon forced to take refuge in the castle of St Angelo. The ensuing war between the rival popes lasted for about a year, and then Cadalus left Rome as a fugitive. Refusing to attend a council held at Mantua in May 1064, he was deposed, and he died in 1072, without having abandoned his claim to the papal chair.

3. Honorius II. (Lamberto Scannabecchi), pope from the 15th of December 1124 to the 13th of February 1130, a native of Fagnano near Imola, of considerable learning and great religious zeal, successively archdeacon at Bologna, cardinal-priest of Sta Prassede under Urban II., cardinal-bishop of Ostia and Velletri under Paschal II., shared the exile of Gelasius II. 661 in France, and helped Calixtus II. to conclude the Concordat of Worms (1122), which settled the investiture contest. He owed his election in large measure to force employed by the Frangipani, but was consecrated with general consent on the 21st of December 1124. By means of a close alliance with that powerful family, he was enabled to maintain peace at Rome, and the death of Emperor Henry V. (1125) further strengthened the papal position. He recognized the Saxon Lothair III. as king of the Romans and later as emperor, and excommunicated his rival, Conrad of Hohenstaufen. He sanctioned the Praemonstratensian order and that of the Knights Templars. He excommunicated Count William of Normandy for marriage in prohibited degree; brought to an end, through the influence of Bernard of Clairvaux, the struggle with Louis VI. of France; and arranged with Henry I. for the reception of papal legates in England. He laid claim as feudal overlord to the Norman possessions in southern Italy (July 1127), and excommunicated the claimant, Duke Roger of Sicily, but was unable to prevent the foundation of the Neapolitan monarchy, for Duke Roger defeated the papal army and forced recognition in August 1128. Honorius appealed to Lothair for assistance, but died before it arrived. His successor was Innocent II.

4. Honorius III. (Cencio Savelli), pope from the 18th of July 1216 to the 18th of March 1227, a highly-educated and pious Roman, successively canon of Sta Maria Maggiore, cardinal-deacon of Sta Lucia in Silice, vice-chancellor, chamberlain and cardinal-priest of Sti Giovanni e Paolo, was the successor of Innocent III. He made peace with Frederick II., in accordance with which the emperor was crowned with his wife Constance in St Peter’s on the 22nd of November 1220, and swore to accord full liberty to the church and to undertake a crusade. Honorius was eager to carry out the decrees of the Lateran Council of 1215 against the Albigenses and to further the crusade proclaimed by his predecessor. He crowned Peter of Courtenay emperor of Byzantium in April 1217; espoused the cause of the young Henry III. of England against the barons; accepted the Isle of Man as a perpetual fief; arbitrated differences between Philip II. of France and James of Aragon; and made special ecclesiastical regulations for the Scandinavian countries. He sanctioned the Dominican order (22nd of November 1216), making St Dominic papal major-domo in 1218; approved the Franciscan order by bull of the 29th of November 1223; and authorized many of the tertiary orders. He maintained, on the whole, a tranquil rule at Rome; but Frederick II.’s refusal to interrupt his reforms in Sicily in order to go on the crusade gave the pope much trouble. Honorius died in 1227, before the emperor had fulfilled his oath, and was succeeded by Gregory IX.

5. Honorius IV. (Jacopo Savelli), pope from the 2nd of April 1285 to the 3rd of April 1287, a member of a prominent Roman family and grand-nephew of Honorius III., had studied at the university of Paris, been made cardinal-deacon of Sta Maria in Cosmedin, and succeeded Martin IV. Though aged and so crippled that he could not stand alone he displayed remarkable energy as pope. He maintained peace in the states of the Church and friendly relations with Rudolph of Habsburg, and his policy in the Sicilian question was more liberal than that of his predecessor. He showed special favours to the mendicant orders and formally sanctioned the Carmelites and Augustinian Eremites. He was the first pope to employ the great banking houses in northern Italy for the collection of papal dues. He died at Rome and was succeeded by Nicholas IV.

HONORIUS, FLAVIUS (384-423), son of Theodosius I., ascended the throne as “emperor of the West” in 395. The history of the first thirteen years of the reign of Honorius is inseparably connected with the name of Stilicho (q.v.), his guardian and father-in-law. During this period the revolt of the African prince Gildo was suppressed (398); Italy was successfully defended against Alaric, who was defeated at Pollentia (402) and Verona (403); and the barbarian hordes under the Goth Radagaisus were destroyed (406). After the downfall and murder of Stilicho (408), the result of palace intrigues, the emperor was under the control of incompetent favourites. In the same year Rome was besieged, and in 410, for the second time in its history, taken and sacked by Alaric, who for a short time set up the city prefect Attalus as a rival emperor, but soon deposed him as incapable. Alaric died in the same year, and in 412 Honorius concluded peace with his brother-in-law and successor, Ataulphus (Adolphus), who married the emperor’s sister Placidia and removed with his troops to southern Gaul. A number of usurpers laid claim to the throne, the most important of whom was Constantine. In 409 Britain and Armorica declared their independence, which was confirmed by Honorius himself, and were thus practically lost to the empire. Honorius was one of the feeblest emperors who ever occupied the throne, and the dismemberment of the West was only temporarily averted by the efforts of Stilicho, and, later, of Constantius, a capable general who overthrew the usurpers and was rewarded with a share in the government. It was only as a supporter of the orthodox church and persecutor of the heathen that Honorius displayed any energy. In 399 the exercise of the pagan cult was prohibited, and the revenues of the temples, which were to be appropriated for the use of the public or pulled down, were confiscated to defray the expenses of the army. Honorius was equally severe on heretics, such as the Donatists and Manichaeans. He is also to be credited with the abolition of the gladiatorial shows in 404 (although there is said to be evidence of their existence later), a reduction of the taxes, improvements in criminal law, and the reorganization of the defensores civitatum, municipal officers whose duty it was to defend the rights of the people and set forth their grievances. Honorius at first established his court at Milan, but, on the 662 report of the invasion of Italy, fled to Ravenna, where he resided till his death on the 27th of August 423.

HONOUR (Lat. honos or honor, honoris; in English the word was spelled with or without the u indifferently until the 17th century, but during the 18th century it became fashionable to spell the word “honor”; Johnson’s and Webster’s Dictionaries stereotyped the English and American spellings respectively), a term which may be defined as respect, esteem or deference paid to, or received by, a person in consideration of his character, worth or position; also the state or condition of the person exciting the feeling or expression of such esteem; particularly a high personal character coupled with conduct in accordance with or controlled by a nice sense of what is right and true and due to the position so held. Further, the word is commonly used of the dignities, distinctions or titles, granted as a mark of such esteem or as a reward for services or merit, and quite generally of the credit or renown conferred by a person or thing on the country, town or particular society to which he or it belongs. The standard of conduct may be laid down not only by a scrupulous sense of what is due to lofty personal character but also by the conventional usages of society, hence it is that debts which cannot be legally enforced, such as gambling debts, are called “debts of honour.” Similarly in the middle ages and later, courts, known as “courts of honour,” sat to decide questions such as precedence, disputes as to coat armour &c. (see Chivalry); such courts, chiefly military, are found in countries where duelling has not fallen into desuetude (see Duel). In the British House of Lords, when the peers sit to try another peer on a criminal charge or at an impeachment, on the question being put whether the accused be guilty or not, each peer, rising in his place in turn, lays his right hand on his breast and returns his verdict “upon my honour.” As a title of address, “his honour” or “your honour” is applied in the United States of America to all judges, in the United Kingdom only to county court judges; in university or other examinations, those who have won particular distinction, or have undergone with success an examination of a standard higher than that required for a “pass” degree, are said to have passed “with honours,” or an “honours” examination or to have taken an “honours degree.” In many games of cards the ace, king, queen and knave of trumps are the “honours.”

Funeral or military honours are paid to a dead officer or soldier. The usual features of such a burial are as follows: the coffin is carried on a gun-carriage and attended by troops; it is covered by the national flag, on which rests the soldier’s head-dress, sword or bayonet; if the deceased had been a mounted soldier, his charger follows with the boots reversed in the stirrups; three volleys are fired over the grave after committal, and “last post” or another call is sounded on the bugles or a roll on the drums is given.

A military force is said to be accorded “the honours of war” when, after a specially honourable defence, it has surrendered its post, and is permitted, by the terms of capitulation to march out with colours flying, bands playing, bayonets fixed, &c. and retaining possession of the field artillery, horses, arms and baggage. The force remains free to act as combatants for the remainder of the war, without waiting for exchange or being considered as prisoners. Usually some point is named to which the surrendering troops must be conveyed before recommencing hostilities; thus, during the Peninsular War, at the Convention of Cintra 1808, the French army under Junot was conveyed to France by British transports before being free to rejoin the combatant troops in the Peninsula. By far the most usual case of the granting of the “honours of war” is in connexion with the surrender of a fortress. Of historic examples may be mentioned the surrender of Lille by Marshal Boufflers to Prince Eugene in 1708, that of Huningen by General Joseph Barbanègre (1772-1830) to the Austrians in 1815, and that of Belfort by Colonel P. Denfert Rochereau to the Germans in 1871.

In English law the term “honour” is used of a seigniory of several manors held under one baron or lord paramount. The formation of such lordships dates back to the Anglo-Saxon period, when jurisdiction of sac and soc was frequently given in the case of a group of estates lying close together. The system was encouraged by the Norman lords, as tending to strengthen the principles of feudal law, but the legislation of Henry II., which increased the power of the central administration, undoubtedly tended to discourage the creation of new honours. Frequently, they escheated to the crown, retaining their corporate existence and their jurisdictions; they then either remained in the possession of the king or were regranted, diminished in extent. Although an honour contained several manors, one court day was held for all, but the various manors retained their separate organizations, having their “quasi several and distinct courts.”

HONOURABLE (Fr. honorable, from Lat. honorabilis, worthy of honour), a style or title of honour common to the United Kingdom, the British colonies and the United States of America. The terms honorabilis and honorabilitas were in use in the middle ages rather as a form of politeness than as a stereotyped style; and though Gibbon assimilates the late Roman title of clarissimus to “honourable,” as applied to the lowest of the three grades of rank in the imperial hierarchy, the analogy was good even in his day only in so far as both styles were applicable to those who belonged to the less exalted ranks of the titled classes, for the title “honourable” was not definitely confined to certain classes until later. As a formal address it is found frequently in the Paston Letters (15th century), but used loosely and interchangeable with other styles; thus John, Viscount Beaumont, is addressed alternately as “my worshipful and reverent Lord” (ii. 88, ed. 1904) and as “my right honorabull Lord” (ii. 118), while John Paston, a plain esquire, is “my right honurabyll maister.” More than two centuries later Selden, in his Titles of Honor (1672), does not include “honourable” among the courtesy titles given to the children of peers. The style was, in fact, used extremely loosely till well on into the 18th century. Thus we find in the registers of Westminster Abbey records of the burial (in 1710) of “The Hon. George Churchill, Esq.,” who was only a son of Sir Winston Churchill, and of “The Hon. Sir William Godolphin,” who had only been created a baronet; in 1717 was buried “The Hon. Colonel Henry Cornwall,” who was only an esquire and the son of one; in 1743 a rear-admiral was buried as “The Hon. Sir John Jennings, Kt.”; in 1746 “The Hon. Major-General Lowther,” whose father was only a Dublin merchant; and finally, in 1747, “The Hon. Lieutenant-General Guest,” who is said to have begun life as an hostler. From this time onwards the style of “honourable” tended to become more narrowly applied; but the whole matter is full of obscurity and contradictions. The baronets, for instance, allege that they were usually styled “the honourable” until the end of the 18th century, and in 1835 they petitioned for the style as a prefix to their names. The Heralds’ College officially reported on the petition (31st of October 1835) that the evidence did not prove the right of baronets to the style, and that its use “has been no more warranted by authority than when the same style has been applied to Field Officers in the Army and others.” They added that “the style of the Honourable is given to the Judges and to the Barons of the Exchequer with others because by the Decree of 10 James I., for settling the place and precedence of the Baronets, the Judges and Barons of the Exchequer were declared to have place and precedence before the younger sons of Viscounts and Barons.” This seems to make the style a consequence of the precedence; yet from the examples above given it is clear that it was applied, e.g. in the case of field officers, where no question of precedence arose. It is not, indeed, until 1874 that we have any evidence of an authoritative limitation of the title. In this year the wives of lords of appeal, life peers, were granted style and precedence as baronesses; but it was provided that their children were not “to assume or use 663 the prefix of Honourable, or to be entitled to the style, rank or precedence of the children of a Baron.” In 1898, however, this was revoked, and it was ordained “that such children shall have and enjoy on all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of hereditary Barons together with the rank and precedence, &c.” By these acts of the Crown the prefix of “honourable” would seem to have been restricted and stereotyped as a definite title of honour; yet in legal documents the sons of peers are still styled merely “esquire,” with the addition of “commonly called, &c.” This latter fact points to the time when the prefix “honourable” was a mark of deference paid by others rather than a style assumed by right, and relics of this doubtless survive in the United Kingdom in the conventions by which an “honourable” does not use the title on his visiting card and is not announced as such.

As to the actual use and social significance of the style, the practice in the United Kingdom differs considerably from that in the colonies or in the United States. In the United Kingdom marquesses are “most honourable”; earls, viscounts and barons “right honourable,” a style also borne by all privy councillors, including the lord mayor of London and lord provost of Edinburgh during office. The title of “honourable” is in the United Kingdom, except by special licence of the Crown (e.g. in the case of retired colonial or Indian officials), mainly confined to the sons and daughters of peers, and is the common style of the younger sons of earls and of the children of viscounts, barons and legal life peers. The eldest sons of dukes, marquesses and earls bear “by courtesy” their father’s second title, the younger sons of dukes and marquesses having the courtesy title Lord prefixed to their Christian name; while the daughters of dukes, marquesses and earls are styled Lady. The title of “honourable” is also given to all present or past maids of honour, and to the judges of the high court being lords justices or lords of appeal (who are “right honourable”). A county court judge is, however, “his honour.” The epithet is also applied to the House of Commons as a body and to individual members during debate (“the honourable member for X.”). Certain other corporate bodies have, by tradition or grant, the right to bear the style; e.g. the Honourable Irish Society, the Inns of Court (Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, &c.) and the Honourable Artillery Company; the East India Company also had the prefix “honourable.” The style may not be assumed by corporate bodies at will, as was proved, in the case of the Society of Baronets, whose original style of “Honourable” Society was dropped by command.

In the British colonies the title “honourable” is given to members of the executive and legislative bodies, to judges, &c., during their term of service. It is sometimes retained by royal licence after a certain number of years’ service.

In the United States of America the title is very widespread, being commonly given to any one who holds or has held any office of importance in state or nation, more particularly to members of Congress or of the state legislatures, judges, justices, and certain other judicial and executive officials. Popular amenity even sometimes extends the title to holders of quite humble government appointments, and consoles with it the defeated candidates for a post. See also the article Precedence.

HONTHEIM, JOHANN NIKOLAUS VON (1701-1790), German historian and theologian, was born on the 27th of January 1701 at Trier. He belonged to a noble family which had been for many generations connected with the court and diocese of the archbishop-electors, his father, Kaspar von Hontheim, being receiver-general of the archdiocese. At the age of twelve young Hontheim was given by his maternal uncle, Hugo Friedrich von Anethan, canon of the collegiate church of St Simeon (which at that time still occupied the Roman Porta Nigra at Trier), a prebend in his church, and on the 13th of May 1713 he received the tonsure. He was educated by the Jesuits at Trier and at the universities of Trier, Louvain and Leiden, taking his degree of doctor of laws at Trier in 1724. During the following years he travelled in various European countries, spending some time at the German College in Rome; in 1728 he was ordained priest and, formally admitted to the chapter of St Simeon in 1732, he became a professor at the university of Trier. In 1738 he went to Coblenz as official to the archbishop-elector. In this capacity he had plentiful opportunity of studying the effect of the interference of the Roman Curia in the internal affairs of the Empire, notably in the negotiations that preceded the elections of the emperors Charles VII. and Francis I. in which Hontheim took part as assistant to the electoral ambassador. It appears that it was the extreme claims of the papal nuncio on these occasions and his interference in the affairs of the electoral college that first suggested to Hontheim that critical examination of the basis of the papal pretensions, the results of which he afterwards published to the world under the pseudonym of “Febronius.” In 1747, broken down by overwork, he resigned his position as official and retired to St Simeon’s, of which he was elected dean in the following year. In May 1748 he was appointed by the archbishop-elector Francis George (von Schönborn) as his suffragan, being consecrated at Mainz, in February 1749, under the title of bishop of Myriophiri in partibus. The archbishop of Trier was practically a great secular prince, and upon Hontheim as suffragan and vicar-general fell the whole spiritual administration of the diocese; this work, in addition to that of pro-chancellor of the university, he carried on single-handed until 1778, when Jean Marie Cuohot d’Herbain was appointed his coadjutor. On the 21st of April 1779 he resigned the deanery of St Simeon’s on the ground of old age. He died on the 2nd of September 1790 at his chateau at Montquentin near Orval, an estate which he had purchased. He was buried at first in St Simeon’s; but the church was ruined by the French during the revolutionary wars and never restored, and in 1803 the body of Hontheim was transferred to that of St Gervasius.

As a historian Hontheim’s reputation rests on his contributions to the history of Trier. He had, during the period of his activity as official at Coblenz, found time to collect a vast mass of printed and MS. material which he afterwards embodied in three works on the history of Trier. Of these the Historia Trevirensis diplomatica et pragmatica was published in 3 vols. folio in 1750, the Prodromus historiae Trevirensis in 2 vols. in 1757. They give, besides a history of Trier and its constitution, a large number of documents and references to published authorities. A third work, the Historiae scriptorum et monumentarum Trevirensis amplissima collectio, remains in MS. at the city library of Trier. These books, the result of an enormous labour in collation and selection in very unfavourable circumstances, entitle Hontheim to the fame of a pioneer in modern historical methods. It is, however, as “Febronius” that Hontheim is best remembered. The character and effect of his book on “the state of the Church and the lawful power of the Roman pontiff” is described elsewhere (see Febronianism). The author of the book was known at Rome almost as soon as it was published; but it was not till some years afterwards (1778) that he was called on to retract. The terrors of the spiritual power were reinforced by a threat of the archbishop-elector to deprive not only him but all his relations of their offices, and Hontheim, after much wavering and correspondence, signed a submission which was accepted at Rome as satisfactory, though he still refused to admit, as demanded, ut proinde merito monarchicum ecclesiae regimen a catholicis doctoribus appelletur. The removal of the censure followed (1781) when Hontheim published at Frankfort what purported to be a proof that his submission had been made of his own free will (Justini Febronii acti commentarius in suam retractationem, &c.). This book, however, which carefully avoided all the most burning questions, rather tended to show—as indeed his correspondence proves—that Hontheim had not essentially shifted his standpoint. But Rome left him thenceforth in peace.

HONTHORST, GERARD VAN (1590-1656), Dutch painter of Utrecht, was brought up at the school of Bloemart, who 664 exchanged the style of the Franckens for that of the pseudo-Italians at the beginning of the 16th century. Infected thus early with a mania which came to be very general in Holland, Honthorst went to Italy, where he copied the naturalism and eccentricities of Michelangelo da Caravaggio. Home again about 1614, after acquiring a considerable practice in Rome, he set up a school at Utrecht which flourished exceedingly; and he soon became so fashionable that Sir Dudley Carleton, then English envoy at the Hague, recommended his works to the earl of Arundel and Lord Dorchester. At the same time the queen of Bohemia, sister of Charles I. and electress palatine, being an exile in Holland, gave him her countenance and asked him to teach her children drawing; and Honthorst, thus approved and courted, became known to Charles I., who invited him to England. There he painted several portraits, and a vast allegory, now at Hampton Court, of Charles and his queen as Diana and Apollo in the clouds receiving the duke of Buckingham as Mercury and guardian of the king of Bohemia’s children. Charles I., whose taste was flattered alike by the energy of Rubens and the elegance of Van Dyck, was thus first captivated by the fanciful mediocrity of Honthorst, who though a poor executant had luckily for himself caught, as Lord Arundel said, “much of the manner of Caravaggio’s colouring, then so much esteemed at Rome.” It was his habit to transmute every subject into a night scene, from the Nativity, for which there was warrant in the example of Correggio, to the penitence of the Magdalen, for which there was no warrant at all. But unhappily this caprice, though “sublime in Allegri and Rembrandt,” was but a phantasm in the hands of Honthorst, whose prosaic pencil was not capable of more than vulgar utterances, and art gained little from the repetition of these quaint vagaries. Sandrart gave the measure of Honthorst’s popularity at this period when he says that he had as many as twenty apprentices at one time, each of whom paid him a fee of 100 florins a year. In 1623 he was president of his gild at Utrecht. After that he went to England, returning to settle anew at Utrecht, where he married. His position amongst artists was acknowledged to be important, and in 1626 he received a visit from Rubens, whom he painted as the honest man sought for and found by Diogenes Honthorst. In his home at Utrecht Honthorst succeeded in preserving the support of the English monarch, for whom he finished in 1631 a large picture of the king and queen of Bohemia “and all their children.” For Lord Dorchester about the same period he completed some illustrations of the Odyssey; for the king of Denmark he composed incidents of Danish history, of which one example remains in the gallery of Copenhagen. In the course of a large practice he had painted many likenesses—Charles I. and his queen, the duke of Buckingham, and the king and queen of Bohemia. He now became court painter to the princess of Orange, settled (1637) at the Hague, and painted in succession at the Castle of Ryswick and the House in the Wood. The time not consumed in producing pictures was devoted to portraits. Even now his works are very numerous, and amply represented in English and Continental galleries. His most attractive pieces are those in which he cultivates the style of Caravaggio, those, namely, which represent taverns, with players, singers and eaters. He shows great skill in reproducing scenes illuminated by a single candle. But he seems to have studied too much in dark rooms, where the subtleties of flesh colour are lost in the dusky smoothness and uniform redness of tints procurable from farthing dips. Of great interest still, though rather sharp in outline and hard in modelling, are his portraits of the Duke of Buckingham and Family (Hampton Court), the King and Queen of Bohemia (Hanover and Combe Abbey), Mary de Medici (Amsterdam town-hall), 1628, the Stadtholders and their Wives (Amsterdam and Hague), Charles Louis and Rupert, Charles I.’s nephews (Louvre, St Petersburg, Combe Abbey and Willin), and Lord Craven (National Portrait Gallery). His early form may be judged by a Lute-player (1614) at the Louvre, the Martyrdom of St John in S. M. della Scala at Rome, or the Liberation of Peter in the Berlin Museum; his latest style is that of the House in the Wood (1648), where he appears to disadvantage by the side of Jordaens and others.

Honthorst was succeeded by his brother William, born at Utrecht in 1604, who died, it is said, in 1666. He lived chiefly in his native place, temporarily at Berlin. But he has left little behind except a portrait at Amsterdam, and likenesses in the Berlin Museum of William and Mary of England.

HOOCH, PIETER DE (1629-?1678), Dutch painter, was born in 1629, and died in Amsterdam probably shortly after 1677. He was a native of Rotterdam, and wandered early to Haarlem and the Hague. In 1654 we find him again at Rotterdam, where in that year he married a girl of Delft, Jannetje van der Burch. From 1655 to 1657 he was a member of the painter’s gild of Delft, but after that date we have no traces of his doings until about 1668, when his presence is recorded in Amsterdam. His dated pictures prove that he was still alive in 1677, but his death followed probably soon after this year. De Hooch is one of the kindliest and most charming painters of homely subjects that Holland has produced. He seems to have been born at the same time and taught in the same school as van der Meer and Maes. All three are disciples of the school of Rembrandt. Houbraken mentions Nicolas Berchem as De Hooch’s teacher. De Hooch only once painted a canvas of large size, and that unfortunately perished in a fire at Rotterdam in 1864. But his small pieces display perfect finish and dexterity of hand, combined with great power of discrimination. Though he sometimes paints open-air scenes, these are not his favourite subjects. He is most at home in interiors illuminated by different lights, with the radiance of the day, in different intensities, seen through doors and windows. He thus brings together the most delicate varieties of tone, and produces chords that vibrate with harmony. The themes which he illustrates are thoroughly suited to his purpose. Sometimes he chooses the drawing-room where dames and cavaliers dance, or dine, or sing; sometimes—mostly indeed—he prefers cottages or courtyards, where the housewives tend their children or superintend the labours of the cook. Satin and gold are as familiar to him as camlet and fur; and there is no article of furniture in a Dutch house of the middle class that he does not paint with pleasure. What distinguishes him most besides subtle suggestiveness is the serenity of his pictures. One of his most charming was the canvas formerly in the Ashburton collection, now burnt, where an old lady with a dish of apples walks with a child along a street bounded by a high wall, above which gables and a church steeple are seen, while the sun radiates joyfully over the whole. Fine in another way is the “Mug of Beer” in the Amsterdam Museum, an interior with a woman coming out of a pantry and giving a measure of beer to a little girl. The light flows in here from a small closed window; but through the door to the right we look into a drawing-room, and through the open sash of that room we see the open air. The three lights are managed with supreme cunning. Beautiful for its illumination again is the “Music Party,” with its contending indoor and outdoor lights, a gem in the late A. Thieme collection at Leipzig. More subtly suggestive, in the museum of Berlin, is the “Mother seated near a Cradle.” “A Card Party,” dated 1658, at Buckingham Palace, is a good example of De Hooch’s drawing-room scenes, counterpart as to date and value of a “Woman and Child” in the National Gallery, and the “Smoking Party,” formerly in Lord Enfield’s collection. Another very fine example is the “Interior” with two women, bought by Sir Julius Wernher. Other pictures later in the master’s career are—the “Lady and Child in a Courtyard,” of 1665, in the National Gallery, and the “Lady receiving a Letter,” of 1670, in the Amsterdam Museum (Van der Hoop collection).

HOOD, JOHN BELL (1831-1879), American soldier, lieut.-general of the Confederate army, was born at Owingsville, Kentucky, in 1831, and graduated from West Point military academy in 1853. As an officer of the 2nd U.S. cavalry (Colonel Sidney Johnston) he saw service against Indians, and later he was cavalry instructor at West Point. He resigned from the U.S. service in 1861, and became a colonel in the Confederate army. He was soon promoted brigadier-general, and at the battle of Gaines’s Mill, where he was wounded, won the brevet of major-general for his gallant conduct. With the famous, “Texas brigade” of the Army of Northern Virginia he served throughout the campaign of 1862. At Gettysburg he commanded one of the divisions of Longstreet’s corps, receiving a wound which disabled his arm. With Longstreet he was transferred in the autumn of 1863 to the Army of Tennessee. At the battle of Chickamauga (September 19th, 20th) Hood was severely wounded again and his leg was amputated, but after six months he returned to duty undaunted. He remained with the Army of Tennessee as a corps commander, and when the general dissatisfaction with the Fabian policy of General J. E. Johnston brought about the removal of that officer, Hood was put in his place with the temporary rank of general. He had won a great reputation as a fighting general, and it was with the distinct understanding that battles were to be fought that he was placed at the head of the Army of Tennessee. But in spite of skill and courage he was uniformly unsuccessful in the battles around Atlanta. In the end he had to abandon the place, but he forthwith sought to attack Sherman in another direction, and finally invaded Tennessee. His march was pushed with the greatest energy, but he failed to draw the main body of the enemy after him, and, while Sherman with a picked force made his “March to the Sea,” Thomas collected an army to oppose Hood. A severe battle was fought at Franklin on the 30th of November, and finally Hood was defeated and his army almost annihilated in the battle of Nashville. He was then relieved at his own request (January 23rd, 1865). After the war he was engaged in business in New Orleans, where he died of yellow fever on the 30th of August 1879. His experiences in the Civil War are narrated in his Advance and Retreat (New Orleans, 1880). Hood’s reputation as a bold and energetic leader was well deserved, though his reckless vigour proved but a poor substitute for Johnston’s careful husbanding of his strength at this declining stage of the Confederacy.

HOOD, SAMUEL HOOD, Viscount (1724-1816), British admiral, was the son of Samuel Hood, vicar of Butleigh in Somerset, and prebendary of Wells. He was born on the 12th of December 1724, and entered the navy on the 6th of May 1741. He served part of his time as midshipman with Rodney in the “Ludlow,” and became lieutenant in 1746. He was fortunate in serving under active officers, and had opportunities of seeing service in the North Sea. In 1753 he was made commander of the “Jamaica” sloop, and served in her on the North American station. In 1756, while still on the North American station, he attained to post rank. In 1757, while in temporary command of the “Antelope” (50), he drove a French ship ashore in Audierne Bay, and captured two privateers. His zeal attracted the favourable notice of the Admiralty and he was appointed to a ship of his own. In 1759, when captain of the “Vestal” (32), he captured the French “Bellona” (32) after a sharp action. During the war his services were wholly in the Channel, and he was engaged under Rodney in 1759 in destroying the vessels collected by the French to serve as transports in the proposed invasion of England. In 1778 he accepted a command which in the ordinary course would have terminated his active career. He became commissioner of the dockyard at Portsmouth and governor of the Naval Academy. These posts were generally given to officers who were retiring from the sea. In 1780, on the occasion of the king’s visit to Portsmouth, he was made a baronet. The circumstances of the time were not ordinary. Many admirals declined to serve under Lord Sandwich, and Rodney, who then commanded in the West Indies, had complained of want of proper support from his subordinates, whom he accused of disaffection. The Admiralty was naturally anxious to secure the services of trustworthy flag officers, and having confidence in Hood promoted him rear-admiral out of the usual course on the 26th of September 1780, and sent him to the West Indies to act as second in command under Rodney, to whom he was personally known. He joined Rodney in January 1781, and remained in the West Indies or on the coast of North America till the close of the War of American Independence. The calculation that he would work harmoniously with Rodney was not altogether justified by the results. The correspondence of the two shows that they were far from being on cordial personal terms with one another, but Hood always discharged his duty punctually, and his capacity was so great, and so signally proved, that no question of removing him from the station ever arose. The unfortunate turn taken by the campaign of 1781 was largely due to Rodney’s neglect of his advice. If he had been allowed to choose his own position there can be no doubt that he could have prevented the comte de Grasse (1722-1788) from reaching Fort Royal with the reinforcements from France in April (see Rodney, Lord). When the fleet went on to the coast of North America during the hurricane months of 1781 he was sent to serve with Admiral Graves (1725?-1802) in the unsuccessful effort to relieve the army at Yorktown. But his subordinate rank gave him no chance to impart a greater measure of energy to the naval operations. When, however, he returned to the West Indies he was for a time in independent command owing to Rodney’s absence in England for the sake of his health. The French admiral, the comte de Grasse, attacked the British islands of St Kitts and Nevis with a much superior force to the squadron under Hood’s command. The attempt Hood made in January 1782 to save them from capture, with 22 ships to 29, was not successful, but the series of bold movements by which he first turned the French out of their anchorage at the Basse Terre of St Kitts, and then beat off the attacks of the enemy, were the most brilliant things done by any British admiral during the war. He was made an Irish peer for his share in the defeat of the comte de Grasse on the 9th and 12th of April near Dominica. During the peace he entered parliament as member for Westminster in the fiercely contested election of 1784, was promoted vice-admiral in 1787, and in July of 1788 was appointed to the Board of Admiralty under the second earl of Chatham. On the outbreak of the revolutionary war he was sent to the Mediterranean as commander-in-chief. His period of command, which lasted from May 1793 to October 1794, was very busy. In August he occupied Toulon on the invitation of the French royalists, and in co-operation with the Spaniards. In December of the same year the allies, who did not work harmoniously together, were driven out, mainly by the generalship of Napoleon. Hood now turned to the occupation of Corsica, which he had been invited to take in the name of the king of England by Paoli. The island was for a short time added to the dominions of George III., chiefly by the exertions of the fleet and the co-operation of Paoli. While the occupation of Corsica was being effected, the French at Toulon had so far recovered that they were able to send a fleet to sea. In June Hood sailed in the hope of bringing it to action. The plan which he laid to attack it in the Golfe Jouan in June may possibly have served to some extent as an inspiration, if not as a model, to Nelson for the battle of the Nile, but the wind was unfavourable, and the attack could not be carried out. In October he was recalled to England in consequence of some misunderstanding with the admiralty, or the ministry, which has never been explained. He had attained the rank of full admiral in April of 1794. He held no further command at sea, but in 1796 he was named governor of Greenwich Hospital, a post which he held till his death on the 27th of January 1816. A peerage of Great Britain was conferred on his wife as Baroness Hood of Catherington in 666 1795, and he was himself created Viscount Hood of Whitley in 1796. The titles descended to his son, Henry (1753-1836), the ancestor of the present Viscount Hood. There are several portraits of Lord Hood by Abbot in the Guildhall and in the National Portrait Gallery. He was also painted by Reynolds and Gainsborough.

HOOD, SIR SAMUEL (1762-1814), British vice-admiral, cousin of Lord Hood and of Lord Bridport, entered the Royal Navy in 1776. His first engagement was the battle off Ushant in 1778, and, soon afterwards transferred to the West Indies, he was present, under the command of his cousin Sir Samuel Hood, at all the actions which culminated in Rodney’s victory of April 12th, 1782. After the peace, like many other British naval officers, he spent some time in France, and on his return to England was given the command of a sloop, from which he proceeded in succession to various frigates. In the “Juno” his gallant rescue of some shipwrecked seamen won him a vote of thanks and a sword of honour from the Jamaica assembly. Early in 1793 the “Juno” went to the Mediterranean under Lord Hood, and her captain distinguished himself by an audacious feat of coolness and seamanship in extricating his vessel from the harbour of Toulon, which he had entered in ignorance of Lord Hood’s withdrawal. Soon afterwards he was put in command of a frigate squadron for the protection of Levantine commerce, and in 1797 he was given the “Zealous” (74), in which he was present at Nelson’s unsuccessful attack on Santa Cruz. It was Captain Hood who conducted the negotiations which relieved the squadron from the consequences of its failure. The part played by the “Zealous” at the battle of the Nile was brilliant. Her first opponent she put out of action in twelve minutes, and, passing on, Hood immediately engaged other ships, the “Guerrier” being left powerless to fire a shot. When Nelson left the coast of Egypt, Hood commanded the blockading force off Alexandria and Rosetta. Later he rejoined Nelson on the coast of the two Sicilies, receiving for his services the order of St Ferdinand.

In the “Venerable” Hood was present at the action of Algesiras and the battle in the Straits of Gibraltar (1801). In the Straits his ship suffered heavily, losing 130 officers and men. A year later Captain Hood was employed in Trinidad as a commissioner, and, upon the death of the flag officer commanding the Leeward station, he succeeded him as Commodore. Island after island fell to him, and soon, outside Martinique, the French had scarcely a foothold in the West Indies. Amongst other measures taken by Hood may be mentioned the garrisoning of Diamond Rock, which he commissioned as a sloop-of-war to blockade the approaches of Martinique (see James, Naval History, iii, 245). For these successes he received, amongst other rewards, the K.B. In command next of the squadron blockading Rochefort, Sir Samuel Hood had a sharp fight, on 25th September 1805, with a small French squadron which was trying to escape. Amongst the few casualties on this occasion was the Commodore, who lost an arm. Promoted rear-admiral a few days after this action, Hood was in 1807 entrusted with the operations against Madeira, which he brought to a successful conclusion, and a year later went to the Baltic, with his flag in the “Centaur,” to take part in the war between Russia and Sweden. In one of the actions of this war the “Centaur” and “Implacable,” unsupported by the Swedish ships (which lay to leeward), cut out the Russian 80-gun ship “Sevolod” from the enemy’s line and, after a desperate fight, forced her to strike. The king of Sweden rewarded the admiral with the Grand Cross of the Order of the Sword. Present in the roads of Corunna at the re-embarkation of the army of Sir John Moore, Hood thence returned to the Mediterranean, where for two years he commanded a division of the British fleet. In 1811 he became vice-admiral. In his last command, that of the East Indies station, he carried out many salutary reforms, especially in matters of discipline and victualling. He died at Madras, 24th December 1814. A lofty column was raised to his memory on a hill near Butleigh, Somersetshire, and in Butleigh Church is another memorial, with an inscription written by Southey.

His elder brother, Captain Alexander Hood (1758-1798), entered the Royal Navy in 1767, and accompanied Captain Cook in his second voyage round the world. Under Howe and Rodney he distinguished himself in the West Indies, and at the victory of April 12th, 1782, he was in command of one of Rodney’s frigates. Under Sir Samuel Hood he then proceeded to the Mona passage, where he captured the French corvette “Cérès.” With the commander of his prize, the Baron de Peroy, Hood became very intimate, and during the peace he paid a long visit to France as his late prisoner’s guest. In the early part of the Revolutionary war, ill health kept him at home, and it was not until 1797 that he went afloat again. His first experience was bitter; his ship, the “Mars,” was unenviably prominent in the mutiny at Spithead. On April 21st, 1798, occurred the famous duel of the “Mars” with the “Hercule,” fought in the dusk near the Bec du Raz. The two ships were of equal force, but the “Hercule” was newly commissioned, and after over an hour’s fighting at close quarters she struck her flag, having lost over three hundred men. The captain of the “Mars” was mortally wounded early in the fight, and died as the sword of the French captain was being put in his hand. The latter, L’Heritier, also died of his wounds.

HOOD, THOMAS (1799-1845), British humorist and poet, the son of Thomas Hood, bookseller, was born in London on the 23rd of May 1799. “Next to being a citizen of the world,” writes Thomas Hood in his Literary Reminiscences, “it must be the best thing to be born a citizen of the world’s greatest city.” On the death of her husband in 1811 Mrs Hood removed to Islington, where Thomas Hood had a schoolmaster who appreciated his talents, and, as he says, “made him feel it impossible not to take an interest in learning while he seemed so interested in teaching.” Under the care of this “decayed dominie,” whom he has so affectionately recorded, he earned a few guineas—his first literary fee—by revising for the press a new edition of Paul and Virginia. Admitted soon after into the counting-house of a friend of his family, he “turned his stool into a Pegasus on three legs, every foot, of course, being a dactyl or a spondee”; but the uncongenial profession affected his health, which was never strong, and he was transferred to the care of his father’s relations at Dundee. There he led a healthy outdoor life, and also became a large and indiscriminate reader, and before long contributed humorous and poetical articles to the provincial newspapers and magazines. As a proof of the seriousness with which he regarded the literary vocation, it may be mentioned that he used to write out his poems in printed characters, believing that that process best enabled him to understand his own peculiarities and faults, and probably unconscious that Coleridge had recommended some such method of criticism when he said he thought “print settles it.” On his return to London in 1818 he applied himself assiduously to the art of engraving, in which he acquired a skill that in after years became a most valuable assistant to his literary labours, and enabled him to illustrate his various humours and fancies by a profusion of quaint devices, which not only repeated to the eye the impressions of the text, but, by suggesting amusing analogies and contrasts, added considerably to the sense and effect of the work.

667

In 1821 Mr John Scott, the editor of the London Magazine, was killed in a duel, and that periodical passed into the hands of some friends of Hood, who proposed to make him sub-editor. His installation into this congenial post at once introduced him to the best literary society of the time; and in becoming the associate of Charles Lamb, Cary, de Quincey, Allan Cunningham, Proctor, Talfourd, Hartley Coleridge, the peasant-poet Clare and other contributors to the magazine, he gradually developed his own intellectual powers, and enjoyed that happy intercourse with superior minds for which his cordial and genial character was so well adapted, and which he has described in his best manner in several chapters of Hood’s Own. He had married in 1825, and Odes and Addresses—his first work—was written in conjunction with his brother-in-law Mr J. H. Reynolds, the friend of Keats. S. T. Coleridge wrote to Charles Lamb averring that the book must be his work. The Plea of the Midsummer Fairies (1827) and a dramatic romance, Lamia, published later, belong to this time. The Plea of the Midsummer Fairies was a volume of serious verse, in which Hood showed himself a by no means despicable follower of Keats. But he was known as a humorist, and the public, which had learned to expect jokes from him, rejected this little book almost entirely. There was much true poetry in the verse, and much sound sense and keen observation in the prose of these works; but the poetical feeling and lyrical facility of the one, and the more solid qualities of the other, seemed best employed when they were subservient to his rapid wit, and to the ingenious coruscations of his fancy. This impression was confirmed by the series of the Comic Annual, dating from 1830, a kind of publication at that time popular, which Hood undertook and continued, almost unassisted, for several years. Under that somewhat frivolous title he treated all the leading events of the day in a fine spirit of caricature, entirely free from grossness and vulgarity, without a trait of personal malice, and with an under-current of true sympathy and honest purpose that will preserve these papers, like the sketches of Hogarth, long after the events and manners they illustrate have passed from the minds of men. But just as the agreeable jester rose into the earnest satirist, one of the most striking peculiarities of his style became a more manifest defect. The attention of the reader was distracted, and his good taste annoyed, by the incessant use of puns, of which Hood had written in his own vindication:—

Now it is true that the critic must be unconscious of some of the subtlest charms and nicest delicacies of language who would exclude from humorous writing all those impressions and surprises which depend on the use of the diverse sense of words. The history, indeed, of many a word lies hid in its equivocal uses; and it in no way derogates from the dignity of the highest poetry to gain strength and variety from the ingenious application of the same sounds to different senses, any more than from the contrivances of rhythm or the accompaniment of imitative sounds. But when this habit becomes the characteristic of any wit, it is impossible to prevent it from degenerating into occasional buffoonery, and from supplying a cheap and ready resource, whenever the true vein of humour becomes thin or rare. Artists have been known to use the left hand in the hope of checking the fatal facility which practice had conferred on the right; and if Hood had been able to place under some restraint the curious and complex machinery of words and syllables which his fancy was incessantly producing, his style would have been a great gainer, and much real earnestness of object, which now lies confused by the brilliant kaleidoscope of language, would have remained definite and clear. He was probably not unconscious of this danger; for, as he gained experience as a writer, his diction became more simple, and his ludicrous illustrations less frequent. In another annual called the Gem appeared the poem on the story of “Eugene Aram,” which first manifested the full extent of that poetical vigour which seemed to advance just in proportion as his physical health declined. He started a magazine in his own name, for which he secured the assistance of many literary men of reputation and authority, but which was mainly sustained by his own intellectual activity. From a sick-bed, from which he never rose, he conducted this work with surprising energy, and there composed those poems, too few in number, but immortal in the English language, such as the “Song of the Shirt” (which appeared anonymously in the Christmas number of Punch, 1843), the “Bridge of Sighs” and the “Song of the Labourer,” which seized the deep human interests of the time, and transported them from the ground of social philosophy into the loftier domain of the imagination. They are no clamorous expressions of anger at the discrepancies and contrasts of humanity, but plain, solemn pictures of conditions of life, which neither the politician nor the moralist can deny to exist, and which they are imperatively called upon to remedy. Woman, in her wasted life, in her hurried death, here stands appealing to the society that degrades her, with a combination of eloquence and poetry, of forms of art at once instantaneous and permanent, and with great metrical energy and variety.

Hood was associated with the Athenaeum, started in 1828 by J. Silk Buckingham, and he was a regular contributor for the rest of his life. Prolonged illness brought on straitened circumstances; and application was made to Sir Robert Peel to place Hood’s name on the pension list with which the British state so moderately rewards the national services of literary men. This was done without delay, and the pension was continued to his wife and family after his death, which occurred on the 3rd of May 1845. Nine years after a monument, raised by public subscription, in the cemetery of Kensal Green, was inaugurated by Monckton Milnes (Lord Houghton) with a concourse of spectators that showed how well the memory of the poet stood the test of time. Artisans came from a great distance to view and honour the image of the popular writer whose best efforts had been dedicated to the cause and the sufferings of the workers of the world; and literary men of all opinions gathered round the grave of one of their brethren whose writings were at once the delight of every boy and the instruction of every man who read them. Happy the humorist whose works and life are an illustration of the great moral truth that the sense of humour is the just balance of all the faculties of man, the best security against the pride of knowledge and the conceits of the imagination, the strongest inducement to submit with a wise and pious patience to the vicissitudes of human existence. This was the lesson that Thomas Hood left behind him. (H.)

HOOD, TOM (1835-1874), English humorist, son of the poet Thomas Hood, was born at Lake House, Wanstead, Essex, on the 19th of January 1835. After attending University College School and Louth Grammar School he entered Pembroke College, Oxford, in 1853, where he passed all the examinations for the degree of B.A., but did not graduate. At Oxford he wrote his Farewell to the Swallows (1853) and Pen and Pencil Pictures (1857). He began to write for the Liskeard Gazette in 1856, and edited that paper in 1858-1859. He then obtained a position in the War Office, which he filled for five years, leaving in 1865 668 to become editor of Fun, the comic paper, which became very popular under his direction. In 1867 he first issued Tom Hood’s Comic Annual. In 1861 had appeared The Daughters of King Daker, and other Poems, after which he published in conjunction with his sister, Frances Freeling Broderip, a number of amusing books for children. His serious novels, of which Captain Masters’s Children (1865) is the best, were not so successful. Hood drew with considerable facility, among his illustrations being those of several of his father’s comic verses. In private life his geniality and sincere friendliness secured him the affection and esteem of a wide circle of acquaintance. He died on the 20th of November 1874.

HOOD OF AVALON, ARTHUR WILLIAM ACLAND HOOD, Baron (1824-1901), English admiral, born on the 14th of July 1824, was the younger son of Sir Alexander Hood of St Andries, Somerset, 2nd baronet, and grandson of Captain Alexander Hood, R.N., who, when in command of the “Mars,” fell in action with the French 74-gun ship “Hercule,” 21st of April 1798. At the age of twelve Hood entered the navy, and whilst still a boy saw active service on the north coast of Spain, and afterwards on the coast of Syria. After passing through the established course of gunnery on board the “Excellent” in 1844-1845, he went out to the Cape of Good Hope as gunnery mate of the “President,” the flagship of Rear-Admiral Dacres, by whom, on the 9th of January 1846, he was promoted to be lieutenant. As gunnery lieutenant he continued in the “President” till 1849; and in the following year he was appointed to the “Arethusa” frigate, then commissioned for the Mediterranean by Captain Symonds, afterwards the well-known admiral of the fleet. The outbreak of the Russian war made the commission a very long one; and on the 27th of November 1854 Hood was promoted to be commander in recognition of his service with the naval brigade before Sebastopol. In 1855 he married Fanny Henrietta, daughter of Sir C. F. Maclean. In 1856 he commissioned the “Acorn” brig for the China station, and arrived in time to take part in the destruction of the junks in Fatshan creek on the 1st of June 1857, and in the capture of Canton in the following December, for which, in February 1858, he received a post-captain’s commission. From 1862 to 1866 he commanded, the “Pylades” on the North American station, and was then appointed to the command of the “Excellent” and the government of the Royal Naval College at Portsmouth. This was essentially a gunnery appointment, and on the expiration of three years Hood was made Director of Naval Ordnance. He was thoroughly acquainted with the routine work of the office and the established armament of the navy, but he had not the power of adapting himself to the changes which were being called for, and still less of initiating them; so that during his period of office the armament of the ships remained sadly behind the general advance. In June 1874 he was appointed to the command of the “Monarch” in the Channel Fleet, from which he was relieved in March 1876 by his promotion to flag rank. From 1877 to 1879 he was a junior lord of the Admiralty, and from 1880 to 1882 he commanded the Channel Fleet, becoming vice-admiral on 23rd July 1880. In June 1885 he was appointed first sea lord of the Admiralty. The intense conservatism of his character, however, and his antagonistic attitude towards every change, regardless of whether it was necessary or not, had much to do with the alarming state of the navy towards 1889. In that year, on attaining the age of sixty-five, he was placed on the retired list and resigned his post at the Admiralty. After two years of continued ill-health, he died on the 15th of November 1901, and was buried at Butleigh on the 23rd. He had been promoted to the rank of admiral on the 18th of January 1886; was made K.C.B, in December 1885; G.C.B. in September 1889; and in February 1892 was raised to the peerage as Lord Hood of Avalon, but on his death the title became extinct.

HOOD, a covering for the head. The word is in O. Eng. hod, cognate with Dutch hoed and Ger. Hut, hat, both masculine; “hood” and “hat” are distantly related; they may be connected with the feminine hoed or Hut, meaning charge, care, Eng. “heed.” Some form of hood as a loose covering easily drawn on or off the head has formed a natural part of outdoor costume both for men and women at all times and in all quarters of the globe where climatic conditions called for it. In the middle ages and later both men and women are found wearing it, but with men it tended to be superseded by the hat before it became merely an occasional and additional head-covering in time of bad weather or in particularly rigorous climates. For illustrations and examples of the hood as worn by men and women in medieval and later times see the article Costume; for the hood or cowl as part of the dress of a religious see Cowl, and as forming a distinctive mark of degree in academic costume see Robes. The word is applied to many objects resembling a hood in function or shape, such as a folding cover for a carriage to protect the occupants from rain or wind, the belled covering for the head of a hawk trained for falconry, the endmost planks in a ship’s bottom at bow or stern, and, in botany and zoology, certain parts of a flower or of the neck of an animal which in arrangement of structure or of colour recall this article of dress.

In architecture a “hood-mould” is a projecting moulding carried outside the arch of a door or window; it is weathered underneath, and when continued horizontally is better known as a dripstone. The ends of the hood-mould are generally stopped on a corbel, plain or carved with heads in European churches, but in those of central Syria terminating in scrolls. Although in its origin the object of the projecting and weathered hood-mould was to protect the face of the wall below from rain, it gives more importance to, and emphasizes, the arch-moulds, so that it is often employed decoratively inside churches.

HOOFT, PIETER CORNELISSEN (1581-1647), Dutch poet and historian, was born at Amsterdam on the 16th of March 1581. His father was one of the leading citizens of Holland, both in politics and in the patronage of letters, and for some time burgomaster of Amsterdam. As early as 1598 the young man was made a member of the chamber of rhetoric In Liefde bloeiende, and produced before that body his tragedy of Achilles and Polyxena, not printed until 1614. In June 1598 he left Holland and proceeded to Paris, where on the 10th of April 1599 he saw the body of Gabrielle d’Estrées lying in state. He went a few months later to Venice, Florence and Rome, and in 1600 to Naples. During his Italian sojourn he made a deep and fruitful study of the best literature of Italy. In July 1600 he sent home to the In Liefde bloeiende a very fine letter in verse, expressing his aspirations for the development of Dutch poetry. He returned through Germany, and after an absence of three years and a half found himself in Amsterdam again on the 8th of May 1601. In 1602 he brought out his second tragedy, Theseus and Ariadne, printed at Amsterdam in 1614. In 1605 he completed his beautiful pastoral drama Granida, not published until 1615. He studied law and history at Leiden from 1606 to 1609, and in June of the latter year received from Prince Maurice of Orange the appointment of steward of Muiden, bailiff of Gooiland, and lord of Weesp, a joint office of great emolument. He occupied himself with repairing and adorning the decayed castle of Muiden, which was his residence during the remainder of his life. There he entertained the poet Vondel, the scholar Barlaeus,1 Constantin Huygens, Vossius, Laurens Reael and others. Hooft had been a suitor for the hand of Anna Roemer Visscher, and after the death of Roemer Visscher both the sisters visited Muiden. Anna’s sympathies were in time diverted to the school of Jacob Cats, but Marie Tesselschade maintained close ties with Hooft, who revised her translation of Tasso. In August 1610 he married Christina van Erp, an 669 accomplished lady who died in 1623, and four years later he married Eleonora Hellemans. In 1612 Hooft produced his national tragedy of Geeraerdt van Velzen (pr. 1613), a story of the reign of Count Floris V. In 1614 was performed at Coster’s academy Hooft’s comedy of Ware-nar, an adaptation of the Aulularia of Plautus, first printed in 1617. In 1616 he wrote another tragedy, Baeto, or the Origin of the Dutch, not printed until 1626. It was in 1618 that he abandoned poetry for history, and in 1626 he published the first of his great prose works, the History of Henry the Great (Henry IV. of France). His next production was his Miseries of the Princes of the House of Medici (Amsterdam, 1638). In 1642 he published at Amsterdam a folio comprising the first twenty books of his Dutch History, embracing the period from 1555 to 1585, a magnificent performance, to the perfecting of which he had given fifteen years of labour. The seven concluding books were published posthumously in 1654. His idea of history was gained from Tacitus, whose works he translated. Hooft died on a visit to the Hague, whither he had gone to attend the funeral of Prince Frederick Henry, on the 21st of May 1647, and was buried in the New Church at Amsterdam.

Hooft is one of the most brilliant figures that adorn Dutch literature at its best period. He was the first writer to introduce a modern and European tone into belles lettres, and the first to refresh the sources of native thought from the springs of antique and Renaissance poetry. His lyrics and his pastoral of Granida are strongly marked by the influence of Tasso and Sannazaro; his later tragedies belong more exactly to the familiar tone of his native country. But high as Hooft stands among the Dutch poets, he stands higher—he holds perhaps the highest place—among writers of Dutch prose. His historical style has won the warmest eulogy from so temperate a critic as Motley, and his letters are the most charming ever published in the Dutch language. After Vondel, he may on the whole be considered the most considerable author that Holland has produced.

HOOGSTRATEN, SAMUEL DIRKSZ VAN, Dutch painter, was born, it is said, in 1627 at the Hague, and died at Dort on the 19th of October 1678. This artist, who was first a pupil of his father, lived at the Hague and at Dort till about 1640, when on the death of Dirk Hoogstraten he changed his residence to Amsterdam and entered the school of Rembrandt. A short time afterwards he started as a master and painter of portraits, set out on a round of travels which took him (1651) to Vienna, Rome and London, and finally retired to Dort, where he married in 1656, and held an appointment as “provost of the mint.” Hoogstraten’s works are scarce; but a sufficient number of them has been preserved to show that he strove to imitate different styles at different times. In a portrait dated 1645 in the Lichtenstein collection at Vienna he imitates Rembrandt; and he continues in this vein as late as 1653, when he produced that wonderful figure of a Jew looking out of a casement, which is one of the most characteristic examples of his manner in the Belvedere at Vienna. A view of the Vienna Hofburg, dated 1652, in the same gallery displays his skill as a painter of architecture, whilst in a piece at the Hague representing a Lady Reading a Letter as she crosses a Courtyard, or a Lady Consulting a Doctor, in the Van der Hoop Museum at Amsterdam, he imitates de Hooch. One of his latest works is a portrait of Mathys van den Brouck, dated 1670, in the gallery of Amsterdam. The scarcity of Hoogstraten’s pictures is probably due to his versatility. Besides directing a mint, he devoted some time to literary labours, wrote a book on the theory of painting (1678) and composed sonnets and a tragedy. We are indebted to him for some of the familiar sayings of Rembrandt. He was an etcher too, and some of his plates are still preserved. His portrait, engraved by himself at the age of fifty, still exists.

HOOK, JAMES CLARKE (1819-1907), English painter, was born in London on the 21st of November 1819. His father, James Hook, a Northumbrian by descent, Judge Arbitrator of Sierra Leone, married the second daughter of Dr Adam Clarke, the commentator on the Bible, who gave to the painter his second name. Young Hook’s first taste of the sea was on board the Berwick smacks which took him on his way to Wooler. He drew with rare facility, and determined to become an artist; and accordingly, without any supervision, he set to work for more than a year in the sculpture galleries of the British Museum. In 1836 he was admitted a student of the Royal Academy, where he worked for three years, and elsewhere learned a good deal of the scientific technique of painting from a nephew of Opie. His first picture, called “The Hard Task,” was exhibited in 1837, and represented a girl helping her sister with a lesson. Unusual facility in portraiture and a desire to earn his own living took the student into Ireland to paint likenesses of the Waterford family and others; here he produced landscapes of the Vale of Avoca, and much developed his taste for pastoral art; later, he was similarly engaged in Kent and Somersetshire. In 1842 his second exhibited work was a portrait of “Master J. Finch Smith”: in this year he gained silver medals at the Royal Academy, and in 1843 he was one of the competitors in the exhibition of cartoons in Westminster Hall, with a 10 by 7 ft. design of “Satan in Paradise.” In 1844 the Academy contained a picture of a kind with which his name was long associated, an illustration of the Decameron, called “Pamphilius relating his Story,” a meadow scene in bright light, with sumptuous ladies, richly clad, reclining on the grass. The British Institution, 1844 and 1845, set forth two of Hook’s idylls, subjects taken from Shakespeare and Burns, which, with the above, showed him to be cultivating those veins of romantic sentiment and the picturesque which were then in vogue, but in a characteristically fresh and vigorous manner. “The Song of Olden Times” (Royal Academy, 1845) marked the artist’s future path distinctly in most technical respects. It was in this year Hook won the Academy gold medal for an oil picture of “The Finding the Body of Harold.” The travelling studentship in painting was awarded to him for “Rizpah watching the Dead Sons of Saul” in 1846; and he went for three years to Italy, having married Miss Rosalie Burton before he left England. Hook passed through Paris, worked diligently for some time in the Louvre, traversed Switzerland, and, though he stayed only part of three years in Italy, gained much from studies of Titian, Tintoret, Carpaccio, Mansueti and other Venetians. Their influence thenceforth dominated the coloration of his pictures, and enabled him to apply the principles to which they had attained to the representation (as Bonington before him had done) of romantic subjects and to those English themes of the land and sea with which the name of the artist is inseparably associated. “A Dream of Ancient Venice” (R.A., 1848)—the first fruit of these Italian studies—“Bayard of Brescia” (R.A., 1849), “Venice” (B.I., 1849) and other works assured for Hook the Associateship of the Royal Academy in 1851. Soon afterwards an incomparable series of English subjects was begun, in many pastorals and fine brilliant idylls of the sea and rocks. “A Rest by the Wayside” and “A Few Minutes to Wait before Twelve o’clock” proved his title to appear, in 1854, as a new and original painter. After these came “A Signal on the Horizon” (1857), “A Widow’s Son going to Sea,” “The Ship-boy’s Letter,” “Children’s Children are the Crown of Old Men,” “A Coast-boy gathering Eggs,” a scene at Lundy; the perfect “Luff, Boy!” (1859), about which Ruskin broke into a dithyrambic chant, “The Brook,” “Stand Clear!” “O Well for the Fisherman’s Boy!” (1860), “Leaving Cornwall for the Whitby Fishing,” “Sea Urchins,” and a score more as fine as these. The artist was elected a full Academician on the 6th of March 1860, in the place of James Ward. He died on the 14th of April 1907.

670

HOOK, THEODORE EDWARD (1788-1841), English author, was born in London on the 22nd of September 1788. He spent a year at Harrow, and subsequently matriculated at Oxford, but he never actually resided at the university. His father, James Hook (1746-1827), the composer of numerous popular songs, took great delight in exhibiting the boy’s extraordinary musical and metrical gifts, and the precocious Theodore became “the little pet lion of the green room.” At the age of sixteen, in conjunction with his father, he scored a dramatic success with The Soldier’s Return, a comic opera, and this he rapidly followed up with a series of over a dozen sparkling ventures, the instant popularity of which was hardly dependent on the inimitable acting of John Liston and Charles Mathews. But Hook gave himself up for some ten of the best years of his life to the pleasures of the town, winning a foremost place in the world of fashion by his matchless powers of improvisation and mimicry, and startling the public by the audacity of his practical jokes. His unique gift of improvising the words and the music of songs eventually charmed the prince Regent into a declaration that “something must be done for Hook.” The prince was as good as his word, and Hook, in spite of a total ignorance of accounts, was appointed accountant-general and treasurer of the Mauritius with a salary of £2000 a year. For five delightful years he was the life and soul of the island, but in 1817, a serious deficiency having been discovered in the treasury accounts, he was arrested and brought to England on a criminal charge. A sum of about £12,000 had been abstracted by a deputy official, and for this amount Hook was held responsible.

During the tardy scrutiny of the audit board he lived obscurely and maintained himself by writing for magazines and newspapers. In 1820 he launched the newspaper John Bull, the champion of high Toryism and the virulent detractor of Queen Caroline. Witty, incisive criticism and pitiless invective secured it a large circulation, and from this source alone Hook derived, for the first year at least, an income of £2000. He was, however, arrested for the second time on account of his debt to the state, which he made no effort to defray. In a sponging-house, where he was confined for two years, he wrote the nine volumes of stories afterwards collected under the title of Sayings and Doings (1826-1829). In the remaining twenty-three years of his life he poured forth no fewer than thirty-eight volumes, besides numberless articles, squibs and sketches. His novels are not works of enduring interest, but they are saved from mediocrity by frequent passages of racy narrative and vivid portraiture. The best are Maxwell (1830), Love and Pride (1833), the autobiographic Gilbert Gurney (1836), Jack Brag (1837), Gurney Married (1838), and Peregrine Bunce (1842). Incessant work had already begun to tell on his health, when Hook returned to his old social habits, and a prolonged attempt to combine industry and dissipation resulted in the confession that he was “done up in purse, in mind and in body too at last.” He died on the 24th of August 1841. His writings in great part are of a purely ephemeral character; and the greatest triumphs of the improvisatore may be said to have been writ in wine. Putting aside, however, his claim to literary greatness, Hook will be remembered as one of the most brilliant, genial and original figures of Georgian times.

HOOK, WALTER FARQUHAR (1798-1875), English divine, nephew of the witty Theodore, was born in London on the 13th of March 1798. Educated at Tiverton and Winchester, he graduated at Oxford (Christ Church) in 1821, and after holding an incumbency in Coventry, 1829-1837, and in Leeds, 1837-1859, was nominated dean of Chichester by Lord Derby. He received the degree of D.D. in 1837. His friendship towards the Tractarians exposed him to considerable persecution, but his simple manly character and zealous devotion to parochial work gained him the support of widely divergent classes. His stay in Leeds was marked by vigorous and far-reaching church extension, and his views on education were far in advance of his time. Among his many writings are An Ecclesiastical Biography, containing the Lives of Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines (8 vols., 1845-1852), A Church Dictionary, The Means of Rendering more Effectual the Education of the People, The Cross of Christ (1873), The Church and its Ordinances (sermons, 4 vols., 1876), and Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury (12 vols., 1860-1876). He died on the 20th of October 1875.

HOOKAH (the English spelling of the Persian and Hindustani huqqu, an adaptation of the Arabic huqqah, a vase or casket, and by transference a pipe for smoking, probably derived from the Arabie huqq, a hollow place), a pipe with a long flexible tube attached to a large bowl containing water, often scented, and resting upon a tripod or stand. The smoke of the tobacco is made to pass through the water in the bowl, and is thus cooled before reaching the smoker. The narghile of India is in principle the same as that of the hookah; the word is derived from nargil, an Indian name for the coco-nut tree, as when the narghile was first made the water was placed in a coco-nut. This receptacle is now often made of porcelain, glass or metal. In the hubble-bubble the pipe is so contrived that the water in the bowl makes a bubbling noise while the pipe is being smoked. This pipe is common in India, Egypt and the East generally.

HOOKE, ROBERT (1635-1703), English experimental philosopher, was born on the 18th of July 1635 at Freshwater, in the Isle of Wight, where his father, John Hooke, was minister of the parish. After working for a short time with Sir Peter Lely, he went to Westminster school; and in 1653 he entered Christ Church, Oxford, as servitor. After 1655 he was employed and patronized by the Hon. Robert Boyle, who turned his skill to account in the construction of his air-pump. On the 12th of November 1662 he was appointed curator of experiments to the Royal Society, of which he was elected a fellow in 1663, and filled the office during the remainder of his life. In 1664 Sir John Cutler instituted for his benefit a mechanical lectureship of £50 a year, and in the following year he was nominated professor of geometry in Gresham College, where he subsequently resided. After the Great Fire of 1666 he constructed a model for the rebuilding of this city, which was highly approved, although the design of Sir C. Wren was preferred. During the progress of the works, however, he acted as surveyor, and accumulated in that lucrative employment a sum of several thousand pounds, discovered after his death in an old iron chest, which had evidently lain unopened for above thirty years. He fulfilled the duties of secretary to the Royal Society during five years after the death of Henry Oldenburg in 1677, publishing in 1681-1682 the papers read before that body under the title of Philosophical Collections. A protracted controversy with Johann Hevelius, in which Hooke urged the advantages of telescopic over plain sights, brought him little but discredit. His reasons were good; but his offensive style of argument rendered them unpalatable and himself unpopular. Many circumstances concurred to embitter the latter years of his life. The death, in 1687, of his niece, Mrs Grace Hooke, who had lived with him for many years, caused him deep affliction; a law-suit with Sir John Cutler about his salary (decided, however, in his favour in 1696) occasioned him prolonged anxiety; and the repeated anticipation of his discoveries inspired him with a morbid jealousy. Marks of public respect were not indeed wanting to him. A degree of M.D. was conferred on him at Doctors’ Commons in 1691, and the Royal Society made him, in 1696, a grant to enable him to complete his philosophical inventions. While engaged on this task he died, worn out with disease, on the 3rd of March 1703 in London, and was buried in St Helen’s Church, Bishopsgate Street.

In personal appearance Hooke made but a sorry show. His 671 figure was crooked, his limbs shrunken; his hair hung in dishevelled locks over his haggard countenance. His temper was irritable, his habits penurious and solitary. He was, however, blameless in morals and reverent in religion. His scientific achievements would probably have been more striking if they had been less varied. He originated much, but perfected little. His optical investigations led him to adopt in an imperfect form the undulatory theory of light, to anticipate the doctrine of interference, and to observe, independently of though subsequently to F. M. Grimaldi (1618-1663), the phenomenon of diffraction. He was the first to state clearly that the motions of the heavenly bodies must be regarded as a mechanical problem, and he approached in a remarkable manner the discovery of universal gravitation. He invented the wheel barometer, discussed the application of barometrical indications to meteorological forecasting, suggested a system of optical telegraphy, anticipated E. F. F. Chladni’s experiment of strewing a vibrating bell with flour, investigated the nature of sound and the function of the air in respiration and combustion, and originated the idea of using the pendulum as a measure of gravity. He is credited with the invention of the anchor escapement for clocks, and also with the application of spiral springs to the balances of watches, together with the explanation of their action by the principle Ut tensio sic vis (1676).

HOOKER, JOSEPH (1814-1879), American general, was born in Hadley, Massachusetts, on the 13th of November 1814. He was educated at the military academy at West Point (1833-1837), and on graduating entered the 1st U.S. Artillery. In the war with Mexico (1846-48) he served as a staff officer, and rose by successive brevets for meritorious services to the rank of lieutenant-colonel. In 1853 he left the service and bought a large farm near Sonoma, Cal., which he managed successfully till 1858, when he was made superintendent of military roads in Oregon. Upon the opening of hostilities in the Civil War of 1861-65, he sacrificed his fine estate and offered his sword to the Federal Government. He was commissioned brigadier-general of volunteers on the 17th of May 1861 and major-general on the 5th of May 1862. The engagement of Williamsburg (May 5th) brought him and his subordinate Hancock into prominence, and Hooker received the soubriquet of “Fighting Joe.” He was engaged at the battle of Fair Oaks, and did splendid service to the Union army during the “Seven Days.” In the campaign of Northern Virginia, under General Pope (August 1862), he led his division with fiery energy at Bristoe Station, Manassas and Chantilly. In the Maryland campaign (September) he was at the head of the I. corps, Army of the Potomac, forced the defile of South Mountain and opened the way for the advance of the army. The I. corps opened the great battle of the Antietam, and sustained a sanguinary fight with the Confederates under Stonewall Jackson. Hooker himself was severely wounded. He was commissioned brigadier-general in the United States army on the 20th of September 1862, and in the battle of Fredericksburg (q.v.), under Burnside, he commanded the centre grand division (III. and V. corps). He had protested against the useless slaughter of his men on that disastrous field, and when Burnside resigned the command Hooker succeeded him. The new leader effected a much-needed re-organization in the army, which had fought many battles without success. In this task, as in subordinate commands in battle, Hooker was excelled by few. But his grave defects as a commander-in-chief were soon to be obvious. By a well-planned and well-executed flanking movement, he placed himself on the enemy’s flank, but at the decisive moment he checked the advance of his troops. Lee turned upon him, Jackson surprised and destroyed a whole army corps, and the battle of Chancellorsville (see Wilderness), in which Hooker was himself disabled, ended in a retreat to the old position. Yet Hooker had not entirely forfeited the confidence of his men, to whom he was still “Fighting Joe.” The second advance of Lee into Union territory, which led to the battle of Gettysburg, was strenuously resisted by Hooker, who would have inflicted a heavy blow on Lee’s scattered forces had he not been condemned to inaction by orders from Washington. Even then Hooker followed the Confederates a day only behind them, until, finding himself distrusted and forbidden to control the movements of troops within the sphere of operations, he resigned the command on the eve of the battle (June 28, 1863). Faults of temper and an excessive sense of responsibility made his continued occupation of the command impossible, but when after a signal defeat Rosecrans was besieged in Chattanooga, and Grant with all the forces of the West was hurried to the rescue, two corps of the Army of the Potomac were sent over by rail, and Hooker, who was at least one of the finest fighting generals of the service, went with them in command. He fought and won the “Battle above the Clouds” on Lookout Mountain which cleared the way for the crowning victory of the army of the Cumberland on Missionary Ridge (see Chattanooga). And in command of the same corps (consolidated as the XX. corps) he took part in all the battles and combats of the Atlanta campaign of 1864. When General McPherson was killed before Atlanta, the command of Grant’s old Army of the Tennessee fell vacant. Hooker, who, though only a corps commander, was senior to the other army commanders, Thomas and Schofield, was normally entitled to receive it, but General Sherman feared to commit a whole army to the guidance of a man of Hooker’s peculiar temperament, and the place was given to Howard. Hooker thereupon left the army. He was commissioned brevet-major-general in the United States army on the 13th of March 1865, and retired from active service with the full rank of major-general on the 15th of October 1868, in consequence of a paralytic seizure. The last years of his life were passed in the neighbourhood of New York. He died at Garden City, Long Island, on the 31st of October 1879.

HOOKER, SIR JOSEPH DALTON (1817-  ), English botanist and traveller, second son of the famous botanist Sir W. J. Hooker, was born on the 30th of June 1817, at Halesworth, Suffolk. He was educated at Glasgow University, and almost immediately after taking his M.D. degree there in 1839 joined Sir James Ross’s Antarctic expedition, receiving a commission as assistant-surgeon on the “Erebus.” The botanical fruits of the three years he thus spent in the Southern Seas were the Flora Antarctica, Flora Novae Zelandiae and Flora Tasmanica, which he published on his return. His next expedition was to the northern frontiers of India (1847-1851), and the expenses in this case also were partially defrayed by the government. The party had its full share of adventure. Hooker and his friend Dr Campbell were detained in prison for some time by the raja of Sikkim, but nevertheless they were able to bring back important results, both geographical and botanical. Their survey of hitherto unexplored regions was published by the Calcutta Trigonometrical Survey Office, and their botanical observations formed the basis of elaborate works on the rhododendrons of the Sikkim Himalaya and on the flora of India. Among other journeys undertaken by Hooker may be mentioned those to Palestine (1860), Morocco (1871), and the United States (1877), all yielding valuable scientific information. In the midst of all this travelling in foreign countries he quickly built up for himself a high scientific reputation at home. In 1855 he was appointed assistant-director of Kew Gardens, and in 1865 he succeeded his father as full director, holding the post for twenty years. At the early age of thirty he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, and in 1873 he was chosen its president; he received three of its medals—a Royal in 1854, the Copley in 1887 and the Darwin in 1892. He acted as president of the British Association at its Norwich meeting of 1868, when his address was remarkable for its championship of Darwinian theories. Of Darwin, indeed, he was an early friend and supporter: it was he who, with Lyell, first induced Darwin to make his views public, and the author of The Origin of Species has recorded his indebtedness to Hooker’s wide knowledge and balanced judgment. Sir Joseph Hooker is the author of numerous 672 scientific papers and monographs, and his larger books include, in addition to those already mentioned, a standard Student’s Flora of the British Isles and a monumental work, the Genera plantarum, based on the collections at Kew, in which he had the assistance of Bentham. On the publication of the last part of his Flora of British India in 1897 he was created G.C.S.I., of which order he had been made a knight commander twenty years before; and twenty years later, on attaining the age of ninety, he was awarded the Order of Merit.

HOOKER, RICHARD (1553-1600), English writer, author of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, son of Richard Vowell or Hooker, was born at Heavitree, near the city of Exeter, about the end of 1553 or beginning of 1554. Vowell was the original name of the family, but was gradually dropped, and in the 15th century its members were known as Vowell alias Hooker. At school, not only his facility in mastering his tasks, but his intellectual inquisitiveness and his fine moral qualities, attracted the special notice of his teacher, who strongly recommended his parents to educate him for the church. Though well connected, they were, however, somewhat straitened in their worldly circumstances, and Hooker was indebted for admission to the university to his uncle, John Hooker alias Vowell, chamberlain of Exeter, and in his day a man of some literary repute, who induced Bishop Jewel to become his patron and to bestow on him a clerk’s place in Corpus Christi College, Oxford. To this Hooker was admitted in 1568. Bishop Jewel died in September 1571, but Dr William Cole, president of the college, from the strong interest he felt in the young man, on account at once of his character and his abilities, spontaneously offered to take the bishop’s place as his patron; and shortly afterwards Hooker, by his own labours as a tutor, became independent of gratuitous aid. Two of his pupils, and these his favourite ones, were Edwin Sandys, afterwards author of Europae speculum, and George Cranmer, grand-nephew of the archbishop. Hooker’s reputation as a tutor soon became very high, for he had employed his five years at the university to such good purpose as not only to have acquired great proficiency in the learned languages, but to have joined to this a wide and varied culture which had delivered him from the bondage of learned pedantry; in addition to which he is said to have possessed a remarkable talent for communicating knowledge in a clear and interesting manner, and to have exercised a special influence over his pupils’ intellectual and moral tendencies. In December 1573 he was elected scholar of his college; in July 1577 he proceeded to M.A., and in September of the same year he was admitted a fellow. In 1579 he was appointed by the chancellor of the university to read the public Hebrew lecture, a duty which he continued to discharge till he left Oxford. Not long after his admission into holy orders, about 1581, he was appointed to preach at St Paul’s Cross; and, according to Walton, he was so kindly entertained by Mrs Churchman, who kept the Shunamite’s house where the preachers were boarded, that he permitted her to choose him a wife, “promising upon a fair summons to return to London and accept of her choice.” The lady selected by her was “her daughter Joan,” who, says the same authority, “found him neither beauty nor portion; and for her conditions they were too like that wife’s which is by Solomon compared to a dripping house.” It is probable that Walton has exaggerated the simplicity and passiveness of Hooker in the matter, but though, as Keble observes with justice, his writings betray uncommon shrewdness and quickness of observation, as well as a vein of keenest humour, it would appear that either gratitude or some other impulse had on this occasion led his judgment astray. After his marriage he was, about the end of 1584, presented to the living of Drayton Beauchamp in Buckinghamshire. In the following year he received a visit from his two pupils, Edwin Sandys and George Cranmer, who found him with the Odes of Horace in his hand, tending the sheep while the servant was at dinner, after which, when they on the return of the servant accompanied him to his house, “Richard was called to rock the cradle.” Finding him so engrossed by worldly and domestic cares, “they stayed but till the next morning,” and, greatly grieved at his narrow circumstances and unhappy domestic condition, “left him to the company of his wife Joan.”

The visit had, however, results of the highest moment, not only in regard to the career of Hooker, but in regard to English literature and English philosophical thought. Sandys prevailed on his father, the archbishop of York, to recommend Hooker for presentation to the mastership of the Temple, and Hooker, though his “wish was rather to gain a better country living,” having agreed after some hesitation to become a candidate, the patent conferring upon him the mastership was granted on the 17th of March 1584/5. The rival candidate was Walter Travers, a Presbyterian and evening lecturer in the same church. Being continued in the lectureship after the appointment of Hooker, Travers was in the habit of attempting a refutation in the evening of what Hooker had spoken in the morning, Hooker again replying on the following Sunday; so it was said “the forenoon sermon spake Canterbury, the afternoon Geneva.” On account of the keen feeling displayed by the partisans of both, Archbishop Whitgift deemed it prudent to prohibit the preaching of Travers, whereupon he presented a petition to the council to have the prohibition recalled. Hooker published an Answer to the Petition of Mr Travers, and also printed several sermons bearing on special points of the controversy; but, feeling strongly the unsatisfactory nature of such an isolated and fragmentary discussion of separate points, he resolved to compose an elaborate and exhaustive treatise, exhibiting the fundamental principles by which the question in dispute must be decided. It is probable that the work was begun in the latter half of 1586, and he had made considerable progress with it before, with a view to its completion, he petitioned Whitgift to be removed to a country parsonage, in order that, as he said, “I may keep myself in peace and privacy, and behold God’s blessing spring out of my mother earth, and eat my own bread without oppositions.” His desire was granted in 1591 by a presentation to the rectory of Boscombe near Salisbury. There he completed the volume containing the first four of the proposed Eight Books of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. It was entered at Stationers’ Hall on the 9th of March 1592, but was not published till 1593 or 1594. In July 1595 he was promoted by the crown to the rectory of Bishopsbourne near Canterbury, where he lived to see the completion of the fifth book in 1597. In the passage from London to Gravesend some time in 1600 he caught a severe cold from which he never recovered; but, notwithstanding great weakness and constant suffering, he “was solicitous in his study,” his one desire being “to live to finish the three remaining books of Polity.” His death took place on the 2nd of November of the same year. A volume professing to contain the sixth and eighth books of the Polity was published at London in 1648, but the bulk of the sixth book, as has been shown by Keble, is an entire deviation from the subject on which Hooker proposed to treat, and doubtless the genuine copy, known to have been completed, has been lost. The seventh book, which was published in a new edition of the work by Gauden in 1662, and the eighth book, may be regarded as in substance the composition of Hooker; but, as, in addition to wanting his final revision, they have been very unskilfully edited, if they have not been manipulated for theological purposes, their statements in regard to doubtful matters must be received with due reserve, and no reliance can be placed on their testimony where their meaning contradicts that of other portions of the Polity.

The conception of Hooker in his later years, which we form from the various accessible sources, is that of a person of low stature and not immediately impressive appearance, much bent by the influence of sedentary and meditative habits, of quiet and retiring manners, and discoloured in complexion and worn and marked in feature from the hard mental toil which he had expended on his great work. There seems, however, exaggeration in Walton’s statement as to the meanness of his dress; and Walton certainly misreads his character when he portrays him as a kind of ascetic mystic. Though he was unworldly and simple in his desires, and engrossed in the purpose to which he had devoted his life—the “completion of the Polity”—his 673 writings indicate that he possessed a cheerful and healthy disposition, and that he was capable of discovering enjoyment in everyday pleasures, and of appreciating human life and character in a wide variety of aspects. He seems to have had a special delight in outward nature—as he expressed it, he loved “to see God’s blessing spring out of his mother earth”; and he spent much of his spare time in visiting his parishioners, his deference towards them, if excessive, being yet mingled with a grave dignity which rendered unwarrantable liberties impossible. As a preacher, though singularly devoid of the qualities which win the applause of the multitude, he always excited the interest of the more intelligent, the breadth and finely balanced wisdom of his thoughts and the fascination of his composition greatly modifying the impression produced by his weak voice and ineffective manner. Partly, doubtless, on account of his dim-sightedness, he never removed his eye from his manuscript, and, according to Fuller, “he may be said to have made good music with his fiddle and stick alone, having neither pronunciation nor gesture to grace his matter.”

HOOKER, THOMAS (1586-1647), New England theologian, was born, probably on the 7th of July 1586, at Marfield, in the parish of Tilton, County of Leicester, England. He graduated B.A. in 1608 and M.A. in 1611 at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, the intellectual centre of Puritanism, remained there as a fellow for a few years, and then preached in the parish of Esher in Surrey. About 1626 he became lecturer to the church of St Mary at Chelmsford, Essex, delivering on market days and Sunday afternoons evangelical addresses which were notable for their moral fervour. In 1629 Archbishop Laud took measures to suppress church lectureships, which were an innovation of Puritanism. Hooker was placed under bond and retired to Little Baddow, 4 m. from Chelmsford. In 1630 he was cited to appear before the Court of High Commission, but he forfeited his bond and fled to Holland, whence in 1633 he emigrated to the Colony of Massachusetts Bay in America, and became pastor at Newtowne (now Cambridge), Mass., of a company of Puritans who had arrived from England in the previous year and in expectation of his joining them were called “Mr Hooker’s Company.” Hooker seems to have been a leader in the formation of that sentiment of discontent with the Massachusetts government which resulted in the founding of Connecticut. He publicly criticized the limitation of suffrage to church members, and, according to a contemporary historian, William Hubbard (General History of New England), “after Mr Hooker’s coming over it was observed that many of the freemen grew to be very jealous of their liberties.” He was a leader of the emigrants who in 1636 founded Hartford, Connecticut. In a sermon before the Connecticut General Court of 1638, he declared that “the choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God’s own allowance” and that “they who have the power to appoint officers and magistrates, it is in their power, also, to set the bounds and limitations of the power and place unto which they call them.” Though this theory was in advance of the age, Hooker had no idea of the separation of church and state—“the privilege of election, which belongs to the people,” he said, must be exercised “according to the blessed will and law of God.” He also defended the right of magistrates to convene synods, and in the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639), which he probably framed, the union of church and state is presupposed. Hooker was pastor of the Hartford church until his death on the 7th of July 1647. He was active in the negotiations which preceded the formation of the New England Confederation in 1643. In the same year he attended the meeting of Puritan ministers at Boston, whose object was to defend Congregationalism, and he wrote a Survey of the Summe of Church Discipline (1648) in justification of the New England church system. His other works deal chiefly with the experimental phases of religion, especially the experience precedent to conversion. In The Soule’s Humiliation (1637), he assigns as a test of conversion a willingness of the convert to be damned if that be God’s will, thus anticipating the doctrine of Samuel Hopkins in the following century.

HOOKER, SIR WILLIAM JACKSON (1785-1865), English botanist, was born at Norwich on the 6th of July 1785. His father, Joseph Hooker of Exeter, a member of the same family as the celebrated Richard Hooker, devoted much of his time to the study of German literature and the cultivation of curious plants. The son was educated at the high school of Norwich, on leaving which his independent means enabled him to travel and to take up as a recreation the study of natural history, especially ornithology and entomology. He subsequently confined his attention to botany, on the recommendation of Sir James E. Smith, whom he had consulted respecting a rare moss. His first botanical expedition was made in Iceland, in the summer of 1809, at the suggestion of Sir Joseph Banks; but the natural history specimens which he collected, with his notes and drawings, were lost on the homeward voyage through the burning of the ship, and the young botanist himself had a narrow escape with his life. A good memory, however, aided him to publish an account of the island, and of its inhabitants and flora (Tour in Iceland, 1809), privately circulated in 1811, and reprinted in 1813. In 1810-1811 he made extensive preparations, and sacrifices which proved financially serious, with a view to accompany Sir R. Brownrigg to Ceylon, but the disturbed state of the island led to the abandonment of the projected expedition. In 1814 he spent nine months in botanizing excursions in France, Switzerland and northern Italy, and in the following year he married the eldest daughter of Mr Dawson Turner, banker, of Yarmouth. Settling at Halesworth, Suffolk, he devoted himself to the formation of his herbarium, which became of world-wide renown among botanists. In 1816 appeared the British Jungermanniae, his first scientific work, which was succeeded by a new edition of William Curtis’s Flora Londinensis, for which he wrote the descriptions (1817-1828); by a description of the Plantae cryptogamicae of A. von Humboldt and A. Bonpland; by the Muscologia Britannica, a very complete account of the mosses of Great Britain and Ireland, prepared in conjunction with Dr T. Taylor (1818); and by his Musci exotici (2 vols., 1818-1820), devoted to new foreign mosses and other cryptogamic plants. In 1820 he accepted the regius professorship of botany in Glasgow University where he soon became popular as a lecturer, his style being both clear and ready. The following year he brought out the Flora Scotica, in which the natural method of arrangement of British plants was given with the artificial. Subsequently he prepared or edited many works, the more important being the following:—

It was mainly by Hooker’s exertions that botanists were appointed to the government expeditions. While his works were in progress his herbarium received large and valuable additions from all parts of the globe, and his position as a botanist was thus vastly improved. He was made a knight of Hanover in 1836 and in 1841 he was appointed director of the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew, on the resignation of W. T. Aiton. Under his direction the gardens expanded from 11 to 75 acres, with an arboretum of 270 acres, many new glass-houses were erected, and a museum of economic botany was established. He was engaged on the Synopsis filicum with J. G. Baker 675 when he was attacked by a throat disease then epidemic at Kew, where he died on the 12th of August 1865.

HOOLE, JOHN (1727-1803), English translator and dramatist, son of a watchmaker and machinist, Samuel Hoole, was born at Moorfields, London, in December 1727. He was educated at a private school at Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire, kept by James Bennet, who edited Ascham’s English works. At the age of seventeen he became a clerk in the accountants’ department of the East India House, and before 1767 became one of the auditors of Indian accounts. His leisure hours he devoted to the study of Latin and especially Italian, and began writing translations of the chief works of the Italian poets. He published translations of the Jerusalem Delivered of Tasso in 1763, the Orlando Furioso of Ariosto in 1773-1783, the Dramas of Metastasio in 1767, and Rinaldo, an early work of Tasso, in 1792. Among his plays are: Cyrus (1768), Timanthes (1770) and Cleonice, Princess of Bithynia (1775), none of which achieved success. The verses of Hoole were praised by Johnson, with whom he was on terms of intimacy, but, though correct, smooth and flowing, they cannot be commended for any other merit. His translation of the Orlando Furioso was superseded by the version (1823-1831) of W. S. Rose. Hoole was also the friend of the Quaker poet John Scott of Amwell (1730-1783), whose life he wrote; it was prefixed to Scott’s Critical Essays (1785). In 1773 he was promoted to be chief auditor of Indian accounts, an office which he resigned in 1785. In 1786 he retired to the parsonage of Abinger, Surrey; and afterwards lived at Tenterden, Kent, dying at Dorking on the 2nd of April 1803.

HOOLIGAN, the generally accepted modern term for a young street ruffian or rowdy. It seems to have been first applied to the young street ruffians of the South-East of London about 1890, but though popular in the district, did not attract general attention till later, when authentic information of its origin was lost, but it appears that the most probable source was a comic song which was popular in the lower-class music-hall in the late ’eighties or early ’nineties, which described the doings of a rowdy family named Hooligan (i.e. Irish Houlihan). A comic character with the same name also appears to have been the central figure in a series of adventures running through an obscure English comic paper of about the same date, and also in a similar New York paper, where his confrère in the adventures is a German named Schneider (see Notes and Queries, 9th series, vol. ii. pp. 227 and 316, 1898, and 10th series, vol. vii. p. 115, 1901). In other countries the “hooligan” finds his counterpart. The Parisian Apache, so self-styled after the North American Indian tribe, is a much more dangerous character; mere rowdyism, the characteristic of the English “hooligan,” is replaced by murder, robbery and outrage. An equally dangerous class of young street ruffian is the “hoodlum” of the United States of America; this term arose in San Francisco in 1870, and thence spread. Many fanciful origins of the name have been given, for some of which see Manchester (N.H.) Notes and Queries, September 1883 (cited in the New English Dictionary). The “plug-ugly” of Baltimore is another name for the same class. More familiar is the Australian “larrikin,” which apparently came into use about 1870 in Melbourne. The story that the word represents an Irish policeman’s pronunciation of “larking” is a mere invention. It is probably only an adaptation of the Irish “Larry,” short for Lawrence. Others suggest that it is a corruption of the slang Leary Kinchen, i.e. knowing, wide-awake child.

HOOPER, JOHN (d. 1555), bishop of Gloucester and Worcester and martyr, was born in Somerset about the end of the 15th century and graduated B.A. at Oxford in 1519. He is said to have then entered the Cistercian monastery at Gloucester; but in 1538 a John Hooper appears among the names of the Black friars at Gloucester and also among the White friars at Bristol who surrendered their houses to the king. A John Hooper was likewise canon of Wormesley priory in Herefordshire; but identification of any of these with the future bishop is doubtful. The Greyfriars’ Chronicle says that Hooper was “sometime a white monk”; and in the sentence pronounced against him by Gardiner he is described as “olim monachus de Cliva Ordinis Cisterciensis,” i.e. of the Cistercian house at Cleeve in Somerset. On the other hand, at his deprivation he was not accused, like the other married bishops who had been monks or friars, of infidelity to the vow of chastity; and his own letters to Bullinger are curiously reticent on this part of his history. He there speaks of himself as being the only son and heir of his father and as fearing to be deprived of his inheritance if he adopted the reformed religion. Before 1546 he had secured employment in the household of Sir Thomas Arundell, a man of influential connexions. Hooper speaks of himself at this period as being “a courtier and living too much of a court life in the palace of our king.” But he chanced upon some of Zwingli’s works and Bullinger’s commentaries on St Paul’s epistles; and after some molestation in England and some correspondence with Bullinger on the lawfulness of complying against his conscience with the established religion, he determined to secure what property he could and take refuge on the continent. He had an adventurous journey, being twice imprisoned, driven about for three months on the sea, and reaching Strassburg in the midst of the Schmalkaldic war. There he married Anne de Tserclaes, and later on he proceeded by way of Basle to Zürich, where his Zwinglian convictions were confirmed by constant intercourse with Zwingli’s successor, Bullinger.

It was not until May 1549, after he had published various works at Zürich, that Hooper again arrived in England. He at once became the principal champion of Swiss Protestantism against the Lutherans as well as the Catholics, and was appointed chaplain to Protector Somerset. Somerset’s fall in the following October endangered Hooper’s position, and for a time he was in hourly dread of imprisonment and martyrdom, more especially as he had taken a prominent part against Gardiner and Bonner, whose restoration to their sees was now anticipated. Warwick, afterwards duke of Northumberland, however, overcame the reactionaries in the Council, and early in 1550 the Reformation resumed its course. Hooper became Warwick’s chaplain, and after a course of Lent lectures before the king he was offered the bishopric of Gloucester. This led to a prolonged controversy; Hooper had already denounced the “Aaronic vestments” and the oath by the saints prescribed in the new Ordinal; and he refused to be consecrated according to its rites. Cranmer, Ridley, Bucer and others urged him to submit in vain; confinement to his house by order of the Council proved equally ineffectual; and it was not until he had spent some weeks in the Fleet prison that the “father of nonconformity” consented to conform, and Hooper submitted to consecration with the legal ceremonies (March 8, 1551).

Once seated in his bishopric Hooper set about his episcopal duties with exemplary vigour. His visitation of his diocese (printed in English Hist. Rev. Jan. 1904, pp. 98-121) revealed a condition of almost incredible ignorance among his clergy. Fewer than half could say the Ten Commandments; some could not even repeat the Lord’s Prayer in English. Hooper did his best in the time at his disposal; but in less than a year the bishopric of Gloucester was reduced to an archdeaconry and added to Worcester, of which Hooper was made bishop in succession to Nicholas Heath (q.v.). He was opposed to Northumberland’s plot for the exclusion of Mary from the throne; but this did not save him from speedy imprisonment. He was sent to the Fleet on the 1st of September 1553 on a doubtful charge of debt to the queen; but the real cause was his stanchness to a religion which was still by law established. Edward VI.’s legislation was, however, repealed in the following month, and in March 1554 Hooper was deprived of his bishopric as a married man. There was still no statute by which he could be condemned to the stake, but Hooper was kept in prison; and the revival of the heresy acts in December 1554 was swiftly followed by execution. On the 29th of January 1555, Hooper, Rogers, Rowland Taylor and others were condemned by Gardiner and 676 degraded by Bonner. Hooper was sent down to suffer at Gloucester, where he was burnt on the 9th of February, meeting his fate with steadfast courage and unshaken conviction.

Hooper was the first of the bishops to suffer because his Zwinglian views placed him further beyond the pale than Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer. He represented the extreme reforming party in England. While he expressed dissatisfaction with some of Calvin’s earlier writings, he approved of the Consensus Tigurinus negotiated in 1549 between the Zwinglians and Calvinists of Switzerland; and it was this form of religion that he laboured to spread in England against the wishes of Cranmer, Ridley, Bucer, Peter Martyr and other more conservative theologians. He would have reduced episcopacy to narrow limits; and his views had considerable influence on the Puritans of Elizabeth’s reign, when many editions of Hooper’s various works were published.

HOOPOE (Fr. Huppe, Lat. Upupa, Gr. ἔποψ—all names bestowed apparently from its cry), a bird long celebrated in literature, and conspicuous by its variegated plumage and its large erectile crest,1 the Upupa epops of naturalists, which is the type of the very peculiar family Upupidae, placed by Huxley in his group Coccygomorphae, but considered by Dr Murie (Ibis, 1873, p. 208) to deserve separate rank as Epopomorphae. This species has an exceedingly wide range in the Old World, being a regular summer-visitant to the whole of Europe, in some parts of which it is abundant, as well as to Siberia, mostly retiring southwards in autumn to winter in equatorial Africa and India, though it would seem to be resident throughout the year in north-eastern Africa and in China. Its power of wing ordinarily seems to be feeble; but it is capable of very extended flight, as is testified by its wandering habits (for it occasionally makes its appearance in places very far removed from its usual haunts), and also by the fact that when pursued by a falcon it will rapidly mount to an extreme height and frequently effect its escape from the enemy. About the size of a thrush, with a long, pointed and slightly arched bill, its head and neck are of a golden-buff—the former adorned by the crest already mentioned, which begins to rise from the forehead and consists of broad feathers, gradually increasing in length, tipped with black and having a subterminal bar of yellowish-white. The upper part of the back is of a vinous-grey, and the scapulars and flight-feathers are black, broadly barred with white tinged in the former with buff. The tail is black with a white chevron, marking off about the distal third part of its length. The legs and feet are as well adapted for running or walking as for perching, and the scutellations are continued round the whole of the tarsi. Chiefly on account of this character, which is also possessed by the larks, Sundevall (Tentamen, pp. 53-55) united the Upupidae and Alaudidae in the same “cohors” Holaspideae. Comparative anatomy, however, forbids its being taken to signify any real affinity between these groups, and the resemblance on this point, which is by no means so striking as that displayed by the form of the bill and the coloration in certain larks (of the genus Certhilauda, for instance), must be ascribed to analogy merely.

Pleasing as is the appearance of the hoopoe as it fearlessly parades its showy plumage, some of its habits are much the reverse. All observers agree in stating that it delights to find its food among filth of the most abominable description, and this especially in its winter-quarters. But where it breeds, its nest, usually in the hole of a tree or of a wall, is not only partly composed of the foulest material, but its condition becomes worse as incubation proceeds, for the hen scarcely ever leaves her eggs, being assiduously fed by the cock as she sits; and when the young are hatched, their faeces are not removed by their parents,2 as is the case with most birds, but are discharged in the immediate neighbourhood of the nest, the unsanitary condition of which can readily be imagined. Worms, grubs, and insects generally form the hoopoes’ food, and upon it they get so fat in autumn that they are esteemed a delicate morsel in some of the countries of southern Europe, and especially by the Christian population of Constantinople.3

Not a year passes but the hoopoe makes its appearance in some part or other of the British Islands, most often in spring, and if unmolested would doubtless stop to breed in them, and a few instances are known in which it has done so. But its remarkable plumage always attracts attention, and it is generally shot down so soon as it is seen, and before it has time to begin a nest. Eight or nine so-called species of the genus have been described, but of them the existence of five only has been recognized by Sharpe and Dresser (Birds of Europe, pt. vii.). Besides the Upupa epops above treated, these are U. indica, resident in India and Ceylon; U. longirostris, which seems to be the form of the Indo-Chinese countries; U. marginata, peculiar to Madagascar; and U. africana or U. minor of some writers, which inhabits South Africa to the Zambesi on the east and Benguela on the west coast. In habits and appearance they all resemble the best-known and most widely-spread species.4

HOORN, a seaport in the province of North Holland, Holland, on a bay of the Zuider Zee called the Hoornerhop, and a junction station 23½ m. by rail N. by E. of Amsterdam, on the railway to Enkhuizen, with which it is also connected by steam tramway. Pop. (1900) 10,647. Hoorn is distinguished by its old-world air and the beauty and interest of its numerous gabled houses of the 16th and 17th centuries. Many of these are decorated with inscriptions and bas-reliefs, some of which commemorate the battle on the Zuider Zee in 1573, in which the Beggars defeated the Spaniards under Count Bossu. Walks and gardens now surround the town in the place of the old city walls, but a few towers and gateways adorned with various old coats of arms are still standing. The fine Gothic bastion tower overlooking the harbour was built in 1532; the East gate not later than 1578. Among the public buildings of special interest are the picturesque St John’s hospital (1563), now used for military 677 purposes; the old mint; the hospital for aged men and women (beginning of 17th century); the weigh-house (1609); the town hall, in which the states of West Friesland formerly met; and the old court-house, which dates from the beginning of the 17th century, though parts of it are older, containing a modern museum and some early portraits. There are also various charitable and educational institutions, Protestant and Roman Catholic churches and a synagogue. The extensive foreign commerce which Hoorn carried on in the 16th and 17th centuries has almost entirely vanished, but there is still a considerable trade with other parts of the Netherlands, especially in cheese and cattle. The chief industries include gold and silver work, and there are also tobacco factories, saw-mills and some small boat-building yards, a considerable number of vessels being engaged in the Zuider Zee fisheries.

Hoorn, latinized as Horna or Hornum, has existed at least from the first part of the 14th century, as it is mentioned in a document of the year 1311, five years earlier than the date usually assigned for its foundation. In 1356 it received municipal privileges from Count William V. of Holland, and in 1426 it was surrounded with walls. It was at Hoorn in 1416 that the first great net was made for the herring fishery, an industry which long proved an abundant source of wealth to the town. During the 15th century Hoorn shared in the troubles occasioned by the different contending factions; in 1569 the Spanish forces entered the town; but in 1572 it cast in its lot with the states of the Netherlands. In the 16th century it was a commercial centre, important for its trade, fisheries and breweries. A company of commerce and navigation was formed at Hoorn in 1720, and the admiralty offices and storehouses remained here until their removal to Medemblik in 1795. The English under Sir Ralph Abercromby took possession of the town in 1799, and in 1811 it suffered severely from the French. Among the celebrities of Hoorn are William Schouten, who discovered in 1616 the passage round Cape Horn, or Hoorn, as he named it in honour of his birthplace; Abel Janszoon Tasman, whose fame is associated with Tasmania; and Jan Pietersz Coen, governor-general of the Dutch East Indies.

HOOSICK FALLS, a village of Rensselaer county, New York, U.S.A., in the township of Hoosick, 27 m. N.E. of Troy, on the Hoosick river. Pop. of the village (1890) 7014; (1900) 5671, of whom 1092 were foreign-born; (1905) 5251; (1910) 5532; of the township (1900) 8631; (1910) 8315. Hoosick Falls is served by the Boston & Maine Railroad, and is connected by electric railway with Bennington, Vermont, about 8 m. E. The falls of the Hoosick river furnish water-power for the manufacture of agricultural machinery by the Walter A. Wood Mowing and Reaping Machine Co., which dates from 1866, the business having been started in 1852 by Walter Abbott Wood (1815-1892), who was a Republican representative in Congress in 1879-1883. Other manufactures are knit goods, shirts and collars and paper-making machinery. Hoosick Falls was settled about 1688 by Dutch settlers—settlers from Connecticut and Massachusetts came after 1763—and it was first incorporated in 1827. Three miles N.E. of the village, at Walloomsac, in the township of Hoosick, the battle of Bennington was fought, on the 16th of August 1777.

HOP (Ger. Hopfen, Fr. houblon), Humulus Lupulus, L., an herbaceous twining plant, belonging to the natural order Cannabinaceae, which is by some botanists included in the larger group called Urticaceae by Endlicher. It is of common occurrence in hedges and thickets in the southern counties of England, but is believed not to be native in Scotland. On the European continent it is distributed from Greece to Scandinavia, and extends through the Caucasus and Central Asia to the Altai Mountains. It is common, but doubtfully indigenous, in the northern and western states of North America, and has been introduced into Brazil, Australia and the Himalayas.

It is a perennial plant, producing annually several long twining roughish striated stems, which twist from left to right, are often 15 to 20 ft. long and climb freely over hedges and bushes. The roughness of stem and leaves is due to lines of strong hooked hairs, which help the plant to cling to its support. The leaves are stalked, opposite, 3-5 lobed, and coarsely serrate, and bear a general resemblance to those of the vine, but are, as well as the whole plant, rough to the touch; the upper leaves are sometimes scarcely divided, or quite entire. The stipules are between the leaf-stalks, each consisting of two lateral ones united, or rarely with the tips free. The male and female flowers are produced on distinct plants. The male inflorescence (fig. 1, A) forms a panicle; the flowers consist of a small greenish five-parted perianth (a) enclosing five stamens, whose anthers (b) open by terminal slits. The female inflorescence (fig. 1, B) is less conspicuous in the young state. The catkin or strobile consists of a number of small acute bracts, with two sessile ovaries at their base, each subtended by a rounded bractlet (c). Both the bracts and bractlets enlarge greatly during the development of the ovary, and form, when fully grown, the membranous scales of the strobile (fig. 2, a); they are known as “petals” by hop-growers. The bracts can then only be distinguished from the bractlets by being rather more acute and more strongly veined. The perianth (fig. 1, d) is short, cup-shaped, undivided and closely applied to the ovary, which it ultimately encloses. In the young strobile the two purple hairy styles (e) of each ovary project beyond the bracts. The ovary contains a single ovule (fig. 1. f) which becomes in the fruit an exalbuminous seed, containing a spirally-coiled embryo (fig. 2, b). The light dusty pollen is carried by the wind from the male to the female flowers.

The ovary and the base of the bracts are covered with a yellowish powder, consisting of minute sessile grains, called lupulin or lupulinic glands. These glands (fig. 2, c) are from 1⁄260 to 1⁄140 in. in diameter, like flattened subovate little saucers in shape, and attached to a short pedicel. The upper or hemispherical portion bears a delicate continuous membrane, the cuticle, which becomes raised by the secretion beneath it of the yellowish lupulin. The stalk is not perceptible in the gland as found in commerce. When fresh the gland is seen to be filled with a yellowish or dark brown liquid; this on drying contracts in bulk and forms a central mass. It is to these lupulinic glands that the medicinal properties of the hop are chiefly due. By careful sifting about 1 oz. may be obtained from 1 ℔ of hops, but the East Kent variety is said to yield more than the Sussex hops.

678

In hop gardens a few male plants, usually three or four to an acre, are sometimes planted, that number being deemed sufficient to fertilize the female flowers. The blossoms are produced in August, and the strobiles are fit for gathering from the beginning of September to the middle of October, according to the weather.

The cultivation of hops for use in the manufacture of beer dates from an early period. In the 8th and 9th centuries hop gardens, called “humularia” or “humuleta,” existed in France and Germany. Until the 16th century, however, hops appear to have been grown in a very fitful manner, and to a limited extent, generally only for private consumption; but after the beginning of the 17th century the cultivation increased rapidly. The plant was introduced into England from Flanders in 1525; and in America its cultivation was encouraged by legislative enactments in 1657. Formerly several plants were used as well as hops to season ale, hence the name “alehoof” for Nepeta Glechoma, and “alecost” for Balsamita vulgaris. The sweet gale, Myrica Gale, and the sage, Salvia officinalis, were also similarly employed. Various hop substitutes, in the form of powder, have been offered in commerce of late years, most of which appear to have quassia as a chief ingredient. The young tender tops of the hop are in Belgium cut off in spring and eaten like asparagus, and are forced from December to February.

Hop Production in England1

The cultivation of hops in the British Isles is restricted to England, where it is practically confined to half-a-dozen counties—four in the south-eastern and two in the west-midland districts. In 1901 the English crop was reported by the Board of Agriculture to occupy 51,127 acres. The official returns as to acreage do not extend back beyond 1868, in which year the total area was reported to be 64,488 acres. The largest area recorded since then was 71,789 acres in 1878; the smallest was 44,938 acres in 1907. The extent to which the areas of hops in the chief hop-growing counties vary from year to year is sufficiently indicated in Table I., which shows the annual acreages over a period of thirteen years, 1895 to 1907. The proportions in which the acres of hops are distributed amongst the counties concerned vary but little year by year, and as a rule over 60% belongs to Kent.

Table I.—Hop Areas of England 1895 to 1907. Acres.

Less than 200 acres in all are annually grown in the other hop-growing counties of England, these being Shropshire, Gloucestershire and Suffolk.

The average yield per acre in cwt. in the six counties during the decade 1897 to 1906 was as follows:—

Table II.

Table III. shows the average acreage, yield and total home produce of England during the decades 1888-1897 and 1898-1907.

Table III.

The wide fluctuations in the home production of hops are worthy of note, as they exercise a powerful influence upon market prices. The largest crop between 1885, the first year in which figures relating to production were collected, and 1907 was 679 that of 776,144 cwt. in 1886, and the smallest that of 281,291 cwt. in 1888, the former being more than 2½ times the size of the latter. The crop of 1899, estimated at 661,373 cwt., was so large that prices receded to an extent such as to leave no margin of profit to the great body of growers, whilst some planters were able to market the crop only at a loss. The calculated annual average yields per acre over the years 1885 to 1907 ranged between 12.76 cwt. in 1899 and 4.81 cwt. in 1888. No other staple crop of British agriculture undergoes such wide fluctuations in yield as are here indicated, the size of the crop produced bearing no relation to the acreage under cultivation. For example, the 71,327 acres in 1885 produced only 509,170 cwt., whereas the 51,843 acres in 1899 produced 661,373 cwt.—19,484 acres less under crop yielded 152,203 cwt. more produce.

Comparing the quantities of home-grown hops with those of imported hops, of the total available for consumption about 70% on the average is home produce and about 30% is imported produce. The imports, however, do not vary so much as the home produce. Table IV. shows the average quantity of imports to and exports (home-grown) from Great Britain during the decades 1877-1886, 1887-1896 and 1897-1906.

Table IV.

The highest and lowest imports were 266,952 cwt. in 1885 and 145,122 cwt. in 1887, the latter in the year following the biggest home-grown crop on record. On a series of years the largest proportion of imports is from the United States.

During the twenty-five years 1881-1905 the annual values of the hops imported into England fluctuated between the wide limits of £2,962,631 in 1882 and £427,753 in 1887. In five other years besides 1882 the value exceeded a million sterling. The annual average value over the whole period was £921,000, whilst the annual average import was 194,000 cwt., consequently the average value per cwt. was nearly £4, 15s., which is approximately the same as that of the exported product. The quantities and values of the imported hops that are again exported are almost insignificant.

Hop Production in the United States

The distribution of the area of hop-cultivation in the United States showed great changes during the last decades of the 19th and the first decade of the 20th century. During the earlier portion of that period New York was the chief hop-growing state of the Union, but toward the end of it a great extension of hop-growing took place on the Pacific coast (in the states of Oregon, California and Washington), where the richness of the soil and mildness of the climate are favourable to the bines.

The average annual produce of hops in the United States from 1900 to 1906 was 423,471 cwt.; of this quantity 80% was raised in the three states of the Pacific coast, where the yield per acre is much larger than in New York. In the latter state the yield does not appear to exceed 5 or 6 cwt. per acre, whereas in Oregon it is 9 or 10 cwt., and in Washington and California from 12 to 14 cwt. The average annual export (chiefly to Great Britain) in the years from 1899 to 1905 was 108,400 cwt.; the average import (chiefly from Germany) is about 50,000 cwt.

Hop Cultivation

As the county of Kent has always taken the lead in hop-growing in England, and as it includes about two-thirds of the hop acreage of the British Isles, the recent developments in hop cultivation cannot be better studied than in that county. They were well summarized by Mr Charles Whitehead in his sketch of the agriculture of Kent,2 wherein he states that the hop grounds—or hop gardens, as they are called in Kent—of poor character and least suitable for hop production have been gradually grubbed since 1894, on account of large crops, the importation of hops and low prices. At the beginning of the 19th century there were 290 parishes in Kent in which hops were cultivated. A century later, out of the 413 parishes in the county, as many as 331 included hop plantations. The hops grown in Kent are classified in the markets as “East Kents,” “Bastard East Kents,” “Mid Kents” and “Wealds,” according to the district of the county in which they are produced. The relative values of these four divisions follow in the same order, East Kents making the highest and Wealds the lowest rates. These divisions agree in the main with those defined by geological formations. Thus, “East Kents” are grown upon the Chalk, and especially on the outcrop of the soils of the London Tertiaries upon the Chalk. “Bastard East Kents” are produced on alluvial soil and soils formed by admixtures of loam, clay-loams, chalk, marl and clay from the Gault, Greensand and Chalk formations. “Mid Kents” are derived principally from the Greensand soils and outcrops of the London Tertiaries in the upper part of the district. “Wealds” come from soils on the Weald Clay, Hastings Sand and Tunbridge Wells Sand. As each “pocket” of hops must be marked with the owner’s name and the parish in which they were grown, buyers of hops can, without much trouble, ascertain from which of the four divisions hops come, especially if they have the map of the hop-growing parishes of England, which gives the name of each parish. There has been a considerable rearrangement of the hop plantations in Kent within recent years. Common varieties as Colegate’s, Jones’s, Grapes and Prolifics have been grubbed, and Goldings, Bramlings and other choice kinds planted in their places. The variety known as Fuggle’s, a heavy-cropping though slightly coarse hop, has been much planted in the Weald of Kent, and in parts of Mid Kent where the soil is suitable. In very old hop gardens, where there has been no change of plant for fifty or even one hundred years in some instances, except from the gradual process of filling up the places of plants that have died, there has been replanting with better varieties and varieties ripening in more convenient succession; and, generally speaking, the plantations have been levelled up in this respect to suit the demand for bright hops of fine quality. A recent classification3 of the varieties of English hops arranges them in three groups: (1) early varieties (e.g. Prolific, Bramling, Amos’s Early Bird); (2) mid-season or main-crop varieties (e.g. Farnham Whitebine, Fuggle’s, Old Jones’s, Golding); (3) late varieties (e.g. Grapes, Colgate’s).

The cost of cultivating and preparing the produce of an acre of hop land tends to increase, on account of the advancing rates of wages, the intense cultivation more and more essential, and the necessity of freeing the plants from the persistent attacks of insects and fungi. In 1893 Mr Whitehead estimated the average annual cost of an acre of hop land to be £35, 10s., the following being the items:—

Seven years later the average cost per acre in Kent had risen to quite £37.

680

The hops in Kent are usually planted in October or November, the plants being 6 ft. apart each way, thus giving 1210 hills or plant-centres per acre. Some planters still grow potatoes or mangels between the rows the first year, as the plants do not bear much until the second year; but this is considered to be a mistake, as it encourages wire-worm and exhausts the ground. Many planters pole hop plants the first year with a single short pole, and stretch coco-nut-fibre string from pole to pole, and grow many hops in the first season. Much of the hop land is ploughed between the rows, as labour is scarce, and the spaces between are dug afterwards. It is far better to dig hop land if possible, the tool used being the Kent spud. The cost of digging an acre ranges from 18s. to 21s. Hop land is ploughed or dug between November and March. After this the plants are “dressed,” which means that all the old bine ends are cut off with a sharp curved hop-knife, and the plant centres kept level with the ground.

Tying, Poling and Picking.—Tying the bines to the poles or strings is essentially women’s work. It was formerly always piecework, each woman taking so many acres to tie, but it is found better to pay the women 1s. 8d. to 2s. per day, that they may all work together, and tie the plants in those grounds where they want tying at once. The new modes of poling and training hop plants have also altered the conditions of tying.

Many improvements have been made in the methods of poling and training hops. Formerly two or three poles were placed to each hop-hill or plant-centre in the spring, and removed in the winter, and this was the only mode of training. Recently systems of training on wires and strings fastened to permanent upright poles have been introduced. One arrangement of wires and strings much adopted consists of stout posts set at the end of every row of hop-hills and fastened with stays to keep them in place. At intervals in each row a thick pole is fixed. From post to post in the rows a wire is stretched at a height of ½ ft. from the ground, another about 6 ft. from the ground, and another along the tops of the posts, so that there are three wires. Hooks are clipped on these wires at regular intervals, and coco-nut-fibre strings are threaded on them and fastened from wire to wire, and from post to post, to receive the hop bines. The string is threaded on the hooks continuously, and is put on those of the top wire with a machine called a stringer. There are several methods of training hops with posts or stout poles, wire and string, whose first cost varies from £20 to £40 per acre. The system is cheaper in the long run than that of taking down the poles every year, and the wind does not blow down the poles or injure the hops by banging the poles together. In another method, extensively made use of in Kent and Sussex, stout posts are placed at the ends of each row of plants, and, at intervals where requisite, wires are fastened from top to top only of these posts, whilst coco-nut-fibre strings are fixed by pegs to the ground, close to each hop-stock, whence they radiate upwards for attachment to the wires stretching between the tops of the posts. This method is more simple and less expensive than the system first described, its cost being from £24 to £28 per acre. In this case the plants require to be well “lewed,” or sheltered, as the strings being so light are blown about by the wind. These methods are being largely adopted, and, together with the practice of putting coco-nut-fibre strings from pole to pole in grounds poled in the old-fashioned manner, are important improvements in hop culture, which have tended to increase the production of hops. Where the old system of poling with two or three poles is still adhered to they are always creosoted, most growers having tanks for the purpose; and, in the new methods of poling, the posts and poles are creosoted, dipped or kyanized.

At Wye College, Kent, different systems of planting and training have been tried, the alleys varying in width from 10 ft. down to 5 ft., and the distance between the hills varying quite as widely, so that the number of hills to the acre has ranged from 1210 down to 660. The biggest crop was secured on the plot where hills were 8 ft. apart each way. As a rule, indeed, a wide alley and abundant space between the plants, thus allowing the hops plenty of air and light, produced the best results, besides effecting some saving in the cost of cultivation, as there were only 660 or 680 hills per acre. Of the various methods of training, the umbrella system gave the biggest crop in each of the three years, 1899, 1900, 1901; and it seemed to be the best method, except in seasons when washing was required early, in which case the plants were not so readily cleared of vermin.

Much attention is required to keep the bines in their places on the poles, strings or wire, during the summer. This gives employment to many women, for whose service in this and fruit-picking there is considerable demand, and a woman has no trouble in earning from 1s. 6d. to 1s. 10d. per day from April till September at pleasant and not very arduous labour. The hop-picking follows, and at this women sometimes get 4s. and even 5s. per day. This is the real Kent harvest, which formerly lasted a month or five weeks. Now it rarely extends beyond eighteen days, as it is important to secure the hops before the weather and the aphides, which almost invariably swarm within the bracts of the cones, discolour them and spoil their sale, as brewers insist upon having bright, “coloury” hops. Picking is better done than was formerly the case. The hops are picked more singly, and with comparatively few leaves, and the pickers are of a somewhat better type than the rough hordes who formerly went into Kent for “hopping.” Kent planters engage their pickers beforehand, and write to them, arranging the numbers required and the date of picking. Many families go into Kent for pea- and fruit-picking and remain for hop-picking. Without this great immigration of persons, variously estimated at between 45,000 and 65,000, the crops of hops could not be picked; and fruit-farmers also would be unable to get their soft fruit gathered in time without the help of immigrant hands. The fruit-growers and hop-planters of Kent have greatly improved the accommodation for these immigrants.

Concerning the general question as to the advisability or otherwise of cutting the hop bine at the time of picking, A.D. 682 Hall has ascertained experimentally that if the bine is cut close to the ground at a time when the whole plant is unripe there are removed in the bine and leaves considerable quantities of nitrogen, potash and phosphoric acid which would have returned to the roots if the bine had not been cut until ripe. The plant, therefore, would retain a substantial store of these constituents for the following year’s growth if the bine were left. Chemical analyses have shown that about 30 ℔ of nitrogen per acre may be saved by allowing the bines to remain uncut, this representing practically one-third of the total amount of nitrogen in the hops, leaf and bine together. There are also from 25 ℔ to 30 ℔ of potash in the growth, of which nine-tenths would return to the roots, with about half the phosphoric acid and a very small proportion of the lime. It has been demonstrated that by the practice of cutting the bines when the hops are picked the succeeding crop is lessened to the extent of about one-tenth. As to stripping off the leaves and lower branches of the plant, it was found that this operation once reduced the crop 10% and once 20%, but that in the year 1899 it did not affect the crop at all. The inference appears to be that when there is a good crop it is not reduced by stripping, but that when there is less vigour in the plant it suffers the more. Hence, it would seem advisable to study the plant itself in connexion with this matter, and to strip a little later, or somewhat less, than usual when the bine is not healthy.

Drying.—After being picked, the hops are taken in pokes—long sacks holding ten bushels—to the oasts to be dried. The oasts are circular or square kilns, or groups of kilns, wherein the green hops are laid upon floors covered with horsehair, under which are enclosed or open stoves or furnaces. The heat from these is evenly distributed among the hops above by draughts below and round them. This is the usual simple arrangement, but patent processes are adopted here and there, though they are by no means general. The hops are from nine to ten hours drying, after which they are taken off the kiln and allowed to cool somewhat, and are then packed tightly into “pockets” 6 ft. long and 2 ft. wide, weighing 1½ cwt., by means of a hop-pressing machine, which has cogs and wheels worked by hand. Of late years more care has been bestowed by some of the leading growers upon the drying of hops, so as to preserve their qualities and volatile essences, and to meet the altered requirements of brewers, who must have bright, well-managed hops for the production of light clear beers for quick draught. The use, for example, of exhaust fans, recently introduced, greatly facilitates drying by drawing a large volume of air through the hops; and as the temperature may at the same time be kept low, the risk of getting overfired samples is considerably reduced, though not entirely obviated. The adoption of the roller floor is another great advance in the process of hop-drying, for this, used in conjunction with a raised platform for the men to stand on when turning, prevents any damage from the feet of the workmen, and reduces the loss of resin to a minimum. The best results are obtained when exhaust fans and the roller floor are associated together. In such cases the roller floor, which empties its load automatically, pours the hop cones into the receiving sheets in usually as whole and unbroken a condition as that in which they went on to the kiln.

HOPE, ANTHONY, the pen-name of Anthony Hope Hawkins (1863-  ), British novelist, who was born on the 9th of February 1863, the second son of the Rev. E. C. Hawkins, Vicar of St Bride’s, Fleet Street, London. He was educated at Marlborough and Balliol College, Oxford, where he was president of the Union Society, and graduated with first classes in Moderations and Final Schools. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in 1877. He soon began contributing stories and sketches to the St James’s Gazette, and in 1890 published his first novel, A Man of Mark. This was followed by Father Stafford (1891), Mr Witt’s Widow (1892), Change of Air and Sport Royal and Other Stories (1893). By this time he had attracted by his vivacious talent the attention of editors and readers; but it was not till the following year that he attained a great popular success with the publication (May 1894) of The Prisoner of Zenda. This was followed a few weeks later by The Dolly Dialogues (previously published in separate instalments in the Westminster Gazette). Both books became parents of a numerous progeny. The Prisoner of Zenda, owing something to the Prince Otto of R. L. Stevenson, established a fashion for what was christened, after its fictitious locality, “Ruritanian romance”; while the Dolly Dialogues, inspired possibly by “Gyp” and other French dialogue writers, was the forerunner of a whole school of epigrammatic drawing-room comedy. The Prisoner of Zenda, with Mr Alexander as “Rupert Rassendyll,” enjoyed a further success in a dramatized form at the St James’s Theatre, which did still more to popularize the author’s fame. In 1894 also appeared The God in the Car, a novel suggested by the ambiguous influence on English society of Cecil Rhodes’s career; and Half a Hero, a complementary study of Australian politics. The same year saw further the publication of The Indiscretion of the Duchess, in the style of the Dolly Dialogues, and of another collection of stories named (after the first) The Secret of Wardale Court. In 1895 Mr Hawkins published Count Antonio, and contributed to Dialogues of the Day, edited by Mr Oswald Crawfurd. Comedies of Courtship and The Heart of the Princess Osra followed in 1896; Phroso in 1897; Simon Dale and Rupert of Hentzau (sequel of the Prisoner of Zenda) 1898; and The King’s Mirror, a Ruritanian romance with an infusion of serious psychological interest, 1899. The author was advancing from his light comedy and gallant romantic inventions to the graver kind of fiction of which The God in the Car had been an earlier essay. Quisante, published in 1900, was a study of English society face to face with a political genius of an alien type. Tristram of Blent (1901) embodied an ethical study of family pride. The Intrusions of Peggy reflected the effects on society of recent financial fashions. In 1904 he published Double Harness, and in 1905 A Servant of the Public, two novels of modern society, containing somewhat cynical pictures of the condition of marriage. With increasing gravity the novelist sacrificed some of the charm of his earlier irresponsible gaiety and buoyancy; but his art retained its wit and urbanity while 683 it gained in grip of the social conditions of contemporary life. He wrote two plays, The Adventure of Lady Ursula (1898) and Pilkerton’s Peerage (1902), and his later novels include The Great Miss Driver (1908) and Second String (1909). Mr Hawkins’s attractive and cultured style and command of plot give him a high place among the modern writers of English fiction. In 1903 he married Miss Elizabeth Somerville Sheldon of New York.

HOPE, THOMAS (c. 1770-1831), English art-collector, and author of Anastasius, born in London about 1770, was the eldest son of John Hope of Amsterdam, and was descended from a branch of an old Scottish family who for several generations were extensive merchants in London and Amsterdam. About the age of eighteen he started on a tour through various parts of Europe, Asia and Africa, where he interested himself especially in architecture and sculpture, making a large collection of the principal objects which attracted his attention. On his return to London about 1796 he purchased a house in Duchess Street, Cavendish Square, which he fitted up in a very elaborate style, from drawings made by himself. In 1807 he published sketches of his furniture, accompanied by letterpress, in a folio volume, entitled Household Furniture and Interior Decoration, which had considerable influence in effecting a change in the upholstery and interior decoration of houses, notwithstanding that Byron had referred scornfully to him as “House-furnisher withal, one Thomas hight.” Hope’s furniture designs were in that pseudo-classical manner which is generally called “English Empire.” It was sometimes extravagant, and often heavy, but was much more restrained than the wilder and later flights of Sheraton in this style. At the best, however, it was a not very inspiring mixture of Egyptian and Roman motives. In 1809 he published the Costumes of the Ancients, and in 1812 Designs of Modern Costumes, works which display a large amount of antiquarian research. He was also, as his father had been—the elder Hope’s country house near Haarlem was crowded with fine pictures—a munificent patron of the highest forms of art, and both at his London house and his country seat at Deepdene near Dorking he formed large collections of paintings, sculpture and antiques. Deepdene in his day became a famous resort of men of letters as well as of people of fashion, and among the luxuries suggested by his fine taste was a miniature library in several languages in each bedroom. Thorvaldsen, the Danish sculptor, was indebted to him for the early recognition of his talents, and he also gave frequent employment to Chantrey and Flaxman—it was to his order that the latter illustrated Dante. In 1819 he published anonymously his novel Anastasius, or Memoirs of a Modern Greek, written at the close of the 18th century, a work which, chiefly on account of the novel character of its subject, caused a great sensation. It was at first generally attributed to Lord Byron, who told Lady Blessington that he wept bitterly on reading it because he had not written it and Hope had. But, though remarkable for the acquaintance it displays with Eastern life, and distinguished by considerable imaginative vigour and much graphic and picturesque description, its paradoxes are not so striking as those of Lord Byron; and, notwithstanding some eloquent and forcible passages, the only reason which warranted its ascription to him was the general type of character to which its hero belonged. Hope died on the 3rd of February 1831. He was the author of two works published posthumously—the Origin and Prospects of Man (1831), in which his speculations diverged widely from the usual orthodox opinions, and an Historical Essay on Architecture (1835), an elaborate description of the architecture of the middle ages, illustrated by drawings made by himself in Italy and Germany. He is commonly known in literature as “Anastasius” Hope. He married (1806) Louisa de la Poer Beresford, daughter of Lord Decies, archbishop of Tuam.

HOPEDALE, a township of Worcester county, Massachusetts, U.S.A.; pop. (1905; state census) 2048; (1910) 2188. It is served by the Milford & Uxbridge (electric) street railway, and (for freight) by the Grafton & Upton railway. The town lies in the “dale” between Milford and Mendon, and is cut from N.W. to S.E. by the Mill river, which furnishes good water power at its falls. The principal manufactures are textiles, boots and shoes, and, of most importance, cotton machinery. The great cotton machinery factories here are owned by the Draper Company. Hopedale has a public park on the site of the Ballou homestead, with a bronze statue of Adin Ballou; a memorial church erected by George A. and Eben S. Draper; the Bancroft Memorial Library, given by Joseph B. Bancroft in memory of his wife; and a marble drinking fountain with statuary by Waldo Story, the gift of Susan Preston Draper, General W. F. Draper’s wife. The village is remarkable for the comfortable cottages of the workers.

The history of Hopedale centres round the Rev. Adin Ballou (1803-1890), a distant relative of Hosea Ballou;1 he left, in succession, the ministry of the Christian Connexion (1823) and that of the Universalist Church (1831), because of his restorationist views. In 1831 he became pastor of an independent church in Mendon. An ardent exponent of temperance, the anti-slavery movement, woman’s rights, the peace cause and Christian non-resistance (even through the Civil War), and of “Practical Christian Socialism,” it was in the interests of the last cause that he founded Hopedale, or “Fraternal Community No. 1,” in Milford, in April 1842, the first compact of the community having been drawn up in January 1841. Thirty persons joined with him, and lived in a single house on a poor farm of 258 acres, purchased in June 1841. Ballou was for several years the president of the community, which was run on the plan that all should have an equal voice as to the use of property, in spite of the fact that there was individual holding of property. The community, however, owned the instruments of production, with the single exception of the important patent rights held by Ebenezer D. Draper. The result was bickerings between those who were joint stockholders and those whose only profit came from their manual labour. In a short time the control of the community came into the hands of its richest members, E. D. Draper and his brother, George Draper (1817-1887), who owned three-fourths of the joint stock. In 1856 there was a total deficit of about $12,000. The Draper brothers bought up the joint stock of the community at par and paid its debts, and the community soon ceased to exist save as a religious society. After George Draper’s death the control of the mills passed to his sons. These included General William Franklin Draper (1842-1910), a Republican representative in Congress in 1892-1897 and U.S. ambassador to Italy in 1897-1900, and Eben Sumner Draper (b. 1858), lieutenant-governor of Massachusetts in 1906-1908 and governor in 1909-1911. In 1867 the community was merged with Hopedale parish, a Unitarian organization. Hopedale was separated from Milford and incorporated as a township in 1886.

HOPE-SCOTT, JAMES ROBERT (1812-1873), English barrister and Tractarian, was born on the 15th of July 1812, at Great Marlow, Berkshire, the third Son of Sir Alexander Hope, and grandson of the second earl of Hopetoun. He was educated at Eton and Oxford, where he was a contemporary and friend of Gladstone and J. H. Newman, and in 1838 was called to the bar. Between 1840 and 1843 he helped to found Trinity College, Glenalmond. He was one of the leaders of the Tractarian movement and entirely in Newman’s confidence. In 1851 he was received with Manning into the Roman Catholic church. At this time he was making a very large income at the Parliamentary bar. He only commenced serious practice in this branch of his profession in 1843, but by the end of 1845 he stood at the head of it and in 1849 was made a Queen’s Counsel. In 1847 he married Miss Lockhart, granddaughter of Sir Walter Scott, and on her coming into possession of Abbotsford six years later, 684 assumed the surname of Hope-Scott. He retired from the bar in 1870 and died on the 29th of April 1873.

HOPFEN, HANS VON (1835-1904), German poet and novelist, was born on the 3rd of January 1835, at Munich. He studied law, and in 1858, having shown marked poetical promise, he was received into the circle of young poets whom King Maximilian II. had gathered round him, and thereafter devoted himself to literature. In 1862 he made his debut as an author, with Lieder und Balladen, which were published in the Münchener Dichterbuch, edited by E. Geibel. After travelling in Italy (1862), France (1863) and Austria (1864), he was appointed, in 1865, general secretary of the “Schillerstiftung,” and in this capacity settled at Vienna. The following year, however, he removed to Berlin, in a suburb of which, Lichterfelde, he died on the 19th of November 1904. Of Hopfen’s lyric poems, Gedichte (4th ed., Berlin, 1883), many are of considerable talent and originality; but it is as a novelist that he is best known. The novels Peregretta (1864); Verdorben zu Paris (1868, new ed. 1892); Arge Sitten (1869); Der graue Freund (1874, 2nd ed., 1876); and Verfehlte Liebe (1876, 2nd ed., 1879) are attractive, while of his shorter stories Tiroler Geschichten (1884-1885) command most favour.

HOPI, or Moki (Moquis), a tribe of North American Indians of Shoshonean stock. They are Pueblo or town-building Indians and occupy seven villages on three lofty plateaus of northern Arizona. The first accounts of them date from the expedition of Francisco Vasquez de Coronado in 1540. With the town-building Indians of New Mexico they were then subdued. They shared in the successful revolt of 1542, but again suffered defeat in 1586. In 1680, however, they made a successful revolt against the Spaniards. They weave very fine blankets, make baskets and are expert potters and wood-carvers. Their houses are built of stone set in mortar. Their ceremonies are of an elaborate nature, and in the famous “snake-dance” the performers carry live rattlesnakes in their mouths. They number some 1600. (See also Pueblo Indians.)

HÖPKEN, ANDERS JOHAN, Count von (1712-1789), Swedish statesman, was the son of Daniel Niklas Höpken, one of Arvid Horn’s most determined opponents and a founder of the Hat party. When in 1738 the Hats came into power the younger Höpken obtained a seat in the secret committee of the diet, and during the Finnish war of 1741-42 was one of the two commissioners appointed to negotiate with Russia. During the diet of 1746-1747 Höpken’s influence was of the greatest importance. It was chiefly through his efforts that the estates issued a “national declaration” protesting against the arrogant attitude of the Russian ambassador, who attempted to dominate the crown prince Adolphus Frederick and the government. This spirited policy restored the waning prestige of the Hat party and firmly established their anti-Muscovite system. In 1746 Höpken was created a senator. In 1751 he succeeded Gustaf Tessin as prime minister, and controlled the foreign policy of Sweden for the next nine years. On the outbreak of the Seven Years’ War, he contracted an armed neutrality treaty with Denmark (1756); but in the following year acceded to the league against Frederick II. of Prussia. During the crisis of 1760-1762, when the Hats were at last compelled to give an account of their stewardship, Höpken was sacrificed to party exigencies and retired from the senate as well as from the premiership. On the 22nd of June 1762, however, he was created a count. After the revolution of 1772 he re-entered the senate at the particular request of Gustavus III., but no longer exercised any political influence. His caustic criticism of many of the royal measures, moreover, gave great offence, and in 1780 he retired into private life. Höpken was a distinguished author. The noble style of his biographies and orations has earned for him the title of the Swedish Tacitus. He helped to found the Vetenskaps Akademi, and when Gustavus III. in 1786 established the Swedish Academy, he gave Höpken the first place in it.

HOPKINS, EDWARD WASHBURN (1857-  ), American Sanskrit scholar, was born in Northampton, Massachusetts, on the 8th of September 1857. He graduated at Columbia University in 1878, studied at Leipzig, where he received the degree of Ph.D. in 1881, was an instructor at Columbia in 1881-1885, and professor at Bryn Mawr in 1885-1895, and became professor of Sanskrit and comparative philology in Yale University in 1895. He became secretary of the American Oriental Society and editor of its Journal, to which he contributed many valuable papers, especially on numerical and temporal categories in early Sanskrit literature. He wrote Caste in Ancient India (1881); Manu’s Lawbook (1884); Religions of India (1895); The Great Epic of India (1901); and India Old and New (1901).

HOPKINS, ESEK (1718-1802), the first admiral of the United States navy, was born at Scituate, Rhode Island, in 1718. He belonged to one of the most prominent Puritan families of New England. At the age of twenty he went to sea, and rapidly came to the front as a good sailor and skilful trader. Marrying, three years later, into a prosperous family of Newport, and thus increasing his influence in Rhode Island, he became commodore of a fleet of seventeen merchantmen, the movements of which he directed with skill and energy. In war as well as peace, Hopkins was establishing his reputation as one of the leading colonial seamen, for as captain of a privateer he made more than one brilliant and successful venture during the Seven Years’ War. In the interval between voyages, moreover, he was engaged in Rhode Island politics, and rendered efficient support to his brother Stephen against the Ward faction. At the outbreak of the War of Independence, Hopkins was appointed brigadier-general by Rhode Island, was commissioned, December 1775, by the Continental Congress, commander-in-chief of the navy, and in January 1776 hoisted his flag as admiral of the eight converted merchantmen which then constituted the navy of the United States. His first cruise resulted in a great acquisition of material of war and an indecisive fight with H.M.S. “Glasgow.” At first this created great enthusiasm, but criticism soon made itself heard. Hopkins and two of his captains were tried for breach of orders, and, though ably defended by John Adams, were censured by Congress. The commands, nevertheless, were not interfered with, and a prize was soon afterwards named after the admiral by their orders. But the difficulties and mutual distrust continually increased, and in 1777 Congress summarily dismissed Hopkins from his command, on the complaint of some of his officers. Before the order arrived, the admiral had detected the conspiracy against him, and had had the ringleaders tried and degraded by court-martial. But the Congress followed up its order by dismissing him from the navy. For the rest of his life he lived in Rhode Island, playing a prominent part in state politics, and he died at Providence in 1802.

HOPKINS, MARK (1802-1887), American educationist, great-nephew of the theologian Samuel Hopkins, was born in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, on the 4th of February 1802. He graduated in 1824 at Williams College, where he was a tutor in 1825-1827, and where in 1830, after having graduated in the previous year at the Berkshire Medical College at Pittsfield, he became professor of Moral Philosophy and Rhetoric. In 1833 he was licensed to preach in Congregational churches. He was president of Williams College from 1836 until 1872. He was one of the ablest and most successful of the old type of college president. His volume of lectures on Evidences of Christianity (1846) was long a favourite text-book. Of his other writings, the chief were Lectures on Moral Science (1862), The Law of Love and Love as a Law (1869), An Outline Study of Man 685 (1873), The Scriptural Idea of Man (1883), and Teachings and Counsels (1884). Dr Hopkins took a lifelong interest in Christian missions, and from 1857 until his death was president of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (the American Congregational Mission Board). He died at Williamstown, on the 17th of June 1887. His son, Henry Hopkins (1837-1908), was also from 1903 till his death president of Williams College.

Mark Hopkins’s brother, Albert Hopkins (1807-1872), was long associated with him at Williams College, where he graduated in 1826 and was successively a tutor (1827-1829), professor of mathematics and natural philosophy (1829-1838), professor of natural philosophy and astronomy (1838-1868) and professor of astronomy (1868-1872). In 1835 he organized and conducted a Natural History Expedition to Nova Scotia, said to have been the first expedition of the kind sent out from any American college, and in 1837, at his suggestion and under his direction, was built at Williams College an astronomical observatory, said to have been the first in the United States built at a college exclusively for purposes of instruction. He died at Williamstown on the 24th of May 1872.

HOPKINS, SAMUEL (1721-1803), American theologian, from whom the Hopkinsian theology takes its name, was born at Waterbury, Connecticut, on the 17th of September 1721. He graduated at Yale College in 1741; studied divinity at Northampton, Massachusetts, with Jonathan Edwards; was licensed to preach in 1742, and in December 1743 was ordained pastor of the church in the North Parish of Sheffield, or Housatonick (now Great Barrington), Massachusetts, at that time a small settlement of only thirty families. There he laboured—preaching, studying and writing—until 1769, for part of the time (1751-1758) in intimate association with his old teacher, Edwards, whose call to Stockbridge he had been instrumental in procuring. His theological views having met with much opposition, however, he was finally dismissed from the pastorate on the pretext of want of funds for his support. From April 1770 until his death on the 20th of December 1803, he was the pastor of the First Church in Newport, Rhode Island, though during 1776-1780, while Newport was occupied by the British, he preached at Newburyport, Mass., and at Canterbury and Stamford, Conn. In 1799 he had an attack of paralysis, from which he never wholly recovered. Hopkins’s theological views have had a powerful influence in America. Personally he was remarkable for force and energy of character, and for the utter fearlessness with which he followed premises to their conclusions. In vigour of intellect and in strength and purity of moral tone he was hardly inferior to Edwards himself. Though he was originally a slave-holder, to him belongs the honour of having been the first among the Congregational ministers of New England to denounce slavery both by voice and pen; and to his persistent though bitterly opposed efforts are probably chiefly to be attributed the law of 1774, which forbade the importation of negro slaves into Rhode Island, as also that of 1784, which declared that all children of slaves born in Rhode Island after the following March should be free. His training school for negro missionaries to Africa was broken up by the confusion of the American War of Independence. Among his publications are a valuable Life and Character of Jonathan Edwards (1799), and numerous pamphlets, addresses and sermons, including A Dialogue concerning the Slavery of the Africans, showing it to be the Duty and Interest of the American States to emancipate all their African Slaves (1776), and A Discourse upon the Slave Trade and the History of the Africans (1793). His distinctive theological tenets are to be found in his important work, A System of Doctrines Contained in Divine Revelation, Explained and Defended (1793), which has had an influence hardly inferior to that exercised by the writings of Edwards himself. They may be summed up as follows: God so rules the universe as to produce its highest happiness, considered as a whole. Since God’s sovereignty is absolute, sin must be, by divine permission, a means by which this happiness of the whole is secured, though that this is its consequence, renders it no less heinous in the sinner. Virtue consists in preference for the good of the whole to any private advantage; hence the really virtuous man must willingly accept any disposition of himself that God may deem wise—a doctrine often called “willingness to be damned.” All have natural power to choose the right, and are therefore responsible for their acts; but all men lack inclination to choose the right unless the existing “bias” of their wills is transformed by the power of God from self-seeking into an effective inclination towards virtue. Hence preaching should demand instant submission to God and disinterested goodwill, and should teach the worthlessness of all religious acts or dispositions which are less than these, while recognizing that God can grant or withhold the regenerative change at his pleasure.

HOPKINS, WILLIAM (1793-1866), English mathematician and geologist, was born at Kingston-on-Soar, in Nottinghamshire, on the 2nd of February 1793. In his youth he learned practical agriculture in Norfolk and afterwards took an extensive farm in Suffolk. In this he was unsuccessful. At the age of thirty he entered St Peter’s College, Cambridge, taking his degree of B.A. in 1827 as seventh wrangler and M.A. in 1830. In 1833 he published Elements of Trigonometry. He was distinguished for his mathematical knowledge, and became eminently successful as a private tutor, many of his pupils attaining high distinction. About 1833, through meeting Sedgwick at Barmouth and joining him in several excursions, he became intensely interested in geology. Thereafter, in papers published by the Cambridge Philosophical Society and the Geological Society of London, he entered largely into mathematical inquiries connected with geology, dealing with the effects which an elevatory force acting from below would produce on a portion of the earth’s crust, in fissures, faults, &c. In this way he discussed the elevation and denudation of the Lake district, the Wealden area, and the Bas Boulonnais. He wrote also on the motion of glaciers and the transport of erratic blocks. So ably had he grappled with many difficult problems that in 1850 the Wollaston medal was awarded to him by the Geological Society of London; and in the following year he was elected president. In his second address (1853) he criticized Élie de Beaumont’s theory of the elevation of mountain-chains and showed the imperfect evidence on which it rested. He brought before the Geological Society in 1851 an important paper On the Causes which may have produced changes in the Earth’s superficial Temperature. He was president of the British Association for 1853. His later researches included observations on the conductivity of various substances for heat, and on the effect of pressure on the temperature of fusion of different bodies. He died at Cambridge on the 13th of October 1866.

HOPKINSON, FRANCIS (1737-1791), American author and statesman, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the 2nd of October 1737. He was a son of Thomas Hopkinson (1709-1751), a prominent lawyer of Philadelphia, one of the first trustees of the College of Philadelphia, now the University of Pennsylvania, and first president of the American Philosophical Society. Francis was the first student to enter the College of Philadelphia. 686 from which he received his bachelor’s degree in 1757 and his master’s degree in 1760. He then studied law in the office in Philadelphia of Benjamin Chew, and was admitted to the bar in 1761. Removing after 1768 to Bordentown, New Jersey, he became a member of the council of that colony in 1774. On the approach of the War of Independence he identified himself with the patriot or whig element in the colony, and in 1776 and 1777 he was a delegate to the Continental Congress. He served on the committee appointed to frame the Articles of Confederation, executed, with John Nixon (1733-1808) and John Wharton, the “business of the navy” under the direction of the marine committee, and acted for a time as treasurer of the Continental loan office. From 1779 to 1789 he was judge of the court of admiralty in Pennsylvania, and from 1790 until his death was United States district judge for that state. He was famous for his versatility, and besides being a distinguished lawyer, jurist and political leader, was “a mathematician, a chemist, a physicist, a mechanician, an inventor, a musician and a composer of music, a man of literary knowledge and practice, a writer of airy and dainty songs, a clever artist with pencil and brush and a humorist of unmistakeable power” (Tyler, Literary History of the American Revolution). It is as a writer, however, that he will be remembered. He ranks as one of the three leading satirists on the patriot side during the War of Independence. His ballad, The Battle of the Kegs (1778), was long exceedingly popular. To alarm the British force at Philadelphia the Americans floated kegs charged with gunpowder down the Delaware river towards that city, and the British, alarmed for the safety of their shipping, fired with cannon and small arms at everything they saw floating in the river. Hopkinson’s ballad is an imaginative expansion of the actual facts. To the cause of the revolution this ballad, says Professor Tyler, “was perhaps worth as much just then as the winning of a considerable battle.” Hopkinson’s principal writings are The Pretty Story (1774), A Prophecy (1776) and The Political Catechism (1777). Among his songs may be mentioned The Treaty and The New Roof, a Song for Federal Mechanics; and the best known of his satirical pieces are Typographical Method of conducting a Quarrel, Essay on White Washing and Modern Learning. His Miscellaneous Essays and Occasional Writings were published at Philadelphia in 3 vols., 1792.

His son, Joseph Hopkinson (1770-1842), graduated at the University of Pennsylvania in 1786, studied law, and was a Federalist member of the national House of Representatives in 1815-1819, Federal judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania from 1828 until his death, and a member of the state constitutional convention of 1837. He is better known, however, as the author of the patriotic anthem “Hail Columbia” (1798).

HOPKINSON, JOHN (1849-1898), English engineer and physicist, was born in Manchester on the 27th of July 1849. Before he was sixteen he attended lectures at Owens College, and at eighteen he gained a mathematical scholarship at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated in 1871 as senior wrangler and first Smith’s prizeman, having previously taken the degree of D.Sc. at London University and won a Whitworth scholarship. Although elected a fellow and tutor of his college, he stayed up at Cambridge only for a very short time, preferring to learn practical engineering as a pupil in the works in which his father was a partner. But there his stay was equally short, for in 1872 he undertook the duties of engineering manager in the glass manufactories of Messrs Chance Brothers and Company at Birmingham. Six years later he removed to London, and while continuing to act as scientific adviser to Messrs Chance, established a most successful practice as a consulting engineer. His work was mainly, though not exclusively, electrical, and his services were in great demand as an expert witness in patent cases. In 1890 he was appointed director of the Siemens laboratory at King’s College, London, with the title of professor of electrical engineering. His death occurred prematurely on the 27th of August 1898, when he was killed, together with one son and two daughters, by an accident the nature of which was never precisely ascertained, while climbing the Petite Dent de Veisivi, above Evolena. Dr Hopkinson presented a rare combination of practical with theoretical ability, and his achievements in pure scientific research are not less intrinsically notable than the skill with which he applied their results to the solution of concrete engineering problems. His original work is contained in more than sixty papers, all written with a complete mastery both of style and of subject-matter. His name is best known in connexion with electricity and magnetism. On the one hand he worked out the general theory of the magnetic circuit in the dynamo (in conjunction with his brother Edward), and the theory of alternating currents, and conducted a long series of observations on the phenomena attending magnetization in iron, nickel and the curious alloys of the two which can exist both in a magnetic and non-magnetic state at the same temperature. On the other hand, by the application of the principles he thus elucidated he furthered to an immense extent the employment of electricity for the purposes of daily life. As regards the generation of electric energy, by pointing out defects of design in the dynamo as it existed about 1878, and showing how important improvements were to be effected in its construction, he was largely instrumental in converting it from a clumsy and wasteful appliance into one of the most efficient known to the engineer. Again, as regards the distribution of the current, he took a leading part in the development of the three-wire system and the closed-circuit transformer, while electric traction had to thank him for the series-parallel method of working motors. During his residence in Birmingham, Messrs Chance being makers of glass for use in lighthouse lamps, his attention was naturally turned to problems of lighthouse illumination, and he was able to devise improvements in both the catoptric and dioptric methods for concentrating and directing the beam. He was a strong advocate of the group-flashing system as a means of differentiating lights, and invented an arrangement for carrying it into effect optically, his plan being first adopted for the catoptric light of the Royal Sovereign lightship, in the English Channel off Beachy Head. Moreover, his association with glass manufacture led him to study the refractive indices of different kinds of glass; he further undertook abstruse researches on electrostatic capacity, the phenomena of the residual charge, and other problems arising out of Clerk Maxwell’s electro-magnetic theory.

HOPKINSVILLE, a city and the county-seat of Christian county, Kentucky, U.S.A., about 150 m. S.W. of Louisville. Pop. (1890) 5833; (1900) 7280 (3243 negroes); (1910) 9419. The city is served by the Illinois Central and the Louisville & Nashville railways. It is the seat of Bethel Female College (Baptist, founded 1854), of South Kentucky College (Christian; co-educational; chartered 1849) and of the Western Kentucky Asylum for the Insane. The city’s chief interest is in the tobacco industry; it has also considerable trade in other agricultural products and in coal; and its manufactures include carriages and wagons, bricks, lime, flour and dressed lumber. When Christian county was formed from Logan county in 1797, Hopkinsville, formerly called Elizabethtown, became the county-seat, and was renamed in honour of Samuel Hopkins (c. 1750-1819), an officer of the Continental Army in the War of Independence, a pioneer settler in Kentucky, and a representative in Congress from Kentucky in 1813-1815. In 1798 Hopkinsville was incorporated.

HOPPNER, JOHN (1758-1810), English portrait-painter, was born, it is said, on the 4th of April 1758 at Whitechapel. His father was of German extraction, and his mother was one of the German attendants at the royal palace. Hoppner was consequently brought early under the notice and received the patronage of George III., whose regard for him gave rise to unfounded scandal. As a boy he was a chorister at the royal chapel, but showing strong inclination for art, he in 1775 entered as a student at the Royal Academy. In 1778 he took a silver medal for drawing from the life, and in 1782 the Academy’s highest award, the gold medal for historical painting, his subject 687 being King Lear. He first exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1780. His earliest love was for landscape, but necessity obliged him to turn to the more lucrative business of portrait-painting. At once successful, he had, throughout life, the most fashionable and wealthy sitters, and was the greatest rival of the growing attraction of Lawrence. Ideal subjects were very rarely attempted by Hoppner, though a “Sleeping Venus,” “Belisarius,” “Jupiter and Io,” a “Bacchante” and “Cupid and Psyche” are mentioned among his works. The prince of Wales especially patronized him, and many of his finest portraits are in the state apartments at St James’s Palace, the best perhaps being those of the prince, the duke and duchess of York, of Lord Rodney and of Lord Nelson. Among his other sitters were Sir Walter Scott, Wellington, Frere and Sir George Beaumont. Competent judges have deemed his most successful works to be his portraits of women and children. A Series of Portraits of Ladies was published by him in 1803, and a volume of translations of Eastern tales into English verse in 1805. The verse is of but mediocre quality. In his later years Hoppner suffered from a chronic disease of the liver; he died on the 23rd of January 1810. He was confessedly an imitator of Reynolds. When first painted, his works were much admired for the brilliancy and harmony of their colouring, but the injury due to destructive mediums and lapse of time which many of them suffered caused a great depreciation in his reputation. The appearance, however, of some of his pictures in good condition has shown that his fame as a brilliant colourist was well founded. His drawing is faulty, but his touch has qualities of breadth and freedom that give to his paintings a faint reflection of the charm of Reynolds. Hoppner was a man of great social power, and had the knowledge and accomplishments of a man of the world.

HOP-SCOTCH (“scotch,” to score), an old English children’s game in which a small object, like a flat stone, is kicked by the player, while hopping, from one division to another of an oblong space marked upon the ground and divided into a number of divisions, usually 10 or 12. These divisions are numbered, and the stone must rest successively in each. Should it rest upon a line or go out of the division aimed for, the player loses. In order to win a player must drive the stone into each division and back to the starting-point.

HOPTON, RALPH HOPTON, Baron (1598-1652), Royalist commander in the English Civil War, was the son of Robert Hopton of Witham, Somerset. He appears to have been educated at Lincoln College, Oxford, and to have served in the army of the Elector Palatine in the early campaigns of the Thirty Years’ War, and in 1624 he was lieutenant-colonel of a regiment raised in England to serve in Mansfeld’s army. Charles I., at his coronation, made Hopton a Knight of the Bath. In the political troubles which preceded the outbreak of the Civil War, Hopton, as member of parliament successively for Bath, Somerset and Wells, at first opposed the royal policy, but after Stratford’s attainder (for which he voted) he gradually became an ardent supporter of Charles, and at the beginning of the Great Rebellion (q.v.) he was made lieutenant-general under the marquess of Hertford in the west. His first achievement was the rallying of Cornwall to the royal cause, his next to carry the war from that county into Devonshire. In May 1643 he won the brilliant victory of Stratton, in June he overran Devonshire, and on the 5th of July he inflicted a severe defeat on Sir William Waller at Lansdown. In the last action he was severely wounded by the explosion of a powder-wagon and he was soon after shut up in Devizes by Waller, where he defended himself until relieved by the victory of Roundway Down on the 13th of July. He was soon afterwards created Baron Hopton of Stratton. But his successes in the west were cut short by the defeat of Cheriton or Alresford in March 1644. After this he served in the western campaign under Charles’s own command, and towards the end of the war, after Lord Goring had left England, he succeeded to the command of the royal army, which his predecessor had allowed to waste away in indiscipline. It was no longer possible to stem the tide of the parliament’s victory, and Hopton, defeated in his last stand at Torrington on the 16th of February 1646, surrendered to Fairfax. Subsequently he accompanied the prince of Wales in his attempts to prolong the war in the Scilly and Channel Islands. But his downright loyalty was incompatible with the spirit of concession and compromise which prevailed in the prince’s council in 1640-1650, and he withdrew from active participation in the cause of royalism. He died, still in exile, at Bruges in September 1652. The peerage became extinct at his death. The king, Prince Charles and the governing circle appreciated the merits of their faithful lieutenant less than did his enemies Waller and Fairfax, the former of whom wrote, “hostility itself cannot violate my friendship to your person,” while the latter spoke of him as “one whom we honour and esteem above any other of your party.”

HOR, MOUNT (הור), the scene in the Bible of Aaron’s death, situated “in the edge of the land of Edom” (Num. xxxiii. 37). Since the time of Josephus it has been identified with the Jebel Nebi Ḥarūn (“Mountain of the Prophet Aaron”), a twin-peaked mountain 4780 ft. above the sea-level (6072 ft. above the Dead Sea) in the Edomite Mountains on the east side of the Jordan-Arabah valley. On the summit is a shrine said to cover the grave of Aaron. Some modern investigators dissent from this identification: H. Clay Trumbull prefers the Jebel Madāra, a peak north-west of ’Ain Kadis. Another Mount Hor is mentioned in Num. xxxiv. 7, 8, as on the northern boundary of the prospective conquests of the Israelites. It is perhaps to be identified with Hermon. It has been doubtfully suggested that for Hor we should here read Hadrach, the name of a northern country near Damascus, mentioned only once in the Bible (Zech. ix. 1).

HORACE [Quintus Horatius Flaccus] (65-8 B.C.), the famous Roman poet, was born on the 8th of December 65 B.C. at Venusia, on the borders of Lucania and Apulia (Sat. ii. 1. 34). The town, originally a colony of veterans, appears to have long maintained its military traditions, and Horace was early imbued with a profound respect for the indomitable valour and industry of the Italian soldier. It would seem, however, that the poet was not brought up in the town itself, at least he did not attend the town school (Sat. i. 6. 72) and was much in the neighbouring country, of which, though he was but a child when he left it, he retained always a vivid and affectionate memory. The mountains near and far, the little villages on the hillsides, the woods, the roaring Aufidus, the mossy spring of Bandusia, after which he named another spring on his Sabine farm—these scenes were always dear to him and are frequently mentioned in his poetry (e.g. Carm. iii. 4 and 30, iv. 9). We may thus trace some of the germs of his poetical inspiration, as well as of his moral sympathies, to the early years which he spent near Venusia. But the most important moral influence of his youth was the training and example of his father, of whose worth, affectionate solicitude and homely wisdom Horace has given a most pleasing and life-like picture (Sat. i. 6. 70, &c.). He was a freedman by position; and it is supposed that he had been originally a slave of the town of Venusia, and on his emancipation had received the gentile name of Horatius from the Horatian tribe in which the inhabitants of Venusia were enrolled. After his emancipation he acquired by the occupation of “coactor” (a collector of the payments made at public auctions, or, according to another interpretation, a collector of taxes) sufficient means to enable him to buy a small farm, to make sufficient provision for the future of his son (Sat. i. 4. 108), and to take him to Rome to give him the advantage of the best education there. To his care Horace attributes, not only the intellectual training which enabled him in later life to take his place among the best men of Rome, but also his immunity from the baser forms of moral evil (Sat. i. 6. 68. &c.). To his practical teaching he attributes also his tendency to moralize and to observe character (Sat. i. 4. 105, &c.)—the tendency which enabled him to become the most truthful painter of social life and manners which the ancient world produced.

688

In one of his latest writings (Epist. ii. 2. 42, &c.) Horace gives a further account of his education; but we hear no more of his father, nor is there any allusion in his writings to the existence of any other member of his family or any other relative. After the ordinary grammatical and literary training at Rome, he went (45 B.C.) to Athens, the most famous school of philosophy, as Rhodes was of oratory; and he describes himself while there as “searching after truth among the groves of Academus” as well as advancing in literary accomplishment. His pleasant residence there was interrupted by the breaking out of the civil war. Following the example of his young associates, he attached himself to the cause of Brutus, whom he seems to have accompanied to Asia, probably as a member of his staff; and he served at the battle of Philippi in the post of military tribune. He shared in the rout which followed the battle, and henceforth, though he was not less firm in his conviction that some causes were worth fighting for and dying for, he had but a poor opinion of his own soldierly qualities.

He returned to Rome shortly after the battle, stripped of his property, which formed part of the land confiscated for the benefit of the soldiers of Octavianus and Antony. It may have been at this time that he encountered the danger of shipwreck, which he mentions among the perils from which his life had been protected by supernatural aid (Carm. iii. 4. 28). He procured in some way the post of a clerkship in the quaestor’s office, and about three years after the battle of Philippi, he was introduced by Virgil and Varius to Maecenas. This was the turning-point of his fortunes. He owed his friendship with the greatest of literary patrons to his personal merits rather than to his poetic fame; for he was on intimate terms with Maecenas before the first book of the Satires (his first published work) appeared. He tells us in one of his Satires (i. 10. 31) that his earliest ambition was to write Greek verses. In giving this direction to his ambition, he was probably influenced by his admiration of the old iambic and lyrical poets whom he has made the models of his own Epodes and Odes. His common sense as well as his national feeling fortunately saved him from becoming a second-rate Greek versifier in an age when poetic inspiration had passed from Greece to Italy, and the living language of Rome was a more fitting vehicle for the new feelings and interests of men than the echoes of the old Ionian or Aeolian melodies. His earliest Latin compositions were, as he tells us, written under the instigation of poverty; and they alone betray any trace of the bitterness of spirit which the defeat of his hopes and the hardships which he had to encounter on his first return to Rome may have temporarily produced on him. Some of the Epodes, of the nature of personal and licentious lampoons, and the second Satire of book i., in which there is some trace of an angry republican feeling, belong to these early compositions. But by the time the first book of Satires was completed and published (35 B.C.) his temper had recovered its natural serenity, and, though he had not yet attained to the height of his fortunes, his personal position was one of comfort and security, and his intimate relation with the leading men in literature and social rank was firmly established.

About a year after the publication of this first book of Satires Maecenas presented him with a farm among the Sabine hills, near the modern Tivoli. This secured him pecuniary independence; it satisfied the love of nature which had been implanted in him during the early years spent on the Venusian farm; and it afforded him a welcome escape from the distractions of city life and the dangers of a Roman autumn. Many passages in the Satires, Odes and Epistles express the happiness and pride with which the thought of his own valley filled him, and the interest which he took in the simple and homely ways of his country neighbours. The inspiration of the Satires came from the heart of Rome; the feeling of many of the Odes comes direct from the Sabine hills; and even the meditative spirit of the later Epistles tells of the leisure and peace of quiet days spent among books, or in the open air, at a distance from “the smoke, wealth and tumult” of the great metropolis.

The second book of Satires was published in 29 B.C.; the Epodes (spoken of by himself as iambi) apparently about a year earlier, though many of them are, as regards the date of their composition, to be ranked among the earliest extant writings of Horace. In one of his Epistles (i. 19. 25) he rests his first claim to originality on his having introduced into Latium the metres and spirit of Archilochus of Paros. He may have naturalized some special form of metre employed by that poet, and it may be (as Th. Plüsz has suggested) that we should see in the Epodes a tone of mockery and parody. But his personal lampoons are the least successful of his works; while those Epodes which treat of other subjects in a poetical spirit are inferior in metrical effect, and in truth and freshness of feeling, both to the lighter lyrics of Catullus and to his own later and more carefully meditated Odes. The Epodes, if they are serious at all, are chiefly interesting as a record of the personal feelings of Horace during the years which immediately followed his return to Rome, and as a prelude to the higher art and inspiration of the first three books of the Odes, which were published together about the end of 24 or the beginning of 23 B.C.1 The composition of these Odes extended over several years, but all the most important among them belong to the years between the battle of Actium and 24 B.C. His lyrical poetry is thus, not, like that of Catullus, the ardent utterance of his youth, but the mature and finished workmanship of his manhood. The state of public affairs was more favourable than it had been since the outbreak of the civil war between Caesar and Pompey for the appearance of lyrical poetry. Peace, order and national unity had been secured by the triumph of Augustus, and the enthusiasm in favour of the new government had not yet been chilled by experience of its repressing influence. The poet’s circumstances were, at the same time, most favourable for the exercise of his lyrical gift during these years. He lived partly at Rome, partly at his Sabine farm, varying his residence occasionally by visits to Tibur, Praeneste or Baiae. His intimacy with Maecenas was strengthened and he had become the familiar friend of the great minister. He was treated with distinction by Augustus, and by the foremost men in Roman society. He complains occasionally that the pleasures of his youth are passing from him, but he does so in the spirit of a temperate Epicurean, who found new enjoyments in life as the zest for the old enjoyments decayed, and who considered the wisdom and meditative spirit—“the philosophic mind that years had brought”—an ample compensation for the extinct fires of his youth.

About four years after the publication of the three books of Odes, the first book of the Epistles appeared, introduced, as his Epodes, Satires and Odes had been, by a special address to Maecenas. From these Epistles, as compared with the Satires, we gather that he had gradually adopted a more retired and meditative life, and had become fonder of the country and of study, and that, while owing allegiance to no school or sect of philosophy, he was framing for himself a scheme of life, was endeavouring to conform to it, and was bent on inculcating it on others. He maintained his old friendships, and continued to form new intimacies, especially with younger men engaged in public affairs or animated by literary ambition. After the death of Virgil he was recognized as pre-eminently the greatest living poet, and was accordingly called upon by Augustus to compose the sacred hymn for the celebration of the secular games in 17 B.C. About four years later he published the fourth book of Odes (about 13 B.C.) having been called upon to do so by the emperor, in order that the victories of his stepsons Drusus and Tiberius over the Rhaeti and Vindelici might be worthily celebrated. He lived about five years longer, and during these years published the second book of Epistles, and the Epistle to the Pisos, more generally known as the “Ars poetica.” These later Epistles are mainly devoted to literary criticism, with the especial object of vindicating the poetic claims of his own age over those of the age of Ennius and the other early 689 poets of Rome. He might have been expected, as a great critic and lawgiver on literature, to have exercised a beneficial influence on the future poetry of his country, and to have applied as much wisdom to the theory of his own art as to that of a right life. But his critical Epistles are chiefly devoted to a controversial attack on the older writers and to the exposition of the laws of dramatic poetry, on which his own powers had never been exercised, and for which either the genius or circumstances of the Romans were unsuited. The same subordination of imagination and enthusiasm to good sense and sober judgment characterizes his opinions on poetry as on morals.

He died somewhat suddenly on the 17th of November of the year 8 B.C. He left Augustus to see after his affairs, and was buried on the Esquiline Hill, near Maecenas.

Horace is one of the few writers, ancient or modern, who have written a great deal about themselves without laying themselves open to the charge of weakness or egotism. His chief claim to literary originality is not that on which he himself rested his hopes of immortality—that of being the first to adapt certain lyrical metres to the Latin tongue—but rather that of being the first of those whose works have reached us who establishes a personal relation with his reader, speaks to him as a familiar friend, gives him good advice, tells him the story of his life, and shares with him his private tastes and pleasures—and all this without any loss of self-respect, any want of modesty or breach of good manners, and in a style so lively and natural that each new generation of readers might fancy that he was addressing them personally and speaking to them on subjects of every day modern interest. In his self-portraiture, far from wishing to make himself out better or greater than he was, he seems to write under the influence of an ironical restraint which checks him in the utterance of his highest moral teaching and of his poetical enthusiasm. He affords us some indications of his personal appearance, as where he speaks of the “nigros angusta fronte capillos” of his youth, and describes himself after he had completed his forty-fourth December as of small stature, prematurely grey and fond of basking in the sun (Epist. i. 20. 24).

In his later years his health became weaker or more uncertain, and this caused a considerable change in his habits, tastes and places of residence. It inclined him more to a life of retirement and simplicity, and also it stimulated his tendency to self-introspection and self-culture. In his more vigorous years, when he lived much in Roman society, he claims to have acted in all his relations to others in accordance with the standard recognized among men of honour in every age, to have been charitably indulgent to the weakness of his friends, and to have been exempt from petty jealousies and the spirit of detraction. If ever he deviates from his ordinary vein of irony and quiet sense into earnest indignation, it is in denouncing conduct involving treachery or malice in the relations of friends (Sat. i. 4. 81, &c.).

He claims to be and evidently aims at being independent of fortune, superior to luxury, exempt both from the sordid cares of avarice and the coarser forms of profligacy. At the same time he makes a frank confession of indolence and of occasional failure in the pursuit of his ideal self-mastery. He admits his irascibility, his love of pleasure, his sensitiveness to opinion, and some touch of vanity or at least of gratified ambition arising out of the favour which through all his life he had enjoyed from those much above him in social station (Epist. i. 20. 23). Yet there appears no trace of any unworthy deference in Horace’s feelings towards the great. Even towards Augustus he maintained his attitude of independence, by declining the office of private secretary which the emperor wished to force upon him; and he did so with such tact as neither to give offence nor to forfeit the regard of his superior. His feeling towards Maecenas is more like that of Pope towards Bolingbroke than that which a client in ancient or modern times entertains towards his patron. He felt pride in his protection and in the intellectual sympathy which united him with one whose personal qualities had enabled him to play so prominent and beneficent a part in public affairs. Their friendship was slowly formed, but when once established continued unshaken through their lives.

There is indeed nothing more remarkable in Horace than the independence, or rather the self-dependence, of his character. The enjoyment which he drew from his Sabine farm consisted partly in the refreshment to his spirit from the familiar beauty of the place, partly in the “otia liberrima” from the claims of business and society which it afforded him. His love poems, when compared with those of Catullus, Tibullus and Propertius, show that he never, in his mature years at least, allowed his peace of mind to be at the mercy of any one. They are the expressions of a fine and subtle and often a humorous observation rather than of ardent feeling. There is perhaps a touch of pathos in his reference in the Odes to the early death of Cinara, but the epithet he applies to her in the Epistles,

“Quem scis immunem Cinarae placuisse rapaci,”

shows that the pain of thinking of her could not have been very heartfelt. Even when the Odes addressed to real or imaginary beauties are most genuine in feeling, they are more the artistic rekindling of extinct fires than the utterance of recent passion. In his friendships he had not the self-forgetful devotion which is the most attractive side of the character of Catullus; but he studied how to gain and keep the regard of those whose society he valued, and he repaid this regard by a fine courtesy and by a delicate appreciation of their higher gifts and qualities, whether proved in literature, or war, or affairs of state or the ordinary dealings of men. He enjoyed the great world, and it treated him well; but he resolutely maintained his personal independence and the equipoise of his feelings and judgment. If it is thought that in attributing a divine function to Augustus he has gone beyond the bounds of a sincere and temperate admiration, a comparison of the Odes in which this occurs with the first Epistle of the second book shows that he certainly recognized in the emperor a great and successful administrator and that his language is to be regarded rather as the artistic expression of the prevailing national sentiment than as the tribute of an insincere adulation.

The aim of Horace’s philosophy was to “be master of oneself,” to retain the “mens aequa” in all circumstances, to use the gifts of fortune while they remained, and to be prepared to part with them with equanimity; to make the most of life, and to contemplate its inevitable end without anxiety. Self-reliance and resignation are the lessons which he constantly inculcates. His philosophy is thus a mode of practical Epicureanism combined with other elements which have more affinity with Stoicism. In his early life he professed his adherence to the former system, and several expressions in his first published work show the influences of the study of Lucretius. At the time when the first book of the Epistles was published he professes to assume the position of an eclectic rather than that of an adherent of either school (Epist. i. 1. 13-19). We note in the passage here referred to, as in other passages, that he mentions Aristippus of Cyrene, rather than Epicurus himself, as the master under whose influence he from time to time insensibly lapsed. Yet the dominant tone of his teaching is that of a refined Epicureanism, not so elevated or purely contemplative as that preached by Lucretius, but yet more within the reach of a society which, though luxurious and pleasure-loving, had not yet become thoroughly frivolous and enervated. His advice is to subdue all violent emotion of fear or desire; to estimate all things calmly—“nil admirari”; to choose the mean between a high and low estate; and to find one’s happiness in plain living rather than in luxurious indulgence. Still there was in Horace a robuster fibre, inherited from the old Italian race, which moved him to value the dignity and nobleness of life more highly than its ease and enjoyment. In some of the stronger utterances of his Odes, where he expresses sympathy with the manlier qualities of character, we recognize the resistent attitude of Stoicism rather than the passive acquiescence of Epicureanism. The concluding stanzas of the address to Lollius (Ode iv. 9) exhibit the Epicurean and Stoical view of life so combined as to be more worthy of human dignity than 690 the genial worldly wisdom of the former school, more in harmony with human experience than the formal precepts of the latter.

It is interesting to trace the growth of Horace in elevation of sentiment and serious conviction from his first ridicule of the paradoxes of Stoicism in the two books of the Satires to the appeal which he makes in some of the Odes of the third book to the strongest Roman instincts of fortitude and self-sacrifice. A similar modification of his religious and political attitude may be noticed between his early declaration of Epicurean unbelief and the sympathy which he shows with the religious reaction fostered by Augustus; and again between the Epicurean indifference to national affairs and the strong support which he gives to the national policy of the emperor in the first six Odes of the third book, and in the fifth and fifteenth of the fourth book. In his whole religious attitude he seems to stand midway between the consistent denial of Lucretius and Virgil’s pious endeavour to reconcile ancient faith with the conclusions of philosophy. His introduction into some of his Odes of the gods of mythology must be regarded as merely artistic or symbolical. Yet in some cases we recognize the expression of a natural piety, thankful for the blessing bestowed on purity and simplicity of life, and acknowledging a higher and more majestic law governing nations through their voluntary obedience. On the other hand, his allusions to a future life, as in the “domus exilis Plutonia,” and the “furvae regna Proserpinae,” are shadowy and artificial. The image of death is constantly obtruded in his poems to enhance the sense of present enjoyment. In the true spirit of paganism he associates all thoughts of love and wine, of the meeting of friends, or of the changes of the seasons with the recollection of the transitoriness of our pleasures—

HORAE (Lat. hora, hour), the Hours, in Greek mythology Ὡραι, originally the personification of a series of natural phenomena. In the Iliad (v. 749) they are the custodians of the gates of Olympus, which they open or shut by scattering or condensing the clouds; that is, they are weather goddesses, who send down or withhold the fertilizing dews and rain. In the Odyssey, where they are represented as bringing round the seasons in regular order, they are an abstraction rather than a concrete personification. The brief notice in Hesiod (Theog. 901), where they are called the children of Zeus and Themis, who superintend the operations of agriculture, indicates by the names assigned to them (Eunomia, Dikē, Eirenē, i.e. Good Order, Justice, Peace) the extension of their functions as goddesses of order from nature to the events of human life, and at the same time invests them with moral attributes. Like the Moerae (Fates), they regulate the destinies of man, watch over the newly born, secure good laws and the administration of justice. The selection of three as their number has been supposed to refer to the most ancient division of the year into spring, summer and winter, but it is probably only another instance of the Greek liking for that particular number or its multiples in such connexions (three Moerae, Charites, Gorgons, nine Muses). Order and regularity being indispensable conditions of beauty, it was easy to conceive of the Horae as the goddesses of youthful bloom and grace, inseparably associated with the idea of springtime. As such they are companions of the Nymphs and Graces, with whom they are often confounded, and of other superior deities connected with the spring growth of vegetation (Demeter, Dionysus). At Athens they were two (or three) in number: Thallo and Carpo, the goddesses of the flowers of spring and of the fruits of summer, to whom Auxo, the goddess of the growth of plants, may be added, although some authorities make her only one of the Graces. In honour of the Horae a yearly festival (Horaea) was celebrated, at which protection was sought against the scorching heat and drought, and offerings were made of boiled meat as less insipid and more nutritious than roast. In later mythology, under Alexandrian influence, the Horae become the four seasons, daughters of Helios and Selene, each represented with the conventional attributes. Subsequently, when the day was divided into twelve equal parts, each of them took the name of Hora. Ovid (Metam. ii. 26) describes them as placed at equal intervals on the throne of Phoebus, with whom are also associated the four seasons. Nonnus (5th century A.D.) in the Dionysiaca also unites the twelve Horae as representing the day and the four Horae as the seasons in the palace of Helios.