History for ready reference, Volume 3, Greece to Nibelungen

by J. N. Larned

distinction which it seems to have owed as much to the freedom
enjoyed by the inhabitants, and the liberality of the
government of the Low Countries, as to the conveniency of its
situation. In consequence of this preference, Bruges speedily
rose to the very highest rank among commercial cities, and
became a place of vast wealth. … From the middle of the
fifteenth century the power of the confederacy, though still
very formidable, began to decline. This was not owing to any
misconduct on the part of its leaders, but to the progress of
that improvement it had done so much to promote. … Lubeck,
Hamburgh, Bremen, and the towns in their vicinity, were
latterly the only ones that had any interest in its
maintenance. The cities in Zealand and Holland joined it,
chiefly because they would otherwise have been excluded from
the commerce of the Baltic; and those of Prussia, Poland and
Russia did the same, because, had they not belonged to it,
they would have been shut out from all intercourse with
strangers. When, however, the Zealanders and Hollanders became
sufficiently powerful at sea to be able to vindicate their
right to the free navigation of the Baltic by force of arms,
they immediately seceded from the League; and no sooner had
the ships of the Dutch, the English, etc., begun to trade
directly with the Polish and Prussian Hanse Towns, than these
nations also embraced the first opportunity of withdrawing
from it. … At the middle of the seventeenth century the
cities of Lubeck, Hamburgh, and Bremen were all that continued
to acknowledge the authority of the League."
History of the Hanseatic League
(Foreign Quarterly Review, January, 1831).
ALSO IN:
S. A. Dunham,
History of the Germanic Empire,
book 1, chapter 4 (volume 2).
C. Walford,
Outline History of the Hanseatic League
(Royal Historical Society Transactions, volume 9).
H. Zimmern,
The Hansa Towns
(Stories of the Nations).
J. Yeats,
The Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce.
See, also,
CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
and SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.
HANSE OF LONDON, The Flemish.
See FLANDERS: 13TH CENTURY.
HANSEATIC LEAGUE.
See HANSA TOWNS.
HAOMA.
See SOMA.
HAPSBURG, OR HABSBURG,
Origin and rise of the House of.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.
{1627}
HAPSBURG-LORRAINE, The House of.
See AUSTRIA; A. D. 1745 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
HARALD IV.,
King of Norway, A. D. 1134-1136.
Harald Blaatand, King of Denmark, 941-991.
Harald Graafield, King of Norway, 963-977.
Harald Hardrade, King of Norway, 1047-1066.
Harald Harfager, King of Norway, 863-934.
Harald Sweynson, King of Denmark, 1076-1080.
HARAN.
"From Ur, Abraham's father had migrated to Haran, in the
northern part of Mesopotamia, on the high road which led from
Babylonia and Assyria into Syria and Palestine. Why he should
have migrated to so distant a city has been a great puzzle,
and has tempted scholars to place both Ur and Haran in wrong
localities; but here, again, the cuneiform inscriptions have
at last furnished us with the key. As far back as the Accadian
epoch, the district in which Haran was built belonged to the
rulers of Babylonia; Haran was, in fact, the frontier town of
the empire, commanding at once the highway into the west and
the fords of the Euphrates; the name itself was an Accadian
one, signifying 'the road.'"
A. H. Sayce,
Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
chapter 2.
The site of Haran is generally identified with that of the
later city of Carrhæ.
HARD-SHELL DEMOCRATS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.
HARDENBURG'S REFORM MEASURES IN PRUSSIA.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.
HARDICANUTE, OR HARTHACNUT,
King of Denmark, A. D. 1035-1042;
King of England, A. D. 1040-1042.
HARDINGE, Lord, The Indian administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.
HARFLEUR.
Capture by Henry V.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.
HARGREAVE'S SPINNING-JENNY, Invention of.
See COTTON MANUFACTURE.
HARII, OR ARII, The.
See LYGIANS.
HARLAW, Battle of (1411).
A very memorable battle in Scottish history, fought July 24,
1411, between the Highlanders and Lowlanders of the country.
Donald, Lord of the Isles, was then practically an independent
sovereign of the western Highlands of Scotland, as well as the
islands opposite their shore. He claimed still larger domains
and invaded the lowland districts to make his claim good. The
defeat inflicted upon him, at heavy cost to the victors, was
felt, says Mr. Benton in his "History of Scotland," as a more
memorable deliverance even than that of Bannockburn. The
independence of the Lord of the Isle was not extinguished
until sixty years later. "The battle of Harlaw and its
consequences were of the highest importance, since they might
be said to decide the superiority of the more civilized
regions of Scotland over those inhabited by the Celtic tribes,
who remained almost as savage as their forefathers the
Dalriads."
Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland,
chapter 17.
HARLEM.
See HAARLEM.
HARMAR'S EXPEDITION AGAINST THE INDIANS.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.
HARMOSTS.
See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.
HAROLD (the Dane),
King of England, A. D. 1037-1040.
Harold (the Saxon), King of England, 1066.
HAROUN AL RASCHID, Caliph, A. D. 786-809.
----------HARPER'S FERRY: Start--------
HARPER'S FERRY: A. D. 1859.
John Brown's invasion.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.
HARPER'S FERRY: A. D. 1861 (April).
Arsenal destroyed and abandoned by the Federal garrison.
Occupied by the Rebels.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).
HARPER'S FERRY: A. D. 1862.
Capture by the Confederates.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).
----------HARPER'S FERRY: End--------
HARRISON, General Benjamin,
Presidential election and administration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1888, to 1892.
HARRISON, General William Henry:
Indian campaign and battle of Tippecanoe.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.
In the War of 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
Presidency for one month.
Death.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840.
HARRISON'S LANDING,
The Army of the Potomac at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA),
and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).
HARROW SCHOOL.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.-ENGLAND.
----------HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT: Start--------
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.
The beginnings of the city.
See CONNECTICUT; A. D. 1631; and 1634-1637.
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1650.
The Treaty with the Dutch of New Netherland.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1687.
The hiding of the Charter.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.
----------HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT: End--------
HARTFORD CONVENTION, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).
HARTHACNUT.
See HARDICANUTE.
HARUSPICES, The.
"The haruspices, nearly related to the augures, were of
Etruscan origin. Under the [Roman] Republic they were
consulted only in a few individual cases: under the emperors
they gained more importance, remaining, however, inferior to
the other priestly colleges. They also expounded and procured
lightnings and 'prodigies,' and moreover examined the
intestines of sacrificed animals. … Heart, liver and lungs
were carefully examined, every anomaly being explained in a
favourable or unfavourable sense."
E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 103.
HARVARD ANNEX.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1804-1891.
HARVARD COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1635, and 1636.
HASHEM, Caliph: A. D. 724-743.
HASMONEANS, OR ASMONEANS.
See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.
HASSAN, Caliph: A. D. 661.
HASSIDIN, The.
A sect of Jewish mystics which rose during the 17th century in
Podolia, Wallachia, Moldavia, Hungary and neighboring regions.
H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
volume 3, book 28.
HASTATI.
See LEGION, ROMAN.
HASTENBACK, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).
{1628}
HASTING, The Northman.
See Normans: A. D. 849-860.
HASTINGS, Marquis of (Lord Moira).
The Indian administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
HASTINGS, Warren:
His administration in India.
His impeachment and Trial.
See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785; and 1785-1795.
HASTINGS, OR SENLAC, Battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (OCTOBER).
HATFIELD CHASE.
A vast swamp in the West Riding of Yorkshire, England, 180,000
acres in extent, which was sold by the crown in the reign of
Charles I. to a Hollander who drained and reclaimed it. It had
been a forest in early times and was the scene of a great
battle between Penda, King of Mercia, and Edwin of
Northumberland.
J. C. Brown,
Forests of England,
part 1, chapter. 2, section 2.
HATRA.
"Hatra [in central Mesopotamia] became known as a place of
importance in the early part of the second century after
Christ. It successfully resisted Trajan in A. D. 116, and
Severus in A. D. 198. It is then described as a large and
populous city, defended by strong and extensive walls, and
containing within it a temple of the Sun, celebrated for the
great value of its offerings. It enjoyed its own kings at this
time, who were regarded as of Arabian stock, and were among
the more important of the Parthian tributary monarchs. By the
year A. D. 363 Hatra had gone to ruin, and is then described
as 'long since deserted.' Its flourishing period thus belongs
to the space between A. D. 100 and A. D. 300." The ruins of
Hatra, now called El-Hadhr, were "visited by Mr. Layard in
1846, and described at length by Mr. Ross in the ninth volume
of the 'Journal of the Royal Geographical Society,' as well as
by Mr. Fergusson, in his 'History of Architecture.'"
G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 22.
HATS AND CAPS, Parties of the.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.
HATTERAS EXPEDITION, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (AUGUST: NORTH CAROLINA).
HATUNTAQUI, Battle of.
See ECUADOR: THE ABORIGINAL KINGDOM.
HAVANA.
See CUBA: A. D.1514-1851.
HAVELOCK'S CAMPAIGN IN INDIA.
See INDIA: A. D. 1857-1858.
HAVRE: A. D. 1563-1564.
Occupation by the English.
Siege and recovery by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1564.
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, The.
The Hawaiian or Sandwich Archipelago, in the North Pacific
ocean, "consists of the seven large and inhabited volcanic
islands of Oahu, Kauai, Niihau, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and
Hawaii, and the four bare and rocky islets of Kaula, Lehua,
Kahoolawe, and Molokini, with a total area of 8,000 square
miles, and a population of scarcely more than 50,000 souls.
… The Kanakas, as the natives are called, are amongst the
finest and most intelligent races of the Pacific, and have
become thoroughly 'Europeanised,' or, perhaps rather,
'Americanised.' … The Hawaiians, like all other Polynesians,
are visibly decreasing in a constantly increasing ratio."
Stanford's Compendium of Geography: Australasia,
chapter 24.
"Gaetano discovered one of the Sandwich [Hawaiian] Islands in
1542; and, following him, Quiros found Tahiti and the New
Hebrides. Sea voyages in the Pacific multiplied, but that sea
long continued the exclusive theatre of the enterprises of the
Spaniards and Portuguese. … Native traditions refer to the
arrival of strangers a long time before Cook's appearance. In
the seventeenth century Spanish merchantmen were crossing the
Pacific, and might have refreshed at these islands. The
buccaneers, too, may have found the small harbour a convenient
place of concealment."
M. Hopkins,
Hawaii: The Past, Present and Future of the Island Kingdom,
pages 83, 87.
"It is about a century since His Majesty's ships 'Resolution'
and 'Adventure,' Captains Cook and Clerke, turned back from
Behring Strait after an unsuccessful attempt to discover the
North-West Passage. But the adventurers were destined to light
upon fairer lands than those which they had failed to find. On
the 18th of January, 1778, whilst sailing through the Pacific,
the look-out man reported land ahead, and in the evening they
anchored on the shores of that lovely group of twelve islands,
which they named in honour of the then First Lord of the
Admiralty—Lord Sandwich—better known to the satirists of his
day as 'Jemmy Tickler,' one of the greatest of statesmen and
most abandoned of men. The natives received the strangers
gladly; but on the 14th of February, 1779, in an altercation
consequent on the theft of a boat, Captain Cook was killed in
Kealakcakua or Karakakoa Bay, in the Island of Hawaii, or
Owhyhee, from which the official name of the country—the
kingdom of Hawaii—takes its name."
R. Brown,
The Countries of the World,
volume 4, page 22.
The several islands of the Hawaiian group were politically
independent of each other and ruled by different chiefs at the
time of Captain Cook's visit; but a few years later a chief
named Kaméhaméha, of remarkable qualities and capabilities,
succeeded to the sovereignty in the Island of Hawaii, and made
himself master in time of the whole group. Dying in 1819, he
left a consolidated kingdom to his son Liholiho, or Kaméhaméha
II., in whose reign "tabu" and idolatry were abolished and
Christian missionaries began their labors. The dynasty founded
by Kaméhaméha held the throne until 1872. In 1840 a
constitution was proclaimed, which created a legislative body,
composed of hereditary nobles and seven representatives
informally elected by the people. In 1842 the United States,
by an official letter from Daniel Webster, then Secretary of
State, "recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Kingdom,
and declared, 'as the sense of the government of the United
States, that the government of the Sandwich Islands ought to
be respected; that no power ought to take possession of the
islands, either as a conquest or for the purpose of
colonization; and that no power ought to seek for any undue
control over the existing government, or any exclusive
privileges or preferences in matters of commerce.'" The
following year, France and England formally recognized "the
existence in the Sandwich Islands of a government capable of
providing for the regularity of its relations with foreign
nations," and agreed "never to take possession, either
directly or under the title of a protectorate, or under any
other form, of any part of the territory of which they are
composed." In 1852 the constitution was revised. The
legislature, formerly sitting in one body, was now divided
into two houses and both enlarged.
{1629}
In 1864, however, King Kaméhaméha V. forced the adoption of a
new constitution which reversed this bicameral arrangement and
restored the single chamber. A double qualification of the
suffrage, by property and by education, was also introduced.
With the death of Kaméhaméha V., in 1872, his line ended. His
successor, Lunalilo, was elected by the legislature, and the
choice ratified by a popular vote. The reign of Lunalilo
lasted but two years. His successor, David Kalakaua, was
raised to the throne by election. In the year after his
accession, Kalakaua visited the United States, and soon
afterwards, in 1875, a treaty of reciprocity between the two
countries was negotiated. This was renewed and enlarged in
1887. In 1881 the King made a tour of the world. In the fall
of 1890 he came to California for his health; in January,
1891, he died at San Francisco. His sister, Liliuokulani,
widow of an American resident, succeeded him.
W. D. Alexander,
Brief History of the Hawaiian People.
In 1887 a new constitution had been adopted. "This new
constitution was not framed by the king but by the people
through their own appointed citizens and members of the
courts. The legislative powers of the crown which had been
abridged by the constitution of 1864 were now entirely removed
and vested in the representatives of the people. By this the
crown became an executive. In addition to this provision there
was one making the ministry a responsible body and depriving
the king of the right to nominate members of the house of
nobles. … The legislature consists of a House of Nobles
composed of twenty-four members, who are elected for a term of
six years, and a House of Representatives consisting of from
twenty-four to forty-two members elected for two years. The
Houses sit in joint session. In addition to these public
officers there is a cabinet composed of four ministers
appointed by the sovereign holding executive power and who may
be removed upon sufficient cause by the legislature. Such was
the form of government in vogue up to the time of the recent
revolution which has excited the interest of the American
government. On the 15th of January (1893) … Queen
Liliuokalani made the attempt to promulgate a new
constitution, obviously for the purpose of increasing her
power in the government. It has been hinted that the queen
desired to benefit in a pecuniary way by granting concessions
for the establishment of a lottery, and the importation of
opium into the kingdom, both of which had until a year ago
been prohibited. It is best, however, to adhere to fact. The
queen desired more power. This new constitution, as framed by
her, deprived foreigners of the right of franchise, abrogated
the House of Nobles, and gave to the queen herself the power
to appoint a new House. This blow aimed directly at the
foreigners, who are the largest property holders in the
kingdom, stirred them to prompt action. The queen's own
ministry were unsuccessful in their efforts to dissuade her
from the attempt to put the new constitution into effect. The
resolve was not to be shaken, however, and her determination
to carry out her plan incited the people, chiefly the
foreigners, to oppose the measure. The outcome was a
revolution in which not a single life was sacrificed."
A. A. Black,
The Hawaiian Islands
(Chautauquan, April, 1893, pages 54-57).
A provisional government set up by the revolutionists was
immediately recognized by the United States Minister, Mr.
Stevens, and commissioners were sent to Washington to apply
for the annexation of the islands to the United States. On the
16th of February, 1893, the President of the United States,
Mr. Harrison, sent a message to the Senate, submitting an
annexation treaty and recommending its ratification. Meantime,
at Honolulu, on the 9th of February, the United States
Minister, acting without instructions, had established a
protectorate over the Hawaiian Islands, in the name of the
United States. On the 4th of March, a change in the Presidency
of the United States occurred, Mr. Cleveland succeeding Mr.
Harrison. One of the earliest acts of President Cleveland was
to send a message to the Senate, withdrawing the annexation
treaty of his predecessor. A commissioner, Mr. Blount, was
then sent to the Hawaiian Islands to examine and report upon
the circumstances attending the change of government. On the
18th of the following December the report of Commissioner
Blount was sent to Congress, with an accompanying message from
the President, in which latter paper the facts set forth by
the Commissioner, and the conclusions reached and action taken
by the United States Government, were summarized partly as
follows: "On Saturday, January 14, 1893, the Queen of Hawaii,
who had been contemplating the proclamation of a new
constitution, had, in deference to the wishes and
remonstrances of her Cabinet, renounced it for the present at
least. Taking this relinquished purpose as a basis of action,
citizens of Honolulu, numbering from fifty to one hundred,
mostly resident aliens, met in a private room and selected a
so-culled committee of safety composed of thirteen persons,
nine of whom were foreign subjects, and composed of seven
Americans, one Englishman, and one German. This committee,
though its designs were not revealed, had in view nothing less
than annexation to the United States, and between Saturday,
the 14th, and the following Sunday, the 18th of
January—though exactly what action was taken may never be
revealed—they were certainly in communication with the United
States Minister. On Monday morning the Queen and her Cabinet
made public proclamation, with a notice which was specially
served upon the representatives of all foreign governments,
that any changes in the constitution would be sought only in
the methods provided by that instrument. Nevertheless, at the
call and under the auspices of the committee of safety, a mass
meeting of citizens was held on that day to protest against
the Queen's alleged illegal and unlawful proceedings and
purpose. Even at this meeting the committee of safety
continued to disguise their real purpose and contented
themselves with procuring the passage of a resolution
denouncing the Queen and empowering the committee to devise
ways and means 'to secure the permanent maintenance of law and
order and the protection of life, liberty, and property in
Hawaii.' This meeting adjourned between 3 and 4 o'clock in the
afternoon. On the same day, and immediately after such
adjournment, the committee, unwilling to take further steps
without the co-operation of the United States Minister,
addressed him a note representing that the public safety was
menaced and that lives and property were in danger, and
concluded as follows: 'We are unable to protect ourselves
without aid, and therefore pray for the protection of the
United States forces.'
{1630}
Whatever may be thought of the other contents of this note,
the absolute truth of this latter statement is incontestable.
When the note was written and delivered, the committee, so far
as it appears, had neither a man nor a gun at their command,
and after its delivery they became so panic-stricken at their
position that they sent some of their number to interview the
Minister and request him not to land the United States forces
till the next morning, but he replied the troops had been
ordered and whether the committee were ready or not the
landing should take place. And so it happened that on the 16th
day of January, 1893, between 4 and 5 o'clock in the
afternoon, a detachment of marines from the United States
steamship Boston, with two pieces of artillery, landed at
Honolulu. The men, upwards of one hundred and sixty in all,
were supplied with double cartridge belts, filled with
ammunition, and with haversacks and canteens, and were
accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and medical
supplies. This military demonstration upon the soil of
Honolulu was of itself an act of war, unless made either with
the consent of the Government of Hawaii or for the bona fide
purpose of protecting the imperilled lives and property of the
citizens of the United States. But there is no pretense of any
such consent on the part of the Government of Hawaii, which at
that time was undisputed, and was both the de facto and the de
jure Government. In point of fact the Government, instead of
requesting the presence of an armed force, protested against
it. There is little basis for the pretense that such forces
landed for the security of American life and property. …
When these armed men were landed the city of Honolulu was in
its customary orderly and peaceful condition. There was no
symptom of riot or disturbance in any quarter. … Thus it
appears that Hawaii was taken possession of by the United
States forces without the consent or wish of the Government of
the Islands, or anybody else so far as known, except the
United States Minister. Therefore, the military occupation of
Honolulu by the United States on the day mentioned was wholly
without satisfaction, either as an occupation by consent or as
an occupation necessitated by dangers threatening American
life and property. It must be accounted for in some other way
and on some other ground, and its real motive and purpose are
neither obscure nor far to seek. The United States forces
being now on the scene and favorably stationed, the committee
proceeded to carry out their original scheme. They met the
next morning, Tuesday, the 17th, perfected the plan of
temporary government and fixed upon its principal officers,
who were drawn from 13 members of the committee of safety.
Between 1 and 2 o'clock, by squads and by different routes to
avoid notice, and having first taken the precaution of
ascertaining whether there was anyone there to oppose them,
they proceeded to the Government building to proclaim the new
Government. No sign of opposition was manifest, and thereupon
an American citizen began to read the proclamation from the
steps of the Government Building almost entirely without
auditors. It is said that before the reading was finished
quite a concourse of persons, variously estimated at from 50
to 100, some armed and some unarmed, gathered about the
committee to give them aid and confidence. This statement is
not important, since the one controlling factor in the whole
affair was unquestionably the United States marines, who,
drawn up under arms with artillery in readiness only 76 yards
distant, dominated the situation. The Provisional Government
thus proclaimed was by the terms of the proclamation 'to exist
until terms of the Union with the United States had been
negotiated and agreed upon.' The United States Minister,
pursuant to prior agreement, recognized this Government within
an hour after the reading of the proclamation, and before 5
o'clock, in answer to an inquiry on behalf of the Queen and
her Cabinet, announced that he had done so. … Some hours
after the recognition of the Provisional Government by the
United States Minister, the barracks and the police station,
with all the military resources of the country, were delivered
up by the Queen upon the representation made to her that her
cause would thereafter be reviewed at Washington, and while
protesting that she surrendered to the superior force of the
United States, whose Minister had caused United States troops
to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support
the Provisional Government, and that she yielded her authority
to prevent collision of armed forces and loss of life, and
only until such time as the United States, upon the facts
being presented to it, should undo the action of its
representative and reinstate her in the authority she claimed
as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands. This
protest was delivered to the chief of the Provisional
Government, who indorsed it in his acknowledgment of its
receipt. … As I apprehend the situation, we are brought face
to face with the fact that the lawful government of Hawaii was
overthrown without the drawing of a sword or the firing of a
shot, by a process every step of which, it may safely be
asserted, is directly traceable to and dependent for its
success upon the agency of the United States acting through
its diplomatic and naval representatives. … Believing,
therefore, that the United States could not, under the
circumstances disclosed, annex the islands without justly
incurring the imputation of acquiring them by unjustifiable
methods, I shall not again submit the treaty of annexation to
the Senate for its consideration, and in the instructions to
Minister Willis, a copy of which accompanies this message, I
have directed him to so inform the Provisional Government. But
in the present instance our duty does not, in my opinion, end
with refusing to consummate this questionable transaction. …
I mistake the American people if they favor the odious
doctrine that there is no such thing as international
morality; that there is one law for a strong nation and
another for a weak one; and that even by indirection a strong
power may, with impunity, despoil a weak one of its territory.
… The Queen surrendered, not to the Provisional Government,
but to the United States. She surrendered not absolutely and
permanently, but temporarily and conditionally until such
facts could be considered by the United States. …
{1631}
In view of the fact that both the Queen and the Provisional
Government had at one time apparently acquiesced in a
reference of the entire case to the United States Government,
and considering the further fact that, in any event, the
Provisional Government, by its own declared limitation, was
only 'to exist until terms of union with the United States of
America have been negotiated and agreed upon,' I hoped that
after the assurance to the members of that Government that
such union could not be consummated, I might compass a
peaceful adjustment of the difficulty. Actuated by these
desires and purposes, and not unmindful of the inherent
perplexities of the situation nor limitations upon my part, I
instructed Mr. Willis to advise the Queen and her supporters
of my desire to aid in the restoration of the status existing
before the lawless landing of the United States forces at
Honolulu on the 17th of January last, if such restoration
could be effected upon terms providing for clemency as well as
justice to all parties concerned. The conditions suggested
contemplated a general amnesty to those concerned in setting
up the Provisional Government and a recognition of all the
bona fide acts and obligations. In short, they require that
the past should be buried, and that the restored Government
should reassume its authority as if its continuity had not
been interrupted. These conditions have not proved acceptable
to the Queen, and though she has been informed that they will
be insisted upon, and that unless acceded to the effort of the
President to aid in the restoration of her Government will
cease, I have not thus far learned that she is willing to
yield them her acquiescence." The refusal of the Queen to
consent to a general amnesty forbade further thought of her
restoration; while the project of annexation to the United
States was extinguished for the time by the just action of
President Cleveland, sustained by the Senate. The unauthorized
protectorate assumed by Minister Stevens having been
withdrawn, the Provisional government remains (March, 1894) in
control of the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, and a
republican constitution is said to be in preparation.
HAWKINS' FIRST THREE VOYAGES.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.
HAWKWOOD, Sir John, The Free Company of.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.
HAWLEY, Jesse, and the origin of the Erie Canal.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.
HAYES, General Rutherford B.,
Presidential election and administration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876-1877, to 1881.
HAYNE AND WEBSTER DEBATE, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.
----------HAYTI: Start--------
HAYTI, HAITI, OR SAN DOMINGO (Originally called Hispaniola):
Its names.
Its beauty.
"Columbus called the island Hispaniola, and it has also been
called St. Domingo from the city of that name on its
southeastern coast; but Hayti or Haiti (the mountainous
country) was its original Carrib name. The French bestowed
upon it the deserved name of 'la Reine des Antilles.' All
descriptions of its magnificence and beauty, even those of
'Washington Irving in his history of Columbus, fall far short
of the reality. It seems beyond the power of language to
exaggerate its beauties, its productiveness, the loveliness of
its climate, and its desirableness as an abode for man.
Columbus labored hard to prove to Isabella that he had found
here the original garden of Eden."
W. H. Pearson,
Hayti and the Haitians
(Putnam's Monthly Magazine, January, 1854).
HAYTI: A. D. 1492-1505.
Discovery and occupation by Columbus.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1492; 1493-1496; and 1498-1505.
HAYTI: A. D. 1499-1542.
The enslavement of the natives.
System of Repartimentos and Encomiendas.
Introduction of negro slavery.
Humane and reforming labors of Las Casas.
See SLAVERY, MODERN: OF THE INDIANS,
and SLAVERY, NEGRO: ITS BEGINNINGS.
HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.
Partly possessed France and partly by Spain.
Revolt of the Slaves and rise of Toussaint L'Ouverture to power.
Extinction of Slavery.
Treachery of the French.
Independence of the island acquired.
"About 1632 the French took possession of the western shore,
and increased so rapidly that the Spaniards found it
impossible to drive them out; and the footing they had gained
was recognized by the Treaty of Ryswick, in 1697, when the
western portion of Haiti was confirmed to France. The latter
nation was fully conscious of the importance of the new
acquirement, and under French rule it became of great value,
supplying almost all Europe with cotton and sugar. But the
larger eastern portion of the island, which still belonged to
Spain, had no share in this progress, remaining much in the
same condition as formerly; and thus matters stood—a sluggish
community side by side with a thriving one—when the French
Revolution broke out, and plunged the island into a state of
ferment. In 1790 the population of the western colony
consisted of half a million, of which number 38,360 were of
European origin, 28,370 free people of colour, and the whole
of the remainder negro slaves. The government of the island
excluded the free people of colour—mostly mulattoes—from
all political privileges, although they were in many cases
well-educated men, and themselves the owners of large estates.
… On the 15th May, 1790, the French National Assembly passed
a decree declaring that people of colour, born of free
parents, were entitled to all the privileges of French
citizens. When this news reached the colony, it set the
inhabitants in a perfect frenzy, the mulattoes manifesting an
unbounded joy, whilst the whites boiled at the indignity their
class had sustained. The representations of the latter caused
the governor to delay the operation of the decree until the
home government could be communicated with—a measure that
aroused the greatest indignation amongst the mulattoes, and
civil war appeared inevitable, when a third and wholly
unexpected party stepped into the arena. The slaves rose in
insurrection on August 23rd, 1791, marching with the body of a
white infant on a spear-head as a standard, and murdering all
Europeans indiscriminately. In the utmost consternation the
whites conceded the required terms to the mulattoes, and,
together with the help of the military, the rising was
suppressed, and there seemed a prospect of peace, when the
Assembly at Paris repealed the decree of the 15th May. The
mulattoes now flew to arms, and for several years a terrible
struggle was sustained, the horrors of which were augmented by
vindictive ferocity on both sides. Commissioners sent from
France could effect no settlement, for the camp of the whites
was divided into two hostile sections, royalist and
republican.
{1632}
The English and Spaniards both descended on the island, and
the blacks, under able chiefs, held impregnable positions in
the mountains. Apprehensive of a British invasion in force,
the Commissioners, finding they could not conquer the blacks,
resolved on conciliating them; and in August, 1793, universal
freedom was proclaimed—a measure ratified by the National
Convention early in the following year. Meanwhile the English
had taken Port-au-Prince, and were besieging the French
governor in Port de la Paix, when the blacks, relying on the
recent proclamation, came to his assistance, under the command
of Toussaint L'Ouverture, and effected his release. …
François Dominique Toussaint, a negro of pure blood, a slave
and the offspring of slaves, was born in 1743, and on
attaining manhood was first employed as a coachman, and
afterwards held a post of trust in connexion with the sugar
manufactory of the estate to which he belonged. The overseer
having taken a fancy to him, he was taught to read and write,
and even picked up some slight knowledge of Latin and
mathematics." He was slow to join the rising of the blacks;
"but at length, after having secured the escape of his master
and family, he joined the negro army in a medical capacity,"
but quickly rose to leadership. "At first the blacks fought
with the Spaniards against the French;" but Toussaint came to
the conclusion that they had more to hope from the French, and
persuaded his followers to march to the relief of the French
governor, Levaux. When the latter heard that Toussaint had won
the blacks to this alliance, he exclaimed, "'Mais cet homme
fait ouverture partout,' and from that day the black
commander-in-chief received the surname of L'Ouverture, by
which he is best known in history. Acting with wonderful
energy, Toussaint effected a junction with Levaux, drove the
English from their positions, took 28 Spanish batteries in
four days, and finally the British abandoned the island,
whilst the Spaniards [1797] gave up all claim to its western
end. Toussaint L'Ouverture—now holding the position of
commander-in-chief, but virtually dictator—succeeded with
great skill in combining all the hostile elements of the
colony. Peace was restored, commerce and agriculture revived,
the whites were encouraged to reclaim their estates, and by a
variety of prudent and temperate measures Toussaint showed the
remarkable administrative abilities that he possessed. At this
stage he assumed great state in public, being always guarded
by a chosen body of 1,500 men in brilliant uniform, but in
private life he was frugal and moderate. In the administration
of affairs he was assisted by a council of nine, of whom eight
were white planters. This body drew up a Constitution by which
L'Ouverture was named president for life, and free trade
established. The draft of this constitution, together with an
autograph letter, he forwarded to Bonaparte; but the First
Consul had no toleration for fellow-upstarts, and replied, 'He
is a revolted slave whom we must punish; the honour of France
is outraged.' At this time the whole island of Haiti was under
Toussaint's sway. As some excuse for Bonaparte it must be
acknowledged that Toussaint undoubtedly contemplated
independence. … Anxious to divest his new presidency of even
nominal subjection to France, he declared the independence of
the island, with himself as supreme chief, in July 1801. Most
unfortunately for the Haitian general, hostilities had for the
moment ceased between Great Britain and France, and the First
Consul was enabled to bestow his close attention on the former
French colony. Determined to repossess it, Bonaparte sent out
an army of 30,000 men, with 66 ships of war, under the command
of his brother-in-law General Leclerc. … During Toussaint's
presidency he had abolished slavery, the negroes still working
the plantations, but as free men, and under the name of
'cultivators.' … Leclerc now endeavoured by proclamations to
turn the cultivators against their chief, and also laboured to
sow dissension in the ranks of the black army, by making the
officers tempting offers, which they too often believed in and
accepted. For months a bloody war raged, in which great
cruelties were inflicted; but the discipline of the French was
slowly telling in their favour, when Leclerc made a political
blunder that destroyed the advantages he had gained. Thinking
that all obstacles were overcome, he threw off the mask, and
boldly declared the real object of the expedition—the
re-enslavement of the negro population. This news fell like a
thunderbolt amongst the blacks, who rallied round Toussaint in
thousands." Alarmed at the effect, Leclerc recalled his
proclamation, acknowledged it to be an error, and promised the
summoning of an assembly representative of all races alike.
"This specious programme won over Cristophe, Dessalines, and
other negro generals; and finally, on receiving solemn
assurances from Leclerc, Toussaint accepted his offers, and
peace was concluded." Soon afterwards, by an act of the
blackest treachery, the negro statesman and soldier was lured
into the hands of his mean enemy, and sent, a prisoner, to
France. Confined, without trial, or any hearing, in the
dungeons of the Château Joux, in the department of Doubs, he
was there allowed to pine away, without warm clothing and
with insufficient food. … Finally the governor of the prison
went away for four days, leaving his captive without food or
drink. On his return Toussaint was dead, and the rats had
gnawed his feet. It was given out that apoplexy was the cause
of death. … This breach of faith on the part of the French
aroused the fury and indignation of the blacks. … Under
Dessalines, Cristophe, Clerveaux, and others, the fires of
insurrection blazed out afresh." At the same time yellow fever
raged and Leclerc was among the victims. General Rochambeau,
who succeeded him, continued the war with unmeasured
barbarity, but also with continued defeat and discouragement,
until he was driven, in 1803, to surrender, and "the power of
the French was lost on the island."
C. H. Eden,
The West Indies,
chapter 13.
Toussaint L'Ouverture: A Biography.
(by J. R. Beard) and an Autobiography.
ALSO IN:
H. Martineau,
The Hour and the Man.
J. Brown,
History of St. Domingo.
H. Adams,
Historical Essays,
chapter 4.
HAYTI: A. D. 1639-1700.
The Buccaneers.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.
{1633}
HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.
Massacre of whites.
The Empire of Dessalines.
The kingdom of Christophe.
The Republic of Pétion and Boyer.
Separation of the independent Republic of San Domingo.
The Empire of Soulouque.
The restored Republic of Hayti.
"In the beginning of 1804 the independence of the negroes
under Dessalines was sufficiently assured: but they were not
satisfied until they had completed a general massacre of
nearly the whole of the whites, including aged men, women and
children, who remained in the island, numbering, according to
the lowest estimate, 2,500 souls. Thus did Dessalines, in his
own savage words, render war for war, crime for crime, and
outrage for outrage, to the European cannibals who had so long
preyed upon his unhappy race. The negroes declared Dessalines
Emperor: and in October 1804 he was crowned at Port-au-Prince
by the title of James I. Dessalines was at once a brave man
and a cruel and avaricious tyrant. He acquired great influence
over the negroes, who long remembered him with affectionate
regret: but he was not warmly supported by the mulattoes, who
were by far the most intelligent of the Haytians. He abolished
the militia, and set up a standing army of 40,000 men, whom he
found himself unable to pay, from the universal ruin which had
overtaken the island. The plantation labourers refused to
work. … Dessalines authorised the landowners to flog them.
Dessalines was himself a large planter: he had 32 large
plantations of his own at work, and he forced his labourers to
work on them at the point of the bayonet. Both he and his
successor, Christophe, like Mahomed Ali in Egypt, grew rich by
being the chief merchants in their own dominions. … He
failed in an expedition against St. Domingo, the Spanish part
of the island, whence the French general Ferrand still
threatened him: and at length some sanguinary acts of tyranny
roused against him an insurrection headed by his old comrade
Christophe. The insurgents marched on Port-au-Prince, and the
first black Emperor was shot by an ambuscade at the Pont Rouge
outside the town. The death of Dessalines delivered up Hayti
once more to the horrors of civil war. The negroes and
mulattoes, who had joined cordially enough to exterminate
their common enemies, would no longer hold together; and ever
since the death of Dessalines their jealousies and differences
have been a source of weakness in the black republic. In the
old times, Hayti, as the French part of the island of Española
was henceforth called, had been divided into three provinces:
South, East, and North. After the death of Dessalines each of
these provinces became for a time a separate state. Christophe
wished to maintain the unlimited imperialism which Dessalines
had set up: but the Constituent Assembly, which he summoned at
Port-au-Prince in 1806, had other views. They resolved upon a
Republican constitution." Christophe, not contented with the
offered presidency, "collected an army with the view of
dispersing the Constituent Assembly: but they collected one of
their own, under Pétion, and forced him to retire from the
capital. Christophe maintained himself in Cap François, or, as
it is now called, Cap Haytien; and here he ruled for 14 years.
In 1811, despising the imperial title which Dessalines had
desecrated, he took the royal style by the name of Henry I.
Christophe, as a man, was nearly as great a monster as
Dessalines. … Yet Christophe at his best was a man capable
of great aims, and a sagacious and energetic ruler." In 1820,
finding himself deserted in the face of a mulatto
insurrection, he committed suicide. "In a month or two after
Christophe's suicide the whole island was united under the
rule of President Boyer." Boyer was the successor of Pétion,
who had been elected in the North, under the republican
constitution which Christophe refused submission to. Pétion,
"a mulatto of the best type," educated at the military academy
of Paris, and full of European ideas, had ruled the province
which he controlled ably and well for eleven years. In
discouragement he then took his own life, and was succeeded,
in 1818, by his lieutenant, Jean Pierre Boyer, a mulatto. "On
the suicide of Christophe, the army of the Northern Province,
weary of the tyranny of one of their own race, declared for
Boyer. The French part of the island was now once more under a
single government: and Boyer turned his attention to the much
larger Spanish territory, with the old capital of St. Domingo,
where a Spaniard named Muñez de Caceres, with the aid of the
negroes, had now followed the example in the West, and
proclaimed an independent government. The Dominicans, however,
were still afraid of Spain, and were glad to put themselves
under the wing of Hayti: Boyer was not unwilling to take
possession of the Spanish colony, and thus it happened that in
1822 he united the whole island under his Presidency. In the
same year he was elected President for life under the
constitution of Pétion, whose general policy he maintained:
but his government, especially in his later years, was almost
as despotic as that of Christophe. Boyer was the first Haytian
who united the blacks and mulattoes under his rule. It was
mainly through confidence in him that the government of Hayti
won the recognition of the European powers. … In 1825 its
independence was formally recognised by France, on a
compensation of 150,000,000 of francs being guaranteed to the
exiled planters and to the home government. This vast sum was
afterwards reduced: but it still weighed heavily on the
impoverished state, and the discontents which the necessary
taxation produced led to Boyer's downfall," in 1843, when he
withdrew to Jamaica, and afterwards to Paris, where he died in
1850. A singular state of affairs ensued. The eastern, or
Spanish, part of the island resumed its independence (1844),
under a republican constitution resembling that of Venezuela,
and with Pedro Santana for its President, and has been known
since that time as the Republic of San Domingo, or the
Dominican Republic. In the Western, or Haytian Republic, large
numbers of the negroes, "under the names of Piquets and
Zinglins, now formed themselves into armed bands, and sought
to obtain a general division of property under some
communistic monarch of their own race. The mulatto officials
now cajoled the poor negroes by bribing some old negro, whose
name was well known to the mass of the people as one of the
heroes of the war of liberty, to allow himself to be set up as
President. The Boyerists, as the mulatto oligarchy were
called, thus succeeded in re-establishing their power," and
their system (for describing which the word "gerontocracy" has
been invented) was carried on for some years, until it
resulted, in 1847, in the election to the Presidency of
General Faustin Soulouque. "Soulouque was an illiterate negro
whose recommendations to power were that he was old enough to
have taken part in the War of Independence, having been a
lieutenant under Pétion, and that he was popular with the
negroes, being devotedly attached to the strange mixture of
freemasonry and fetish worship by which the Haytian blacks
maintain their political organisation."
{1634}
The new President took his elevation more seriously than was
expected, and proved to be more than a match for the mulattoes
who thought to make him their puppet. He gathered the reins
into his own hands, and crushed the mulattoes at
Port-au-Prince by a general massacre. He then "caused himself
to be proclaimed Emperor, by the title of Faustinus the First
(1849)," and established a grotesque imperial court, with a
fantastic nobility, in which a Duke de Lemonade figured by the
side of a Prince Tape-à-l'œil. This lasted until December
1858, when Soulouque was dethroned and sent out of the
country, to take refuge in Jamaica, and the republic was
restored, with Fabre Nicholas Geffrard, a mulatto general, at
its head. Geffrard held the Presidency for eight years, when
he followed his predecessor into exile in Jamaica, and was
succeeded by General Salnave, a negro, who tried to
re-establish the Empire and was shot, 1869. Since that time
revolutions have been frequent and nothing has been constant
except the disorder and decline of the country. Meantime, the
Dominican Republic has suffered scarcely less, from its own
disorders and the attacks of its Haytian neighbors. In 1861 it
was surrendered by a provisional government to Spain, but
recovered independence three years later. Soon afterwards one
of its parties sought annexation to the United States, and in
1869 the President of the latter republic, General Grant,
concluded a treaty with the Dominican government for the
cession of the peninsula of Samana, and for the placing of San
Domingo under American protection. But the Senate of the
United States refused to ratify the treaty.
E. J. Payne,
History of European Colonies,
chapter 15.
ALSO IN:
Sir S. St. John,
Hayti, or the Black Republic,
chapter 3.
----------HAYTI: End--------

HEAD-CENTER, Fenian.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867.
HEARTS OF OAK BOYS.
HEARTS OF STEEL BOYS.
See IRELAND: A. D.1760-1798.
HEAVENFIELD.
Battle of the (635).
Defeat of the Welsh, with the death of Cadwallon, the "last
great hero of the British race," by the English of Bernicia,
A.D. 635. "The victory of the Heaven-field indeed is memorable
as the close of the last rally which the Britons ever made
against their conquerors."
J. R. Green,
The Making of England,
page 275.
ALSO IN:
Bede,
Ecclesiastical History,
book 3, chapters 1-2.
HÉBERT AND THE HÉBERTISTS IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1790; 1793 (MARCH-JUNE),
(SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), to 1793-1794 (NOVEMBER-JUNE).
HEBREW, The Name.
See JEWS: THEIR NATIONAL NAMES.
----------HEBRIDES: Start--------
HEBRIDES OR WESTERN ISLANDS, The.
"The Hebrides or Western Islands comprise all the numerous
islands and islets which extend along nearly all the west
coast of Scotland; and they anciently comprised also the
peninsula of Cantyre, the islands of the Clyde, the isle of
Rachlin, and even for some time the isle of Man."
Historical Tales of the Wars of Scotland,
volume 3, page 60.
HEBRIDES: 9th-13th Centuries.
The dominion of the Northmen.
See
NORMANS.
NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES,
and 10TH-13TH CENTURIES;
also, SODOR AND MAN.
HEBRIDES: A. D. 1266.
Cession to Scotland.
See SCOTLAND; A. D. 1266.
HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504.
The Lords of the Isles.
In 1346, the dominion of most of the Hebrides became
consolidated under John, son of Ronald or Angus Oig, of Islay,
and he assumed the title of "Lord of the Isles." The Lords of
the Isles became substantially independent of the Scottish
crown until the battle of Harlaw, in 1411 (see HARLAW, BATTLE
OF). The lordship was extinguished in 1504 (see SCOTLAND: A.
D. 1502-1504).
Historical Tales of the Wars of Scotland,
pages 65-72.
----------HEBRIDES: End--------
HEBRON.
In the settlement of the tribes of Israel, after the conquest
of Canaan, Caleb, one of the heroes of Judah, "took possession
of the territory round the famous old city of Hebron, and
thereby gained for his tribe a seat held sacred from
Patriarchal times. … Beginning with Hebron, he acquired for
himself a considerable territory, which even in David's time
was named simply Caleb, and was distinguished from the rest of
Judah as a peculiar district. … Hebron remained till after
David's time celebrated as the main seat and central point of
the entire tribe, around which it is evident that all the rest
of Judah gradually clustered in good order."
H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 2, section 3, A.
"Hebron was a Hittite city, the centre of an ancient
civilization, which to some extent had been inherited by the
tribe of Judah. It was undoubtedly the capital of Judah, a
city of the highest religious character full of recollections
and traditions. It could boast of fine public buildings, good
water, and a vast and well-kept pool. The unification of
Israel had just been accomplished there. It was only natural
that Hebron should become the capital of the new kingdom [of
David]. … It is not easy to say what induced David to leave
a city which had such ancient and evident claims for a hamlet
like Jebus [Jerusalem], which did not yet belong to him. It is
probable that he found Hebron too exclusively Judahite."
E. Renan,
History of the People of Israel,
book 2, chapter 18.
See, also, ZOAN;
and JEWS: THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
HECANA, Kingdom of.
One of the small, short-lived kingdoms of the Angles in early
England, its territory was in modern Herefordshire.
N. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 7, section 70.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
HECATOMB
"Large sacrifices, where a great number of animals were
slaughtered, [among the ancient Greeks] are called hecatombs."
G. F. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
page 60.
HECATOMBÆON, Battle of.
Fought, B. C. 224, by Cleomenes of Sparta with the forces of
the Achæan League, over which he won a complete victory. The
result was the calling in of Antigonus Doson, king of
Macedonia, to become the ally of the League, and to be aided
by it in crushing the last independent political life of
Peloponnesian Greece.
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 62.
{1635}
HECATOMPEDON, The.
See PARTHENON AT ATHENS.
HECATOMPYLOS.
The chief city of Parthia Proper, founded by Alexander the
Great, and long remaining one of the capitals of the Parthian
empire.
HEDGELEY MOOR, Battle of (1464)
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
HEDWIGA, Queen of Poland, A. D. 1382-1386.
HEELERS.
See BOSSISM.
HEERBAN, The.
The "heerban" was a military system instituted by Charlemagne,
which gave way to the feudal system under his successors. "The
basis of the heerban system was the duty of every fighting man
to answer directly the call of the king to arms. The freeman,
not only of the Franks, but of all the subject peoples, owed
military service to the king alone. This duty is insisted upon
in the laws of Charlemagne with constant repetition. The
summons (heerban) was issued at the spring meeting, and sent
out by the counts or missi. The soldier was obliged to present
himself at the given time, fully armed and equipped with all
provision for the campaign, except fire, water, and fodder for
the horses."
E. Emerton,
Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages,
chapter 14.
HEGEMONY.
"A hegemony, the political ascendancy of some one city or
community over a number of subject commonwealths."
Sir H. S. Maine,
Dissertations on Early Law and Custom,
page 131.
HEGIRA, The.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
HEGIRA, Era of the.
See ERA, MAHOMETAN.
----------HEIDELBERG: Start--------
HEIDELBERG: A. D. 1622.
Capture by Tilly.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.
HEIDELBERG: A. D. 1631.
Burning of the Castle.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
HEIDELBERG: A. D. 1690.
Final destruction of the Castle.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.
----------HEIDELBERG: End--------
HEIDELBERG UNIVERSITY.
See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.
HEILBRONN, Union of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
HELAM, OR HALAMAH, Battle of.
A decisive victory won by King David over the Syrians.
II. Samuel,
x. 15-19.
HELENA, Arkansas, The defense of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
HELEPOLIS, The.
See RHODES: B. C. 305-304.
HELIÆA, The.
Under Solon's constitution for the government of Athens, "a
body of 6,000 citizens was every year created by lot to form a
supreme court, called Heliæa, which was divided into several
smaller ones, not limited to any precise number of persons.
The qualifications required for this were the same with those
which gave admission into the general assembly, except that
the members of the former might not be under the age of
thirty. It was, therefore, in fact, a select portion of the
latter, in which the powers of the larger body were
concentrated and exercised under a judicial form."
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 11.
HELICON.
See THESSALY.
HELIGOLAND: A. D. 1814.
Acquisition by Great Britain.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1813-1814.
HELIGOLAND: A. D. 1890.
Cession to Germany.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.
----------HELIOPOLIS: Start--------
HELIOPOLIS.
See ON.
HELIOPOLIS: Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).
----------HELIOPOLIS: End--------
HELLAS.
HELLENES.
GRAIKOI.
GREEKS.
"To the Greek of the historical ages the idea of Hellas was
not associated with any definite geographical limits. Wherever
a Greek settlement existed, there for the colonists was
Hellas. … Of a Hellas lying within certain specified bounds,
and containing within it only Greek inhabitants, they knew
nothing."
G. W. Cox,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 1.
"Their language was, … from the beginning, the token of
recognition among the Hellenes. … Where this language was
spoken—in Asia, in Europe, or in Africa—there was Hellas.
… A considerable number of the Greek tribes which immigrated
by land [from Asia] into the European peninsula [of Greece]
followed the tracks of the Italicans, and, taking a westward
route through Pæonia and Macedonia, penetrated through Illyria
into the western half of the Alpine country of Northern
Greece, which the formation of its hill ranges and valleys
renders more easily accessible from the north than Thessaly in
its secluded hollow. The numerous rivers, abounding in water,
which flow close by one another through long gorges into the
Ionian Sea, here facilitated an advance into the south; and
the rich pasture-land invited immigration; so that Epirus
became the dwelling-place of a dense crowd of population,
which commenced its civilized career in the fertile lowlands
of the country. Among them three main tribes were marked out,
of which the Chaones were regarded as the most ancient. …
Farther to the south the Thesprotians had settled, and more
inland, in the direction of Pindus, the Molossians. A more
ancient appellation than those of this triple division is that
of the Greeks (Graikoi), which the Hellenes thought the
earliest designation of their ancestors. The same name of
Græci (Greeks) the Italicans applied to the whole family of
peoples with whom they had once dwelt together in these
districts. This is the first collective name of the Hellenic
tribes in Europe. … Far away from the coast, in the
seclusion of the hills, where lie closely together the springs
of the Thyamis, Aous, Aracthus, and Achelous, extends at the
base of Tomarus the lake Ioannina, on the thickly wooded banks
of which, between fields of corn and damp meadows, lay Dodona,
a chosen seat of the Pelasgian Zeus, the invisible God, who
announced his presence in the rustling of the oaks, whose
altar was surrounded by a vast circle of tripods, for a sign
that he was the first to unite the domestic hearths and civic
communities into a great association centering in himself.
This Dodona was the central seat of the Græci; it was a sacred
centre of the whole district before the Italicans commenced
their westward journey; and at the same time the place where
the subsequent national name of the Greeks can be first proved
to have prevailed; for the chosen of the people, who
administered the worship of Zeus, were called Selli or Helli,
and after them the surrounding country Hellopia or Hellas."
{1636}
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapters 1 and 4 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 2 (volume 2).
G. W. Cox,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 4.
W. E. Gladstone,
Juventus Mundi,
chapter 4.
HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.
HELLENIC AND HELLENISTIC CULTURE.
HELLENISM.
"It was the privilege of the Greeks to discover the sovereign
efficacy of reason. They entered on the pursuit of knowledge
with a sure and joyous instinct. Baffled and puzzled they
might be, but they never grew weary of the quest. The
speculative faculty which reached its height in Plato and
Aristotle, was, when we make due allowance for time and
circumstance, scarcely less eminent in the Ionian
philosophers; and it was Ionia that gave birth to an idea,
which was foreign to the East, but has become the
starting-point of modern science,—the idea that Nature works
by fixed laws. A fragment of Euripides speaks of him as 'happy
who has learned to search into causes,' who 'discerns the
deathless and ageless order of nature, whence it arose, the
how and the why.' The early poet-philosophers of Ionia gave
the impulse which has carried the human intellect forward
across the line which separates empirical from scientific
knowledge; and the Greek precocity of mind in this direction,
unlike that of the Orientals, had in it the promise of
uninterrupted advance in the future,—of great discoveries in
mathematics, geometry, experimental physics, in medicine also
and physiology. … By the middle of the fifth century B. C.
the general conception of law in the physical world was firmly
established in the mind of Greek thinkers. Even the more
obscure phenomena of disease were brought within the rule.
Hippocrates writing about a malady which was common among the
Scythians and was thought to be preternatural says: 'As for me
I think that these maladies are divine like all others, but
that none is more divine or more human than another. Each has
its natural principle and none exists without its natural
cause.' Again, the Greeks set themselves to discover a
rational basis for conduct. Rigorously they brought their
actions to the test of reason, and that not only by the mouth
of philosophers, but through their poets, historians, and
orators. Thinking and doing—clear thought and noble
action—did not stand opposed to the Greek mind. The
antithesis rather marks a period when the Hellenic spirit was
past its prime, and had taken a one-sided bent. The Athenians
of the Periclean age—in whom we must recognise the purest
embodiment of Hellenism—had in truth the peculiar power,
which Thucydides claims for them, of thinking before they
acted and of acting also. … To Greece … we owe the love of
Science, the love of Art, the love of Freedom: not Science
alone, Art alone, or Freedom alone, but these vitally
correlated with one another and brought into organic union.
And in this union we recognise the distinctive features of the
West. The Greek genius is the European genius in its first and
brightest bloom. From a vivifying contact with the Greek
spirit Europe derived that new and mighty impulse which we
call Progress. Strange it is to think that these Greeks, like
the other members of the Indo-European family, probably had
their cradle in the East; that behind Greek civilisation,
Greek language, Greek mythology, there is that Eastern
background to which the comparative sciences seem to point.
But it is no more than a background. In spite of an
resemblances, in spite of common customs, common words, common
syntax, common gods, the spirit of the Greeks and of their
Eastern kinsmen—the spirit of their civilisation, art,
language, and mythology—remains essentially distinct. …
From Greece came that first mighty impulse, whose far-off
workings are felt by us to-day, and which has brought it about
that progress has been accepted as the law and goal of human
endeavour. Greece first took up the task of equipping man with
all that fits him for civil life and promotes his secular well
being; of unfolding and expanding every inborn faculty and
energy, bodily and mental; of striving restlessly after the
perfection of the whole, and finding in this effort after an
unattainable ideal that by which man becomes like to the gods.
The life of the Hellenes, like that of their Epic hero
Achilles, was brief and brilliant. But they have been endowed
with the gift of renewing their youth. Renan, speaking of the
nations that are fitted to play a part in universal history,
says 'that they must die first that the world may live through
them;' that a people must choose between the prolonged life,
the tranquil and obscure destiny of one who lives for himself,
and the troubled stormy career of one who lives for humanity.
The nation which revolves within its breast social and
religious problems is always weak politically. Thus it was
with the Jews, who in order to make the religious conquest of
the world must needs disappear as a nation.' 'They lost a
material city, they opened the reign of the spiritual
Jerusalem.' So too it was with Greece. As a people she ceased
to be. When her freedom was overthrown at Chaeronea, the page
of her history was to all appearance closed. Yet from that
moment she was to enter on a larger life and on universal
empire. Already during the last days of her independence it
had been possible to speak of a new Hellenism, which rested
not on ties of blood but on spiritual kinship. This
presentiment of Isocrates was marvellously realised. As
Alexander passed conquering through Asia, he restored to the
East, as garnered grain, that Greek civilisation whose seeds
had long ago been received from the East. Each conqueror in
turn, the Macedonian and the Roman, bowed before conquered
Greece and learnt lessons at her feet. To the modern world too
Greece has been the great civiliser, the oecumenical teacher,
the disturber and regenerator of slumbering societies. She is
the source of most of the quickening ideas which re-make
nations and renovate literature and art. If we reckon up our
secular possessions, the wealth and heritage of the past, the
larger share may be traced back to Greece. One half of life
she has made her domain,—all, or well-nigh all, that belongs
to the present order of things and to the visible world."
S. H. Butcher,
Some Aspects of the Greek Genius,
pages 9-43.
"The part assigned to [the Greeks] in the drama of the nations
was to create forms of beauty, to unfold ideas which should
remain operative when the short bloom of their own existence
was over, and thus to give a new impulse, a new direction, to
the whole current of human life.
{1637}
The prediction which Thucydides puts into the mouth of the
Athenian orator has been fulfilled, though not in the sense
literally conveyed; 'Assuredly we shall not be without
witnesses,' says Pericles; 'there are mighty documents of our
power, which shall make us the wonder of this age, and of ages
to come.' He was thinking of those wide-spread settlements
which attested the empire of Athens. But the immortal
witnesses of his race are of another kind. Like the victims of
the war, whose epitaph he was pronouncing, the Hellenes have
their memorial in all lands, graven, not on stone, but in the
hearts of mankind. … Are we not warranted by what we know of
Greek work, imperfect though our knowledge is, in saying that
no people has yet appeared in the world whose faculty for art,
in the largest sense of the term, has been so comprehensive?
And there is a further point that may be noted. It has been
said that the man of genius sometimes is such in virtue of
combining the temperament distinctive of his nation with some
gift of his own which is foreign to that temperament; as in
Shakespeare the basis is English, and the individual gift a
flexibility of spirit which is not normally English. But we
cannot apply this remark to the greatest of ancient Greek
writers. They present certainly a wide range of individual
differences. Yet so distinctive and so potent is the Hellenic
nature that, if any two of such writers be compared, however
wide the individual differences may be,—as between
Aristophanes and Plato, or Pindar and Demosthenes,—such
individual differences are less significant than those common
characteristics of the Hellenic mind which separate both the
men compared from all who are not Hellenes. If it were
possible to trace the process by which the Hellenic race was
originally separated from their Aryan kinsfolk, the
physiological basis of their qualities might perhaps be traced
in the mingling of different tribal ingredients. As it is,
there is no clue to these secrets of nature's alchemy: the
Hellenes appear in the dawn of their history with that unique
temperament already distinct: we can point only to one cause,
and that a subordinate cause, which must have aided its
development, namely, the geographical position of Greece. No
people of the ancient world were so fortunately placed.
Nowhere are the aspects of external nature more beautiful,
more varied, more stimulating to the energies of body and
mind. A climate which, within three parallels of latitude,
nourishes the beeches of Pindus and the palms of the Cyclades;
mountain barriers which at once created a framework for the
growth of local federations, and encouraged a sturdy spirit of
freedom; coasts abounding in natural harbors; a sea dotted
with islands, and notable for the regularity of its
wind-currents; ready access alike to Asia and to the western
Mediterranean,—these were circumstances happily congenial to
the inborn faculties of the Greek race, and admirably fitted
to expand them."
R. C. Jebb,
The Growth and Influence of Classical Greek Poetry,
pages 27-31.
"The sense of beauty which the Greeks possessed to a greater
extent than any other people could not fail to be caught by
the exceptionally beautiful natural surroundings in which they
lived; and their literature, at any rate their poetry, bears
abundant testimony to the fact. Small though Greece is, it
contains a greater variety, both in harmony and contrast, of
natural beauty than most countries, however great. Its
latitude gives it a southern climate, while its mountains
allow of the growth of a vegetation found in more northern
climes. Within a short space occur all the degrees of
transition from snow-topped hills to vine-clad fountains. And
the joy with which the beauty of their country filled the
Greeks may be traced through all their poetry. … The two
leading facts in the physical aspect of Greece are the sea and
the mountains. As Europe is the most indented and has
relatively the longest coast-line of all the continents of the
world, so of all the countries of Europe the land of Greece is
the most interpenetrated with arms of the sea. …
'Two voices are there: one is of the Sea,
One of the Mountains; each a mighty voice:
In both from age to age thou didst rejoice;
They were thy chosen music, Liberty!'
Both voices spoke impressively to Greece, and her literature
echoes their tones. So long as Greece was free and the spirit
of freedom animated the Greeks, so long their literature was
creative and genius marked it. When liberty perished,
literature declined. The field of Chæronea was fatal alike to
the political liberty and to the literature of Greece. The
love of liberty was indeed pushed even to an extreme in
Greece; and this also was due to the physical configuration of
the country. Mountains, it has been said, divide; seas unite.
The rise and the long continuance in so small a country of so
many cities, having their own laws, constitution, separate
history, and independent existence, can only be explained by
the fact that in their early growth they were protected, each
by the mountains which surrounded it, so effectually, and the
love of liberty in this time was developed to such an extent,
that no single city was able to establish its dominion over
the others. … Everyone of the numerous states, whose
separate political existence was guaranteed by the mountains,
was actually or potentially a separate centre of civilisation
and of literature. In some one of these states each kind of
literature could find the conditions appropriate or necessary
to its development. Even a state which produced no men of
literary genius itself might become the centre at which poets
collected and encouraged the literature it could not produce,
as was the case with Sparta, to which Greece owed the
development of choral lyric. … The eastern basin of the
Mediterranean has deserved well of literature, for it brought
Greece into communication with her colonies on the islands and
on the surrounding coasts, and enabled the numerous Greek
cities to co-operate in the production of a rich and varied
literature, instead of being confined each to a one-sided and
incomplete development. The process of communication began in
the earliest times, as is shown by the spread of epic
literature. Originating in Ionia, it was taken up in Cyprus,
where the epic called the Cypria was composed, and, at the
beginning of the sixth century it was on the coast of Africa
in the colony of Cyrene. The rapid spread of elegiac poetry is
even more strikingly illustrated, for we find Solon in Athens
quoting from his contemporary Mimnermus of Colophon. Choral
lyric, which originated in Asia Minor, was conveyed to Sparta
by Alcman, and by Simonides of Ceos all over the Greek world.
But although in early times we find as much interchange and
reaction in the colonies amongst themselves as between the
colonies and the mother-country, with the advance of time we
find the centripetal tendency becoming dominant.
{1638}
The mother-country becomes more and more the centre to which
all literature and art gravitates. At the beginning of the
sixth century Sparta attracted poets from the colonies in Asia
Minor, but the only form of literature which Sparta rewarded
and encouraged was choral lyric. No such narrowness
characterised Athens, and when she established herself as the
intellectual capital of Greece, all men of genius received a
welcome there, and we find all forms of literature deserting
their native homes, even their native dialects, to come to
Athens. … As long as literature had many centres, there was
no danger of all falling by a single stroke; but when it was
centralised in Athens, and the blow delivered by Philip at
Chæronea had fallen on Athens, classical Greek literature
perished in a generation. It is somewhat difficult to
distinguish race-qualities from the characteristics impressed
on a people by the conditions under which it lives, since the
latter by accumulation and transmission from generation to
generation eventually become race-qualities. Thus the Spartans
possessed qualities common to them and the Dorians, of whom
they were a branch, and also qualities peculiar to themselves,
which distinguished them from other Dorians. … The ordinary
life of a Spartan citizen was that of a soldier in camp or
garrison, rather than that of a member of a political
community, and this system of life was highly unfavourable to
literature. … Other Dorians, not hemmed in by such
unfavourable conditions as the Spartans, did provide some
contributions to the literature of Greece, and in the nature
of their contributions we may detect the qualities of the
race. The Dorians in Sicily sowed the seeds of rhetoric and
carried comedy to considerable perfection. Of imagination the
race seems destitute: it did not produce poets. On the other
hand, the race is eminently practical as well as prosaic, and
their humour was of a nature which corresponded to these
qualities. … The Æolians form a contrast both to the
Spartans and to the Athenians. The development of
individuality is as characteristic of the Æolians as its
absence is of the Spartans. But the Æolians, first of all
Greeks, possessed a cavalry, and this means that they were
wealthy and aristocratic. … This gives us the distinction
between the Æolians and the Athenians: among the former,
individuality was developed in the aristocracy alone; among
the latter, in all the citizens. The Æolians added to the
crown of Greek literature one of the brightest of its
jewels-lyric poetry, as we understand lyric in modern times,
that is, the expression of the poet's feelings, on any subject
whatever, as his individual feeling. … But it was the
Ionians who rendered the greatest services to Greek
literature. They were a quick-witted race, full of enterprise,
full of resources. In them we see reflected the character of
the sea, as in the Dorians the character of the mountains. The
latter partook of the narrowness and exclusiveness of their
own homes, hemmed in by mountains, and by them protected from
the incursion of strangers and strange innovations. The
Ionians, on the other hand, were open as the sea, and had as
many moods. They were eminently susceptible to beauty in all
its forms, to the charm of change and to novelty. They were
ever ready to put any belief or institution to the test of
discussion, and were governed as much by ideas as by
sentiments. Keenness of intellect, taste in all matters of
literature and art, grace in expression, and measure in
everything distinguished them above all Greeks. The
development of epic poetry, the origin of prose, the
cultivation of philosophy, are the proud distinction of the
Ionian race. In Athens we have the qualities of the Ionian
race in their finest flower."
F. B. Jevons,
A History of Greek Literature,
pages 485-490.
HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE:
Hellenism and the Jews.
"The Jewish region … was, in ancient times as well as in the
Graeco-Roman period, surrounded on all sides by heathen
districts. Only at Jamnia and Joppa had the Jewish element
advanced as far as the sea. Elsewhere, even to the west, it
was not the sea, but the Gentile region of the Philistine and
Phenician cities, that formed the boundary of the Jewish.
These heathen lands were far more deeply penetrated by
Hellenism, than the country of the Jews. No reaction like the
rising of the Maccabees had here put a stop to it, besides
which heathen polytheism was adapted in quite a different
manner from Judaism for blending with Hellenism. While
therefore the further advance of Hellenism was obstructed by
religious barriers in the interior of Palestine, it had
attained here, as in all other districts since its triumphant
entry under Alexander the Great, its natural preponderance
over Oriental culture. Hence, long before the commencement of
the Roman period, the educated world, especially in the great
cities in the west and east of Palestine, was, we may well
say, completely Hellenized. It is only with the lower strata
of the populations and the dwellers in rural districts, that
this must not be equally assumed. Besides however the border
lands, the Jewish districts in the interior of Palestine were
occupied by Hellenism, especially Scythopolis … and the town
of Samaria, where Macedonian colonists had already been
planted by Alexander the Great … while the national
Samaritans had their central point at Sichem. The victorious
penetration of Hellenistic culture is most plainly and
comprehensively shown by the religious worship. The native
religions, especially in the Philistine and Phenician cities,
did indeed in many respects maintain themselves in their
essential character; but still in such wise, that they were
transformed by and blended with Greek elements. But besides
these the purely Greek worship also gained an entrance, and in
many places entirely supplanted the former. Unfortunately our
sources of information do not furnish us the means of
separating the Greek period proper from the Roman; the best
are afforded by coins, and these for the most part belong to
the Roman. On the whole however the picture, which we obtain,
holds good for the pre-Roman period also, nor are we entirely
without direct notices of this age. … In the Jewish region
proper Hellenism was in its religious aspect triumphantly
repulsed by the rising of the Maccabees; it was not till after
the overthrow of Jewish nationality in the wars of Vespasian
and Hadrian, that an entrance for heathen rites was forcibly
obtained by the Romans. In saying this however we do not
assert, that the Jewish people of those early times remained
altogether unaffected by Hellenism. For the latter was a
civilising power, which extended itself to every department of
life.
{1639}
It fashioned in a peculiar manner the organization of the
state, legislation, the administration of justice, public
arrangements, art and science, trade and industry, and the
customs of daily life down to fashion and ornaments, and thus
impressed upon every department of life, wherever its
influence reached, the stamp of the Greek mind. It is true
that Hellenistic is not identical with Hellenic culture. The
importance of the former on the contrary lay in the fact, that
by its reception of the available elements of all foreign
cultures within its reach, it became a world-culture. But this
very world-culture became in its turn a peculiar whole, in
which the preponderant Greek element was the ruling keynote.
Into the stream of this Hellenistic culture the Jewish people
was also drawn; slowly indeed and with reluctance, but yet
irresistibly, for though religious zeal was able to banish
heathen worship and all connected therewith from Israel, it
could not for any length of time restrain the tide of
Hellenistic culture in other departments of life. Its several
stages cannot indeed be any longer traced. But when we reflect
that the small Jewish country was enclosed on almost every
side by Hellenistic regions, with which it was compelled, even
for the sake of trade, to hold continual intercourse, and when
we remember, that even the rising of the Maccabees was in the
main directed not against Hellenism in general, but only
against the heathen religion, that the later Asmonaeans bore
in every respect a Hellenistic stamp-employed foreign
mercenaries, minted foreign coins, took Greek names, etc., and
that some of them, e. g. Aristobulus I., were direct favourers
of Hellenism,—when all this is considered, it may safely be
assumed, that Hellenism had, notwithstanding the rising of the
Maccabees, gained access in no inconsiderable measure into
Palestine even before the commencement of the Roman period."
E. Schürer,
History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ,
division 2, volume 1, pages 29-30.
HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE:
Hellenism and the Romans.
"In the Alexandrian age, with all its close study and
imitation of the classical models, nothing is more remarkable
than the absence of any promise that the Hellenic spirit which
animated those masterpieces was destined to have any abiding
influence in the world. … And yet it is true that the vital
power of the Hellenic genius was not fully revealed, until,
after suffering some temporary eclipse in the superficially
Greek civilizations of Asia and Egypt, it emerged in a new
quality, as a source of illumination to the literature and the
art of Rome. Early Roman literature was indebted to Greece for
the greater part of its material; but a more important debt
was in respect to the forms and moulds of composition. The
Latin language of the third century B. C. was already in full
possession of the qualities which always remained distinctive
of it; it was clear, strong, weighty, precise, a language made
to be spoken in the imperative mood, a fitting interpreter of
government and law. But it was not flexible or graceful,
musical or rapid; it was not suited to express delicate shades
of thought or feeling; for literary purposes, it was, in
comparison with Greek, a poor and rude idiom. The development
of Latin into the language of Cicero and Virgil was gradually
and laboriously accomplished under the constant influence of
Greece. That finish of form, known as classical, which Roman
writers share with Greek, was a lesson which Greece slowly
impressed upon Rome. … A close and prolonged study of the
Greek models could not end in a mere discipline of form; the
beauty of the best Greek models depends too much on their
vital spirit. Not only was the Roman imagination enriched, but
the Roman intellect, through literary intercourse with the
Greek, gradually acquired a flexibility and a plastic power
which had not been among its original gifts. Through Roman
literature the Greek influence was transmitted to later times
in a shape which obscured, indeed, much of its charm, but
which was also fitted to extend its empire, and to win an
entrance for it in regions which would have been less
accessible to a purer form of its manifestation."
R. C. Jebb,
The Growth and Influence of Classical Greek Poetry,
chapter 8.
"Italy had been subject to the influence of Greece, ever since
it had a history at all. … But the Hellenism of the Romans
of the present period [second century B. C.] was, in its
causes as well as its consequences, something essentially new.
The Romans began to feel the lack of a richer intellectual
life, and to be startled as it were at their own utter want of
mental culture; and, if even nations of artistic gifts, such
as the English and Germans, have not disdained in the pauses
of their own productiveness to avail themselves of the paltry
French culture for filling up the gap, it need excite no
surprise that the Italian nation now flung itself with eager
zeal on the glorious treasures as well as on the vile refuse
of the intellectual development of Hellas. But it was an
impulse still more profound and deep-rooted which carried the
Romans irresistibly into the Hellenic vortex. Hellenic
civilization still assumed that name, but it was Hellenic no
longer; it was, it fact, humanistic and cosmopolitan. It had
solved the problem of moulding a mass of different nations
into one whole completely in the field of intellect, and to a
certain degree in that of politics, and, now when the same
task on a wider scale devolved on Rome, she entered on the
possession of Hellenism along with the rest of the inheritance
of Alexander the Great. Hellenism therefore was no longer a
mere stimulus, or subordinate influence; it penetrated the
Italian nation to the very core. Of course, the vigorous home
life of Italy strove against the foreign element. It was only
after a most vehement struggle that the Italian farmer
abandoned the field to the cosmopolite of the capital; and, as
in Germany the French coat called forth the national Germanic
frock, so the reaction against Hellenism aroused in Rome a
tendency, which opposed the influence of Greece on principle
in a style to which earlier centuries were altogether
unaccustomed, and in doing so fell not unfrequently into
downright follies and absurdities. No department of human
action or thought remained unaffected by this struggle between
the new fashion and the old. Even political relations were
largely influenced by it. The whimsical project of
emancipating the Hellenes, … the kindred, likewise Hellenic,
idea of combining republics in a common opposition to kings,
and the desire of propagating Hellenic polity at the expense
of eastern despotism—which were the two principles that
regulated, for instance, the treatment of Macedonia—were
fixed ideas of the new school, just as dread of the
Carthaginians was the fixed idea of the old; and, if Cato
pushed the latter to a ridiculous excess, Philhellenism now
and then indulged in extravagances at least as foolish. …
{1640}
But the real struggle between Hellenism and its national
antagonists during the present period was carried on in the
field of faith, of manners, and of art and literature. … If
Italy still possessed—what had long been a mere antiquarian
curiosity in Hellas—a national religion, it was already
visibly beginning to be ossified into theology. The torpor
creeping over faith is nowhere perhaps so distinctly apparent
as in the alterations in the economy of divine service and of
the priesthood. The public service of the gods became not only
more tedious, but above all more and more costly. … An augur
like Lucius Paullus, who regarded the priesthood as a science
and not as a mere title, was already a rare exception; and
could not but be so, when the government more and more openly
and unhesitatingly employed the auspices for the
accomplishment of its political designs, or, in other words,
treated the national religion in accordance with the view of
Polybius as a superstition useful for imposing on the public
at large. Where the way was thus paved, the Hellenistic
irreligious spirit found free course. In connection with the
incipient taste for art the sacred images of the gods began
even in Cato's time to be employed, like other furniture, to
embellish the chambers of the rich. More dangerous wounds were
inflicted on religion by the rising literature. … Thus the
old national religion was visibly on the decline; and, as the
great trees of the primeval forest were uprooted, the soil
became covered with a rank growth of thorns and briars and
with weeds that had never been seen before. Native
superstitions and foreign impostures of the most various hues
mingled, competed and conflicted with each other. … The
Hellenism of that epoch, already denationalized and pervaded
by Oriental mysticism, introduced not only unbelief but also
superstition in its most offensive and dangerous forms to
Italy; and these vagaries, moreover, had a special charm,
precisely because they were foreign. … Rites of the most
abominable character came to the knowledge of the Roman
authorities: a secret nocturnal festival in honour of the god
Bacchus had been first introduced into Etruria by a Greek
priest, and spreading like a cancer, had rapidly reached Rome
and propagated itself over all Italy, everywhere corrupting
families and giving rise to the most heinous crimes,
unparalleled unchastity, falsifying of testaments, and
murdering by poison. More than 7,000 men were sentenced to
punishment, most of them to death, on this account, and
rigorous enactments were issued as to the future. … The ties
of family life became relaxed with fearful rapidity. The evil
of grisettes and boy-favourites spread like a pestilence. …
Luxury prevailed more and more in dress, ornaments and
furniture, in the buildings and on the tables. Especially
after the expedition to Asia Minor, which took place in 564,
[B. C. 190] Asiatico-Hellenic luxury, such as prevailed at
Ephesus and Alexandria, transferred its empty refinement and
its petty trifling, destructive alike of money, time, and
pleasure, to Rome. … As a matter of course, this revolution
in life and manners brought an economic revolution in its
train. Residence in the capital became more and more coveted
as well as more costly. Rents rose to an unexampled height.
Extravagant prices were paid for the new articles of luxury.
… The influences which stimulated the growth of Roman
literature were of a character altogether peculiar and hardly
paralleled in any other nation. … By means of the Italian
slaves and freedmen, a very large portion of whom were Greek
or half Greek by birth, the Greek language and Greek knowledge
to a certain extent reached even the lower ranks of the
population, especially in the capital. The comedies of this
period indicate that even the humbler classes of the capital
were familiar with a sort of Latin, which could no more be
properly understood without a knowledge of Greek than Sterne's
English or Wieland's German without a knowledge of French. Men
of senatorial families, however, not only addressed a Greek
audience in Greek, but even published their speeches. …
Under the influence of such circumstances Roman education
developed itself. It is a mistaken opinion, that antiquity was
materially inferior to our own times in the general diffusion
of elementary attainments. Even among the lower classes and
slaves there was considerable knowledge of reading, writing,
and counting. … Elementary instruction, as well us
instruction in Greek, must have been long ere this period
imparted to a very considerable extent in Rome. But the epoch
now before us initiated an education, the aim of which was to
communicate not merely an outward expertness, but a real
mental culture. The internal decomposition of Italian
nationality had already, particularly in the aristocracy,
advanced so far as to render the substitution of a broader
human culture for that nationality inevitable: and the craving
after a more advanced civilization was already powerfully
stirring men's minds. The study of the Greek language as it
were spontaneously met this craving. The classical literature
of Greece, the Iliad and still more the Odyssey, had all along
formed the basis of instruction; the overflowing treasures of
Hellenic art and science were already by this means spread
before the eyes of the Italians. Without any outward
revolution, strictly speaking, in the character of instruction
the natural result was, that the empirical study of the
language became converted into a higher study of the
literature; that the general culture connected with such
literary studies was communicated in increased measure to the
scholars; and that these availed themselves of the knowledge
thus acquired to dive into that Greek literature which most
powerfully influenced the spirit of the age—the tragedies of
Euripides and the comedies of Menander. In a similar way
greater importance came to be attached to the study of Latin.
The higher society of Rome began to feel the need, if not of
exchanging their mother-tongue for Greek, at least of refining
it and adapting it to the changed state of culture. … But a
Latin culture presupposed a literature, and no such literature
existed in Rome. … The Romans desired a theatre, but the
pieces were wanting. On these elements Roman literature was
based; and its defective character was from the first and
necessarily the result of such an origin. … Roman poetry in
particular had its immediate origin not in the inward impulse
of the poet, but in the outward demands of the school, which
needed Latin manuals, and of the stage, which needed Latin
dramas. Now both institutions—the school and the stage—were
thoroughly anti-Roman and revolutionary. … The school and
the theatre became the most effective levers in the hands of
the new spirit of the age, and all the more so that they used
the Latin tongue.
{1641}
Men might perhaps speak and write Greek, and yet not cease to
be Romans; but in this case they were in the habit of speaking
in the Roman language, while the whole inward being and life
were Greek. It is one of the most pleasing, but it is one of
the most remarkable and in a historical point of view most
instructive, facts in this brilliant era of Roman
conservatism, that during its course Hellenism struck root in
the whole field of intellect not immediately political, and
that the school-master and the maître de plaisir of the great
public in close alliance created a Roman literature."
T. Mommsen,
The History of Rome,
book 3, chapter 13 (volume 2).
Panætius was the founder of "that Roman Stoicism which plays
so prominent a part in the history of the Empire. He came from
Rhodes, and was a pupil of Diogenes at Athens. The most
important part of his life was, however, spent at Rome, in the
house of Scipio Æmilianus, the centre of the Scipionic circle,
where he trained up a number of Roman nobles to understand and
to adopt his views. He seems to have taken the place of
Polybius, and to have accompanied Scipio in his tour to the
East (143 B. C.). He died as head of the Stoic school in
Athens about 110 B. C. This was the man who, under the
influence of the age, really modified the rigid tenets of his
sect to make it the practical rule of life for statesmen,
politicians, magnates, who had no time to sit all day and
dispute, but who required something better than effete
polytheism to give them dignity in their leisure, and
steadfastness in the day of trial. … With the pupils of
Panætius begins the long roll of Roman Stoics. … Here then,
after all the dissolute and disintegrating influences of
Hellenism,—its comœdia palliata, its parasites, its panders,
its minions, its chicanery, its mendacity—had produced their
terrible effect, came an antidote which, above all the human
influences we know, purified and ennobled the world. It
affected, unfortunately, only the higher classes at Rome; and
even among them, as among any of the lower classes that
speculated at all, it had as a dangerous rival that cheap and
vulgar Epicureanism, which puffs up common natures with the
belief that their trivial and coarse reflections have some
philosophic basis, and can be defended with subtle arguments.
But among the best of the Romans Hellenism produced a type
seldom excelled in the world's history, a type as superior to
the old Roman model as the nobleman is to the burgher in most
countries—a type we see in Rutilius Rufus, as compared with
the elder Cato. … It was in this way that Hellenistic
philosophy made itself a home in Italy, and acquired pupils
who in the next generation became masters in their way, and
showed in Cicero and Lucretius no mean rivals of the
contemporary Greek. … Till the poem of Lucretius and the
works of Cicero, we may say nothing in Latin worth reading
existed on the subject. Whoever wanted to study philosophy,
therefore, down to that time (60 B. C.) studied it in Greek.
Nearly the same thing may be said of the arts of architecture,
painting, and sculpture. There were indeed distinctly Roman
features in architecture, but they were mere matters of
building, and whatever was done in the way of design, in the
way of adding beauty to strength, was done wholly under the
advice and direction of Greeks. The subservience to Hellenism
in the way of internal household ornament was even more
complete. … And with the ornaments of the house, the proper
serving of the house, especially the more delicate
departments—the cooking of state dinners, the attendance upon
guests, the care of the great man's intimate comforts—could
only be done fashionably by Greek slaves. … But of course
these lower sides of Hellenism had no more potent effect in
civilising Rome than the employing of French cooks and valets
and the purchase of French ornaments and furniture had in
improving our grandfathers. Much more serious was the
acknowledged supremacy of the Greeks in literature of all
kinds, and still more their insistence that this superiority
depended mainly upon a careful system of intellectual
education. … This is the point where Polybius, after his
seventeen years' experience of Roman life, finds the capital
flaw in the conduct of public affairs. In every Hellenistic
state, he says, nothing engrosses the attention of legislators
more than the question of education, whereas at Rome a most
moral and serious government leaves the training of the young
to the mistakes and hazards of private enterprise. That this
was a grave blunder as regards the lower classes is probably
true. … But when Rome grew from a city controlling Italy to
an empire directing the world, such men as Æmilius Paullus saw
plainly that they must do something more to fit their children
for the splendid position they had themselves attained, and so
they were obliged to keep foreign teachers of literature and
art in their houses as private tutors. The highest class of
these private tutors was that of the philosophers, whom we
have considered, and while the State set itself against their
public establishments, great men in the State openly
encouraged them and kept them in their houses. … As regards
literature, however, in the close of the second century B. C.
a change was visible, which announced the new and marvellous
results of the first. … Even in letters Roman culture began
to take its place beside Greek, and the whole civilised world
was divided into those who knew Greek letters and those who
knew Roman only. There was no antagonism in spirit between
them, for the Romans never ceased to venerate Greek letters or
to prize a knowledge of that language. But of course there
were great domains in the West beyond the influence of the
most western Greeks, even of Massilia, where the first higher
civilisation introduced was with the Roman legions and
traders, and where culture assumed permanently a Latin form.
In the East, though the Romans asserted themselves as
conquerors, they always condescended to use Greek, and there
were prætors proud to give their decisions at Roman assize
courts in that language."
J. P. Mahaffy,
The Greek World under Roman Sway,
chapter 5.
HELLENION, The.
See NAUKRATIS.
HELLESPONT, The.
The ancient Greek name of what is now called the straits of
The Dardanelles, the channel which unites the Sea of Marmora
with the Ægean. The name (Sea of Helle) came from the myth of
Helle, who was said to have been drowned in these waters.
HELLESPONTINE SIBYL.
See SIBYLS.
HELLULAND.
See AMERICA: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.
HELOTS.
See SPARTA: THE CITY.
HELVECONES, The.
See LYGIANS.

{1642}
HELVETIAN REPUBLIC, The.
Switzerland is sometimes called the Helvetian Republic, for no
better reason than is found in the fact that the country
occupied by the Helvetii of Cæsar is embraced in the modern
Swiss Confederacy. But the original confederation, out of
which grew the federal republic of Switzerland, did not touch
Helvetian ground.
See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS,
and A. D. 1332-1460.
HELVETIC REPUBLIC OF 1798, The.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.
HELVETII, The arrested migration of the.
"The Helvetii, who inhabited a great part of modern
Switzerland, had grown impatient of the narrow limits in which
they were crowded together, and harassed at the same time by
the encroachments of the advancing German tide. The Alps and
Jura formed barriers to their diffusion on the south and west,
and the population thus confined outgrew the scanty means of
support afforded by its mountain valleys. … The Helvetii
determined to force their way through the country of the
Allobroges, and to trust either to arms or persuasion to
obtain a passage through the [Roman] province and across the
Rhone into the centre of Gaul. … Having completed their
preparations, [they] appointed the 28th day of March [B. C.
58] for the meeting of their combined forces at the western
outlet of the Lake Lemanus. The whole population of the
assembled tribes amounted to 368,000 souls, including the
women and children; the number that bore arms was 92,000. They
cut themselves off from the means of retreat by giving
ruthlessly to the flames every city and village of their land;
twelve of one class and four hundred of the other were thus
sacrificed, and with them all their superfluous stores, their
furniture, arms and implements." When the news of this
portentous movement reached Rome, Cæsar, then lately appointed
to the government of the two Gauls, was raising levies, but
had no force ready for the field. He flew to the scene in
person, making the journey from Rome to Geneva in eight days.
At Geneva, the frontier town of the conquered Allobroges, the
Romans had a garrison, and Cæsar quickly gathered to that
point the one legion stationed in the province. Breaking down
the bridge which had spanned the river and constructing with
characteristic energy a ditch and rampart from the outlet of
the lake to the gorge of the Jura, he held the passage of the
river with his single legion and forced the migratory horde to
move off by the difficult route down the right bank of the
Rhone. This accomplished, Cæsar hastened back to Italy, got
five legions together, led them over the Cottian Alps, crossed
the Rhone above Lyons, and caught up with the Helvetii before
the last of their cumbrous train had got beyond the Saone.
Attacking and cutting to pieces this rear-guard (it was the
tribe of the Tigurini, which the Romans had encountered
disastrously half a century before), he bridged the Saone and
crossed it to pursue the main body of the enemy. For many days
he followed them, refusing to give battle to the great
barbarian army until he saw the moment opportune. His blow was
struck at last in the neighborhood of the city of Bibracte,
the capital of the Ædui—modern Autun. The defeat of the
Helvetii was complete, and, although a great body of them
escaped, they were set upon by the Gauls of the country and
were soon glad to surrender themselves unconditionally to the
Roman proconsul. Cæsar compelled them—110,000 survivors, of
the 368,000 who left Switzerland in the spring—to go back to
their mountains and rebuild and reoccupy the homes they had
destroyed.
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 6 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
Cæsar,
Gallic Wars,
chapters 1-29.
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapter 1.
Napoleon III.,
History of Julius Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).
HELVII, The.
The Helvii were a tribe of Gauls whose country was between the
Rhone and the Cevennes, in the modern department of the
Ardêche.
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapter 17.
HENGESTESDUN, Battle of.
Defeat of the Danes and Welsh by Ecgbehrt, the West Saxon
king, A. D. 835.
HENNERSDORF, Battle of (1745).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.
HENOTICON OF ZENO, The.
See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.
HENRICIANS.
See PETROBRUSIANS.
HENRY,
Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1206-1216.
Henry (of Corinthia), King of Bohemia, 1307-1310.
Henry, King of Navarre, 1270-1274.
Henry, King of Portugal, 1578-1580.
Henry, Count of Portugal, 1093-1112.
Henry (called the Lion), The ruin of.
See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.
Henry (called the Navigator), Prince, The explorations of.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.
Henry (called the Proud), The fall of.
See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES.
Henry I., King of Castile, 1214-1217.
Henry I., King of England, 1100-1135.
Henry I., King of France, 1031-1060.
Henry I. (called The Fowler), King of the East Franks
(Germany), 919-936.
Henry II.,
Emperor, A. D. 1014-1024;
King of the East Franks (Germany), 1002-1024;
King of Italy, 1004-1024.
Henry II. (of Trastamare),
King of Castile and Leon, 1369-1379.
Henry II. (first of the Plantagenets),
King of England, 1154-1189.
Henry II., King of France, 1547-1559.
Henry III., Emperor, King of Germany,
and King of Burgundy, 1089-1056.
Henry III., King of Castile and Leon, 1390-1407.
Henry III., King of England, 1216-1272.
Henry III.,
King of France (the last of the Valois), 1574-1589;
King of Poland, 1573-1574.
Henry IV.,
Emperor, 1077-1106;
King of Germany, 1056-1106.
Henry IV., King of Castile and Leon, 1454-1474.
Henry IV., King of England
(first of the Lancastrian royal line), 1399-1413.
Henry IV. (called the Great), King of France and Navarre
(the first of the Bourbon kings), 1589-1610.
Abjuration.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.
Assassination.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610.
Henry V.,
Emperor, 1112-1125;
King of Germany, 1106-1125.
Henry V., King of England, 1413-1422.
Henry VI.,
King of Germany, 1190-1197;
Emperor, 1191-1197;
King of Sicily, 1194-1197.
Henry VI., King of England, 1422-1461.
Henry VII. (of Luxemburg),
King of Germany, 1308-1313;
King of Italy and Emperor, 1312-1313.
Henry VII., King of England, 1485-1509.
Henry VIII., King of England, 1509-1547.
HENRY, Patrick,
The Parson's cause.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763.
{1643}
HENRY, Patrick:
The American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765
RECEPTION OF THE NEWS OF THE STAMP ACT, 1774 (SEPTEMBER),
1775 (APRIL-JUNE), 1778-1779 CLARKE'S CONQUEST;
also, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.
Opposition to the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.
HENRY, Fort, Capture of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY—TENNESSEE).
HEPTANOMIS, The.
The northern district of Upper Egypt, embracing seven
provinces, or nomes; whence its name.
HEPTARCHY, The so-called Saxon.
See ENGLAND: 7th CENTURY.
HERACLEA.
The earliest capital of the Venetians.
See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.
HERACLEA, Battle of (B. C. 280).
See ROME: B. C. 282-275.
HERACLEA PONTICA,
Siege of.
Heraclea, a flourishing town of Greek origin on the Phrygian
coast, called Heraclea Pontica to distinguish it from other
towns of like name, was besieged for some two years by the
Romans in the Third Mithridatic War. It was surrendered
through treachery, B. C. 70, and suffered so greatly from the
ensuing pillage and massacre that it never recovered. The
Roman commander, Cotta, was afterwards prosecuted at Rome for
appropriating the plunder of Heraclea, which included a famous
statue of Hercules, with a golden club.
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 3, chapter 5.
HERACLEIDÆ, OR HERAKLEIDS, The.
Among the ancient Greeks the reputed descendants of the
demi-god hero, Herakles, or Hercules, were very numerous.
"Distinguished families are everywhere to be traced who bear
his patronymic and glory in the belief that they are his
descendants. Among Achæans, Kadmeians, and Dorians, Hêraklês
is venerated: the latter especially treat him as their
principal hero—the Patron Hero-God of the race: the
Hêrakleids form among all Dorians a privileged gens, in which
at Sparta the special lineage of the two kings was included."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).
"The most important, and the most fertile in consequences, of
all the migrations of Grecian races, and which continued even
to the latest periods to exert its influence upon the Greek
character, was the expedition of the Dorians into
Peloponnesus. … The traditionary name of this expedition is
'the Return of the Descendants of Hercules' [or 'the Return of
the Heraclidæ']. Hercules, the son of Zeus, is (even in the
Iliad), both by birth and destiny, the hereditary prince of
Tiryns and Mycenæ, and ruler of the surrounding nations. But
through some evil chance Eurystheus obtained the precedency
and the son of Zeus was compelled to serve him. Nevertheless
he is represented as having bequeathed to his descendants his
claims to the dominion of Peloponnesus, which they afterwards
made good in conjunction with the Dorians; Hercules having
also performed such actions in behalf of this race that his
descendants were always entitled to the possession of
one-third of the territory. The heroic life of Hercules was
therefore the mythical title, through which the Dorians were
made to appear, not as unjustly invading, but merely as
reconquering, a country which had belonged to their princes in
former times."
C. O. Müller,
History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
book 1, chapter 3.
See, also, DORIANS AND IONIANS.
HERACLEIDÆ OF LYDIA.
The second dynasty of the kings of Lydia—so-called by the
Greeks as reputed descendants of the sun-god. The dynasty is
represented as ending with Candaules.
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 4, chapter 17.
HERACLEONAS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 641.
HERACLIUS I., Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 610-641.
----------HERAT: Start--------
HERAT: B. C. 330.
Founding of the city by Alexander the Great.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.
HERAT: A. D. 1221.
Destruction by the Mongols.
See KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.
----------HERAT: End--------
HERCTÉ, Mount, Hamilcar on.
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
HERCULANEUM.
See POMPEII.
HERCULIANS AND JOVIANS.
See PRÆTORIAN GUARDS: A. D. 312.
HERCYNIAN FOREST, The.
"The Hercynian Forest was known by report to Eratosthenes and
some other Greeks, under the name Orcynia. The width of this
forest, as Caesar says (B. G. vi. 25), was nine days' journey
to a man without any incumbrance. It commenced at the
territory of the Helvetii [ Switzerland] … and following the
straight course of the Dunube reached to the country of the
Daci and the Anartes. Here it turned to the left in different
directions from the river, and extended to the territory of
many nations. No man of western Germany could affirm that he
had reached the eastern termination of the forest even after a
journey of six days, nor that he had heard where it did
terminate. This is all that Caesar knew of this great forest.
… The nine days' journey, which measures the width of the
Hercynian forest, is the width from south to north; and if we
assume this width to be estimated at the western end of the
Hercynia, which part would be the best known, it would
correspond to the Schwarzwald and Odenwald, which extend on
the east side of the Rhine from the neighbourhood of Bâle
nearly as far north as Frankfort on the Main. The eastern
parts of the forest would extend on the north side of the
Danube along the Rauhe Alp and the Boehmerwald and still
farther east. Caesar mentions another German forest named
Bacenis (B. G. vi. 10), but all that he could say of it is
this: it was a forest of boundless extent, and it separated
the Suevi and the Cherusci; from which we may conclude that it
is represented by the Thüringerwald, Erzgebirge,
Riesengebirge, and the mountain ranges farther east, which
separate the basin of the Danube from the basins of the Oder
and the Vistula."
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapter 2.
HERETOGA.
See EALDORMAN.
HEREWARD'S CAMP IN THE FENS.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1069-1071.
HERIBANN.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: FRANCE.
HERKIMER, General, and the Battle of Oriskany.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
HERMÆ AT ATHENS, Mutilation of the.
See ATHENS: B. C. 415.
{1644}
HERMÆAN PROMONTORY.
The ancient name of the north-eastern horn of the Gulf of
Tunis, now called Cape Bon. It was the limit fixed by the old
treaties between Carthage and Rome, beyond which Roman ships
must not go.
R. B. Smith,
Carthage and the Carthaginians,
chapter 5.
HERMANDAD, The.
See HOLY BROTHERHOOD.
HERMANRIC, OR ERMANARIC, The empire of.
See GOTHS: A. D. 350-375; and 376.
HERMANSTADT,
Battle of (1442).
See TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451.
(Or Schellenberg,) Battle of (1599).
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
14TH-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, &c.).
HERMINSAULE, The.
See SAXONS: A.D. 772-804.
HERMIONES, The.
See GERMANY: As KNOWN TO TACITUS.
HERMITS.
See ANCHORITES.
HERMONTHIS.
See ON.
HERMUNDURI, The.
Among the German tribes of the time of Tacitus, "a people
loyal to Rome. Consequently they, alone of the Germans, trade
not merely on the banks of the river, but far inland, and in
the most flourishing colony of the province of Rætia.
Everywhere they are allowed to pass without a guard; and while
to the other tribes we display only our arms and our camps, to
them we have thrown open our houses and country-seats, which
they do not covet."
Tacitus,
Minor Works, translated by Church and Brodribb:
The Germany.
"The settlements of the Hermunduri must have been in Bavaria,
and seem to have stretched from Ratisbon, northwards, as far
as Bohemia and Saxony."
Tacitus,
Minor Works, translated by Church and Brodribb:
The Germany.
Geography notes.
HERNICANS, The.
A Sabine tribe, who anciently occupied a valley in the Lower
Appenines, between the Anio and the Trerus, and who were
leagued with the Romans and the Latins against the Volscians
and the Æquians.
H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 6.
HERODEANS, The.
See JEWS: B. C. 40-A. D. 44.
REIGN OF THE HERODEANS.
HEROIC AGE OF GREECE.
See GREECE: THE HEROES.
HEROÖPOLIS.
See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.
HERRINGS, The Battle of the (1429).
In February, 1429, while the English still held their ground
in France, and while the Duke of Bedford was besieging Orleans
[see FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431], a large convoy of Lenten
provisions, salted herring in the main, was sent away from
Paris for the English army. It was under the escort of Sir
John Fastolfe, with 1,500 men. At Rouvray en Beausse the
convoy was attacked by 5,000 French cavalry, including the
best knights and warriors of the kingdom. The English
entrenched themselves behind their wagons and repelled the
attack, with great slaughter and humiliation of the French
chivalry; but in the mêlée the red-herrings were scattered
thickly over the field. This caused the encounter to be named
the Battle of the Herrings.
C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
2d series, chapter 35.
HERRNHUT.
See MORAVIAN OR BOHEMIAN BRETHREN.
HERULI, The.
The Heruli were a people closely associated with the Goths in
their history and undoubtedly akin to them in blood. The great
piratical expedition of A. D. 267 from the Crimea, which
struck Athens, was made up of Herules as well as Goths. The
Heruli passed with the Goths under the yoke of the Huns. After
the breaking up of the empire of Attila, they were found
occupying the region of modern Hungary which is between the
Carpathians, the upper Theiss, and the Danube. The Herules
were numerous among the barbarian auxiliaries of the Roman
army in the last days of the empire.
H. Bradley,
Story of the Goths.
ALSO IN:
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 3, chapter 8 (volume 2).
----------HERZEGOVINA: Start--------
HERZEGOVINA: A. D. 1875-1876.
Revolt against Turkish rule.
Interposition of the Powers.
See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.
HERZEGOVINA: A. D. 1878.
Given over to Austria by the Treaty of Berlin.
See TURKS: A. D. 1878.
----------HERZEGOVINA: End--------
HESSE: A. D. 1866.
Extinction of the electorate.
Absorption by Prussia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
HESSIANS, The, in the American War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
HESTIASIS.
The feasting of the tribes at Athens.
See LITURGIES.
HESYCHASTS, The.
See MYSTICISM.
HETÆRIES, Ancient.
Political clubs "which were habitual and notorious at Athens;
associations, bound together by oath, among the wealthy
citizens, partly for purposes of amusement, but chiefly
pledging the members to stand by each other in objects of
political ambition, in judicial trials, in accusation or
defence of official men after the period of office had
expired, in carrying points through the public assembly, &c.
… They furnished, when taken together, a formidable
anti-popular force."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 62 (volume 7).
ALSO IN:
G. F. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3.
HETAIRA.
HETAIRISTS, Modern.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
HETMAN.
See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696;
also, COSSACKS.
HEXHAM, Battle of (1464).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
HEYDUCS.
Servian Christians who, in the earlier period of the Turkish
domination, fled into the forest and became outlaws and
robbers were called Heyducs.
L. Ranke,
History of Servia,
chapter 3.
HIAWATHA AND THE IROQUOIS CONFEDERATION.
See IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
HIBERNIA.
See IRELAND.
HICKS PASHA, Destruction of the army of (1883).
See EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883.
HIDALGO.
"Originally written 'fijodalgo,' son of something. Later
applied to gentlemen, country gentlemen perhaps more
particularly. … In the Dic. Univ. authorities are quoted
showing that the word 'hidalgo' originated with the Roman
colonists of Spain, called 'Italicos,' who were exempt from
imposts. Hence those enjoying similar benefits were called
'Italicos,' which word in lapse of time became 'hidalgo.'"
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, page 252, foot-note.
HIDATSA INDIANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HIDATSA.
{1645}
HIDE OF LAND.
CARUCATE.
VIRGATE.
"In the [Hundred] rolls for Huntingdonshire [England] a series
of entries occurs, describing, contrary to the usual practice
of the compilers, the number of acres in a virgate, and the
number of virgates in a hide, in several manors. … They show
clearly—(1) That the bundle of scattered strips called a
virgate did not always contain the same number of acres. (2)
That the hide did not always contain the same number of
virgates. But at the same time it is evident that the hide in
Huntingdonshire most often contained 120 acres or thereabouts.
… We may gather from the instances given in the Hundred
Rolls for Huntingdonshire, that the 'normal' hide consisted as
a rule of four virgates of about thirty acres each. The really
important consequence resulting from this is the recognition
of the fact that as the virgate was a bundle of so many
scattered strips in the open fields, the hide, so far as it
consisted of actual virgates in villenage, was also a
bundle—a compound and fourfold bundle—of scattered strips in
the open fields. … A trace at least of the original reason
of the varying contents and relations of the hide and virgate
is to be found in the Hundred Rolls, as, indeed, almost
everywhere else, in the use of another word in the place of
hide, when, instead of the anciently assessed hidage of a
manor, its modern actual taxable value is examined into and
expressed. This new word is 'carucate'—'the land of a plough
or plough team,'—'caruca' being the mediæval Latin term for
both plough and plough team. … In some cases the carucate
seems to be identical with the normal hide of 120 acres, but
other instances show that the carucate varied in area. It is
the land cultivated by a plough team; varying in acreage,
therefore, according to the lightness or heaviness of the
soil, and according to the strength of the team. … In
pastoral districts of England and Wales the Roman tribute may
possibly have been, if not a hide from each plough team, a
hide from every family holding cattle. … The supposition of
such an origin of the connexion of the word 'hide' with the
'land of a family,' or of a plough team, is mere conjecture;
but the fact of the connexion is clear."
F. Seebohm,
English Village Community,
chapter 2, section 4,
and chapter 10, section 6.
ALSO IN:
J. M. Kemble,
The Saxons in England,
book 1, chapter 4.
See, also, MANORS.
HIERATIC WRITING.
See HIEROGLYPHICS.
HIERODULI, The.
In some of the early Greek communities, the Hieroduli, or
ministers of the gods, "formed a class of persons bound to
certain services, duties, or contributions to the temple of
some god, and … sometimes dwelt in the position of serfs on
the sacred ground. They appear in considerable numbers, and as
an integral part of the population only in Asia, as, e. g., at
Comana in Cappadocia, where in Strabo's time there were more
than 6,000 of them attached to the temple of the goddess Ma,
who was named by the Greeks Enyo, and by the Romans Bellona.
In Sicily too the Erycinian Aphrodite had numerous ministers,
whom Cicero calls Venerii, and classes with the ministers of
Mars (Martiales) at Larinum in South Italy. In Greece we may
consider the Craugallidæ as Hieroduli of the Delphian Apollo.
They belonged apparently to the race of Dryopes, who are said
to have been at some former time conquered by Heracles, and
dedicated by him to the god. The greater part of them, we are
told, were sent at the command of Apollo to the Peloponnese,
whilst the Craugallidæ remained behind. … At Corinth too
there were numerous Hieroduli attached to Aphrodite, some of
whom were women, who lived as Hetæræ and paid a certain tax
from their earnings to the goddess."
G. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 2, chapter 4.
See, also, DORIS AND DRYOPIS.
HIEROGLYPHICS, Egyptian.
"The Greeks gave the name of Hieroglyphics, that is, 'Sacred
Sculpture,' to the national writing of the Egyptians, composed
entirely of pictures of natural objects. Although very
inapplicable, this name has been adopted by modern writers,
and has been so completely accepted and used that it cannot
now be replaced by a more appropriate appellation. … For a
long series of ages the decipherment of the hieroglyphics, for
which the classical writers furnish no assistance, remained a
hopeless mystery. The acute genius of a Frenchman at last
succeeded, not fifty years since, in lifting the veil. By a
prodigious effort of induction, and almost divination, Jean
François Champollion, who was born at Figeac (Lot) on the 23d
of December, 1790, and died at Paris on the 4th of March,
1832, made the greatest discovery of the nineteenth century in
the domain of historical science, and succeeded in fixing on a
solid basis the principle of reading hieroglyphics. Numerous
scholars have followed the path opened by him. … It would
… be very far from the truth to regard hieroglyphics as
always, or even generally, symbolical. No doubt there are
symbolical characters among them, generally easy to
understand; as also there are, and in very great number,
figurative characters directly representing the object to be
designated; but the majority of the signs found in every
hieroglyphic text are characters purely phonetic; that is,
representing either syllables (and these are so varied as to
offer sometimes serious difficulties) or the letters of an
only moderately complicated alphabet. These letters are also
pictures of objects, but of objects or animals whose Egyptian
name commenced with the letter in question, while also the
syllabic characters (true rebusses) represented objects
designated by that syllable."
F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier.
Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
book 3, chapter 5 (volume 1).
"The system of writing employed by the people called Egyptians
was probably entirely pictorial either at the time when they
first arrived in Egypt, or during the time that they still
lived in their original home. We, however, know of no
inscription in which pictorial characters alone are used, for
the earliest specimens of their writing known to us contain
alphabetical characters. The Egyptians had three kinds of
writing—Hieroglyphic, Hieratic, and Demotic. …
Hieroglyphics … were commonly employed for inscriptions upon
temples, tombs, coffins, statues, and stelæ, and many copies
of the Book of the Dead were written in them. The earliest
hieroglyphic inscription at present known is found on the
monument of Shera, parts of which are preserved in the
Ashmolean Museum at Oxford and in the Gîzeh Museum; it dates
from the IInd dynasty. Hieroglyphics were used in Egypt for
writing the names of Roman Emperors and for religious purposes
until the third century after Christ, at least.
{1646}
Hieratic … was a style of cursive writing much used by the
priests in copying literary compositions on papyrus; during
the XIth or XIIth dynasty wooden coffins were inscribed in
hieratic with religious texts. The oldest document in hieratic
is the famous Prisse papyrus, which records the counsels of
Ptah-hetep to his son; the composition itself is about a
thousand years older than this papyrus, which was probably
inscribed about the XIth dynasty. Drafts of inscriptions were
written upon flakes of calcareous stone in hieratic, and at a
comparatively early date hieratic was used in writing copies
of the Book of the Dead. Hieratic was used until about the
fourth century after Christ. Demotic … is a purely
conventional modification of hieratic characters, which
preserve little of their original form, and was used for
social and business purposes; in the early days of Egyptian
decipherment it was called enchorial. … The Demotic writing
appears to have come into use about B. C. 900, and it survived
until about the fourth century after Christ. In the time of
the Ptolemies three kinds of writing were inscribed side by
side upon documents of public importance, hieroglyphic, Greek,
and Demotic; examples are the stele of Canopus, set up in the
ninth year of the reign of Ptolemy III. Euergetes I., B. C.
247-222, at Canopus, to record the benefits which this king
had conferred upon his country, and the famous Rosetta Stone,
set up at Rosetta in the eighth year of the reign of Ptolemy
V. Epiphanes (B. C. 205-182), likewise to commemorate the
benefits conferred upon Egypt by himself and his family, etc.
… A century or two after the Christian era Greek had
obtained such a hold upon the inhabitants of Egypt, that the
native Christian population, the disciples and followers of
Saint Mark, were obliged to use the Greek alphabet to write
down the Egyptian, that is to say Coptic, translation of the
books of the Old and New Testaments, but they borrowed six
signs from the demotic forms of ancient Egyptian characters to
express the sounds which they found unrepresented in Greek."
E. A. Wallis Budge,
The Mummy,
pages 353-354.
See, also, ROSETTA STONE.
HIEROGLYPHICS, Mexican (so-called).
See AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.
HIERONYMITES, The.
"A number of solitaries residing among the mountains of Spain,
Portugal, and Italy, gradually formed into a community, and
called themselves Hieronymites, either because they had
compiled their Rule from the writings of St. Jerome, or
because, adopting the rule of St. Augustine, they had taken
St. Jerome for their patron. … The community was approved by
Gregory XI., in 1374. The famous monastery of Our Lady of
Guadaloupe, in Estremadura; the magnificent Escurial, with its
wealth of literary treasures, and the monastery of St. Just,
where Charles V. sought an asylum in the decline of his life,
attest their wonderful energy and zeal."
J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
volume 3, page 149.
HIGH CHURCH AND LOW CHURCH:
First use of the names.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
See CURIA REGIS.
HIGH GERMANY, Old League of.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.
HIGH MIGHTINESSES, Their.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660.
HIGHER LAW DOCTRINE, The.
William H. Seward, speaking in the Senate of the United
States, March 11, 1850, on the question of the admission of
California into the Union as a Free State, used the following
language: "'The Constitution,' he said, 'regulates our
stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain to union, to
justice, to defence, to welfare, and to liberty. But there is
a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our
authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble
purposes. The territory is a part, no inconsiderable part, of
the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the
Creator of the universe. We are His stewards, and must so
discharge our trust as to secure in the highest attainable
degree their happiness.' This public recognition by a Senator
of the United States that the laws of the Creator were
'higher' than those of human enactment excited much
astonishment and indignation, and called forth, in Congress
and out of it, measureless abuse upon its author."
H. Wilson,
History of the Rise and Fall
of the Slave Power in America,
volume 2, pages 262-263.
In the agitations that followed upon the adoption of the
Fugitive Slave Law, and the other compromise measures
attending the admission of California, this Higher Law
Doctrine was much talked about.
HIGHLAND CLANS.
See CLANS.
HIGHLANDS OF SCOTLAND,
See SCOTCH HIGHLAND AND LOWLAND.
HIKENILDE—STRETE.
See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.
HILDEBRAND (Pope Gregory VII.), and the Papacy.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;
GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122;
and CANOSSA.
HILDEBRAND, KING OF THE LOMBARDS, A. D. 743-744.
HILL, Isaac, in the "Kitchen Cabinet" of President Jackson.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.
HILL, Rowland, and the adoption of penny-postage.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1840.
HILTON HEAD, The capture of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).
HIMATION, The.
An article of dress in the nature of a cloak, worn by both men
and women among the ancient Greeks. It "was arranged so that
the one corner was thrown over the left shoulder in front, so
as to be attached to the body by means of the left arm. On the
back the dress was pulled toward the right side, so as to
cover it completely up to the right shoulder, or, at least, to
the armpit, in which latter case the right shoulder remained
uncovered. Finally, the himation was again thrown over the
left shoulder, so that the ends fell over the back. … A
second way of arranging the himation, which left the right arm
free, was more picturesque, and is therefore usually found in
pictures."
E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 42.
----------HIMERA: Start--------
HIMERA, Battle of.
See SICILY: B. C. 480.
HIMERA:
Destroyed by Hannibal.
See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.
----------HIMERA: End--------
HIMYARITES, The.
See ARABIA.
HIN, The.
See EPHAH.
HINDMAN, Fort, Capture of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JANUARY: ARKANSAS).
{1647}
HINDOO KOOSH, The Name of the.
See CAUCASUS, THE INDIAN.
HINDUISM.
See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.
HINDUSTAN.
See INDIA: THE NAME.
HINKSTON'S FORK, Battle of (1782).
See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.
HIONG-NU, The.
See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.
HIPPARCH.
A commander of cavalry in the military organization of the
ancient Athenians.
G. F. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3.
HIPPEIS.
Among the Spartans, the honorary title of Hippeis, or Knights,
was given to the members of a chosen body of three hundred
young men, the flower of the Spartan youth, who had not
reached thirty years of age. "Their three leaders were called
Hippagretæ, although in war they served not as cavalry but as
hoplites. The name may possibly have survived from times in
which they actually served on horseback." At Athens the term
Hippeis was applied to the second of the four property classes
into which Solon divided the population,—their property
obliging them to serve as cavalry.
G. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece, The State,
part 3, chapters 1 and 3.
See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 594.
HIPPIS, Battle of the,
Fought, A. D. 550, in what was known as the Lazic War, between
the Persians on one side and the Romans and the Lazi on the
other. The latter were the victors.
G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 20.
----------HIPPO: Start--------
HIPPO, OR HIPPO REGIUS.
An ancient city of north Africa, on the Numidian coast.
See NUMIDIANS; and CARTHAGE: DOMINION OF.
HIPPO: A. D. 430-431.
Siege by the Vandals.
See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.
----------HIPPO: End--------
HIPPOBOTÆ, The.
See EUBŒA.
HIPPODROME.
STADION.
THEATER.
"The arts practised in the gymnasia were publicly displayed at
the festivals. The buildings in which these displays took
place were modified according to their varieties. The races
both on horseback and in chariots took place in the
hippodrome; for the gymnastic games of the pentathlon served
the stadion; while for the acme of the festivals, the musical
and dramatic performances, theatres were erected."
E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans
(translated by Hueffer),
sections 28-30.
HIPPOTOXOTÆ, The.
See SCYTHIANS, OR SCYTHÆ, OF ATHENS.
HIRA.
"The historians of the age of Justinian represent the state of
the independent Arabs, who were divided by interest or
affection in the long quarrel of the East [between the Romans
and Persians—3rd to 7th century]: the tribe of Gassan was
allowed to encamp on the Syrian territory; the princes of Hira
were permitted to form a city about 40 miles to the southward
of the ruins of Babylon. Their service in the field was speedy
and vigorous; but their friendship was venal, their faith
inconstant, their enmity capricious: it was an easier task to
excite than to disarm these roving barbarians; and, in the
familiar intercourse of war, they learned to see and to
despise the splendid weakness both of Rome and of Persia."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 50 (volume 5).
"The dynasty of Palmyra and the western tribes embraced
Christianity in the time of Constantine; to the east of the
desert the religion was later of gaining ground, and indeed
was not adopted by the court of Hira till near the end of the
6th century. Early in the 7th, Hira fell from its dignity as
an independent power, and became a satrapy of Persia."
Sir William Muir,
Life of Mahomet,
introduction, chapter 1.
In 633 Hira was overwhelmed by the Mahometan conquest, and the
greater city of Kufa was built only 3 miles distant from it.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651;
also, BUSSORAH AND KUFA.
HISPALIS.
The name of Seville under the Romans.
See SEVILLE.
HISPANIA CITERIOR AND HISPANIA ULTERIOR.
See SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.
HISPANIOLA.
The name given by Columbus to the island now divided between
the Republics of Hayti and San Domingo.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1492; 1493-1496, and after;
and HAYTI.
HISSARLIK.
The site of ancient Troy, as supposed to be identified by the
excavations of Dr. Schliemann.
See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES;
also, TROJA, and HOMER.
----------HISTORY: Start--------
HISTORY:
Definitions.
"With us the word 'history,' like its equivalents in all
modern languages, signifies either a form of literary
composition or the appropriate subject or matter of such
composition—either a narrative of events, or events which
may be narrated. It is impossible to free the term from this
doubleness and ambiguity of meaning. Nor is it, on the whole,
to be desired. The advantages of having one term which may,
with ordinary caution, be innocuously applied to two things so
related, more than counterbalances the dangers involved in two
things so distinct having the same name. … Since the word
history has two very different meanings, it obviously cannot
have merely one definition. To define an order of facts and a
form of literature in the same terms—to suppose that when
either of them is defined the other is defined—is so absurd
that one would probably not believe it could be seriously done
were it not so often done. But to do so has been the rule
rather than the exception. The majority of so-called
definitions of history are definitions only of the records of
history. They relate to history as narrated and written, not
to history as evolved and acted; in other words, although
given as the only definitions of history needed, they do not
apply to history itself, but merely to accounts of history.
They may tell us what constitutes a book of history, but they
cannot tell us what the history is with which all books of
history are occupied. It is, however, with history in this
latter sense that a student of the science or philosophy of
history is mainly concerned. … If by history be meant
history in its widest sense, the best definition of history as
a form of literature is, perhaps, either the very old one,
'the narration of events,' or W. von Humboldt's, 'the
exhibition of what has happened' (die Darstellung des
Geschehenen).
{1648}
The excellence of these definitions lies in their clear and
explicit indication of what history as effectuated or
transacted is. It consists of events; it is das Geschehene. It
is the entire course of events in time. It is all that has
happened precisely as it happened. Whatever happens is
history. Eternal and unchanging being has no history. Things
or phenomena considered as existent, connected, and
comprehended in space, compose what is called nature as
distinguished from history. … Probably Droysen has found a
neater and terser formula for it in German than any which the
English language could supply. Nature he describes as 'das
Nebeneinander des Seienden,' and history as 'das Nacheinander
des Gewordenen.' … The only kind of history with which we
have here directly to deal is that kind of it to which the
name is generally restricted, history par excellence, human
history, what has happened within the sphere of human agency
and interests, the actions and creations of men, events which
have affected the lives and destinies of men, or which have
been produced by men. This is the ordinary sense of the word
history. … To attempt further to define it would be worse
than useless. It would be unduly to limit, and to distort and
pervert, its meaning. In proof of this a few brief remarks on
certain typical or celebrated definitions of history may
perhaps be of service. The definition given in the Dictionary
of the French Academy—'l'histoire est le récit des choses
dignes de mémoire' [Transcriber: "the story of things worth
remembering">[—is a specimen of a very numerous species.
According to such definitions history consists of exceptional
things, of celebrated or notorious events, of the lives and
actions of great and exalted men, of conspicuous achievements
in war and politics, in science and art, in religion and
literature. But this is a narrow and superficial conception of
history. History is made up of what is little as well as of
what is great, of what is common as well as of what is
strange, of what is counted mean as well as of what is counted
noble. … Dr. Arnold's definition—'history is the biography
of a society'—has been often praised. Nor altogether
undeservedly. For it directs attention to the fact that all
history accords with biography in supposing in its subject a
certain unity of life, work, and end. … It does not follow,
however, that biography is a more general notion than history,
and history only a species of biography. In fact, it is not
only as true and intelligible to say that biography is the
history of an individual as to say that history is the
biography of a society, but more so. It is the word biography
in the latter case which is used in a secondary and analogical
sense, not the word history in the former case. … According
to Mr. Freeman, 'history is past politics and politics are
present history.' This is not a mode of definition which any
logician will be found to sanction. It is equivalent to saying
that politics and history are the same, and may both be
divided into past and present; but it does not tell us what
either is. To affirm that this was that and that is this is
not a definition of this or that, but only an assertion that
something may be called either this or that. Besides, the
identification of history with politics proceeds, as has been
already indicated, on a view of history which is at once
narrow and arbitrary. Further, it is just as true that
mathematical history is past mathematics and mathematics are
present history, as that political history is past politics
and politics are present history. … The whole of man's past
was once present thought, feeling, and action. There is
nothing peculiar to politics in this respect."
R. Flint,
History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,
pages 5-10.
HISTORY:
The subjects and objects of History.
"The position for which I have always striven is this, that
history is past politics, that politics are present history.
The true subject of history, of any history that deserves the
name, is man in his political capacity, man as the member of
an organized society, governed according to law. History, in
any other aspect, hardly rises above antiquarianism, though I
am far from holding that even simple antiquarianism, even the
merest scraping together of local and genealogical detail, is
necessarily antiquarian rubbish. I know not why the pursuits
of the antiquary should be called rubbish, any more than the
pursuits of the seeker after knowledge of any other kind.
Still, the pursuits of the antiquary, the man of local and
special detail, the man of buildings or coins or weapons or
manuscripts, are not in themselves history, though they are
constantly found to be most valuable helps to history. The
collections of the antiquary are not history; but they are
materials for history, materials of which the historian makes
grateful use, and without which he would often be sore put to
in doing his own work. … It is not too much to say that no
kind of knowledge, of whatever kind, will be useless to the
historian. There is none, however seemingly distant from his
subject, which may not stand him in good stead at some pinch,
sooner or later. But his immediate subject, that to which all
other things are secondary, is man as the member of a
political community. Rightly to understand man in that
character, he must study him in all the forms, in all the
developments, that political society has taken. Effects have
to be traced up to their causes, causes have to be traced up
to their effects; and we cannot go through either of those
needful processes if we confine our studies either to the
political societies of our own day or to political societies
on a great physical scale. The object of history is to watch
the workings of one side, and that the highest side, of human
nature in all its shapes; and we do not see human nature in
all its shapes, unless we follow it into all times and all
circumstances under which we have any means of studying it.
… In one sense it is perfectly true that history is always
repeating itself; in another sense it would be equally true to
say that history never repeats itself at all. No historical
position can be exactly the same as any earlier historical
position, if only for the reason that the earlier position has
gone before it. … Even where the reproduction is
unconscious, where the likeness is simply the result of the
working of like causes, still the two results can never be
exactly the same, if only because the earlier result itself
takes its place among the causes of the later result.
Differences of this kind must always be borne in mind, and

they are quite enough to hinder any two historical events from
being exact doubles of one another. … We must carefully
distinguish between causes and occasions. It is one of the
oldest and one of the wisest remarks of political philosophy
that great events commonly arise from great causes, but from
small occasions.
{1649}
A certain turn of mind, one which is more concerned with
gossip, old or new, than with real history, delights in
telling us how the greatest events spring from the smallest
causes, how the fates of nations and empires are determined by
some sheer accident, or by the personal caprice or personal
quarrel of some perhaps very insignificant person. A good deal
of court-gossip, a good deal of political gossip, passes both
in past and present times for real history. Now a great deal
of this gossip is sheer gossip, and may be cast aside without
notice; but a good deal of it often does contain truth of a
certain kind. Only bear in mind the difference between causes
and occasions, and we may accept a good many of the stories
which tell us how very trifling incidents led to very great
events. … When I speak of causes and occasions, when I speak
of small personal caprices and quarrels, as being not the
causes of great events, but merely the occasions, I wish it to
be fully understood that I do not at all place the agency of
really great men among mere occasions: I fully give it its
place among determining causes. In any large view of history,
we must always be on our guard against either underrating or
overrating the actions of individual men. History is something
more than biography; but biography is an essential and a most
important part of history. We must not think, on the one hand,
that great men, heroes, or whatever we please to call them,
can direct the course of history according to their own will
and pleasure, perhaps according to their mere caprice, with no
danger of their will being thwarted, unless it should run
counter to the will of some other great man or hero of equal
or greater power. … On the other hand, we must not deem that
the course of history is so governed by general laws, that it
is so completely in bondage to almost mechanical powers, that
there is no room for the free agency of great men and of small
men too. For it is of no little importance that, while we talk
of the influence of great men on the history of the world, we
should not forget the influence of the small men. Every man
has some influence on the course of history."
E. A. Freeman,
The Practical Bearings of European History
(Lectures to American Audiences),
pages 207-215.
HISTORY:
The Philosophy of History
"The philosophy of history is not a something separate from
the facts of history, but a something contained in them. The
more a man gets into the meaning of them, the more he gets
into it, and it into him; for it is simply the meaning, the
rational interpretation, the knowledge of the true nature and
essential relations of the facts. And this is true of whatever
species or order the facts may be. Their philosophy is not
something separate and distinct from, something over and
above, their interpretation, but simply their interpretation.
He who knows about any people, or epoch, or special
development of human nature, how it has come to be what it is
and what it tends to, what causes have given it the character
it has, and what its relation is to the general development of
humanity, has attained to the philosophy of the history of
that people, epoch, or development. Philosophical history is
sometimes spoken of as a kind of history, but the language is
most inaccurate. Every kind of history is philosophical which
is true and thorough; which goes closely and deeply enough to
work; which shows the what, how, and why of events as far as
reason and research can ascertain. History always participates
in some measure of philosophy, for events are always connected
according to some real or supposed principle either of
efficient or final causation."
R. Flint,
Philosophy of History,
introduction.
HISTORY:
The possibility of a Science of History.
Mr. Buckle's theory.
"The believer in the possibility of a science of history is
not called upon to hold either the doctrine of predestined
events, or that of freedom of the will; and the only positions
which, in this stage of the inquiry, I shall expect him to
concede are the following: That when we perform an action, we
perform it in consequence of some motive or motives; that
those motives are the results of some antecedents; and that,
therefore, if we were acquainted with the whole of the
antecedents, and with all the laws of their movements, we
could with unerring certainty predict the whole of their
immediate results. This, unless I am greatly mistaken, is the
view which must be held by every man whose mind is unbiased by
system, and who forms his opinions according to the evidence
actually before him. … Rejecting, then, the metaphysical
dogma of free will and, the theological dogma of predestined
events, we are driven to the conclusion that the actions of
men, being determined solely by their antecedents, must have a
character of uniformity, that is to say, must, under precisely
the same circumstances, always issue in precisely the same
results. And as all antecedents are either in the mind or out
of it, we clearly see that all the variations in the
results—in other words, all the changes of which history is
full, all the vicissitudes of the human race, their progress
or their decay, their happiness or their misery—must be the
fruit of a double action; an action of external phenomena upon
the mind, and another action of the mind upon the phenomena.
These are the materials out of which a philosophic history can
alone be constructed. On the one hand, we have the human mind
obeying the laws of its own existence, and, when uncontrolled
by external agents, developing itself according to the
conditions of its organization. On the other hand, we have
what is called Nature, obeying likewise its laws; but
incessantly coming into contact with the minds of men,
exciting their passions, stimulating their intellect, and
therefore giving to their actions a direction which they would
not have taken without such disturbance. Thus we have man
modifying nature, and nature modifying man; while out of this
reciprocal modification all events must necessarily spring.
The problem immediately before us is to ascertain the method
of discovering the laws of this double modification."
H. T. Buckle,
History of Civilization in England,
chapter 1.
"Buckle is not the first who has attempted to treat the
unscientific character of History, the 'methodless matter,' as
an ancient writer names it, by the method of exhibiting vital
phenomena under points of view analogous to those which are
the starting-point of the exact sciences. But a notion which
others have incidentally broached under some formula about
'natural growth,' or carried out in the very inadequate and
merely figurative idea of 'the inorganic; what still others,
as Comte in his attractive 'Philosophie Positive,' have
developed speculatively, Buckle undertakes to ground in a
comprehensive historical exposition. …
{1650}
He purposes to raise History to a science by showing how to
demonstrate historical facts out of general laws. He paves the
way for this by setting forth that the earliest and rudest
conceptions touching the course of human destiny were those
indicated by the ideas of chance and necessity, that in all
probability' out of these grew later the 'dogmas' of free-will
and predestination, that both are in a great degree
'mistakes,' or that, as he adds, 'we at least have no adequate
proof of their truth.' He finds that all the changes of which
History is full, all the vicissitudes which have come upon the
human race, its advance and its decline, its happiness and its
misery, must be the fruit, of a double agency, the working of
outer phenomena upon our nature, and the working of our nature
upon outer phenomena. He has confidence that he has discovered
the 'laws' of this double influence, and that he has therefore
elevated the History of mankind to a science. … Buckle does
not so much leave the freedom of the will, in connection with
divine providence, out of view, but rather declares it an
illusion and throws it overboard. Within the precincts of
philosophy also something similar has recently been taught. A
thinker whom I regard with personal esteem says: 'If we call
all that an individual man is, has and performs A, then this A
arises out of a + x, a embracing all that comes to the
man from his outer circumstances: from his country, people,
age, etc., while the vanishingly little x is his own
contribution, the work of his free will.' However vanishingly
small this x may be, it is of infinite value. Morally
and humanly considered it alone has value. The colors, the
brush, the canvas which Raphael used were of materials which
he had not created. He had learned from one and another master
to apply these materials in drawing and painting. The idea of
the Holy Virgin and of the saints and angels, he met with in
church tradition. Various cloisters ordered pictures from him
at given prices. That this incitement alone, these material
and technical conditions and such traditions and
contemplations, should 'explain' the Sistine Madonna, would
be, in the formula A = a + x, the service of the
vanishing little x. Similarly everywhere. Let
statistics go on showing that in a certain country so and so
many illegitimate births occur. Suppose that in the formula A
= a + x this a includes all the elements which
'explain' the fact that among a thousand mothers twenty,
thirty, or whatever the number is, are unmarried; each
individual case of the kind has its history, how often a
touching and affecting one. Of those twenty or thirty who have
fallen is there a single one who will be consoled by knowing
that the statistical law 'explains' her case? Amid the
tortures of conscience through nights of weeping, many a one
of them will be profoundly convinced that in the formula A =
a + x the vanishing little x is of immeasurable
weight, that in fact it embraces the entire moral worth of the
human being, his total and exclusive value. No intelligent man
will think of denying that the statistical method of
considering human affairs has its great worth; but we must not
forget how little, relatively, it can accomplish and is meant
to accomplish: Many and perhaps all human relations have a
legal side; yet no one will on that account bid us seek for
the understanding of the Eroica or of Faust among jurists'
definitions concerning intellectual property."
J. G. Droysen,
Outline of the Principles of History
pages 62-64 and 77-79.
HISTORY:
History as the root of all Science.
Lost History.
"History, as it lies at the root of all science, is also the
first distinct product of man's spiritual nature; his earliest
expression of what can be called Thought. It is a looking both
before and after; as, indeed, the coming Time already waits,
unseen, yet definitely shaped, predetermined and inevitable,
in the Time come; and only by the combination of both is the
meaning of either completed. The Sibylline Books, though old,
are not the oldest. Some nations have prophecy, some have not:
but of all mankind, there is no tribe so rude that it has not
attempted History, though several have not arithmetic enough
to count Five. History has been written with quipo-threads,
with feather-pictures, with wampum-belts; still oftener with
earth-mounds and monumental stone-heaps, whether as pyramid or
cairn; for the Celt and the Copt, the Red man as well as the
White, lives between two eternities, and warring against
Oblivion, he would fain unite himself in clear conscious
relation, as in dim unconscious relation he is already united,
with the whole Future and the whole Past. A talent for History
may be said to be born with us, as our chief inheritance. In a
certain sense all men are historians. Is not every memory
written quite full with Annals, wherein joy and mourning,
conquest and loss manifoldly alternate; and, with or without
philosophy, the whole fortunes of one little inward Kingdom,
and all its politics, foreign and domestic, stand ineffaceably
recorded? Our very speech is curiously historical. Most men,
you may observe, speak only to narrate; not in imparting what
they have thought, which indeed were often a very small
matter, but in exhibiting what they have undergone or seen,
which is a quite unlimited one, do talkers dilate. Cut us off
from Narrative, how would the stream of conversation, even
among the wisest, languish into detached handfuls, and among
the foolish utterly evaporate! Thus, as we do nothing but
enact History, we say little but recite it: nay rather, in
that widest sense, our whole spiritual life is built thereon.
For, strictly considered, what is all Knowledge too but
recorded Experience, and a product of History; of which;
therefore, Reasoning and Belief, no less than Action and
Passion, are essential materials? … Social Life is the
aggregate of all the individual men's Lives who constitute
society; History is the essence of innumerable Biographies.
But if one Biography, nay our own Biography, study and
recapitulate it as we may, remains in so many points
unintelligible to us; how much more must these million, the
very facts of which, to say nothing of the purport of them, we
know not, and cannot know! … Which was the greatest
innovator, which was the more important personage in man's
history, he who first led armies over the Alps, and gained the
victories of Cannæ and Thrasymene; or the nameless boor who
first hammered out for himself an iron spade? When the oak
tree is felled, the whole forest echoes with it; but a hundred
acorns are planted silently by some unnoticed breeze.
{1651}
Battles and war-tumults, which for the time din every ear, and
with joy or terror intoxicate every heart, pass away like
tavern-brawls; and, except some few Marathons and Morgartens,
are remembered by accident, not by desert. Laws themselves,
political Constitutions, are not our Life, but only the house
wherein our Life is led: nay they are but the bare walls of
the house; all whose essential furniture, the inventions and
traditions, and daily habits that regulate and support our
existence, are the work not of Dracos and Hampdens, but of
Phœnician mariners, of Italian masons and Saxon metallurgists,
of philosophers, alchymists, prophets, and all the
long-forgotten train of artists and artisans; who from the
first have been jointly teaching us how to think and how to
act, how to rule over spiritual and over physical Nature. Well
may we say that of our History the more important part is lost
without recovery."
T. Carlyle,
On History
(Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 2).
HISTORY:
Interpretation of the Past by the Present.
"But how, it may be asked, are we to interpret the Past from
the Present, if there are no institutions in the present
answering to those in the past? We have no serfs, for example,
in England at the present time, how then are we to understand
a state of Society of which they were a component element? The
answer is—by analogy, by looking at the essence of the
relation. Between a modern master and his lackeys and
dependents, the same essential relation subsists as between
the lord and serf of feudal times. If we realise to ourselves
the full round of this relationship, deepen the shades to
correspond with the more absolute power possessed by a lord in
early times, allow for a more aristocratic state of opinion
and belief, the result will be the solution desired. This
method of interpreting the Past from the Present has been
followed by Shakespeare in his great historical dramas, with
such success as we all know. He wishes, for example, to give
us a picture of old Roman times. He gets from Plutarch and
other sources the broad historical facts, the form of
Government and Religion, the distribution of Power and
Authority: this is the skeleton to which he has to give life
and reality. How does he proceed? He simply takes his stand on
the times in which he himself lived; notes the effects
existing institutions have on his own and other minds; allows
for the differences in custom, mode of life, and political and
religious forms; and the result is a drama or dramas more real
and lifelike, more true and believable, an insight into the
working of Roman life more subtle and profound, than all the
husks with which the historians have furnished us."
J. B. Crozier,
Civilization and Progress,
page 35.
HISTORY:
The Moral lessons of History.
"Gibbon believed that the era of conquerors was at an end. Had
he lived out the full life of man, he would have seen Europe
at the feet of Napoleon. But a few years ago we believed the
world had grown too civilized for war, and the Crystal Palace
in Hyde Park was to be the inauguration of a new era. Battles
bloody as Napoleon's are now the familiar tale of every day;
and the arts which have made greatest progress are the arts of
destruction. … What, then, is the use of History, and what
are its lessons? If it can tell us little of the past, and
nothing of the future, why waste our time over so barren a
study? First, it is a voice forever sounding across the
centuries the laws of right and wrong. Opinions alter, manners
change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is written on
the tablets of eternity. For every false word or unrighteous
deed, for cruelty and oppression, for lust or vanity, the
price has to be paid at last; not always by the chief
offenders, but paid by some one. Justice and truth alone
endure and live. Injustice and falsehood may be long-lived,
but doomsday comes at last to them, in French revolutions and
other terrible ways. That is one lesson of History. Another is
that we should draw no horoscopes; that we should expect
little, for what we expect will not come to pass."
J. A. Froude,
Short Studies on Great Subjects,
pages 27-28.
HISTORY:
The Educational and Practical value of History.
"It is, I think, one of the best schools for that kind of
reasoning which is most useful in practical life. It teaches
men to weigh conflicting probabilities, to estimate degrees of
evidence, to form a sound judgment of the value of
authorities. Reasoning is taught by actual practice much more
than by any a priori methods. Many good judges—and I own I am
inclined to agree with them—doubt much whether a study of
formal logic ever yet made a good reasoner. Mathematics are no
doubt invaluable in this respect, but they only deal with
demonstrations; and it has often been observed how many
excellent mathematicians are somewhat peculiarly destitute of
the power of measuring degrees of probability. But History is
largely concerned with the kind of probabilities on which the
conduct of life mainly, depends. There is one hint about
historical reasoning which I think may not be unworthy of your
notice. When studying some great historical controversy, place
yourself by an effort of the imagination alternately on each
side of the battle; try to realise as fully as you can the
point of view of the best men on either side, and then draw up
upon paper the arguments of each in the strongest form you can
give them. You will find that few practices do more to
elucidate the past, or form a better mental discipline."
W. E. H. Lecky,
The Political Value of History,
pages 47-49.
"He who demands certainties alone as the sphere of his action
must retire from the activities of life, and confine himself
to the domain of mathematical computation. He who is unwilling
to investigate and weigh probabilities can have no good reason
to hope for any practical success whatever. It is strictly
accurate to say that the highest successes in life, whether in
statesmanship, in legislation, in war, in the civic
professions, or in the industrial pursuits, are attained by
those who possess the greatest skill in the weighing of
probabilities and the estimating of them at their true value.
This is the essential reason why the study of history is so
important an element in the work of improving the judgment,
and in the work of fitting men to conduct properly the larger
interests of communities and states. It is a study of
humanity, not in an ideal condition, but as humanity exists.
The student of history surveys the relations of life in
essentially the same manner as the man of business surveys
them. Perhaps it ought rather to be said that the historical
method is the method that must be used in the common affairs
of everyday life.
{1652}
The premises from which the man of business has to draw his
conclusions are always more or less involved and uncertain.
The gift which insures success, therefore, is not so much the
endowment of a powerful reasoning faculty as that other
quality of intelligence, which we call good judgment. It is
the ability to grasp what may be called the strategic points
of a situation by instinctive or intuitive methods. It reaches
its conclusions not by any very clearly defined or definable
process, but rather by the method of conjecturing the value
and importance of contingent elements. It is the ability to
reach correct conclusions when the conditions of a strictly
logical process are wanting. To a man of affairs this is the
most valuable of all gifts; and it is acquired, so far as it
comes by effort, not by studying the rigid processes of
necessary reasoning, but by a large observance and
contemplation of human affairs. And it is precisely this
method of studying men that the historical student has to use.
His premises are always more or less uncertain, and his
conclusions, therefore, like the conclusions of every day
life, are the product of his judgment rather than the product
of pure reason. It is in the light of this fact that we are to
explain the force of Guizot's remark, that nothing tortures
history more than logic. Herein also is found the reason why
the study of history is so necessary a part of a good
preparation for the affairs of politics and statesmanship.
Freeman has said that history is simply past politics, and
politics are simply present history. If this be true—and who
can deny it?—the study of history and the study of politics
are much the same. The kind of involved and contingent
reasoning necessary for the successful formation of political
judgments is unquestionably the kind of reasoning which, of
all studies, history is best adapted to give. It may also be
said that the most important elements of success are the same
in all practical vocations. The conditions, whether those of
statesmanship or those of industry and commerce, have been
essentially the same in all ages. Society is, and has been,
from its first existence, a more or less complicated organism.
It is a machine with a great number of wheels and springs. No
part is independent. Hence it is that no man can be completely
useful if he is out of gear with his age, however perfect he may
be in himself."
C. K. Adams,
A Manual of Historical Literature,
pp. 15-16.
"To turn for a moment to the general question. I should not
like to be thought to be advocating my study on the mere
grounds of utility; although I believe that utility, both as
regards the training of the study and the information attained
in it, to be the highest, humanly speaking, of all utilities;
it helps to qualify a man to act in his character of a
politician as a Christian man should. But this is not all;
beyond the educational purpose, beyond the political purpose,
beyond the philosophical use of history and its training, it
has something of the preciousness of everything that is
clearly true. In common with Natural Philosophy it has its
value, I will not say as Science, for that would be to use a
term which has now become equivocal, but it has a value
analogous to the value of science; a value as something that
is worth knowing and retaining in the knowledge for its own
and for the truth's sake. And in this consists its especial
attraction for its own votaries. It is not the pleasure of
knowing something that the world does not know,—that
doubtless is a motive that weighs with many minds, a motive to
be accepted as a fact, though it may not be worth analysis. It
is not the mere pleasure of investigating and finding with
every step of investigation new points of view open out, and
new fields of labour, new characters of interest;—that
investigating instinct of human nature is not one to be
ignored, and the exercise of it on such inexhaustible
materials as are before us now is a most healthy exercise, one
that cannot but strengthen and develop the whole mind of the
man who uses it, urging him on to new studies, new languages,
new discoveries in geography and science. But even this is not
all. There is, I speak humbly, in common with Natural Science,
in the study of living History, a gradual approximation to a
consciousness that we are growing into a perception of the
workings of the Almighty Ruler of the world. … The study of
History is in this respect, as Coleridge said of Poetry, its
own great reward, a thing to be loved and cultivated for its
own sake. … If man is not, as we believe, the greatest and
most wonderful of God's works, he is at least the most
wonderful that comes within our contemplation; if the human
will, which is the motive cause of all historical events, is
not the freest agent in the universe, it is at least the
freest agency of which we have any knowledge; if its
variations are not absolutely innumerable and irreducible to
classification, on the generalisations of which we may
formulate laws and rules, and maxims and prophecies, they are
far more diversified and less reducible than any other
phenomena in those regions of the universe that we have power
to penetrate. For one great insoluble problem of astronomy or
geology there are a thousand insoluble problems in the life,
in the character, in the face of every man that meets you in
the street. Thus, whether we look at the dignity of the
subject-matter, or at the nature of the mental exercise which
it requires, or at the inexhaustible field over which the
pursuit ranges, History, the knowledge of the adventures, the
development, the changeful career, the varied growths, the
ambitions, aspirations, and, if you like, the approximating
destinies of mankind, claims a place second to none in the
roll of sciences."
W. Stubbs,
Seventeen Lectures on the Study of
Medieval and Modern History,
lectures 1 and 4.
"There is a passage in Lord Bacon so much to this purpose that
I cannot forbear quoting it. 'Although' (he says) 'we are
deeply indebted to the light, because by means of it we can
find our way, ply our tasks, read, distinguish one another;
and yet for all that the vision of the light itself is more
excellent and more beautiful than all these various uses of
it; so the contemplation and sight of things as they are,
without superstition, without imposture, without error, and
without confusion, is in itself worth more than all the
harvest and profit of inventions put together.' And so may I
say of History; that useful as it may be to the statesman, to
the lawyer, to the schoolmaster, or the annalist, so far as it
enables us to look at facts as they are, and to cultivate that
habit within us, the importance of History is far beyond all
mere amusement or even information that we may gather from
it."
J. S. Brewer,
English Studies,
page 382.
{1653}
"To know History is impossible; not even Mr. Freeman, not
Professor Ranke himself, can be said to know History. … No
one, therefore, should be discouraged from studying History.
Its greatest service is not so much to increase our knowledge
as to stimulate thought and broaden our intellectual horizon,
and for this purpose no study is its equal."
W. P. Atkinson,
On History and the Study of History,
page 107.
HISTORY:
The Writing of History.
Macaulay's view.
"A history in which every particular incident may be true may
on the whole be false. The circumstances which have most
influence on the happiness of mankind, the changes of manners
and morals, the transition of communities from poverty to
wealth, from knowledge to ignorance, from ferocity to
humanity—these are, for the most part, noiseless revolutions.
Their progress is rarely indicated by what historians are
pleased to call important events. They are not achieved by
armies, or enacted by senates. They are sanctioned by no
treaties and recorded in no archives. They are carried on in
every school, in every church, behind ten thousand counters,
at ten thousand firesides. The upper current of society
presents no certain criterion by which we can judge of the
direction in which the under current flows. We read of defeats
and victories. But we know that nations may be miserable
amidst victories and prosperous amidst defeats. We read of the
fall of wise ministers and of the rise of profligate
favourites. But we must remember how small a proportion the
good or evil effected by a single statesman can bear to the
good or evil of a great social system. … The effect of
historical reading is analogous, in many respects, to that
produced by foreign travel. The student, like the tourist, is
transported into a new state of society. He sees new fashions.
He hears new modes of expression. His mind is enlarged by
contemplating the wide diversities of laws, of morals, and of
manners. But men may travel far and return with minds as
contracted as if they had never stirred from their own
market-town. In the same manner, men may know the dates of
many battles and the genealogies of many royal houses, and yet
be no wiser. … The perfect historian is he in whose work the
character and spirit of an age is exhibited in miniature. He
relates no fact, he attributes no expression to his
characters, which is not authenticated by sufficient
testimony. But, by judicious selection, rejection, and
arrangement, he gives to truth those attractions which have
been usurped by fiction. In his narrative a due subordination
is observed: some transactions are prominent; others retire.
But the scale on which he represents them is increased or
diminished, not according to the dignity of the persons
concerned in them, but according to the degree in which they
elucidate the condition of society and the nature of man. He
shows us the court, the camp, and the senate. But he shows us
also the nation. He considers no anecdote, no peculiarity of
manner, no familiar saying, as too insignificant for his
notice which is not too insignificant to illustrate the
operation of laws, of religion, and of education, and to mark
the progress of the human mind. Men will not merely be
described, but will be made intimately known to us."
Lord Macaulay,
History
(Essays, volume 1).
HISTORY:
The Writing of History.
Truthfulness in Style.
"That man reads history, or anything else, at great peril of
being thoroughly misled, who has no perception of any
truthfulness except that which can be fully ascertained by
reference to facts; who does not in the least perceive the
truth, or the reverse, of a writer's style, of his epithets,
of his reasoning, of his mode of narration. In life our faith
in any narration is much influenced by the personal
appearance, voice, and gesture of the person narrating. There
is some part of all these things in his writing; and you must
look into that well before you can know what faith to give
him. One man may make mistakes in names, and dates, and
references, and yet have a real substance of truthfulness in
him, a wish to enlighten himself and then you. Another may not
be wrong in his facts, but have a declamatory, or sophistical,
vein in him, much to be guarded against. A third may be both
inaccurate and untruthful, caring not so much for any thing as
to write his book. And if the reader cares only to read it,
sad work they make between them of the memories of former
days."
Sir A. Helps,
Friends in Council,
volume 1, pages 199-200.
HISTORY:
Historical Romance and Romantic History.
Sir Walter Scott.
"The prodigious addition which the happy idea of the
historical romance has made to the stories of elevated
literature, and through it to the happiness and improvement of
the human race, will not be properly appreciated, unless the
novels most in vogue before the immortal creations of Scott
appeared are considered. … Why is it that works so popular
in their day, and abounding with so many traits of real
genius, should so soon have palled upon the world? Simply
because they were not founded upon a broad and general view of
human nature; because they were drawn, not from real life in
the innumerable phases which it presents to the observer, but
imaginary life as it was conceived in the mind of the
composer; because they were confined to one circle and class
of society, and having exhausted all the natural ideas which
it could present, its authors were driven, in the search of
variety, to the invention of artificial and often ridiculous
ones. Sir Walter Scott, as all the world knows, was the
inventor of the historical romance. As if to demonstrate how
ill founded was the opinion, that all things were worked out,
and that originality no longer was accessible for the rest of
time, Providence, by the means of that great mind, bestowed a
new art, as it were, upon mankind—at the very time when
literature to all appearance was effete, and invention, for
above a century, had run in the cramped and worn-out channels
of imitation. Gibbon was lamenting that the subjects of
history were exhausted, and that modern story would never
present the moving incidents of ancient story, on the verge of
the French Revolution and the European war—of the Reign of
Terror and the Moscow retreat. Such was the reply of Time to
the complaint that political incident was worn out. Not less
decisive was the answer which the genius of the Scottish bard
afforded to the opinion, that the treasures of original
thought were exhausted, and that nothing now remained for the
sons of men. In the midst of that delusion he wrote
'Waverley'; and the effect was like the sun bursting through
the clouds."
Historical Romance
(Blackwood's Magazine, September, 1845).
{1654}
"Those sticklers for truth, who reproach Scott with having
falsified history because he wilfully confused dates, forget
the far greater truth which that wonderful writer generally
presented. If, for his purposes, he disarranged the order of
events a little; no grave historian ever succeeded better in
painting the character of the epoch. He committed errors of
detail enough to make Mrs. Markham shudder. He divined
important historical truth which had escaped the sagacity of
all historians. A great authority, Augustin Thierry, has
pronounced Scott the greatest of all historical divinators."
G. H. Lewes,
Historical Romance
(Westminster Review, March, 1846).
"The novel of Ivanhoe places us four generations after the
invasion of the Normans, in the reign of Richard, son of Henry
Plantagenet, sixth king since the conqueror. At this period,
at which the historian Hume can only represent to us a king
and England, without telling us what a king is, nor what he
means by England, Walter Scott, entering profoundly into the
examination of events, shows us classes of men, distinct
interests and conditions, two nations, a double language,
customs which repel and combat each other; on one side tyranny
and insolence, on the other misery and hatred, real
developments of the drama of the conquest, of which the battle
of Hastings had been only the prologue. … In the midst of
the world which no longer exists, Walter Scott always places
the world which does and always will exist, that is to say,
human nature, of which he knows all the secrets. Everything
peculiar to the time and place, the exterior of men, the
aspect of the country and of the habitations, costumes, and
manners, are described with the most minute truthfulness; and
yet the immense erudition which has furnished so many details
is nowhere to be perceived. Walter Scott seems to have for the
past that second sight, which in times of ignorance, certain
men attributed to themselves for the future. To say that there
is more real history in his novels on Scotland and England
than in the philosophically false compilations which still
possess that great name, is not advancing any thing strange in
the eyes of those who have read and understood 'Old
Mortality,' 'Waverley,' 'Rob Roy,' the 'Fortunes of Nigel,'
and the 'Heart of Mid-Lothian.'"
A. Thierry, Narratives of the Merovingian Era,
Historical Essays, etc., essay 9.
"We have all heard how the romances of Walter Scott brought
history home to people who would never have looked into the
ponderous volumes of professed historians, and many of us
confess to ourselves that there are large historical periods
which would be utterly unknown to us but for some story either
of the great romancer or one of his innumerable imitators.
Writers, as well as readers, of history were awakened by Scott
to what seemed to them the new discovery that the great
personages of history were after all men and women of flesh
and blood like ourselves. Hence in all later historical
literature there is visible the effort to make history more
personal, more dramatic than it had been before. We can hardly
read the interesting Life of Lord Macaulay without perceiving
that the most popular historical work of modern times owes its
origin in a great measure to the Waverley Novels. Macaulay
grew up in a world of novels; his conversation with his
sisters was so steeped in reminiscences of the novels they had
read together as to be unintelligible to those who wanted the
clue. His youth and early manhood witnessed the appearance of
the Waverley Novels themselves. … He became naturally
possessed by the idea which is expressed over and over again
in his essays, and which at last he realized with such
wonderful success, the idea that it was quite possible to make
history as interesting as romance. … Macaulay is only the
most famous of a large group of writers who have been
possessed with the same idea. As Scott founded the historical
romance, he may be said to have founded the romantic history.
And to this day it is an established popular opinion that this
is the true way of writing history, only that few writers have
genius enough for it. … It must be urged against this kind
of history that very few subjects or periods are worthy of it.
Once or twice there have appeared glorious characters whose
perfection no eloquence can exaggerate; once or twice national
events have arranged themselves like a drama, or risen to the
elevation of an epic poem. But the average of history is not
like this; it is indeed much more ordinary and monotonous than
is commonly supposed. The serious student of history has to
submit to a disenchantment like that which the experience of
life brings to the imaginative youth. As life is not much like
romance, so history when it is studied in original documents
looks very unlike the conventional representation of it which
historians have accustomed us to."
J. R. Seeley,
History and Polities
(Macmillan's Magazine, August, 1879).
HISTORY:
How to study History.
"The object of the historical student is to bring before his
mind a picture of the main events and the spirit of the times
which he studies. The first step is to get a general view from
a brief book; the second step is to enlarge it from more
elaborate books, reading more than one, and to use some system
of written notes keeping them complete. The next step is to
read some of the contemporary writers. Having done these three
things carefully, the historical student carries away an
impression of his period which will never be effaced."
Prof. A. B. Hart,
How to Study History
(Chautauquan, October, 1893).
HISTORY:
The Importance of a knowledge of Universal History.
"When I was a schoolmaster, I never considered a pupil
thoroughly educated unless he had read Gibbon through before
he left me. I read it through myself before I was eighteen,
and I have derived unspeakable advantage from this experience.
Gibbon's faults of style and matter have very slight effect on
the youthful mind, whereas his merits, his scholarship, his
learning, his breadth of view, his imagination, and his
insight, afford a powerful stimulus to study. … I … wish
to urge the claims of two subjects on your attention which
have hitherto been unaccountably neglected. The first of them
is universal history, the general course of the history of the
world. It seems natural to think that no subject could be more
important for the consideration of any human being than the
knowledge of the main lines which the race has followed since
the dawn of history in reaching the position which it has now
attained. The best way of understanding any situation is to
know how affairs came into that position. Besides the
satisfaction of legitimate curiosity, it is only thus that we
can be wise reformers, and distinguish between what is a mere
survival of the past and an institution which is inherent in
the character of the community.
{1655}
Our German cousins are fully aware of this truth; a German
parlour, however meagerly furnished, always contains two
books, a Bible and a Weltgeschichte. I suppose that during the
present century from a hundred to a hundred and fifty of these
universal histories have made their appearance in Germany. In
England I only know of two. In Germany, Italy, and Austria,
and, I believe, in France, universal history forms an
essential part of education for nearly all classes. It is
taken as a subject under certain conditions in the
Abiturienten-Examen. I once had the privilege of reading the
notes of a viva voce examination of a student in this subject
who did not pass. It covered the whole range of ancient,
mediæval, and modern history. I was astonished at what the
student did know, and still more at what he was expected to
know. I should like to see the subject an essential part of
all secondary education in England, just as the knowledge of
Bible history was in my young days and may be still. If proper
text-books were forthcoming, to which I again direct the
attention of enterprising publishers, there would be no
difficulty in making this subject an accompaniment of nearly
every literary lesson. … The advantage would be the
enlargement of the mind by the contemplation of the majestic
march of human events and the preparation for any future
course of historical study. 'Boys come to us,' said a German
professor once to me, 'knowing their centuries.' How few
English boys or even English men have any notion of their
centuries! The dark ages are indeed dark to them. I once asked
a boy at Eton, who had given me a date, whether it was B. C.
or A. D. Being hopelessly puzzled, he replied that it was B.
D. Many of us, if we were honest, would give a similar
answer."
O. Browning,
The Teaching of History in Schools
(Royal Historical Society, Transactions,
new series, volume 4).
HISTORY:
The Importance of Local History.
"From a variety of considerations, the writer is persuaded
that one of the best introductions to history that can be
given in American high schools, and even in those of lower
grade, is through a study of the community in which the school
is placed. History, like charity, begins at home. The best
American citizens are those who mind home affairs and local
interest. 'That man's the best cosmopolite who loves his
native country best.' The best students of universal history
are those who know some one country or some one subject well.
The family, the hamlet, the neighborhood, the community, the
parish, the village, town, city, county, and state are
historically the ways by which men have approached national
and international life. It was a preliminary study of the
geography of Frankfort-on-the-Main that led Carl Ritter to
study the physical structure of Europe and Asia, and thus to
establish the new science of comparative geography. He says:
'Whoever has wandered through the valleys and woods, and over
the hills and mountains of his own state, will be the one
capable of following a Herodotus in his wanderings over the
globe.' And we may say, as Ritter said of the science of
geography, the first step in history is to know thoroughly the
district where we live. … American local history should be
studied as a contribution to national history. This country
will yet be viewed and reviewed as an organism of historic
growth, developing from minute germs, from the very protoplasm
of state life. And some day this country will be studied in
its international relations, as an organic part of a larger
organism now vaguely called the World State, but as surely
developing through the operation of economic, legal, social,
and scientific forces as the American Union, the German and
British Empires are evolving into higher forms. American
history in its widest relations is not to be written by any
one man nor by anyone generation of men. Our history will grow
with the nation and with its developing consciousness of
internationality. The present possibilities for the real
progress of historic and economic science lie, first and
foremost, in the development of a generation of economists and
practical historians, who realize that history is past
politics and politics present history; secondly, in the
expansion of the local consciousness into a fuller sense of
its historic worth and dignity, of the cosmopolitan relations
of modern local life, and of its wholesome conservative power
in these days of growing centralization. National and
international life can best develop upon the constitutional
basis of local self-government in church and state. … If
young Americans are to appreciate their religious and
political inheritance, they must learn its intrinsic worth.
They must be taught to appreciate the common and lowly things
around them. They should grow up with as profound respect for
town and parish meetings as for the State legislature, not to
speak of the Houses of Congress. They should recognize the
majesty of the law, even in the parish constable as well as
the high sheriff of the country. They should look on selectmen
as the head men of the town, the survival of the old English
reeve and four best men of the parish. They should be taught
to see in the town common or village green a survival of that
primitive institution of land-community upon which town and
state are based. They should be taught the meaning of town and
family names; how the word 'town' means, primarily, a place
hedged in for the purposes of defence; how the picket-fences
around home and house-lot are but a survival of the primitive
town idea; how home, hamlet, and town live on together in a
name like Hampton, or Home-town. They should investigate the
most ordinary thing for these are often the most archaic. …
It would certainly be an excellent thing for the development
of historical science in America if teachers in our public
schools would cultivate the historical spirit in their pupils
with special reference to the local environment. … A
multitude of historical associations gather around every old
town and hamlet in the land. There are local legends and
traditions, household tales, stories told by grandfathers and
grandmothers, incidents remembered by 'the oldest
inhabitants.' But above all in importance are the old
documents and manuscript records of the first settlers, the
early pioneers, the founders of our towns. Here are sources of
information more authentic than tradition, and yet often
entirely neglected. … In order to study history it is not
necessary to begin with dead men's bones, with Theban
dynasties, the kings of Assyria, the royal families of Europe,
or even with the presidents of the United States. These
subjects have their importance in certain connections, but for
beginners in history there are perhaps other subjects of
greater interest and vitality.
{1656}
The most natural entrance to a knowledge of the history of the
world is from a local environment through widening circles of
interest, until, from the rising ground of the present, the
broad horizon of the past comes clearly into view. … A study
of the community in which the student dwells will serve to
connect that community not only with the origin and growth of
the State and Nation, but with the mother-country, with the
German fatherland, with village communities throughout the
Aryan world,—from Germany and Russia to old Greece and Rome;
from these classic lands to Persia and India."
H. B. Adams, Methods of Historical Study
(Johns Hopkins University Studies, Second Series, 1-2),
pages 16-21.
----------HISTORY: Start--------
HITCHITIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
HITTIN, Battle of (1187).
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.
HITTITES, The.
The Hittites mentioned in the Bible were known as the Khita or
Khatta to the Egyptians, with whom they were often at war.
Recent discoveries indicate that they formed a more civilized
and powerful nation and played a more important part in the
early history of Western Asia than was previously supposed.
Many inscriptions and rock sculptures in Asia Minor and Syria
which were formerly inexplicable are now attributed to the
Hittites. The inscriptions have not yet been deciphered, but
scholars are confident that the key to their secret will be
found. The two chief cities of the Hittites were Kadesh on the
Orontes and Carchemish on the Euphrates; so that their seat of
empire was in northern Syria, but their power was felt from
the extremity of Asia Minor to the confines of Egypt. It is
conjectured that these people were originally from the
Caucasus. "Their descendants," says Professor Sayee, "are
still to be met with in the defiles of the Taurus and on the
plateau of Kappadokia, though they have utterly forgotten the
language or languages their forefathers spoke. What that
language was is still uncertain, though the Hittite proper
names which occur on the monuments of Egypt and Assyria show
that it was neither Semitic nor Indo-European."
A. H. Sayee,
Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
chapter 5.
"We may … rest satisfied with the conclusion that the
existence of a Hittite empire extending into Asia Minor is
certified, not only by the records of ancient Egypt, but also
by Hittite monuments which still exist. In the days of Ramses
II., when the children of Israel were groaning under the tasks
allotted to them, the enemies of their oppressors were already
exercising a power and a domination which rivalled that of
Egypt. The Egyptian monarch soon learned to his cost that the
Hittite prince was as 'great' a king as himself, and could
summon to his aid the inhabitants of the unknown north.
Pharaoh's claim to sovereignty was disputed by adversaries as
powerful as the ruler of Egypt, if indeed not more powerful,
and there was always a refuge among them for those who were
oppressed by the Egyptian king. When, however, we speak of a
Hittite empire, we must understand clearly what that means. It
was not an empire like that of Rome, where the subject
provinces were consolidated together under a central
authority, obeying the same laws and the same supreme head. It
was not an empire like that of the Persians, or of the
Assyrian successors of Tiglath-pileser III., which represented
the organised union of numerous states and nations under a
single ruler. … Before the days of Tiglath-pileser, in fact,
empire in Western Asia meant the power of a prince to force a
foreign people to submit to his rule. The conquered provinces
had to be subdued again and again; but as long as this could
be done, as long as the native struggles for freedom could be
crushed by a campaign, so long did the empire exist. It was an
empire of this sort that the Hittites established in Asia
Minor. How long it lasted we cannot say. But so long as the
distant races of the West answered the summons to war of the
Hittite princes, it remained a reality. The fact that the
tribes of the Troad and Lydia are found fighting under the
command of the Hittite kings of Kadesh, proves that they
acknowledged the supremacy of their Hittite lords, and
followed them to battle like the vassals of some feudal chief.
If Hittite armies had not marched to the shores of the Ægean,
and Hittite princes been able from time to time to exact
homage from the nations of the far west, Egypt would not have
had to contend against the populations of Asia Minor in its
wars with the Hittites, and the figures of Hittite warriors
would not have been sculptured on the rocks of Karabel. There
was a time when the Hittite name was feared as far as the
western extremity of Asia Minor, and when Hittite satraps had
their seat in the future capital of Lydia. Traditions of this
period lingered on into classical days."
A. H. Sayee,
The Hittites,
chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
W. Wright,
The Empire of the Hittites.
See, also,
AMORITES; and ITALY, ANCIENT: EARLY ITALIANS.
HIVITES, The.
The "Midlanders," who dwelt in the middle of Canaan when the
Israelites invaded it.
See AMALEKITES.
HLÆFDIGE.
See LADY.
HLAFORD.
See LORD.
HLUDWIG.
See LOUIS.
HOARD.
HORDERE.
See STALLER.
HOBKIRK'S HILL, Battle of (1781).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

HOCHE, Campaigns of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER),
PROGRESS OF THE WAR; 1794-1796; 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
HOCHELAGA.
The name of an Indian village found by Cartier on the site of
the present city of Montreal. An extensive region of
surrounding country seems to have likewise borne the name
Hochelaga, and Cartier calls the river St. Lawrence "the river
of Hochelaga," or "the great river of Canada."
See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535,
and CANADA: NAMES.
HOCHHEIM, The storming of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
HOCHKIRCH, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.
HÖCHST, Battle of (1622).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.
----------HOCHSTADT: Start--------
HOCHSTADT, Battle of (1704).
The great battle which English historians name from the
village of Blenheim, is named by the French from the
neighboring town of Hochstadt.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.
HOCHSTADT: Battle of (1800).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).
----------HOCHSTADT: End--------
{1657}
HODEIBIA, Truce of.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
HOFER, Andrew, and the Tyrolese revolt.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810 (APRIL-FEBRUARY).
HOHENFRIEDBERG, Battle of (1745).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.
HOHENLINDEN, Battle of (1800).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).
HOHENSTAUFEN OR SUABIAN FAMILY, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;
and ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to A. D. 1183-1250.
HOHENZOLLERN:
Rise of the House of.
"Hohenzollern lies far south in Schwaben (Suabia), on the
sunward slope of the Rauhe-Alp Country; no great way north
from Constance and its Lake; but well aloft, near the springs
of the Danube; its back leaning on the Black Forest; it is
perhaps definable as the southern summit of that same huge old
Hercynian Wood, which is still called the Schwarzwald (Black
Forest), though now comparatively bare of trees. Fanciful
Dryasdust, doing a little etymology, will tell you the name
'Zollern' is equivalent to 'Tollery' or Place of Tolls.
Whereby Hohenzollern' comes to mean the 'High' or Upper
'Tollery';—and gives one the notion of antique pedlars
climbing painfully, out of Italy and the Swiss valleys, thus
far; unstrapping their packhorses here, and chaffering in
unknown dialect about 'toll.' Poor souls;—it may be so, but
we do not know, nor shall it concern us. This only is known:
That a human kindred, probably of some talent for coercing
anarchy and guiding mankind, had, centuries ago, built its
'Burg' there, and done that function in a small but creditable
way ever since."
T. Carlyle,
Frederick the Great,
book 2, chapter 5.
"The title, Count of Zollern, was conferred by Henry IV. in
the eleventh century. … In 1190 Henry VI. appointed the
Count of Zollern to the imperial office of Burgrave of
Nuremberg. By fortunate marriages and prudent purchases, his
descendants, who retained the office, gradually acquired
extensive estates in Franconia, Moravia, and Burgundy, and
their wisdom and growing power steadily increased their weight
in the councils of the German princes. … Frederick VI. was
enriched by Sigismund with large gifts of money, and was made
his deputy in Brandenburg in 1411. The marches were in utter
confusion, under the feuds and ravages of the unrestrained
knighthood. Frederick reduced them to order, and at the
Council of Constance, in 1417, received from Sigismund the
margraviate of Brandenburg with the dignity of Elector."
C. T. Lewis,
History of Germany,
book 3, chapter 12, section 1.
See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417.
HOHENZOLLERN INCIDENT, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY).
----------HOLLAND: Start--------
HOLLAND:
The country and its Name.
See NETHERLANDS.
HOLLAND: A. D. 1430.
Absorbed in the dominions of the House of Burgundy.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1417-1430.
HOLLAND: A. D. 1477.
The "Great Privilege" granted by Mary of Burgundy.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.
HOLLAND: A. D. 1488-1491.
The Bread and Cheese War.
End of the Party of the Hooks.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.
HOLLAND: A. D. 1494.
The Great Privilege disputed by Philip the Handsome.
Friesland detached.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.
HOLLAND: A. D. 1506-1609.
The Austro-Spanish tyranny.
Revolt and independence of the United Provinces.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519, to 1594-1609.
HOLLAND: A. D. 1651-1660.
Supremacy in the Republic of the United Provinces.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660.
HOLLAND: A. D. 1665-1747.
Wars with England and France.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1665-1666.
HOLLAND: A. D. 1746.
The restored Stadtholdership.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1787.
HOLLAND: A. D. 1793-1810.
French invasion and conquest.
The Batavian Republic.
The kingdom of Louis Bonaparte.
Annexation to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL);
1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY);
and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.
HOLLAND: A. D. 1813-1814.
Independence regained.
Belgium annexed.
The kingdom of the Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1813;
FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
HOLLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.
Dissolution of the kingdom of the Netherlands.
Creation of the kingdoms of Holland and Belgium.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.
----------HOLLAND: Start--------
HOLLAND PURCHASE, The.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.
HOLLY SPRINGS, Confederate capture.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
HOLOCAUST.
"The sacrifice of a whole burnt-offering, where nothing was
kept back for the enjoyment of men," was called a holocaust by
the ancient Greeks.
G. F. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
page 60.
----------HOLSTEIN: Start--------
HOLSTEIN: A. D. 1848-1866.
The Schleswig-Holstein question.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862;
and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.
HOLSTEIN: A. D. 1866.
Annexation to Prussia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
----------HOLSTEIN: End--------
HOLY ALLIANCE, The.
"The document called the Holy Alliance was originally sketched
at Paris [during the occupation of the French capital by the
Allies, after Waterloo, in 1815], in the French language, by
[the Czar] Alexander's own hand, after a long and animated
conversation with Madame de Krüdener and Bergasse. It was
suggested, perhaps, by words spoken by the king of Prussia
after the battle of Bautzen, but was chiefly the result of the
influence, upon a mind always inclined to religious ideas, of
the conversation of Madame de Krüdener and of the philosopher
Bader, the admirer of Tauler, Jacob Boehm, and St. Martin, the
deadly foe of Kant and his successors in Germany. … The Czar
dreamt of founding a Communion of states, bound together by
the first principles of Christianity. … The king of Prussia
signed the paper from motives of friendship for the Czar,
without attaching much importance to what he did. … The
emperor of Austria, the least sentimental of mankind, at first
declined to sign, 'because,' he said, 'if the secret is a
political one, I must tell it, to Metternich; if it is a
religious one, I must tell it to my confessor.' Metternich
accordingly was told; and observed scornfully, 'C'est du
verbiage.'
{1658}
Indeed no one of the princes who adhered to the Holy Alliance,
with the single exception of Alexander himself, ever took it
seriously. It was doomed from its birth. As M. de Bernhardi
observes: 'It sank without leaving a trace in the stream of
events, never became a reality, and never had the slightest
real importance.' What had real importance was the continuance
of the good understanding between the powers who had put down
Napoleon, and their common fear of France. This good
understanding and that common fear led to the treaty of the
20th November 1815, by which it was stipulated that the Powers
should, from time to time, hold Congresses with a view to
regulating the welfare of nations and the peace of Europe. It
was these Congresses, and not the Holy Alliance, which kept up
close relations between the rulers of Russia, Prussia, and
Austria, and enabled them, when the liberal movement on the
Continent, which followed the conclusion of the war, began to
be alarming, to take measures for a combined system of
repression."
M. E. G. Duff,
Studies in European Polities,
chapter 2.
The text of the Treaty is as follows:
"In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity: Holy
Alliance of Sovereigns of Austria, Prussia, and Russia. Their
Majesties the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, and the
Emperor of Russia, having, in consequence of the great events
which have marked the course of the three last years in
Europe, and especially of the blessings which it has pleased
Divine Providence to shower down upon those States which place
their confidence and their hope on it alone, acquired the
intimate conviction of the necessity of settling the steps to
be observed by the Powers, in their reciprocal relations, upon
the sublime truths which the Holy Religion of our Saviour
teaches; They solemnly declare that the present Act has no
other object than to publish, in the face of the whole world,
their fixed resolution, both in the administration of their
respective States, and in their political relations with every
other Government, to take for their sole guide the precepts of
that Holy Religion, namely, the precepts of Justice, Christian
Charity, and Peace, which, far from being applicable only to
private concerns, must have an immediate influence on the
councils of Princes, and guide all their steps, as being the
only means of consolidating human institutions and remedying
their imperfections. In consequence, their Majesties have
agreed on the following Articles:—
Art. I. Conformably to the words of the Holy Scriptures,
which command all men to consider each other as brethren,
the Three contracting Monarchs will remain united by the
bonds of a true and indissoluble fraternity, and
considering each other as fellow countrymen, they will, on
all occasions and in all places, lend each other aid and
assistance; and, regarding themselves towards their
subjects and armies as fathers of families, they will lead
them, in the same spirit of fraternity with which they are
animated, to protect Religion, Peace, and Justice.
Art II. In consequence, the sole principle of force,
whether between the said Governments or between their
Subjects, shall be that of doing each other reciprocal
service, and of testifying by unalterable good will the
mutual affection with which they ought to be animated, to
consider themselves all as members of one and the same
Christian nation; the three allied Princes looking on
themselves as merely delegated by Providence to govern
three branches of the One family, namely, Austria, Prussia,
and Russia, thus confessing that the Christian world, of
which they and their people form a part, has in reality no
other Sovereign than Him to whom alone power really
belongs, because in Him alone are found all the treasures
of love, science, and infinite wisdom, that is to say, God,
our Divine Saviour, the Word of the Most High, the Word of
Life. Their Majesties consequently recommend to their
people, with the most tender solicitude, as the sole means
of enjoying that Peace which arises from a good conscience,
and which alone is durable, to strengthen themselves every
day more and more in the principles and exercise of the
duties which the Divine Saviour has taught to mankind.
Art. III. All the Powers who shall choose solemnly to avow
the sacred principles which have dictated the present Act,
and shall acknowledge how important it is for the happiness
of nations, too long agitated, that these truths should
henceforth exercise over the destinies of mankind all the
influence which belongs to them, will be received with
equal ardour and affection into this Holy Alliance. Done in
triplicate, and signed at Paris, the year of Grace 1815,
14/26th September."
"It is stated in 'Martens' Treaties' that the greater part of
the Christian Powers acceded to this Treaty. France acceded to
it in 1815; the Netherlands and Wurtemberg did so in 1816; and
Saxony, Switzerland, and the Hansa Towns in 1817. But neither
the Pope nor the Sultan were invited to accede."
E. Hertslet,
Map of Europe by Treaty,
volume 1, number 36, pages 317-319.
"The Treaty of the Holy Alliance was not graced with the name
of the Prince Regent [of Great Britain], but the Czar received
a letter declaring that his principles had the personal
approval of this great authority on religion and morality. The
Kings of Naples and Sardinia were the next to subscribe, and
in due time the names of the witty glutton, Louis XVIII., and
of the abject Ferdinand of Spain were added."
C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 2, chapter 1.
"Metternich, the worldly-wise, smiled at this manifesto as
'nothing more than a philanthropic aspiration clothed in a
religious garb.' He suspected that the evil-minded would
misinterpret and that the jokers would ridicule it, but none
knew better than he the flimsiness of diplomatic agreements,
and accordingly he consented to it. Christianity has had many
crimes committed in its name; the Holy Alliance made
Christianity the cloak under which the kings of Europe
conspired to perpetuate the helotage of their subjects.
Metternich found it all the easier to direct kings whose
common interest it was to uphold the paternal system therein
approved. He exerted his influence over each of them
separately; if the monarch were obdurate, he wheedled his
minister; if the minister were wary, he prejudiced the monarch
against him. Now by flattery, and now by specious argument, he
won his advantage. … Like a trickster at cards, he marked
every card in the pack and could always play the ace. … He
told the truth when he knew it would not be believed; he
prevaricated when he intended his falsehood should pass for
truth. This was diplomacy, these the 'Christian precepts' by
which one hundred and fifty millions of Europeans were
governed.
{1659}
In a society where everyone lies, falsehoods of equal cunning
nullify each other. Metternich took care that his should excel
in verisimilitude and in subtlety. It was an open battle of
craft; but his craft was as superior to that of his
competitors as a slow, undetectable poison is more often fatal
than the hasty stab of a bravo. He fished both with hooks and
nets; if one broke, the other held. … He was, we may affirm,
sincerely insincere; strongly attached to the Hapsburg
dynasty, and patriotic in so far as the aggrandizement of that
House corresponded with the interests of the Austrian State.
But the central figure in his perspective was always himself,
whom he regarded as the savior of a social order whose
preservation held back the world from chaos. … He spoke of
his mission as an 'apostolate.' … To resist all
change,—that was his policy; to keep the surface
smooth,—that was his peace. … He likened himself to a
spider, spinning a vast web. 'I begin to know the world well,'
he said, 'and I believe that the flies are eaten by the
spiders only because they die naturally so young that they
have no time to gain experience, and do not know what is the
nature of a spider's web.' How many flies he caught during his
forty years' spinning! but his success, he admitted, was due
quite as much to their blindness as to his cunning. … He
seemed to delight in royal conferences in order that he might
have the excitement of manipulating Alexander and Frederick
William; for his own Emperor, Francis, was as pliable as putty
in his hands. Such was Metternich, 'the most worldly, the most
dexterous, the most fortunate of politicians,' the embodiment
of that Old Régime strangely interpolated in the nineteenth
century. Knowing him, we shall know the nature of the
resistance which checked every patriotic impulse, every effort
towards progress in Italy, between 1815 and 1848. Few names
have been hated as his was hated, or feared as his was feared.
The Italians pictured to themselves a monster, a worse than
Herod, who gloated over human suffering, and spent his time in
inventing new tortures for his victims. He regarded them, and
all liberals, as natural enemies to the order in which he
flourished; and he had no more mercy for them than the Spanish
Inquisitors had for heretics."
W. R. Thayer,
The Dawn of Italian Independence,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).
HOLY BROTHERHOOD, OR HERMANDAD, The.
Before the close of the 13th century, there first arose in
Spain "an anomalous institution peculiar to Castile, which
sought to secure the public tranquillity by means scarcely
compatible themselves with civil subordination. I refer to the
celebrated Hermandad, or Holy Brotherhood, as the association
was sometimes called,—a name familiar to most readers in the
lively fictions of Le Sage, though conveying there no very
adequate idea of the extraordinary functions which it assumed
at the period under review [13th-14th centuries]. Instead of a
regularly organized police, it then consisted of a
confederation of the principal cities, bound together by a
solemn league and covenant for the defence of their liberties
in seasons of civil anarchy. Its affairs were conducted by
deputies, who assembled at stated intervals for this purpose,
transacting their business under a common seal, enacting laws
which they were careful to transmit to the nobles and even the
sovereign himself, and enforcing their measures by an armed
force. … One hundred cities associated in the Hermandad of
1315. In that of 1295, were thirty-four. The knights and
inferior nobility frequently made part of the association. …
In one of [the articles of confederation] it is declared that
if any noble shall deprive a member of the association of his
property, and refuse restitution, his house shall be razed to
the ground. In another, that if any one, by command of the
king, shall attempt to collect an unlawful tax, he shall be
put to death on the spot." Under the government of Ferdinand
and Isabella, among the measures adopted for checking the
license and disorder which had become prevalent in Castile,
and restoring a more effective administration of justice, was
one for a reorganization of the Santa Hermandad. "The project
for the reorganization of this institution was introduced into
the cortes held, the year after Isabella's accession, at
Madrigal, 1476. … The new institution differed essentially
from the ancient hermandades, since, instead of being partial
in its extent, it was designed to embrace the whole kingdom;
and, instead of being directed, as had often been the case,
against the crown itself, it was set in motion at the
suggestion of the latter, and limited in its operation to the
maintenance of public order. The crimes reserved for its
jurisdiction were all violence or theft committed on the
highways or in the open country, and in cities by such
offenders as escaped into the country; house-breaking; rape;
and resistance of justice. … An annual contribution of
18,000 maravedis was assessed on every 100 vecinos or
householders, for the equipment and maintenance of a horseman,
whose duty it was to arrest offenders and enforce the sentence
of the law. On the flight of a criminal, the tocsins of the
villages through which he was supposed to have passed were
sounded, and the quadrilleros or officers of the brotherhood,
stationed on the different points, took up the pursuit with
such promptness as left little chance of escape. A court of
two alcaldes was established in every town containing thirty
families, for the trial of all crimes within the jurisdiction
of the hermandad; and an appeal lay from them in specified
cases to a supreme council. A general junta, composed of
deputies from the cities throughout the kingdom was annually
convened for the regulation of affairs, and their instructions
were transmitted to provincial juntas, who superintended the
execution of them. … Notwithstanding the popular
constitution of the hermandad, and the obvious advantages
attending its introduction at this juncture, it experienced so
decided an opposition from the nobility, who discerned the
check it was likely to impose on their authority, that it
required all the queen's address and perseverance to effect
its general adoption. … The important benefits resulting
from the institution of the hermandad secured its confirmation
by successive cortes, for the period of 22 years, in spite of
the repeated opposition of the aristocracy. At length, in
1498, the objects for which it was established having been
completely obtained, it was deemed advisable to relieve the
nation from the heavy charges which its maintenance imposed.
The great salaried officers were dismissed; a few subordinate
functionaries were retained for the administration of justice,
over whom the regular courts of criminal law possessed appellate
jurisdiction; and the magnificent apparatus of the Santa
Hermandad, stripped of all but the terrors of its name,
dwindled into an ordinary police, such as it has existed, with
various modifications of form, down to the present century."
W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
introduction, section 1, with foot-note,
and part 1, chapter 6.
{1660}
HOLY BROTHERHOOD IN MEXICO.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1535-1822.
HOLY GHOST, The military Order of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.
HOLY JUNTA, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.
----------HOLY LEAGUES: Start--------
HOLY LEAGUES:
Pope Julius II. against Louis XII. of France.
See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
Pope Clement VII. against Charles V.
See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.
German Catholic princes against the Protestant League of
Smalcald.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.
Spain, Venice and Pope Pius V. against the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.
Of the Catholic party in the Religious Wars of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, to 1593-1598.
Pope Innocent XI., the Emperor, Venice, Poland and Russia
against the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
----------HOLY LEAGUES: End--------
HOLY LION, Battle of the (1568).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.
HOLY OFFICE, The.
See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.
HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE:
Its origin.
See ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.
Its extinction.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.
HOLY ROOD OF SCOTLAND, The.
"A certified fragment of the true cross preserved in a shrine
of gold or silver gilt. It was brought over by St. Margaret,
and left as a sacred legacy to her descendants and their
kingdom. … The rood had been the sanctifying relic round
which King David I. raised the house of canons regular of the
Holy Rood, devoted to the rule of St. Augustin, at Edinburgh.
The kings of Scotland afterwards found it so convenient to
frequent this religious house that they built alongside of it
a royal residence or palace, well known to the world as
Holyrood House."
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 20 (volume 2).
The Holy Rood, or Black Rood as it was sometimes called, was
carried away from Scotland, along with the "coronation stone,"
by Edward I. of England, afterwards got back by treaty, and
then lost again at the battle of Neville's Cross, from which
it went as a trophy to Durham Abbey.
HOLY WAR, Mahometan.
See DAR-UL-ISLAM.
HOMAGE.
See FEUDAL TENURES.
HOME RULE MOVEMENT, The Irish.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879, to 1893.
HOMER AND THE HOMERIC POEMS.
"When we use the word Homer, we do not mean a person
historically known to us, like Pope or Milton. We mean in the
main the author, whoever or whatever he was, of the wonderful
poems called respectively, not by the author, but by the
world, the 'Iliad' and the 'Odyssey.' His name is
conventional, and its sense in etymology is not very different
from that which would be conveyed by our phrase, 'the author.'
… At the first dawn of the historic period, we find the
poems established in popular renown; and so prominent that a
school of minstrels takes the name of 'Homeridæ' from making
it their business to preserve and to recite them. Still, the
question whether the poems as we have them can be trusted,
whether they present substantially the character of what may
be termed original documents, is one of great but gradually
diminishing difficulty. It is also of importance, because of
the nature of their contents. In the first place, they give a
far greater amount of information than is to be found in any
other literary production of the same compass. In the second
place, that information, speaking of it generally, is to be
had nowhere else. In the third place, it is information of the
utmost interest, and even of great moment. It introduces to
us, in the very beginnings of their experience, the most
gifted people of the world, and enables us to judge how they
became such as in later times we know them. … And this
picture is exhibited with such a fulness both of particulars
and of vital force, that perhaps never in any country has an
age been so completely placed upon record. … We are …
probably to conceive of Homer as of a Bard who went from place
to place to earn his bread by his profession, to exercise his
knowledge in his gift of song, and to enlarge it by an
ever-active observation of nature and experience of men. …
It has … been extensively believed that he was a Greek of
Asia Minor. And as there were no Greeks of Asia Minor at the
time of the Trojan War, nor until a wide and searching
revolution in the peninsula had substituted Dorian manners for
those of the earlier Achaian age, which Homer sang, this
belief involves the further proposition that the poet was
severed by a considerable interval of time from the subjects
of his verse. The last-named opinion depends very much upon
the first; and the first chiefly, if not wholly, upon a
perfectly vague tradition, which has no pretence to an
historical character. … The question … has to be decided …
by the internal evidence of the poems. This evidence, I
venture to say, strongly supports the belief that Homer was an
European, and if an European, then certainly also an Achaian
Greek: a Greek, that is to say, of the pre-Doric period, when
the Achaian name prevailed and principally distinguished the
race. … Until the 18th century of our era was near its
close, it may be said that all generations had believed Troy
was actually Troy, and Homer in the main Homer; neither taking
the one for a fable, or (quaintest of all dreams) for a symbol
of solar phenomena, nor resolving the other into a multiform
assemblage of successive bards, whose verses were at length
pieced together by a clever literary tailor. … After
slighter premonitory movements, it was Wolf that made, by the
publication of his 'Prolegomena' in 1795, the serious attack.
… Wolf maintained that available writing was not known at,
or till long after, the period of their composition; and that
works of such length, not intrusted to the custody of written
characters, could not have been transmitted through a course
of generations with any approach to fidelity. Therefore they
could only be a number of separate songs, brought together at
a later date."
W. E. Gladstone,
Homer (Literature Primers),
chapters 1-2.
{1661}
"Homeric geography is entirely pre-Dorian. Total
unconsciousness of any such event as the Dorian invasion
reigns both in the Iliad and Odyssey. … A silence so
remarkable can be explained only by the simple supposition
that when they were composed the revolution in question had
not yet occurred. Other circumstances confirm this view."
A. M. Clerke,
Familiar Studies in Homer,
chapter 1.
"It is … in the discoveries of Dr. Schliemann that we have
the impulse which seems to be sending the balance over towards
the belief in the European instead of in the Asiatic origin of
the poems. We now know that at the very point which Homer
makes the chief royal city of Greece there did, in fact, exist
a civilisation which did, in fact, offer just the conditions
for the rise of a poetry such as the Homeric—a great city
'rich in gold,' with a cultivation of the material arts such
as is wont to go hand in hand with the growth of poetry. …
See GREECE: MYCENÆ AND ITS KINGS.
It is no longer possible to doubt that the world which the
poems describe was one which really existed in the place where
they put it. Even in details the poems have received striking
illustration from the remains of Mykenai. … It appears that
we may date the oldest part of the Iliad at least to some time
before the Dorian invasion, which, according to the
traditional chronology, took place about 1000 B. C. … But
the poems can hardly be much earlier than the invasion; for
there are various signs which indicate that the civilisation
which they depict had made some advance beyond that of which
we find the material remains in the 'shaft tombs,' discovered
by Dr. Schliemann in the Acropolis of Mykenai. And the date of
these has now been fixed by Mr. Petrie, from comparison with
Egyptian remains, at about 1150. We can therefore hardly be
far wrong, if the poems were composed in Achaian Greece, in
dating their origin at about 1050 B. C. There still remains
the question of the historical basis which may underlie the
story of the Iliad. The poem may give us a true picture of
Achaian Greece and its civilisation, and yet be no proof that
the armies of Agamemnon fought beneath the walls of Troy. But
here again the discoveries of recent years, and notably those
of Schliemann at Hissarlik, have tended on the whole to
confirm the belief that there is a historic reality behind the
tale of Troy. … The hypothesis that the Iliad and Odyssey
are the work of more than one poet … is one which has been
gaining ground ever since it was seriously taken up and argued
at length by Wolf in his famous 'Prolegomena,' just a century
ago. But it has from the first encountered strong opposition,
and is still regarded, in England at least, as the heretical
view."
W. Leaf,
Companion to the Iliad,
introd.
"It seems clear that the author or authors of the Iliad and
Odyssey lived long before the time when Æolian, Ionian,
Dorian, were the three great tribal names of Greece, and far
from the coast on which these three names were attached to
successive portions of territory. If we are to decide the
ancient controversy about the birthplace of Homer, we must
turn away from Asia, and set ourselves to consider the claims
of three districts of Greece proper: Thessaly, the home of the
chief hero and the most ancient worship; Bœotia, the ancient
seat of the Muses, and the first in the very ancient (if not
actually Homeric) muster-roll of the ships; and Argolis, the
seat of Achæan empire."
D. B. Monro,
Homer and the Early History of Greece
(English Historical Review, January, 1886).
"I hold that the original nucleus of the Iliad was due to a
single Achaean poet, living in Thessaly before the immigration
which partly displaced the primitive Hellenes there. This
primary Iliad may have been as old as the eleventh century B.
C. It was afterwards brought by Achaean emigrants to Ionia,
and there enlarged by successive Ionian poets. The original
nucleus of the Odyssey was also composed, probably, in Greece
proper, before the Dorian conquest of the Peloponnesus; was
carried to Ionia by emigrants whom the conquerors drove out;
and was there expanded into an epic which blends the local
traits of its origin with the spirit of Ionian adventure and
Ionian society."
R. C. Jebb,
The growth and influence of Classical Greek Poetry,
page 14.
R. C. Jebb,
Homer: An Introduction to the Iliad and the Odyssey.
"We accept the Iliad as one epic by one hand. The
inconsistencies which are the basis of the opposite theory
seem to us reconcileable in many places, in others greatly
exaggerated. … To us the hypothesis of a crowd of great
harmonious poets, working for centuries at the Iliad, and
sinking their own fame and identity in Homer's, appears more
difficult of belief than the opinion that one great poet may
make occasional slips and blunders." As for the Odyssey, "we
have … to deal with critics who do not recognise the unity,
the marshalling of incidents towards a given end. We have to
do with critics who find, in place of unity, patchwork and
compilation, and evident traces of diverse dates, and diverse
places of composition. Thus argument is inefficient,
demonstration is impossible, and the final judge must be the
opinion of the most trustworthy literary critics and of
literary tradition. These are unanimous, as against the
'microscope-men,' in favor of the unity of the Odyssey."
A. Lang,
Homer and the Epic,
chapters 7 and 13.
HOMERITES, The.
See ABYSSINIA: 6TH TO 16TH CENTURIES.
HOMESTEAD ACT, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY).
HOMILDON HILL, Battle of.
A victory for the English, under "Hotspur," over a raiding
army of the Scots, A. D. 1402. It was won almost entirely by
the English cross-bow. By some historians it is called the
Battle of Humbledon.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.
HOMOOUSION AND HOMOIOUSION.
SEE ARIANISM.
HOMS, Battle of (1832).
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
HONDSCHOTTEN, Battle of (1793).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).
----------HONDURAS: Start--------
HONDURAS:
Aboriginal inhabitants.
Ruins of Ancient Civilization.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS, and QUICHES.
HONDURAS: A. D. 1502.
Discovery by Columbus.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.
HONDURAS: A. D. 1524.
Conquest by Olid and Cortes.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.
{1662}
HONDURAS: A. D. 1821-1871.
Separation from Spain and independence.
Brief annexation to Mexico.
Attempted federations and their failure.
The British colony.
See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.
----------HONDURAS: End--------
HONDURAS, British: A. D. 1850.
The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.
See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.
HONE, William, The Trials of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.
HONEIN, Battle of.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
HONG-KONG: A. D. 1842.
Ceded to Great Britain.
See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.
HONG MERCHANTS.
See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.
HONORIUS,
Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 395-423.
Honorius I., Pope, 625-638.
Honorius II., Pope, 1124-1130.
Honorius III., Pope, 1216-1227.
Honorius IV., Pope, 1285-1287;
HONOURS, Escheated.
"When a great barony by forfeiture or escheat fell into the
hands of the [English] crown, instead of being incorporated
with the general body of the county or counties in which it
lay, it retained a distinct corporate existence and the whole
apparatus of jurisdiction which it had possessed before. Under
the title of an Honour, it either continued in the possession
of the king and was farmed like a shire, or was granted out
again to another lord as a hereditary fief."
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11, section 129 (volume 1).
HOOD, General John B.
The Atlanta campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA) to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).
HOOKER, General Joseph, Commander of the Army of the Potomac.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JANUARY-APRIL: VIRGINIA),
and (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).
Transfer to Chattanooga.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).
At Chattanooga.—The Battle above the Clouds.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
HOOKS AND KABELJAUWS, OR HOOKS AND CODS.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354;
also, 1482-1493.
HOOVER'S GAP, Battle at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).
HOPLITES.
Heavy-armed foot-soldiers of the Greeks.
See PHYLÆ.
HORESTII, The.
See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.
HORIKANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HORIKANS.
HORITES, The.
The aborigines of Canaan,—dwellers in caves, Troglodytes. "At
the time of the Israelitish conquest … there still existed
many remains of the Aborigines scattered through the land.
They were then ordinarily designated by a name which suggests
very different ideas—Rephaim, or Giants."
H. Ewald,
History of Israel, introduction,
section 4.
F. Lenormant considers the Rephaim a distinct race, divided
into the Rephaim of Bashan, the Emim, the Zamzummim, the Zumim
and the Anakim.
Manual of Ancient History,
book 6, chapter 1.
See, also,
JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY.
HORMUZ, Battle of.
The decisive battle, fought A. D. 226, on the plain of Hormuz,
in Persia Proper, in which the Parthian monarchy was
overthrown, its last king, Artabanus, slain, and the New
Persian, or Sassanian empire established by Artaxerxes I.
G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 3.
HORN, Count, and the struggle in the Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.
HORN, Cape.
Discovered by Drake (1578).
See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.
HORTENSIAN LAWS, The.
See ROME: B. C. 286.
HOSEIN, The martyrdom of.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.
HOSPES.
HOSPITES.
HOSPITIUM.
"In the earlier stages of society, especially in Greece and
Italy, where the population consisted of numerous independent
tribes constantly at variance with each other, every stranger
was looked upon with suspicion. … Hence it became common for
a person who was engaged in commerce, or any other occupation
which might compel him to visit a foreign country, to form
previously a connection with a citizen of that country, who
might be ready to receive him as a friend and act as his
protector. Such a connection was always strictly reciprocal.
… An alliance of this description was termed Hospitium, the
parties who concluded it were termed Hospites in relation to
each other, and thus the word Hospes bore a double
signification, denoting, according to circumstances, either an
entertainer or a guest. The obligations imposed by the
covenant were regarded as of the most sacred character. …
The league of Hospitium, when once formed, was hereditary. …
The parties interchanged tokens, by which they or their
descendants might recognise each other. This token, called
'tessera hospitalis,' was carefully preserved. … In process
of time, among both the Greeks and Romans, it became common
for a state, when it desired to pay a marked compliment to any
individual, to pass a resolution declaring him the Hospes of
the whole community."
W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 3.
----------HOSPITALLERS: Start--------
HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM, The Knights:
A. D. 1115-1310.
The origin and rise of the order.
"Some citizens of Amalfi, in Italy, who traded to the East,
had [some time before the first crusade], with the permission
of the Egyptian khaleefeh, built a convent near the church of
the Resurrection [at Jerusalem], which was dedicated to the
Virgin, and named Santa Maria de Latina, whose abbot and monks
were to receive and entertain pilgrims from the West. A
nunnery was afterwards added, and as the confluence of
pilgrims increased, a new 'hospitium' was erected, dedicated
to St. John Eleëmon ('compassionate'), a former patriarch of
Alexandria, or, as is asserted, with perhaps more probability,
to St. John the Baptist. This hospital was supported by the
bounty of the abbot of Sta. Maria and the alms of the
faithful, and the sick and poor of the pilgrims here met with
attention and kindness. At the time of the taking of
Jerusalem, Gerhard, a native of Provence, presided over the
hospital; and the care taken by him and his brethren of the
sick and wounded of the crusaders won them universal favour.
Godfrey bestowed on them his domain of Monboire, in Brabant;
his example was followed by others, and the brethren of the
Hospital soon found themselves rich enough to separate from
the monastery.
{1663}
They adopted the rule of the Augustinian canons, and assumed
for their habit a black mantle, with a white cross of eight
points on the left breast. Many knights who had come to Asia
to combat the Infidels now laid aside their swords, and, as
brethren of the Hospital, devoted themselves to the tending of
the sick and relieving of the poor. Among these was a knight
of Dauphiné, named Raymond Dupuy, who, on the death of
Gerhard, was chosen to be his successor in office. Raymond, in
the year 1118, gave the order its first regular organization."
T. Keightley,
The Crusaders,
chapter 2.
To Raymond Dupuy "the Order owed its distinctly military
character, and that wonderful organization, combining the care
of the sick and poor with the profession of arms, which
characterized the Knights of St. John during all their
subsequent history. … A new and revised constitution was
drawn up, by which it was provided that there should be three
classes of members. First, the Knights, who should bear arms
and form a military body for service in the field against the
enemies of Christ in general, and of the kingdom of Jerusalem
in particular. These were to be of necessity men of noble or
gentle birth. Secondly, the Clergy, or Chaplains. … Thirdly,
the Serving Brethren, who were not required to be men of rank,
and who acted as Esquires to the Knights, and assisted in the
care of the hospitals. All persons of these three classes were
considered alike members of the Order, and took the usual
three monastic vows, and wore the armorial bearings of the
Order, and enjoyed its rights and privileges. As the Order
spread and the number of its members and convents increased,
it was found desirable to divide it further into nations or
'Langes' [tongues, or languages], of which there were
ultimately seven, viz., those of Provence, Auvergne, France,
Italy, Aragon, Germany, and England. The habit was a black
robe with a cowl, having a cross of white linen of eight
points upon the left breast. This was at first worn by all
Hospitallers, to whichever of the three classes they belonged;
but Pope Alexander IV. afterwards ordered that the Knights
should be distinguished by a white cross upon a red ground.
… It was not long before the new Order found a field for the
exercise of its arms. … From this time the Hospitallers were
always found in the ranks of the Christian army in every
battle that was fought with the Moslems, and the fame of their
gallantry and bravery soon spread far and wide, and attracted
fresh recruits to their ranks from the noblest families of
every country of Europe. They became the right hand of the
King of Jerusalem," sharing the fortunes of the nominal
kingdom for nearly two centuries, and almost sharing its
ultimate fate. The handful who escaped from Acre in 1291 (see
JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291) took refuge in Cyprus and rallied there
the Knights scattered in other lands. Rebuilding and
fortifying the town of Limisso, they made that their citadel
and capital for a few years, finding a new vocation for their
pious valor. They now took up war upon the naval side, and
turned their arms specially against the Moslem pirates of the
Mediterranean. They fitted out armed ships "which began to
cruise between Palestine and European ports, conveying
pilgrims, rescuing captives, and engaging and capturing the
enemy's galleys." But not finding in Cyprus the independence
they desired, the Knights, ere long, established themselves in
a more satisfactory home on the island of Rhodes.
F. C. Woodhouse,
Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages,
part 1, chapter 3-6.
ALSO IN:
Abbe de Vertot,
History of the Knights Hospitallers,
books 1-3 (volume 1).
A. Sutherland,
Achievements of the Knights of Malta,
chapters 1-9 (volume 1).
HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1310.
Conquest and occupation of Rhodes.
"The most important conquest of the time … was that of
Rhodes, by the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem,
both from its durability and from the renown of the
conquerors. The knights had settled in Cyprus after they had
been expelled from Acre, but they were soon discontented to
remain as vassals of the King of Cyprus. They aspired to form
a sovereign state, but it was not easy to make any conquests
from the Infidels in a position which they could hope to
maintain for any length of time. They therefore solicited
permission from the Pope to turn their arms against the
Greeks. His Holiness applauded their Christian zeal, and
bestowed on them innumerable blessings and indulgences,
besides nine thousand ducats to aid their enterprise. Under
the pretext of a crusade for the recovery of Christ's tomb,
the knights collected a force with which they besieged Rhodes.
So great was their contempt for the Greek emperor that they
sent an embassy to Constantinople, requiring Adronicus to
withdraw his garrisons, and cede the island and its
dependencies to them as feudatories, offering to supply him
with a subsidiary force of three hundred cavalry. Adronicus
dismissed the ambassadors, and sent an army to raise the
siege; but his troops were defeated, and the knights took the
city of Rhodes on the 15th August, 1310. As sovereigns of this
beautiful island, they were long the bulwark of Christian
Europe against the Turkish power; and the memory of the
chivalrous youth who for successive ages found an early tomb
at this verge of the Christian world, will long shed a
romantic colouring on the history of Rhodes. They sustained
the declining glory of a state of society that was hastening
to become a vision of the past; they were the heroes of a
class of which the Norse sea-kings had been the demigods. The
little realm they governed as an independent state consisted
of Rhodes, with the neighbouring islands of Kos, Kalymnos,
Syme, Leros, Nisyros, Telos, and Chalke; on the opposite
continent they possessed the classic city of Halicarnassus,
and several strong forts, of which the picturesque ruins still
overhang the sea."
G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
book 4, chapter 2 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
W. Porter,
History of the Knights of Malta,
chapters 7-10 (volume 1).
HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1482.
Treatment of the Turkish Prince Jemshid or Zizim.
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1522.
Siege and surrender of Rhodes to the Turks
In 1522, the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent, "turned
his victorious arms against the island of Rhodes, the seat at
that time of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. This small
state he attacked with such a numerous army as the lords of
Asia have been accustomed, in every age, to bring into the
field. Two hundred thousand men, and a fleet of 400 sail,
appeared against a town defended by a garrison consisting of
5,000 soldiers and 600 knights, under the command of Villiers
de L'Isle Adam, the grand-master, whose wisdom and valour
rendered him worthy of that station at such a dangerous
juncture.
{1664}
No sooner did he begin to suspect the destination of Solyman's
vast armaments than he despatched messengers to all the
Christian courts, imploring their aid against the common
enemy. But though every prince in that age acknowledged Rhodes
to be the great bulwark of Christendom in the East, and
trusted to the gallantry of its knights as the best security
against the progress of the Ottoman arms,—though Adrian,
with a zeal which became the head and father of the Church,
exhorted the contending powers to forget their private

quarrels, and, by uniting their arms, to prevent the infidels
from destroying a society which did honour to the Christian
name,—yet so violent and implacable was the animosity of both
parties [in the wars of the Emperor Charles V. and Francis I.
of France], that, regardless of the danger to which they
exposed all Europe, … they suffered Solyman to carry on his
operations against Rhodes without disturbance. The
grand-master, after incredible efforts of courage, of
patience, and of military conduct, during a siege of six
months,—after sustaining many assaults, and disputing every
post with amazing obstinacy,—was obliged at last to yield to
numbers; and, having obtained an honourable capitulation from
the sultan, who admired and respected his virtue, he
surrendered the town, which was reduced to a heap of rubbish,
and destitute of every resource. Charles and Francis, ashamed
of having occasioned such a loss to Christendom by their
ambitious contests, endeavoured to throw the blame of it on
each other, while all Europe, with greater justice, imputed it
equally to both. The emperor, by way of reparation, granted
the Knights of St. John the small island of Malta, in which
they fixed their residence, retaining, though with less power
and splendour, their ancient spirit and implacable enmity to
the infidels."
W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 2 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
C. Torr,
Rhodes in Modern Times,
chapter 1.
J. S. Brewer,
The Reign of Henry VIII.,
chapter 10 (volume 1).
HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1530-1565.
Occupation of Malta.
Improvement and fortification of the island.
The great siege.
The Turks repelled.
"Malta, which had been annexed by Charles [the Fifth's]
predecessors to Sicily, had descended to that monarch as part
of the dominions of the crown of Aragon. In … ceding it to
the Knights of St. John, the politic prince consulted his own
interests quite as much as those of the order. He drew no
revenue from the rocky isle, but, on the contrary, was charged
with its defence against the Moorish corsairs, who made
frequent descents on the spot, wasting the country, and
dragging off the miserable people into slavery. By this
transfer of the island to the military order of St. John, he
not only relieved himself of all further expense on its
account, but secured a permanent bulwark for the protection of
his own dominions. … In October, 1530, L'Isle Adam and his
brave associates took possession of their new domain. … It
was not very long before the wilderness before them was to
blossom like the rose, under their diligent culture. Earth was
brought in large quantities, and at great cost, from Sicily.
Terraces to receive it were hewn in the steep sides of the
rock; and the soil, quickened by the ardent sun of Malta, was
soon clothed with the glowing vegetation of the South. … In
a short time, too, the island bristled with fortifications,
which, combined with its natural defences, enabled its
garrison to defy the attacks of the corsair. To these works
was added the construction of suitable dwellings for the
accommodation of the order. But it was long after, and not
until the land had been desolated by the siege on which we are
now to enter, that it was crowned with the stately edifices
that eclipsed those of Rhodes itself, and made Malta the pride
of the Mediterranean. … Again their galleys sailed forth to
battle with the corsairs, and returned laden with the spoils
of victory. … It was not long before the name of the Knights
of Malta became as formidable on the southern shores of the
Mediterranean as that of the Knights of Rhodes had been in the
East." At length the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent,
"resolved to signalize the close of his reign by driving the
knights from Malta, as he had the commencement of it by
driving them from Rhodes," and he made his preparations on a
formidable scale. The grand-master of Malta, Jean Parisot de
la Valette, had his spies at Constantinople, and was not long
in ignorance of the Turkish project. He, too, prepared himself
for the encounter with prodigious energy and forethought. He
addressed appeals for help to all the Christian powers. "He
summoned the knights absent in foreign lands to return to
Malta, and take part with their brethren in the coming
struggle. He imported large supplies of provisions and
military stores from Sicily and Spain. He drilled the militia
of the island, and formed an effective body of more than 3,000
men; to which was added a still greater number of Spanish and
Italian troops. … The fortifications were put in repair,
strengthened with outworks, and placed in the best condition
for resisting the enemy. … The whole force which La Valette
could muster in defence of the island amounted to about 9,000
men. This included 700 knights, of whom about 600 had already
arrived [when the siege began]. The remainder were on their
way; and joined him at a later period of the siege." The
Turkish fleet made its appearance on the 18th of May, 1565. It
comprised 130 royal galleys, with fifty of lesser size, and a
number of transports. "The number of soldiers on board,
independently of the mariners, and including 6,000 janizaries,
was about 30,000,—the flower of the Ottoman army. … The
command of the expedition was intrusted to two officers. One
of these, Piali, was the same admiral who defeated the
Spaniards at Gelves.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.
He had the direction of the naval operations. The land forces
were given to Mustapha, a veteran nearly 70 years of age. …
The Turkish armada steered for the southeastern quarter of the
island, and cast anchor in the port of St. Thomas. The troops
speedily disembarked, and spread themselves in detached bodies
over the land, devastating the country. … It was decided, in
the Turkish council of war, to begin operations with the siege
of the castle of St. Elmo"—a small but strong fort, built at
the point of a promontory which separates Port Musiette, on
the west, from what is now known as Valetta harbor, then
called the Great Port. The heroic defense of St. Elmo, where a
mere handful of knights and soldiers withstood the whole army
and navy of the Turks for an entire month, is one of the grand
episodes of war in the 16th century.
{1665}
The few surviving defenders were overwhelmed in the final
assault, which took place on the 23d of June. "The number of
Christians who fell in this siege amounted to about 1,500. Of
these 123 were members of the order, and among them several of
its most illustrious warriors. The Turkish loss is estimated
at 8,000, at the head of whom stood Dragut," the famous pasha
of Tripoli, who had joined the besiegers, with ships and men,
and who had received a mortal wound in one of the assaults.
After the loss of St. Elmo, "the strength of the order was …
concentrated on the two narrow slips of land which run out
from the eastern side of the Great Port. … The northern
peninsula, occupied by the town of Il Borgo, and at the
extreme point by the castle of St. Angelo, was defended by
works stronger and in better condition than the fortifications
of St. Elmo. … The parallel slip of land was crowned by the
fort of St. Michael." Early in July, the Turks opened their
batteries on both St. Angelo and St. Michael, and on the 15th
they attempted the storming of the latter, but were bloodily
repulsed, losing 3,000 or 4,000 men, according to the
Christian account. Two weeks later they made a general assault
and were again repelled. On the 25th of August, the valiant
knights, wasted and worn with watching and fighting, were
relieved by long-promised re-enforcements from Sicily, and the
disheartened Turks at once raised the siege. "The arms of
Solyman II., during his long and glorious reign, met with no
reverse so humiliating as his failure in the siege of Malta.
… The waste of life was prodigious, amounting to more than
30,000 men. … Yet the loss in this siege fell most
grievously on the Christians. Full 200 knights, 2,500
soldiers, and more than 7,000 inhabitants,—men, women, and
children,—are said to have perished."
W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Philip II.,
book 4, chapters 2-5.
ALSO IN:
W. Porter,
History of the Knights of Malta,
chapters 15-18 (volume 2).
S. Lane-Poole,
Story of the Barbary Corsairs,
chapter 13.
HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1565-1879.
Decline and practical disappearance of the order.
"The Great Siege of 1565 was the last eminent exploit of the
Order of St. John. From that time their fame rested rather on
the laurels of the past than the deeds of the present. Rest
and affluence produced gradually their usual
consequences—diminished vigour and lessened independence. The
'esprit de corps' of the Knights became weaker after long
years, in which there were no events to bind them together in
united sympathies and common struggles. Many of them had
become susceptible of bribery and petty jealousies. In 1789
the French Revolution burst out and aroused all European
nations to some decided policy. The Order of St. John had
received special favours from Louis XVI., and now showed their
grateful appreciation of his kindness by cheerfully
contributing a large portion of their revenue to assist him in
his terrible emergencies. For this they suffered the
confiscation of all the property of the Order in France, when
the revolutionists obtained supreme power."
W. Tallack,
Malta,
section 8.
"In September, 1792, a decree was passed, by which the estates
and property of the Order of St. John in France were annexed
to the state. Many of the knights were seized, imprisoned, and
executed as aristocrats. The principal house of the Order in
Paris, called the Temple, was converted into a prison, and
there the unfortunate Louis XVI. and his family were
incarcerated. The Directory also did its best to destroy the
Order in Germany and Italy. … All this time the Directory
had agents in Malta, who were propagating revolutionary
doctrines, and stirring up the lowest of the people to
rebellion and violence. There were in the island 332 knights
(of whom many, however, were aged and infirm), and about 6,000
troops. On June 9, 1798, the French fleet appeared before
Malta, with Napoleon himself on board, and a few days after
troops were landed, and began pillaging the country. They were
at first successfully opposed by the soldiers of the Grand
Master, but the seeds of sedition, which had been so freely
sown, began to bear fruit, and the soldiers mutinied, and
refused to obey their officers. All the outlying forts were
taken, and the knights who commanded them, who were all
French, were dragged before Napoleon. He accused them of
taking up arms against their country, and declared that he
would have them shot as traitors. Meanwhile sedition was
rampant within the city. The people rose and attacked the
palace of the Grand Master, and murdered several of the
knights. They demanded that the island should be given up to
the French, and finally opened the gates, and admitted
Napoleon and his troops. After some delay, articles of
capitulation were agreed upon, Malta was declared part of
France, and all the knights were required to quit the island
within three days. Napoleon sailed for Egypt on June 19,
taking with him all the silver, gold, and jewels that could be
collected from the churches and the treasury. … In the
following September, 1798, Nelson besieged, and quickly
obtained possession of the island, which has ever since
remained in the hands of the English. In this way the ancient
Order of St. John ceased to be a sovereign power, and
practically its history came to an end. The last Grand Master,
Baron Ferdinand von Hompesch, after the loss of Malta, retired
to Trieste, and shortly afterwards abdicated and died at
Montpelier, in 1805. Many of the knights, however, had in the
mean time gone to Russia, and before the abdication of
Hompesch, they elected the Emperor Paul Grand Master, who had
for some time been protector of the Order. This election was
undoubtedly irregular and void. By the terms of the Treaty of
Amiens, in 1802, it was stipulated that Malta should be
restored to the Order, but that there should be neither French
nor English knights. But before the treaty could be carried
into effect Napoleon returned from Elba, and war broke out
again. By the treaty of Paris, in 1814, Malta was ceded to
England. … In 1801, the assembly of the Knights at St.
Petersburg … petitioned Pope Pius VII. to select a Grand
Master from certain names which they sent. This he declined to
do, but, some time afterwards, at the request of the Emperor
Alexander, and the King of Naples, and without consulting the
knights, the Pope appointed Count Giovanni di Tommasi Grand
Master. He died in 1805, and no Grand Master has been since
appointed. On his death-bed, Tommasi nominated the bailiff,
Guevara Suardo, Lieutenant Master. …
{1666}
[Such] lieutenants have presided over an association of
titular knights at Rome, which is styled 'the Sacred Council.'
In 1814, the French knights assembled at Paris and elected a
capitulary commission for the government of the Order. … In
or about the year 1826, the English 'Lange' of the Order of
the Knights of Malta was revived. … A regular succession of
Priors has been continued to the present time [1879], and the
Duke of Manchester is the present Prior. The members of the
Order devote themselves to relieving the poor, and assisting
hospitals."
F. C. Woodhouse,
Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages,
part 1, chapter 20.
----------HOSPITALLERS: End--------
HOSPODAR.
"A title of Slavonic or Russian origin (Russian, Gospodin =
Lord)."
J. Samuelson, Roumania,
page 209, foot-note.
HOSTIS.
See PEREGRINI.
HOTTENTOTS, The.
See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,
and A. D. 1486-1806;
also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH;
and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.
HOUSE OF KEYS, The.
See MANX KINGDOM.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
See LORDS, HOUSE OF.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
HOUSECARLS.
"No English King or Ealdorman had hitherto kept a permanent
military force in his pay. But Cnut [or Canute, A. D.
1018-1035] now organized a regular paid force, kept constantly
under arms, and ready to march at a moment's notice. These
were the famous Thingmen, the Housecarls, of whom we hear so
much under Cnut and under his successors. … The Housecarls
were in fact a standing army, and a standing army was an
institution which later Kings and great Earls, English as well
as Danish, found it to be their interest to continue. Under
Cnut they formed a sort of military guild with the king at
their head."
E. A. Freeman,
Norman Conquest,
chapter 6, section 2,
and appendix, note kkk (volume 1).
HOUSEHOLD FRANCHISE.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.
HOUSTON, Sam, and the independence of Texas.
See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.
HOVAS, The.
See MALAYAN RACE.
HOWE, George Augustus, Lord, Death at Ticonderoga.
See CANADA: A. D. 1758.
HOWE, Richard, Admiral Lord,
and the War of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776 (AUGUST)
Naval Victory (1794).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
HOWE, General Sir William, and the War of the American
Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY), (JUNE);
1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
1776-1777; 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER); 1778 (JUNE).
HRINGS OF THE AVARS.
See AVARS, RINGS OF THE.
HUAMABOYA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
HUANCAS, The.
See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
HUASTECS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.
HUAYNA CAPAC, The Inca.
See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.
HUBERTSBURG, The Peace of.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.
HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.
See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.
HUDSON'S BAY TERRITORY,
Relinquished by France to Great Britain (1713).
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
HUDSON'S VOYAGES, Explorations and Discoveries.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1607-1608, and 1609.
HUECOS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
HUGH CAPET, King of France, A. D. 987-996.
----------HUGUENOTS: Start--------
HUGUENOTS.
First appearance and disputed origin of the name.
Quick formation of the Calvinistic Protestant Party in France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.
HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1528-1562.
Ascendancy in Navarre.
See NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563.
HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1554-1565.
Attempted colonization in Brazil and in Florida.
The Massacre at Fort Caroline.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563, to 1567-1568.
HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1560-1598.
The Wars of Religion in France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563, to 1593-1598.
HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1598-1599.
The Edict of Nantes.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1598-1599.
HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1620-1622.
Their formidable organization and political pretensions.
Continued desertion of nobles.
Leadership of the clergy.
Revolt and unfavorable Treaty of Montpellier.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.
HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1625-1626.
Renewed revolt.
Second Treaty of Montpellier.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1627-1628.
Revolt in alliance with England.
Richelieu's siege and capture of La Rochelle.
End of political Huguenotism in France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.
HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1661-1680.
Revived persecution under Louis XIV.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1680.
HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1681-1698.
The climax of persecution in France.
The Dragonnades.
The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
The great exodus.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.
HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1702-1710.
The Camisard uprising in the Cévennes.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.
----------HUGUENOTS: End--------
HULL, Commodore Isaac.—Naval exploits.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
HULL, General William, and the surrender of Detroit.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).
HULL: Siege by the Royalists.
Hull, occupied by the Parliamentary forces under Lord Fairfax,
after their defeat at Adwalton Moor, was besieged by the
Royalists under the Earl of Newcastle, from September 2 until
October 11, 1643, when they were driven off.
C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 12.
See, also,
WINCEBY FIGHT.
HÜLSEMANN LETTER, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.
HULST, Battle of (1642).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
HUMANISM.
See RENAISSANCE.
HUMAS, OR OUMAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
{1667}
HUMAYUN, Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1530-1556.
HUMBERT, King of Italy, A. D. 1878-.
HUMBLE PETITION AND ADVICE, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1654-1658.
HUMBLEDON, Battle of.
See HOMILDON HILL, BATTLE OF.
HUNDRED, The.
"The union of a number of townships for the purpose of
judicial administration, peace, and defence, formed what is
known as the 'hundred,' or 'wapentake'; a district answering
to the 'pagus' of Tacitus, the 'hærred' of Scandinavia, the
'huntari' or 'gau' of Germany. … The name of the hundred,
which, like the wapentake, first appears in the laws of Edgar,
has its origin far back in the remotest antiquity, but the use
of it as a geographical expression is discoverable only in
comparatively late evidences. The 'pagus' of the Germania sent
its hundred warriors to the host, and appeared by its hundred
judges in the court of the 'princeps.' The Lex Salica contains
abundant evidence that in the fifth century the administration
of the hundred was the chief, if not the only, machinery of
the Frank judicial system; and the word in one form or other
enters into the constitution of all the German nations. It may
be regarded then as a certain vestige of primitive
organisation. But the exact relation of the territorial
hundred to the hundred of the Germania is a point which is
capable of, and has received, much discussion. It has been
regarded as denoting simply a division of a hundred hides of
land; as the district which furnished a hundred warriors to
the host; as representing the original settlement of the
hundred warriors; or as composed of a hundred hides, each of
which furnished a single warrior. The question is not peculiar
to English history, and the same result may have followed from
very different causes as probably as from the same causes,
here and on the continent. It is very probable, as already
stated, that the colonists of Britain arranged themselves in
hundreds of warriors; it is not probable that the country was
carved into equal districts. The only conclusion that seems
reasonable is that, under the name of geographical hundreds,
we have the variously sized pagi or districts in which the
hundred warriors settled. … The hundred-gemot, or wapentake
court, was held every month; it was called six days before the
day of meeting, and could not be held on Sunday. It was
attended by the lords of lands within the hundred, or their
stewards representing them, and by the parish priest, the
reeve, and four best men of each township. … The criminal
jurisdiction of the hundred is perpetuated in the manorial
court leet."
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 5, section 45 (volume 1).
"By the 13th century the importance of the hundred had much
diminished. The need for any such body, intermediate between
township and county, ceased to be felt, and the functions of
the hundred were gradually absorbed by the county. Almost
everywhere in England, by the reign of Elizabeth, the hundred
had fallen into decay. It is curious that its name and some of
its peculiarities should have been brought to America, and
should in one state have remained to the present day. Some of
the early settlements in Virginia were called hundreds, but
they were practically nothing more than parishes, and the name
soon became obsolete, except upon the map, where we still see,
for example, Bermuda Hundred. But in Maryland the hundred
flourished and became the political unit, like the township in
New England. The hundred was the militia district, and the
district for the assessment of taxes. In the earliest times it
was also the representative district. … The hundred had also
its assembly of all the people, which was in many respects
like the New England town-meeting. These hundred-meetings
enacted by-laws, levied taxes, appointed committees, and often
exhibited a vigorous political life. But after the Revolution
they fell into disuse, and in 1824 the hundred became extinct
in Maryland; its organization was swallowed up in that of the
county. In Delaware, however, the hundred remains to this
day."
J. Fiske,
Civil Government in the United States,
chapter 4, section 1.
HUNDRED DAYS, The.
The period of Napoleon's recovery of power in France, on his
return from the Isle of Elba, and until his overthrow at
Waterloo and final abdication, is often referred to as The
Hundred Days.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815, to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).
HUNDRED YEARS WAR, The
See FRANCE: A. D.1337-1360.
----------HUNGARIANS: Start--------
HUNGARIANS, The.
"Gibbon is correct in connecting the language of the
Hungarians with that of the Finnish or Tschudish race. The
original abode of the Hungarians was in the country called
Ugria or Jugoria, in the southern part of the Uralian
mountains, which is now inhabited by the Voguls and Ostiaks,
who are the eastern branches of the Finnish race, while the
most important of the western branches are the Finns and
Lappes. Ugria is called Great Hungary by the Franciscan monk
Piano Carpini, who travelled in 1426 to the court of the Great
Khan. From Ugria the Hungarians were expelled by the Turkish
tribes of Petcheneges and Chazars, and sought refuge in the
plains of the Lower Danube, where they first appeared in the
reign of the Greek Emperor Theophilus, between 829 and 842.
They called themselves Magyars, but the Russians gave them the
name of Ugri, as originating from Ugria; and this name has
been corrupted into Ungri and Hungarians. Although it is
difficult to believe that the present Magyars, who are the
foremost people in Eastern Europe, are of the same race as the
degraded Voguls and Ostiaks, this fact is not only attested by
historical authority, and the unerring affinity of language;
but, when they first appeared in the central parts of Europe,
the description given of them by an old chronicler of the
ninth century (quoted by Zeuss, page 746) accords precisely
with that of the Voguls and Ostiaks."
Dr. W. Smith,
Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 55.
"That a Majiar female ever made her way from the Ural
Mountains to Hungary is more than I can find; the presumptions
being against it. Hence it is just possible that a
whole-blooded Majiar was never born on the banks of the
Danube. Whether the other elements are most Turk or most
Slavonic is more than I venture to guess."
R. G. Latham,
Ethnology of Europe,
chapter 11.
"According to their own primitive traditions, the ruling
caste, the main body of the nation, were the children of Mogor
the son of Magog. The Hebrew name Mogor signifies 'Terror';
and slightly varied by the Orientals into Magyar became the
rallying cry of the once-splendid Hungarian nationality."
Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
A. J. Patterson,
The Magyars,
volume 1, chapter 1.
{1668}
HUNGARIANS:
Ravages in Europe and settlement in Hungary.
"The Magyars (the idiomatic synonym for Hungarians, and
probably the proper name of one of their tribes), driven by
internal dissensions from their native deserts, found a home
for centuries around the Caucasus and along the barren shores
of the Wolga. About the end of the 9th century they suddenly
struck their tents, and pressed irresistibly forward to the
very heart of Europe. … Immediately after crossing the
eastern frontier (A. D. 889), the Magyars elected for their
chief Arpad, the son of Almos, who conducted them to the
frontiers of Hungary. The latter did not survive to see the
conquest. The whole body under Arpad's guidance consisted of
about a million, numbering among them about 200,000 warriors,
and divided into seven tribes, each having its chief. The
country which they prepared to take possession of, and the
central part of which was then called Pannonia, was broken up
into small parts, and inhabited by races dissimilar in origin
and language; as Sclavonians, Wallachians, a few Huns and
Avars, as well as some Germans. … Arpad soon descended with
his followers on those wide plains, whence Attila, four
centuries before, swayed two parts of the globe. Most
dexterous horsemen, armed with light spears and almost
unerring bows, these invaders followed their leader from
victory to victory, soon rendering themselves masters of the
land lying between the Theiss and the Danube, carrying at the
same time their devastations, on the one hand, to the
Adriatic, and, on the other, towards the German frontiers.
Having achieved the conquest, Arpad took up his residence on
the Danubian isle, Csepel, though the seat of the court was
Buda or Attelburg. … The love of their new dominion was far
from curbing the passion of the Magyars for distant bloody
adventure and plunder. The most daring deeds were undertaken
by single chiefs, during the reign of Zoltan and his successor
Taksony, which filled up the first part of the tenth century.
The enervated and superstitious population of Europe thought
the Magyars to be the scourge of God, directly dropped down
from heaven; the very report of their approach was sufficient
to drive thousands into the recesses of mountains and depths
of forests, while the priests increased the common panic by
mingling in their litanies the words, 'God preserve us from
the Magyars.' … The irruptions of the Magyars were
simultaneously felt on the shores of the Baltic, among the
inhabitants of the Alps, and at the very gates of
Constantinople. The emperors of the East and of Germany were
repeatedly obliged to purchase momentary peace by heavy
tributes; but Germany, as may be conceived from her
geographical position, was chiefly exposed to the ravages of
these new neighbours."
E. Szabad,
Hungary, Past and Present,
part 1, chapter 1.
See GERMANY: A. D. 911-936.
HUNGARIANS: A. D. 900-924.
Ravages in Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 900-924.
HUNGARIANS: A. D. 934-955.
Repulse from Germany.
"The deliverance of Germany and Christendom was achieved by
the Saxon princes, Henry the Fowler and Otho the Great, who,
in two memorable battles, forever broke the power of the
Hungarians." Twenty years after their defeat by Henry the
Fowler (A. D. 934) the Hungarians invaded the empire of his
son (A. D. 955), "and their force is defined, in the lowest
estimate, at 100,000 horse. They were invited by domestic
faction; the gates of Germany were treacherously unlocked, and
they spread, far beyond the Rhine and the Meuse, into the
heart of Flanders. But the vigour and prudence of Otho
dispelled the conspiracy; the princes were made sensible that,
unless they were true to each other, their religion and
country were irrecoverably lost; and the national powers were
reviewed in the plains of Augsburg. They marched and fought in
eight legions, according to the division of provinces and
tribes [Bavarians, Franconians, Saxons, Swabians, Bohemians].
… The Hungarians were expected in the front; they secretly
passed the Lech, a river of Bavaria that falls into the
Danube, turned the rear of the Christian army, plundered the
baggage, and disordered the legions of Bohemia and Swabia. The
battle [near Augsburg, August 10, 955] was restored by the
Franconians, whose duke, the valiant Conrad, was pierced with
an arrow as he rested from his fatigues; the Saxons fought
under the eyes of their king, and his victory surpassed, in
merit and importance, the triumphs of the last two hundred
years. The loss of the Hungarians was still greater in the
flight than in the action; they were encompassed by the rivers
of Bavaria; and their past cruelties excluded them from the
hope of mercy."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
chapter 55.
ALSO IN:
W. Menzel,
History of Germany,
chapter 135 (volume 1).
Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
volume 2, pages 656-665.
A. W. Grube,
Heroes of History and Legend,
chapter 8.
----------HUNGARIANS: End--------
HUNGARY:
Ancient.
See DACIA, and PANNONIA.
HUNGARY:
The Huns in possession.
See HUNS.
HUNGARY:
The Avars in possession.
See AVARS.
HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.
Christianization of the Magyars.
Kingship conferred on the Duke by the Pope.
Annexation of Croatia and conquest of Dalmatia.
"King Geiza [of the house of Arpad—see HUNGARIANS: RAVAGES IN
EUROPE] (972-997) was the first pacific ruler of pagan
Hungary. … Hungary was enclosed within limits which she was
never again able to cross, and even within these limits the
Magyars were not the only inhabitants; in almost every part
they were surrounded by Slavs, whose language and laws were to
exercise over them a lasting influence, and on the southeast
they touched on that Romance or Wallachian element which, from
the time of the Roman colonies of Trajan, had continued to
develop there. Numerous marriages with these neighbours
gradually modified the primitive type of the Magyars. …
Geiza I. had married as his second wife a sister of the duke
of Poland, Mieczyslaw. She had been converted to Christianity,
and, like Clotilde of France, this princess knew how to use her
influence in favour of her religion.
{1669}
She persuaded her husband to receive the missionaries who came
to preach the Gospel in the country of the Magyars, and
Pilgrim, archbishop of Lorch, undertook the systematic
conversion of the nation. The mention of him in the
'Nibelungen Lied' in connection with Etzel (Attila), king of
the Huns, is doubtless due to the memory of this mission. He
sent priests from his diocese into Hungary, and in 974 he was
able to announce to the pope 5,000 conversions. … The great
Chekh apostle, St. Adalbert or Vojtech, bishop of Prague,
continued the work begun by Pilgrim. About 994, he went to
Gran (Esztergom), where the duke of Hungary then dwelt, and
solemnly baptized the son of Geiza, to whom he gave the name
of Stephen. Henceforth the court of the duke became the resort
of knights from all the neighbouring countries, but especially
from Germany, and these knights, entering into intimate
relations with the native nobility, drew Hungary and the
empire into still closer union. Prince Stephen, heir
presumptive to the throne, married the princess Gisella,
daughter of the duke of Bavaria, while one of the daughters of
Geiza became the wife of the Polish duke Boleslaw, and another
married Urseolus, doge of Venice. Through these alliances,
Hungary obtained for itself a recognized place among European
states, and the work begun so well by Geiza was completed by
Stephen, to whom was reserved the honour of establishing the
position of his kingdom in Europe and of completing its
conversion. … 'Hungary became Catholic,' says a Magyar
historian, 'not through apostolic teaching, nor through the
invitation of the Holy See, but through the laws of king
Stephen' (Verböczy). He was not always content to use
persuasion alone to lead his subjects to the new faith; he
hesitated not to use threats also. … Stephen sent an
ambassador to Rome, to treat directly with pope Sylvester, who
graciously received the homage done by him for his kingdom,
and, by a letter dated the 27th of March, 1000, announced that
he took the people of Hungary under the protection of the
Church. By the same brief he granted the royal crown to
Stephen. … Besides this, he conferred on him the privilege
of having the cross always borne before him, as a symbol of
the apostolic power which he granted to him. The authenticity
of this pontifical letter has indeed been disputed; but,
however that may be, the emperor of Austria, king of Hungary,
still bears the title of Apostolic Majesty. … Under this
great king, Hungary became a completely independent kingdom
between the two empires of the East and West. … The laws of
Stephen are contained in 56 articles divided into two books.
His ideas on all matters of government are also to be found in
the counsels which he wrote, or caused to be written, for his
son Emerich. … The son for whom the great king had written
his maxims died before his father, in 1031, and is honoured as
a saint by the Church. The last years of king Stephen were
harassed by rivalries and plots. He died on the 15th of
August, 1038. … Stephen had chosen as his successor his
nephew Peter, the son of the doge Urseolus." But Peter was
driven out and sought help in Germany, bringing war into the
country. The Hungarians chose for their king, Samuel Ala, a
tribal chief; but soon deposed him and elected Andrew, son of
Ladislas the Bald (1046). Andrew was dethroned by his brother
Bela, in 1061. Both Andrew and Bela had bitter struggles with
revived paganism, which was finally suppressed. Bela died in
1063. "According to the Asiatic custom, which still prevails
in Turkey, he was succeeded by his nephew Solomon. … This
prince was only twelve years of age, and the emperor, Henry
IV., took advantage of his youth to place him in a humiliating
position of tutelage. … The enemies of Solomon accused him
of being the creature of the Germans, and reproached him for
having done homage to the emperor for a state which belonged
to St. Peter. Pope Gregory VII., who was then struggling
against the emperor [see PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122], encouraged
the rebels. 'The kingdom of Hungary,' he said, owes obedience
to none but the Church.' Prince Geiza was proclaimed king in
the place of Solomon, but he died without having reigned. He
was succeeded by Ladislas the Holy (1077), who was able to
make himself equally independent of emperor and pope. … The
dying Ladislas chose his nephew Koloman as his successor. …
The most important act of this reign [Koloman's, 1095-1114]
was the annexation of Croatia. In 1090, St. Ladislas had been
elected to the throne of Croatia, and he, on his death, left
the government of it to his nephew Almos, who very soon made
himself unpopular. Koloman drove him out of Croatia, and had
himself proclaimed king. He next set about the conquest of
Dalmatia from the Venetians, seized the principal towns,
Spalato (Spljet), Zara (Zadir), and Trogir (Trau), and granted
them full power of self-government. Then (1102) he had himself
crowned, at Belgrade, king of Croatia and Dalmatia. From this
time the position of Croatia, as regarded Hungary, was very
much the same as the position of Hungary in regard to Austria
in later times."
L. Leger,
History of Austro-Hungary,
chapters 5-6.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA, SERVIA, ETC.).
HUNGARY: A. D. 1096.
Hostilities with the first Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
The Golden Bull of King Bela.
Invasion and frightful devastation by the Tartars.
The end of the Arpad dynasty.
"Coloman was succeeded on the throne by his son Stephen, who,
after a short reign, was succeeded by Bela the Blind. The most
important event of these reigns was the war with Venice about
the possession of Dalmatia, and the annexation to the
Hungarian crown of Rama, a part of Servia. In 1141, Geisa II.
ascended the throne of St. Stephen. His reign was marked by
several important events. Having entirely reduced
Transylvania, he invited many Saxons and Flemish into his
kingdom, some of whom settled in the Banat, in the south of
Hungary, and others in Transylvania. In this principality the
German settlers received from the king a separate district,
being, besides, exempted from many taxes and endowed with
particular privileges. … The following years of the 12th
century, filled up by the reigns of Stephen III., Bela III.,
and Emerick, are marked by the continuance of the Venetian
war, but present no incidents deserving of particular notice.
More important was the reign of Andrew II., who ascended the
throne in 1205. …
{1670}
Andrew, by the advice of the Pope, set out with a large army
to the Holy Land [1216—see CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229],
nominating the Ban, called Banko, viceroy of Hungary. While
the Hungarian king spent his time in Constantinople, and
afterwards in operations round Mount Tabor, Hungary became a
scene of violence and rapine, aggravated by the careless and
unconstitutional administration of the queen's foreign
favourites, as well as by the extortions committed by the
oligarchy on their inferiors. Receiving no support from the
king of Jerusalem, Andrew resolved on returning home. On his
arrival in Hungary, he had the mortification of finding, in
addition to a disaffected nobility, a rival to the throne in
the person of his son Bela. As the complaints of the nobles
became daily louder, … the king resolved to confirm the
privileges of the country by a new charter, called The Golden
Bull. This took place in the year 1222. The chief provisions
of this charter were as follows:
1st, That the states were henceforth to be annually convoked
either under the presidency of the king or the palatine;
2d, That no nobleman was to be arrested without being
previously tried and legally sentenced;
3d, That no contribution or tax was to be levied on the
property of the nobles;
4th, That if called to military service beyond the frontiers
of the country, they were to be paid by the king;
5th, That high offices should neither be made hereditary nor
given to foreigners without the consent of the Diet.
The most important point, however, was article 31st, which
conferred on the nobles the right of appealing to arms in case
of any violation of the laws by the crown. Other provisions
contained in this charter refer to the exemption of the lower
clergy from the payment of taxes and tolls, and to the
determination of the tithes to be paid by the cultivators of
the soil. … Andrew died soon after the promulgation of the
charter, and was succeeded by his son Bela IV. The beginning
of this prince's reign was troubled with internal dissensions
caused by the Cumans [an Eastern tribe which invaded Hungary
in the later half of the 11th century—see COSSACKS], who,
after having been vanquished by St. Ladislaus, settled in
Hungary between the banks of the Theiss and Marosch. But a
greater and quite unexpected danger, which threatened Hungary
with utter destruction, arose from the invasion of the
Tartars. Their leader Batu, after having laid waste Poland and
Silesia, poured with his innumerable bands into the heart of
Hungary [see MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294]. Internal dissensions
facilitated the triumph of the foe, and the battle fought on
the banks of the river Sajo (A. D. 1241) terminated in the
total defeat of the Hungarians. The Tartar hordes spread with
astonishing rapidity throughout the whole country, which in a
few weeks was converted into a chaos of blood and flames. Not
contented with wholesale massacre, the Tartar leader devised
snares to destroy the lives of those who succeeded in making
their escape into the recesses of the mountains and the depths
of the forests. Among those who perished in the battle of Sajo
was the Hungarian chancellor, who carried with him the seal of
state. Batu having got possession of the seal, caused a
proclamation to be made in the name of the Hungarian king
[calling the people back to their homes], to which he affixed
the royal stamp. … Trusting to this appeal, the miserable
people issued from their hiding-places, and returned to their
homes. The cunning barbarian first caused them to do the work
of harvest in order to supply his hordes with provisions, and
then put them to an indiscriminate death. The king Bela, in
the meantime, succeeded in making his way through the
Carpathian Mountains into Austria; but instead of receiving
assistance from the arch-duke Frederick, he was retained as a
prisoner. Having pledged three counties of Hungary to
Frederick, Bela was allowed to depart. … In the meantime
Batu was as prompt in leaving Hungary, in consequence of the
death of the Tartar khan. … Bela was succeeded on the throne
by his son Stephen, in the year 1270." The reign of Stephen
was short. He was followed by Ladislaus IV., who allied
himself with Rudolph of Hapsburg in the war which overthrew
and destroyed Ottoacer or Ottocar, king of Bohemia (see
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282). "The reign of this prince, called
the Cuman, was, besides, troubled by most devastating internal
dissensions, caused by the Cumans, whose numbers were
continually augmented by fresh arrivals … from their own
tribe as well as from the Tartars." Ladislaus, dying in 1290,
was succeeded by Andrew III., the last Hungarian king of the
house of Arpad. "This prince had to dispute his throne with
Rudolph of Hapsburg, who coveted the crown of Hungary for his
son Albert. The appearance, however, of the Hungarian troops
before the gates of Vienna compelled the Austrian emperor to
sue for peace, which was cemented by a family alliance, Andrew
having espoused Agnes, daughter of Albert. … Nor did this
matrimonial alliance with Austria secure peace to Hungary.
Pope Nicholas IV. was bent upon gaining the crown of St.
Stephen for Charles Martel, son of Charles d'Anjou of Naples,
who put forward his claims to the Hungarian crown in virtue of
his mother, Mary, daughter of king Stephen V.," transferring
them at his death to Charles Robert, nephew of the king of
Naples. Andrew III., the last Arpad, died in 1301.
E. Szabad,
Hungary, Past and Present,
part 1, chapter 2.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1285.
Wallachian struggle for independence.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
14TH-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, etc.).
HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.
The House of Anjou and the House of Luxembourg.
Conquests of Louis the Great.
Beginning of wars with the Turks.
The House of Austria and the disputed crown.
On the extinction of the ancient race of kings, in the male
line of descent, by the death of Andrew III., in 1301, the
crown was "contested by several competitors, and at length
fell into the hands of the House of Anjou, the reigning family
of Naples [see ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389]. Charles
Robert, grandson of Charles II. King of Naples, by Mary of
Hungary, outstripped his rivals (1310), and transmitted the
crown to his son LOUIS, surnamed the Great [1342]. This
prince, characterized by his eminent qualities, made a
distinguished figure among the Kings of Hungary. He conquered
from the Venetians the whole of Dalmatia from the frontiers of
Istria, as far as Durazzo; he reduced the princes of Moldavia,
Wallachia, Bosnia and Bulgaria to a state of dependence; and
at length mounted the throne of Poland, on the death of his
uncle, Casimir the Great. Mary, his eldest daughter, succeeded
him in the kingdom of Hungary (1382).
{1671}
This princess married Sigismund of Luxembourg [afterwards
Emperor, 1411-1437-see GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493], who thus
united the monarchy of Hungary to the Imperial crown. The
reign of Sigismund in Hungary was most unfortunate. … He had
to sustain the first war against the Ottoman Turks; and, with
the Emperor of Constantinople as his ally, he assembled a
formidable army, with which he undertook the siege of
Nicopolis in Bulgaria [see TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D.
1389-1403]. In his retreat he was compelled to embark on the
Danube, and directed his flight towards Constantinople. This
disaster was followed by new misfortunes. The male contents of
Hungary offered their crown to Ladislaus, called the
Magnanimous, King of Naples, who took possession of Dalmatia,
which he afterwards surrendered to the Venetians. Desirous to
provide for the defence and security of his kingdom, Sigismund
acquired, by treaty with the Prince of Servia, the fortress of
Belgrade (1425), which, by its situation at the confluence of
the Danube and the Save, seemed to him a proper bulwark to
protect Hungary against the Turks. He transmitted the crown of
Hungary [in 1437, when he died] to his son-in-law, Albert of
Austria, who reigned only two years."
C. W. Koch,
The Revolutions of Europe, period 5.
"Albert, afterwards the Emperor Albert II., was the first
prince of the House of Habsburg that enjoyed the crowns of
Hungary and Bohemia, which he owed to his father-in-law, the
Emperor Sigismund, whose only daughter, Elizabeth, he had
married. Elizabeth was the child of Barbara von Cilly,
Sigismund's second wife, whose notorious vices had procured
for her the odious epithets of the 'Bad,' and the 'German
Messalina.' Barbara had determined to supplant her daughter,
to claim the two crowns as her dowry, and to give them, with
her hand, to Wladislaus, the young King of Poland, who, though
40 years her junior, she had marked out for her future
husband. With this view she was courting the Hussite party in
Bohemia: but Sigismund, a little before his death, caused her
to be arrested; and, assembling the Hungarian and Bohemian
nobles at Znaym, in Moravia, persuaded them, almost with his
dying breath, to elect Albert as his successor. Sigismund
expired the next day (December 9th, 1437). Albert was soon
after recognised as king by the Hungarian diet, and
immediately released his mother-in-law Barbara, upon her
agreeing to restore some fortresses which she held in Hungary.
He did not so easily obtain possession of the Bohemian crown.
… The short reign of Albert in Hungary was disastrous both
to himself and to the country. Previously to his fatal
expedition against the Turks in 1439, … the Hungarian diet,
before it would agree to settle the succession to the throne,
forced him to accept a constitution which destroyed all unity
and strength of government. By the famous 'Decretum Alberti
Regis,' he reduced himself to be the mere shadow of a king;
while by exalting the Palatine in rank, who presided over the legal tribunals, and discharged
the functions of the king in the absence of the latter], the
clergy, and the nobles, he perpetuated all the evils of the
feudal system. … The most absurd and pernicious regulations
were now adopted respecting the military system of the
kingdom, and such as rendered it almost impossible effectually
to resist the Turks. … On the death of Albert, Wladislaus
[Ladislaus] III., King of Poland [the second Polish king of
the dynasty of Jagellon], was … elected to the throne of
Hungary. … Albert, besides two daughters, had left his wife
Elizabeth pregnant; and the Hungarians, dreading a long
minority in case she should give birth to a son, compelled her
to offer her hand to Wladislaus, agreeing that the crown
should descend to their issue; but at the same time engaging
that if Elizabeth's child should prove a male, they would
endeavour to procure for him the kingdom of Bohemia and the
duchy of Austria; and that he should moreover succeed to the
Hungarian throne in case Wladislaus had no issue by Elizabeth.
… Scarcely had the Hungarian ambassador set off for the
court of Wladislaus with these proposals, when Elizabeth
brought forth a son, who, from the circumstances of his birth,
was christened Ladislaus Posthumus. Elizabeth now repented of
the arrangement that had been made; and the news having
arrived that the archduke Frederick had been elected Emperor
of Germany, she was induced to withdraw her consent to marry
the King of Poland. Messengers were despatched to recall the
Hungarian ambassadors; but it was too late—Wladislaus had
accepted her hand, and prepared to enter Hungary with an army.
… The party of the King of Poland, especially as it was
headed by John of Hunyad, proved the stronger. Elizabeth was
compelled to abandon Lower Hungary and take refuge at Vienna,

carrying with her the crown of St. Stephen, which, with her
infant son, she intrusted to the care of the Emperor Frederick
III. (August 3rd, 1440). … In November 1442, Elizabeth and
Wladislaus had an interview at Raab, when a peace was agreed
upon, the terms of which are unknown; but it is probable that
one of the chief conditions was a marriage between the
contracting parties. The sudden death of Elizabeth, Dec. 24th,
1442, not without suspicion of poison, prevented the
ratification of a treaty which had never been agreeable to the
great party led by John of Hunyad, whose recent victories over
the Turks gave him enormous influence."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
introduction (volume 1).
HUNGARY: A. D. 1364.
Reversion of the Crown guaranteed to the House of Austria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1381-1386.
Expedition of Charles of Durazzo to Naples.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1444.
Wars of Huniades with the Turks.
See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458.
The minority of Ladislaus Posthumus.
Regency of Huniades.
His defeat of the Turks and his death.
His son Matthias chosen king on the death of Ladislaus.
Peace between the factions was brought about by an agreement
that "the Polish king should retain the government of Hungary
until Ladislaus attained his majority; that he should be
possessed of the throne in case the young prince died without
issue; and the compact was sealed by affiancing the two
daughters of Elizabeth to the King of Poland and his brother
Casimir.
{1672}
The young Ladislaus was also acknowledged as King of Bohemia;
and the administration during his minority vested in two
Regents: Mainard, Count of Neuhaus, chosen on the part of the
Catholics; and Henry Ptarsko, and after his death George
Podiebrad, on that of the Hussites. The death of Uladislaus in
the memorable battle of Warna again left Hungary without a
ruler; and as Frederic III. persisted in retaining the young
Ladislaus and the crown of St. Stephen, the Hungarians
entrusted the government to John Corvinus Huniades, the
redoubted defender of their country." In 1452, when the
Emperor Frederic returned from Italy into Germany, "he found
himself involved in a dispute with the Austrians, the
Bohemians, and the Hungarians, in respect to the custody of
the young Ladislaus. … As Ladislaus had now arrived at the
age of thirteen, his subjects, but more particularly the
Austrians, grew impatient of the detention of their sovereign
at the imperial court. Whilst Podiebrad continued regent of
Bohemia, and Huniades of Hungary, the affairs of Austria were
directed by Frederic; and the unpopularity of his government
caused a general anxiety for a change. But to give up the
custody of his ward was contrary to the policy of the Emperor,
and in the hope of silencing the Austrians he marched with a
force against them. His enemies, however, proved too numerous;
he was himself endangered by a siege in Neustadt; and
compelled to purchase his deliverance by resigning the person
of Ladislaus. The states of Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary then
assembled at Vienna; Podiebrad and Huniades were confirmed in
their regencies; and the administration of Austria, together
with the custody of Ladislaus, was confided to his maternal
great-uncle, Ulric, Count of Cilli. The resentment of Frederic
does not appear to have been vehement; for in the following
year [1453] he raised Austria to an archdutchy, and by a grant
of especial privileges placed the Duke of the province on a
level with the Electors. After being crowned King of Bohemia
at Prague, Ladislaus was invited by his Hungarian subjects to
visit that kingdom. But the Count of Cilli, jealous of the
power of Huniades, so far worked upon the young king's mind as
to create in him suspicions of the regent's integrity. An
attempt was made to seize Huniades by enticing him to Vienna;
but he eluded the snare, exposed the treachery of Ulric, and
prevailed on Ladislaus to visit his people. At Buda, an
apparent reconciliation took place between the count and the
regent; but Ulric still persisted in his design of ruining the
credit of a man whom he regarded as a dangerous rival. In the
moment of danger, the brave spirit of Huniades triumphed over
his insidious traducer; the siege of Belgrade by the Turks
[1456], under Mahomed II., threw Hungary into consternation;
the royal pupil and his crafty guardian abandoned the
Hungarians to their fate and precipitately fled to Vienna;
whilst Huniades was left to encounter the fury of the storm.
… The undaunted resistance of that renowned captain
preserved Belgrade; the Turks, after a desperate struggle,
were compelled to abandon the siege; their loss amounted to
30,000 men; and the Sultan himself was severely wounded [see
TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481]. The great defender did not long
survive his triumph; dying, soon after the retreat of the
enemy, of a fever occasioned by his extraordinary exertions.
Huniades left two sons, Ladislaus and Matthias Corvinus, who
were as much the idols of their country as they were objects
of jealousy to Ulric and the King. The latter, indeed, took
care to treat them with every mark of external respect; but
the injurious behaviour of the count provoked Ladislaus
Corvinus to open violence; and, in a personal rencounter,
Ulric received a mortal wound. Enraged at the death of his
favourite yet dreading the vengeance of the people, King
Ladislaus resorted to treachery; and the brothers being lured
into his power, the younger was beheaded as a murderer [1457].
Matthias was preserved from death by the menaces of the
indignant Hungarians; the terrified monarch fled with his
prisoner to Prague; and being there attacked by a malignant
disease, was consigned to a premature grave after suffering
for only a few hours. The death of Ladislaus Posthumus plunged
the Emperor into new difficulties. His succession to the
Austrian territory was opposed by his brother Albert VI.,
whose hostility had long troubled his repose. The Bohemians
rejected his claim to their throne, and conferred the crown on
the more deserving Podiebrad [1458]. The Hungarians testified
their regard for the memory of Huniades Corvinus by electing
his son Matthias, who purchased his liberty from Podiebrad for
40,000 ducats. Thus baffled in his views, Frederic consoled
himself with his retention of the crown of St. Stephen; and
his pertinacity in respect to this sacred relique involved him
in a war with the new King of Hungary."
Sir R. Comyn,
History of the Western Empire,
chapter 28 (volume 2).
HUNGARY: A. D. 1444.
Wallachia taken from the Turks.
See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1468-1471.
King Matthias joins the crusade against George Podiebrad of
Bohemia and claims the Bohemian crown.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.
The wars of Matthias with Bohemia, Poland, the emperor and the
Turks.
Conquest and occupation of Austria.
Ladislaus, elected to the throne of Bohemia on the death of
George Podiebrad, was supported by all the forces of his
father, the king of Poland, and Matthias of Hungary was now
involved in war with both. Meanwhile, "his whole kingdom was
agitated by intestine commotions, and a strong party of nobles
breaking out into insurrection, had offered the crown to
Casimir, prince of Poland. At the same time, the Turks having
subdued Transylvania, and ravaged Dalmatia and Croatia, built
the fortress of Szabatch on the Save, and from thence harassed
Hungary with perpetual inroads. From these impending dangers,
Matthias extricated himself by his courage, activity, and
prudence. While he carried the war into Bohemia and Silesia,
he awed, by his presence, his rebellious subjects, conciliated
by degrees the disaffected nobles, expelled the Poles, and, by
an important victory in the vicinity of Breslau, over the
united armies of Poles and Bohemians, forced the two
sovereigns, in 1474, to conclude an armistice for three years
and a half. He availed himself of the suspension of arms to
repel the Turks. He supported Stephen Bathori, hospodar of
Wallachia, who had shaken off the Ottoman yoke, by a
reinforcement of troops, enabled him to defeat Mahomet himself
[on the plain of Kenyer-Mesö, October, 1479], at the head of
100,000 men, and soon afterwards secured his frontiers on the
side of the Danube by the capture of Szabatch.
{1673}
Having in consequence of these successes delivered his
dominions from the aggressions of the Turks, he hastened to
gratify his vengeance against the emperor, whose conduct had
afforded so many causes of complaint. After instigating
Matthias to make war on George Podiebrad, Frederic had
abandoned him in the midst of the contest, had refused to
fulfil his promise of investing him with the kingdom of
Bohemia, had concluded an alliance with the kings of Poland
and Bohemia, and, on the 10th of June, 1477, formally
conferred on Ladislaus the investiture of the crown."
Matthias, as soon as he had freed himself from the Turks
(1479), declared war against the emperor and invaded Austria.
"Frederic, left without a single ally, was unable to make the
smallest resistance, and in less than a month Matthias overran
the greater part of Lower Austria, invested the capital, and
either besieged or captured all the fortresses of the Danube,
as far as Krems and Stein. Frederic fled in dismay to Lintz,
and, to save his capital, was reduced to accept the conditions
imposed by the conqueror," which included a promised payment
of 100,000 ducats. This payment the shifty emperor evaded,
when Matthias became involved anew, as he presently did, in
hostilities with Bohemia and Poland. "Matthias, irritated by
his conduct, concluded a peace with Ladislaus, by which he
acknowledged him as king of Bohemia, and agreed that Moravia,
Silesia, and Lusatia [which had been surrendered to him in
1475] should revert to the crown of Bohemia, in ease of his
death without issue. He then again invaded Austria; but his
arms were not attended with the same rapid success as on the
former invasion. … It was not till after a contest of four
years, which called forth all the skill and perseverance of
the warlike monarch and his most experienced generals, that
they obtained possession of the capital [1485] and the
neighbouring fortresses, and completed the subjugation of
Lower Austria, by the capture of Newstadt, the favourite
residence of the emperor. Frederic, driven from his hereditary
dominions, at first took refuge at Gratz; and, on the approach
of danger, wandered from city to city, and from convent to
convent." After many appeals, he persuaded Albert, duke of
Saxony, to take the field in his behalf; but Albert, with the
small force at his command, could only retard the progress of
the invader, and he soon concluded an armistice with him. "In
consequence of this agreement, he [Albert of Saxony], in
November, 1487, abandoned Austria, and Matthias was permitted
to retain possession of the conquered territories, until
Frederic had discharged his former engagement, and reimbursed
the expenses of the war; should Matthias die before that
period, these states were to revert to their sovereign."
W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapter 18 (volume 1).
HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.
Death of Matthias.
Election of Wladislaw, or Ladislaus, of the Polish house of
Jagellon.
Union of the crowns of Hungary and Bohemia.
Loss of the Austrian provinces.
Treaty of Succession with Maximilian.
Insurrection of the Kurucs.
Loss of Belgrade.
Great Turkish invasion and ruinous battle of Mohacs.
The end of Hungarian independence.
"When once the archduchy of Austria was conquered, Mathias,
who was already master of Moravia and Silesia, had in his
power a state almost as large as the Austria of the present
time, if we except from it Galicia and Bohemia. But his power
had no solid foundation. While the influence of the house of
Austria had been increased by marriage, Mathias Corvinus had
no legitimate heir. He made several attempts to have his
natural son, John Corvinus, born in Silesia, recognized as his
successor; but he died suddenly (1490) at the age of 50,
without having arranged anything definitely for the future of
his kingdom. … Hungary reached her highest point in the
reign of Mathias Corvinus, and from this time we shall have to
watch her hopeless decay. The diet, divided by the ambition of
rival barons, could decide on no national king, and so turned
to a foreigner. Wladyslaw II., of the [Polish] house of
Jagellon, was elected, and thus a king of Bohemia, and an old
rival of Mathias, united the two crowns of St. Vacslav and St.
Stephen—a union which had been so ardently hoped for by
Mathias, and for which he had waged the miserable war against
Bohemia. … The beginning of the new reign was not fortunate.
Maximilian [son of the Emperor Frederic] recovered the
Austrian provinces, and John of Poland declared war against
his brother, Wladyslaw, and obliged him to cede part of
Silesia to him. Maximilian invaded the west of Hungary, …
whence he only consented to retire after Wladyslaw had agreed
to a treaty, which secured Hungary to the house of Austria, in
case of Wladyslaw dying without children. This treaty, in
which the king disposed of the country without consulting the
diet, roused universal indignation. … Meanwhile, the Turks
thronged round the southern frontier of the kingdom. Bajazet
II. had failed to capture Belgrade in 1492, but he could not
be prevented from forcing his way into the valley of the Save,
and beating the Hungarian army, which was badly paid and badly
disciplined. … Wladyslaw had one son, Louis. Surrounded by
the net of Austrian diplomacy, he had affianced this son in
his cradle to Mary of Austria, the sister of Charles V., and
later on he undertook, in defiance of public opinion, to leave
the crown to his daughter Anne, who was, betrothed to
Ferdinand of Austria, if Louis should die without heirs. …
To add to the miseries of his reign, a peasant rising, a
terrible Jacquerie, took place. … In 1513, Cardinal Bacracz
came from Rome, bringing with him the papal bull for a crusade
against the infidels; whereupon the peasants armed themselves,
as if they were about to march against the Turks, and then
turned their arms against the nobles. This terrible
insurrection is called in Hungarian history the insurrection
of the Kurucs (Kouroutses, cruciati) crusaders. … The chief
leader of the insurrection, the peasant Dosza, was one of the
Szeklers of Transylvania. … Dosza was beaten in a battle
near Temesvar, and fell into the hands of his enemies. Their
vengeance was terrible. The king of the peasants was seated on
a throne of fire, and crowned by the executioner with a
red-hot crown. He bore his frightful sufferings with a courage
that astonished his adversaries. … The feeble Wladyslaw died
in 1515, and the reign of the child-king, Louis II., may be
summed up in two catastrophes, the loss of Belgrade and the
defeat at Mohacs. The young king, married in his cradle, was
corrupt and dissolute, and quite incapable of governing, and
his guardians could not rise to the height of the occasion.
{1674}
The finances of the kingdom were in great disorder, and the
leading barons quarrelled continually over the shreds of
sovereignty still left. … This state of things was of the
greatest use to the Turks, for while Hungary was sinking ever
deeper into anarchy, Turkey was ruled by the great sovereign
who was called Soliman the Magnificent. It was not long before
he found a pretext for war in the arrest of one of his
subjects as a spy, and assembled his troops at Sophia,
captured Shabats [Szabatch], laid siege to Belgrade and took
it, making it thenceforward a Mussulman fortress (1521). The
key of the Danube was now in the hands of the Turks. … King
Louis begged for help on every side. … The Austrian princes
were ready to help him from interested motives; but even when
joined with Hungary they were too feeble to conquer the armies
of 'the Magnificent.' On the 25th of April, 1526, Soliman
quitted Constantinople, bringing with him 100,000 men and 300
cannon, taking up arms not only against Hungary, but against
the empire. One of the pretexts for his expedition was the
captivity of Francis I.; he wished, he said, to save 'the bey
of France' from the hands of the Germans and their allies the
Hungarians. He crossed the Save near Osiek (Essek), captured
Petervardin, and came up with the Hungarians at Mohacs, on the
right bank of the Danube (August 26, 1526). The Magyar army
was commanded by the king in person, assisted by Paul Tomory,
archbishop of Kalocsa, one of the warlike bishops of whom
Hungary gives us so many examples; by George Szapolyai, and by
Peter Perenyi, bishop of Nagy-Varad (Great Varadin). Perenyi
wished to treat with the Turks, in order to gain time for help
to reach them from Croatia and Transylvania, but the
impetuosity of Tomory decided on immediate battle. … At
first, it seemed as if the battle was in favour of the
Magyars; but Soliman had commanded that the front ranks of his
army should give way before the Hungarian cavalry, and that
then the main body of his troops should close around them.
When the Magyars were thus easily within reach, they were
overwhelmed by the Turkish artillery and forced to retreat.
They took refuge in some marshy land, in which many of them
lost their lives. The king had disappeared; Tomory was slain;
seven bishops, 22 barons, and 22,000 men were left upon the
field. The road to Buda lay open before the invaders, and
after having laid waste the whole country on their way, they
reached the capital, where the treasures which Mathias
Corvinus had collected in his palace and his library were
either carried off or committed to the flames. … Then the
tide of invasion gradually retired, leaving behind it a land
covered with ruins. The independent existence of Hungary ended
with Louis II."
L. Leger,
History of Austro-Hungary,
chapter 15.
ALSO IN:
L. Felbermann,
Hungary and its People,
chapter 3.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.
Election of John Zapolya to the throne.
Rival candidacy and election of Ferdinand of Austria.
Zapolya's appeal to the Turks.
Great invasion by Soliman.
Siege of Vienna.
The sultan master of the greater part of the country.
Progress of the Reformation.
Soliman's last invasion.
"No sooner was the corpse of Louis II. found lying in a marsh,
under his mangled steed, than the necessity of speedily
electing a new monarch was powerfully felt. Louis left no heir
to the throne, while his wife Mary, archduchess of Austria,
far from trying to possess herself of the helm of the state,
was already on her way to Vienna, even before the results of
the battle of Mohacs had become fully known. The vacant throne
found thus an aspirant in John Zapolya, waivod of Transylvania
and count of the Zips, who lay encamped with a mighty army at
Szegedin, on his march to the plain of Mohacs. … The Diet,
which met on the plain of Rakos (1526), proclaimed Zapolya
king. … The day of coronation was soon fixed, the waivod
receiving his royal unction at Weisenburg. Stephen Batory, the
palatine, however, actuated by envy rather than ambition,
first attempted to oppose to the new king the interests of the
widow of Louis II. But the Austrian archduchess, unwilling to
enter the field as a competitor for the crown, handed over her
role to her brother Ferdinand I. of Austria, who was married
to Anne, sister of the late Hungarian king. Ferdinand soon
repaired to Presburg, a town beyond the reach of Zapolya's
arms, where he was elected king of Hungary by an aristocratic
party, headed by the palatine Batory, Francis Batthany, Ban of
Croatia, and Nadasdy." After a fruitless conference between
representatives of the rival kings, they proceeded to war.
Zapolya was "master of the whole country, except some parts
beyond the Danube," but he remained inactive at Buda until the
Austrians surprised him there and forced him to evacuate the
capital. "Not able to make head against the foreign
mercenaries of Ferdinand, Zapolya was soon obliged to confine
himself to the northern frontiers, till he left the kingdom
for Poland, there to solicit help and concert measures for the
renewal of the war (1528)." Receiving no encouragement from
the king of Poland, Zapolya at length addressed himself to the
great enemy of Hungary, the sultan Soliman, and there he met
no rebuff. The Ottoman conqueror made instant preparations to
enter Hungary as the champion of its native king. Thereupon
"Zapolya organized a small army, and crossed the frontiers.
His army was soon swelled to thousands, and he had possessed
himself of the greatest part of Upper, before Soliman began to
pour down on Lower Hungary. … Proclaiming to the people that
his army was not come to conquer, but to assist their elected
native king, Soliman marched onwards, took Buda, Gran, and
Raab, all of them shamelessly given up by Ferdinand's
mercenaries, and moved on unopposed to the walls of Vienna
[1529]. Ferdinand, in his distress, Invoked the assistance of
Germany; but his brother [the] emperor, as well as the Diet of
Spires, engrossed with Luther and his followers, … were not
forward to render their assistance. Vienna, however, though
neglected by the German emperor, was momentarily saved by the
advanced state of the season; for winter being at hand, the
Turks, according to their usage at that season, took their
way home. [The besieging army of Turks is said to have
numbered 250,000 men; while the river swarmed with 400 Turkish
boats. Twenty fierce assaults were made upon the defenses of
the city, in as many days. The suburbs were destroyed and the
surrounding country terribly ravaged.
{1675}
Before raising the siege, the baffled Turk massacred thousands
of captives, under the walls, only carrying away into slavery
the young and fair of both sexes. The repulse of Soliman is
"an epoch in the history of the world.">[
Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 9.
… Zapolya, having taken up his position in Buda, ruled over
the greatest part of Hungary; while Croatia submitted to
Ferdinand. … A useless war was thus for a while carried on
between the two rival sovereigns, in the midst of which Buda
had to sustain a heavy siege conducted by General Roggendorf;
but the garrison, though reduced so far as to be obliged to
eat horseflesh, succeeded in repelling and routing the
Austrian besiegers (1530)." Ferdinand now humbled himself to
the sultan, beseeching his friendship and support, but in
vain. The war of the rival kings went on until 1538, when it
was suspended by what is known as the Treaty of Grosswardein,
which conceded to each party possession of the parts of the
country which he then occupied; which gave the whole to
Zapolya if Ferdinand died without male issue, and the whole to
Ferdinand if Zapolya died before him, even though Zapolya
should leave an heir—but the heir, in this latter case, was
to marry Ferdinand's daughter. This treaty produced immense
indignation in the country. "That the never-despairing and
ambitious Zapolya meant that step rather as a means of
momentary repose, may safely be assumed; but the development
of his schemes was arrested by the hand of death (1540), which
removed the weary warrior from these scenes of blood, at the
very moment when his ears were gladdened by the news that he
had become the father of a son." Ferdinand now claimed the
undivided sovereignty, according to the terms of the Treaty of
Grosswardein; but the queen-dowager Isabella, wife of John
Zapolya, maintained the rights of her infant son. She was
supported by a strong party, animated and led by one George
Martinussius, a priest of extraordinary powers. Both Ferdinand
and Isabella appealed to the sultan, as to an acknowledged
suzerain. He declared for young Zapolya, and sent an army to
Buda to establish his authority, while another Turkish army
occupied Transylvania. "Soliman soon followed in person, made
his entry into Buda [1541], which he determined to keep
permanently occupied during the minority of Sigismund; and
assuring Isabella of his affection to the son of John, bade
her retire with the child to Transylvania; a piece of advice
which she followed not without some reluctance and distrust.
Buda was thus henceforward governed by a pasha; the army of
Ferdinand was ruined, and Soliman, under the title of an ally,
became absolute lord of the country." After a few years "new
complications and difficulties arose in Transylvania, when
Martinussius, who was confirmed by Soliman in his capacity of
guardian to the young Sigismund and regent of that country,
began to excite the suspicion of queen Isabella. Ferdinand,
aware of these circumstances, marched an army into
Transylvania, headed by Costaldo, who was instructed to gain
over the monk-tutor." Martinussius was won by the promise of a
cardinal's hat; with his help the queen-dowager was coerced
into abdicating in behalf of her son. Having brought this
about, Ferdinand basely procured the assassination of the monk
Martinussius. "'Far from gaining by an act that stamped his
own name with eternal shame, Ferdinand was soon driven by the
Turks from Transylvania, and lost even the places occupied by
his troops in Hungary.' … Transylvania owned the sway of
Sigismund Zapolya, while Ferdinand, in spite of the crown of
the German empire, recently conferred upon him, … was fain
to preserve in Hungary some small districts, contiguous to his
Austrian dominions. … In the year 1563, Ferdinand convoked
his party at Presburg," and prevailed upon them to go through
the form of electing his son Maximilian to the Hungarian
throne. "Ferdinand soon after died (1564), leaving three sons.
Of these, Maximilian succeeded his father in Austria;
Ferdinand inherited the Tyrol; and Charles, the youngest son,
got possession of Styria. Maximilian, who, in addition to his
Austrian dominions, succeeded to the throne of Bohemia and to
that of the German empire, proved as impotent in Hungary as
his father had been. The Pasha of Buda ruled the greater part
of Hungary proper; Sigismund Zapolya continued to maintain his
authority in Transylvania. … His [Maximilian's] reign left
Hungary much the same as it was under his predecessor,
although much credit is due to the neutral line of conduct he
observed in regard to religious affairs. Unlike the rise and
progress of the Reformation in the rest of Europe, religious
reform in Hungary was rather an additional element in the
political conflict than its originator. … By the battle of
Mohacs, the Reformation was freed from a bigoted king and many
persecuting prelates; while Ferdinand, conniving at the
Protestant party in Germany, was withheld from persecuting it
in Hungary, the more so from the dread that his rival might
win the Protestant party to his interest. The Protestants thus
increased in number amid the din of arms. … The sectarian
spirit, though somewhat later than elsewhere, found also its
way into this land of blood, and Hungary was soon possessed of
considerable bodies of Lutherans and Calvinists, besides a
smaller number of Anabaptists and Socinians. … Calvin's
followers were mostly Magyars, while Lutheranism found its
centre point in the German population of Transylvania." In
1566, Maximilian, encouraged by some subsidies obtained from
his German subjects, began hostilities against the Turks and
against Sigismund in Transylvania. This provoked another
formidable invasion by the great sultan Soliman. The progress
of the Turk was stopped, however, at the fortress of Szigeth,
by a small garrison of 3,000 men, commanded by Nicholas Zriny.
These devoted men resisted the whole army of the Moslems for
nearly an entire month, and perished, everyone, without
surrendering their trust. Soliman, furious at the loss of
20,000 men, and the long delay which their obstinate valor
caused him, died of apoplexy while the siege went on. This
brought the expedition to an end, and Maximilian "bought a new
peace at the hands of Selim II., son of Soliman, for a tribute
of 30,000 ducats (1567). Shortly after, Maximilian was also
relieved of his rival, John Sigismund Zapolya, who died a
sudden death."
E. Szabad,
Hungary, Past and Present,
part 2, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
R. W. Fraser,
Turkey, Ancient and Modern,
chapters 12-13.
{1676}
HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.
Successive disturbances in Transylvania.
Cession of the principality to the House of Austria, and
consequent revolt.
Religious persecutions of Rodolph.
Successful rebellion of Botskai.
Continued war with the Turks.
John Sigismond Zapolya refused at first to be included in the
peace which Maximilian arranged with the Turks, and endeavored
to stir up an insurrection in Hungary; but his scheme failed,
and "he had no resource but to accept the terms of peace
offered by Maximilian, which were advantageous to both
parties. He engaged not to assume the title of king of
Hungary, except in his correspondence with the Turks, and to
acknowledge the emperor as king, his superior and master; in
addition to Transylvania, as an hereditary principality, he
was to retain for life the counties of Bihar and Marmarosch,
with Crasna and Zolnok, and whatever territories he could
recover from the Turks. In return, the emperor promised to
confer on him one of his nieces in marriage, and to cede to
him Oppelen in Silesia, if expelled from Transylvania. On the
death of John Sigismond without issue male, Transylvania was
to be considered as an elective principality, dependent on the
crown of Hungary. The intended marriage did not take place,
for John Sigismond dying on the 16th of March, 1571, soon
after the peace, all his possessions in Hungary reverted to
Maximilian. The diet of Transylvania chose Stephen Bathori,
who had acted with great reputation as the general and
minister of John Sigismond; and Maximilian, although he had
recommended another person, prudently confirmed the choice.
… The new waivode was accordingly confirmed, both by
Maximilian and the Turks, took the oath of fidelity to the
crown of Hungary, and continued to live on terms of friendship
and concord with the emperor. … Maximilian being of a
delicate constitution, and declining in health, employed the
last years of his reign in taking precautions to secure his
dignities and possessions for his descendants. Having first
obtained the consent of the Hungarian states, his eldest son
Rhodolph was, in 1572, crowned king of Hungary, in a diet at
Presburgh." Subsequently, the election of Rhodolph by the
Bohemian diet was likewise procured, and he was crowned king
of Bohemia on the 22d of September, 1575. A few weeks later,
the same son was chosen and crowned king of the Romans, which
secured his succession to the imperial dignity. This latter
crown fell to him the following year, when his father died.
Educated in Spain and by the Jesuits, the new emperor was
easily persuaded to reverse the tolerant policy of his father,
and to adopt measures of repression and persecution against
the Protestants, in the Austrian provinces, in Hungary and in
Bohemia, which could not long be endured without resistance.
"The first object of Rhodolph had been to secure his dominions
in Hungary against the Turks. In order to diminish the
enormous expense of defending the distant fortresses on the
side of Croatia, he transferred that country, as a fief of the
empire, to his uncle Charles, duke of Styria, who, from the
contiguity of his dominions, was better able to provide for
its security. Charles accordingly constructed the fortress of
Carlstadt, on the Kulpa, which afterwards became the capital
of Croatia, and a military station of the highest importance.
He also divided the ceded territory into numerous tenures,
which he conferred on freebooters and adventurers of every
nation, and thus formed a singular species of military colony.
This feudal establishment gradually extended along the
frontiers of Sclavonia and Croatia, and not only contributed,
at the time, to check the incursions of the Turks, but
afterwards supplied that lawless and irregular, though
formidable military force … who, under the names of Croats,
Pandours, and other barbarous appellations, spread such terror
among the enemies of Austria on the side of Europe. …
Notwithstanding the armistice concluded with the Sultan by
Maximilian, and its renewal by Rhodolph in 1584 and 1591, a
predatory warfare had never ceased along the frontiers." The
truce of 1591 was quickly broken in a more positive way by
Sultan Amurath, whose forces invaded Croatia and laid siege to
Siseek. They were attacked there and driven from their lines,
with a loss of 12,000 men. "Irritated by this defeat, …
Amurath published a formal declaration of war, and poured his
numerous hordes into Hungary and Croatia. The two following
years were passed in various sieges and engagements, attended
with alternate success and defeat; but the advantage
ultimately rested on the side of the Turks, by the capture of
Siseck and Raab. In 1595, a more favourable though temporary
turn was given to the Austrian affairs, by the defection of
the prince of Transylvania from the Turks. On the elevation of
Stephen Bathori to the throne of Poland, his brother
Christopher succeeded him as waivode of Transylvania, and,
dying in 1582, left an infant son, Sigismond, under the
protection of the Porte. Sigismond, who possessed the high
spirit and talents of his family, had scarcely assumed the
reins of government before he liberated himself from the
galling yoke of the Turks, and in 1595 concluded an offensive
alliance with the house of Austria. … He was to retain
Transylvania as an independent principality, the part of
Hungary which he still held, and Moldavia and Wallachia. …
The conquests of both parties were to be equally divided. …
By this important alliance the house of Austria was delivered
from an enemy who had always divided its efforts, and made a
powerful diversion in favour of the Turks. Sigismond
signalised himself by his heroic courage and military skill;
uniting with the waivodes of Moldavia and Wallachia, he
defeated the grand vizir, Sinan, took Turgovitch by storm, and
drove the Turks back in disgrace towards Constantinople.
Assisted by this diversion, the Austrians in Hungary were
likewise successful, and not only checked the progress of the
Turks, but distinguished their arms by the recovery of Gran
and Vissegrad. This turn of success roused the sultan Mahomet,
the son and successor of Amurath. … He put himself, in 1596,
at the head of his forces, led them into Hungary, took Erlau,
and defeating the Austrians under the archduke Maximilian, the
lateness of the season alone prevented him from carrying his
arms into Austria and Upper Hungary, which were exposed by the
loss of Raab and Erlau. As Mahomet could not a second time
tear himself from the seraglio, the war was carried on without
vigour, and the season passed rather in truces than in action.
But this year, though little distinguished by military events,
was memorable for the cession of Transylvania to Rhodolph, by
the brave yet fickle Sigismond, in exchange for the lordships
of Ratibor and Oppelen in Silesia, with an annual pension."
{1677}
The capricious Sigismond, however, soon repenting of his
bargain, reclaimed and recovered his Transylvanian dominion,
but only to resign it again, in 1599, to his uncle, and again
to repossess it. Not until 1602, after much fighting and
disorder, was the fickle-minded and troublesome prince sent
finally to retirement, in Bohemia. Transylvania was then
placed under the government of the imperial general Basta.
"His cruel and despotic administration driving the natives to
despair, they found a chief in Moses Tzekeli, who, with other
magnates, after ineffectually opposing the establishment of
the Austrian government, had sought a refuge among the Turks.
Tzekeli, at the head of his fellow exiles, assisted by bodies
of Turks and Tartars, entered the country, was joined by
numerous adherents, and, having obtained possession of the
capital and the adjacent fortresses, was elected and
inaugurated prince of Transylvania. His reign, however, was
scarcely more permanent than that of his predecessor; for,
before he could expel the Germans, he was, in 1603, defeated
by the new waivode of Wallachia, and killed in the confusion
of the battle. In consequence of this disaster, his followers
dispersed, and Basta again recovered possession of the
principality. During these revolutions in Transylvania,
Hungary had been the scene of incessant warfare between the
Austrians and the Turks, which exhausted both parties with
little advantage to either. … Rhodolph had long lost the
confidence of his Hungarian subjects. … He treated the
complaints and remonstrances of his subjects with contempt and
indifference; and the German troops being free from control,
filled the country with devastation and pillage. While,
however, he abandoned the civil and military affairs to
chance, or to the will of his officers, he laboured to fetter
his subjects with religious restrictions, and the most
intolerant edicts were issued against the Protestants, in
various parts of the kingdom. … The disaffected increasing
in numbers, soon found a leader in Stephen Botskai, the
principal magnate of Upper Hungary, uncle of Sigismond
Bathori. … The discontents in Transylvania, arising from the
same causes as the rebellion in Hungary, greatly contributed
to the success of Botskai. … Being in 1604 assisted by a
Turkish army, which the new sultan, Achmet, despatched into
Transylvania, he soon expelled the Austrians, and was formally
inaugurated sovereign. … But Botskai was too disinterested
or too prudent to accept the regal dignity [as king of
Hungary, which the grand vizier of the sultan proclaimed him].
… He acted, however, with the same vigour and activity as if
he had a crown to acquire; before the close of the campaign he
conquered all Upper Hungary, almost to the walls of Presburgh;
at the same time the Turks reduced Gran, Vissegrad and
Novigrad."
W. Coxe
History of the House of Austria,
chapters 38-42 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
J. H. Merle D'Aubigne,
History of the Protestant Church in Hungary,
chapters 12-20.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.
The Turkish war.
Great defeat at Cerestes.
The Peace of Sitvatorok.
'The disasters which the Turkish arms were now experiencing in
Wallachia and Hungary made the Sultan's best statesmen anxious
that the sovereign should, after the manner of his great
ancestors, head his troops in person, and endeavour to give an
auspicious change to the fortune of the war. … The
Imperialists, under the Archduke Maximilian and the Hungarian
Count Pfalfy, aided by the revolted princes of the Danubian
Principalities, dealt defeat and discouragement among the
Ottoman ranks, and wrung numerous fortresses and districts
from the empire. The cities of Gran, Wissgrad, and Babocsa,
had fallen; and messengers in speedy succession announced the
loss of Ibrail, Varna, Kilic, Ismail, Silistria, Rustchuk,
Bucharest, and Akerman. These tidings at last roused the
monarch in his harem. … Mahomet III. left his capital for
the frontier in the June of 1596. … The display of the
sacred standard of the Prophet, which now for the first time
was unfurled over a Turkish army, excited … the zeal of the
True Believers. … The Grand Vizier, Ibrahim Pacha, Hassan
Sokolli Pacha, and Cicala Pacha, were the principal commanders
under the Sultan. … The Archduke Maximilian, who commanded
the Imperialists, retired at first before the superior numbers
of the great Ottoman army; and the Sultan besieged and
captured Erlau. The Imperialists now having effected a
junction with the Transylvanian troops under Prince Sigismund,
advanced again, though too late to save Erlau; and on October
23rd, 1596, the two armies were in presence of each other on
the marshy plain of Cerestes, through which the waters of the
Cincia ooze towards the river Theiss. There were three days of
battle at Cerestes." Repeatedly, the effeminate Sultan wished
to order a retreat, or to betake himself to flight; but was
persuaded by his counsellors to remain on the field, though
safely removed from the conflict. On the third day the battle
was decided in favor of the Turks by a charge of their cavalry
under Cicala. "Terror and flight spread through every division
of the Imperialists; and in less than half an hour from the
time when Cicala began his charge, Maximilian and Sigismund
were flying for their lives, without a single Christian
regiment keeping their ranks, or making an endeavour to rally
and cover the retreat. 50,000 Germans and Transylvanians
perished in the marshes or beneath the Ottoman sabre. …
Mahomet III. eagerly returned after the battle to
Constantinople, to receive felicitations and adulation for his
victory, and to resume his usual life of voluptuous indolence.
The war in Hungary was prolonged for several years, until the
peace of Sitvatorok [November 11, 1606] in the reign of
Mahomet's successor. … No change of importance was made in
the territorial possessions of either party, except that the
Prince of Transylvania was admitted as party to the treaty,
and that province became to some extent, though not entirely,
independent of the Ottoman Empire."
Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 12.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.
The Pacification of Vienna.
Gabriel Bethlem of Transylvania and the Bohemian revolt.
Participation and experience in the Thirty Years War.
In 1606, the Archduke Mathias—who had lately been appointed
to the Governorship of Hungary, and who had been acknowledged,
by a secret compact among the members of the Hapsburg family as
the head of their House—arranged the terms of a peace with
Botskai. This treaty, called the "Pacification of Vienna,"
restored the religious toleration that had been practised by
Ferdinand and Maximilian; provided that Mathias should be
lieutenant-general of the kingdom; gave to Botskai the title
of Prince of Transylvania and part of Hungary; and stipulated
that on the failure of his male issue these territories should
revert to the House of Austria.
{1678}
"This treaty, at last, restored peace to Hungary, but at the
expense of her unity and independence. Some idea may be formed
of the state of weakness and lassitude to which these long
wars had reduced the country … by a statement of the
divisions into which it had been split up by the various
factions. Hungary, with Croatia, Sclavonia, and the frontiers,
was then reckoned to cover an area of 4,427 square miles, and
Transylvania one of 736. Of these 5,163 miles, Turkey
possessed 1,859; Botskai in Hungary 1,346, in Transylvania
736=2,082; [sic] and Austria only 1,222. Botskai died in 1606,
and was succeeded by Sigismond Rakoczi, who, however, soon
abdicated in favour of Gabriel Bathori." At this time the
plans of the Austrian family for taking the reins of power out
of the feeble and careless hands of the Emperor Rodolph, and
giving them to his more energetic brother, the Archduke
Mathias, came to a head.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1556-1609.
Mathias "marched into Bohemia: and Rodolph, after a feeble
resistance, found himself abandoned by all his supporters, and
compelled to resign into the hands of Mathias Hungary, Austria
and Moravia, and to guarantee to him the succession to the
crown of Bohemia; Mathias in the meantime bearing the title of
king elect of that kingdom, with the consent of the states.
Rodolph at the same time delivered up the Hungarian regalia,
which for some time past had been kept at Prague." Before his
coronation, Mathias was required by the Hungarian diet to sign
a compact, guaranteeing religious liberty; stipulating that
the Hungarian Chamber of Finances should be independent of
that of Austria, that all offices and employments should be
filled by natives, and that the Jesuits should possess no real
property in the country. The peace of the country was soon
disturbed by another revolution in Transylvania. "Gabriel
Bathori, who had succeeded Sigismond Bathori on the throne of
the principality, had suffered his licentiousness to tempt him
into insulting the wives of some of the nobles, who instantly
fell upon him and murdered him; and in his place Gabriel
Bethlem, a brave warrior and an able statesman, was
unanimously elected, with the consent and approbation of the
sultan. Under his government his dominions enjoyed a full
measure of peace and tranquillity, and began to recover from
the horrible devastations of preceding years. He did not,
however, assume his dignity without dispute. Transylvania had
been secured to the house of Austria on the death of Botskai,
by the Pacification of Vienna, and Mathias was, of course, now
anxious to enforce his rights, and he considered the present
opportunity (1617) favourable, as the Turks were engaged in
wars on the side of Asia and Poland. He therefore summoned a
diet of the empire, to the throne of which he had succeeded in
1612 by the death of Rodolph. … But the diet refused all
aid," and he was forced to conclude a peace with the sultan
for the further period of twenty years. "No mention being made
in it of Transylvania, the rights of Gabriel Bethlem were thus
tacitly recognised. Mathias died soon after, in 1619, leaving
his crown to his cousin, Ferdinand II." Then followed the
renewed attempt of an imperial bigot to crush Protestantism in
his dominions, and the Bohemian revolt (see BOHEMIA: A. D.
1611-1618) which kindled the flames of the "Thirty Years'
War." Hungary and Transylvania were in sympathy with Bohemia.
"Gabriel Bethlem entered Hungary, in answer to the call of the
Protestants of that country, at the head of a large army—took
Cassau, Tiernan, Newhasel, dispersed the imperial forces under
Homonai, sent 18,000 men to enforce Count Thurn, got
possession of Presburg by treachery, and seized upon the
regalia." The cause of the Bohemians was lost at the battle of
the White Mountain, before Prague; but "Gabriel Bethlem for a
long time supported the prestige acquired by his earlier
successes. He was proclaimed king of Hungary, and obtained
considerable advantages over two generals of ability and
reputation." But a treaty of peace was concluded at length,
according to which Gabriel surrendered the crown and royal
title, receiving the duchies of Oppelen and Ratibor in
Silesia, and seven counties of Hungary, together with Cassau,
Tokay, and other towns. Ferdinand promised complete toleration
to the Protestants, but was not faithful to his promise, and
war was soon resumed. Bethlem "collected an army of 45,000
men, joined his forces with those of Mansfeldt, the general of
the confederacy [the Protestant Union], after his victory over
the imperialists at Presburg; and at the same time the Bashaw
of Buda entered Lower Hungary at the head of a large force,
captured various fortresses in the district of Gran, and laid
siege to Novigrad. They were opposed by two able generals, the
famous Wallenstein and Swartzemberg, but without checking
their progress. Wallenstein, however, followed Mansfeldt into
Hungary, where the two armies remained for some time inactive
in the presence of one another; but famine, disease, and the
approach of winter at last brought the contest to, a close.
The king of Denmark had been defeated, and Gabriel Bethlem
began to fear that the whole force of the Austrians would now
be directed against him, and concluded a truce. The bashaw of
Buda feared the winter, and followed his example; and
Mansfeldt, finding himself thus abandoned, disbanded his
soldiers.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.
… The treaty of peace was again renewed, the truce with the
Turks prolonged." Gabriel Bethlem, or Bethlem Gabor, died in
1629. "The Transylvanians elected George Rakotski to fill his
place, and during nearly four years Hungary and Transylvania
enjoyed the blessings of peace." Then they were again
disturbed by attempts of Ferdinand to reduce Transylvania to
the state of an Austrian province, and by hostile measures
against the Protestants. The latter continued after the death
of Ferdinand II. (1637), and under his son Ferdinand III.
Rakotski inspired an insurrection of the Hungarians which
became formidable, and which, joining in alliance with the
Swedes, then warring in Germany, extorted from the emperor a
very favorable treaty of peace (1647). "At the same time
Ferdinand caused his son of the same name, and elder brother
of Leopold, to be elected and crowned king. During his short
reign, the country was tranquil; but in 1654 he died, leaving
his rights to Leopold. The reign of Leopold [1655-1697] was a
period which witnessed events more important to Hungary than
any which preceded it, or have followed it, save only the
revolutionary years, 1848 and 1849.
{1679}
No monarch of the house of Austria had ever made so determined
attacks upon Hungarian liberty, and to none did the Hungarians
oppose a braver and more strenuous resistance. Nothing was
left untried on the one side to overthrow the constitution;
nothing was left untried on the other to uphold and defend
it."
E. L. Godkin,
History of Hungary,
chapters 15-17.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.
Turkish attacks on Upper Hungary.
The battle of St. Gothard.
Liberation of Transylvania.
A twenty years truce.
"Hostilities had recommenced, in 1660, between the Ottoman
empire and Austria, on account of Transylvania. The Turk was
suzerain of Transylvania, and directly held Buda and the part
of Hungary on the west and south of the Danube, projecting
like a wedge between Upper Hungary, Styria, and Vienna. George
Rakoczi, Prince of Transylvania, having perished in combat
against the Sultan, his suzerain, the Turks had pursued the
House of Rakoczi into the domains which it possessed in Upper
Hungary. The Rakoczis, and the new prince elected by the
Transvlvanians, Kemeni, invoked the aid of the emperor. The
Italian, Montecuculi, the greatest military chieftain in the
service of the House of Austria, expelled the Turks from a
part of Transylvania, but could not maintain himself there;
Kemeni was killed in a skirmish. The Turks installed their
protégé, Michael Abaffi, in his place, and renewed their
attacks against Upper Hungary (1661-1662). The secret of these
alternations lay in the state of feeling of the Hungarians and
Transylvanians, who, continually divided between two
oppressors, the Turk and the Austrian, and too weak to rid
themselves of either, always preferred the absent to the
present master. … Religious distrust also complicated
political distrust; Protestantism, crushed in Bohemia,
remained powerful and irritated in Hungary. The emperor
demanded the assistance of the Germanic Diet and all the
Christian states against the enemy of Christianity. … Louis
XIV., at the first request of Leopold, supported by the Pope,
replied by offers so magnificent that they appalled the
Emperor. Louis proposed not less than 60,000 auxiliaries, half
to be furnished by France, half by the Alliance of the Rhine;
that is, by the confederates of France in Germany. … The
Emperor … would have gladly been able to dispense with the
aid of France and his confederates; but the more pressing
danger prevailed over the more remote. The Turks had made a
great effort during the summer of 1663. The second of the
Kiouprouglis, the Vizier Achmet, taking Austrian Hungary in
the rear, had crossed the Danube at Buda with 100,000 fighting
men, invaded the country between the Danube and the
Carpathians, and hurled his Tartars to the doors of Presburg
and Olmütz. Montecuculi had with great difficulty been able to
maintain himself on the island of Schütt, a species of vast
intrenched camp formed by nature in front of Presburg and
Vienna. The fortified towns of Upper Hungary fell one after
another, and the Germanic Diet, which Leopold had gone to
Ratisbon to meet, replied with maddening dilatoriness to the
urgent entreaties of the head of the Empire. The Diet voted no
effective aid until February, 1664; but the Alliance of the
Rhine, in particular, had already accorded 6,500 soldiers, on
condition that the Diet should decide, before separating,
certain questions relative to the interpretation of the Treaty
of Westphalia. The Pope, Spain, and the Italian States
furnished subsidies. Louis persisted in offering nothing but
soldiers, and Leopold resigned himself to accept 6,000
Frenchmen. He had no reason to repent it. … When the
junction was effected [July, 1664], the position of the
Imperialists was one of great peril. They had resumed the
offensive on the south of the Danube in the beginning of the
year; but this diversion, contrary to the advice of
Montecuculi, had succeeded ill. The Grand Vizier had repulsed
them, and, after carrying back his principal forces to the
right bank of the Danube, threatened to force the passage of
the Raab and invade Styria and Austria. The Confederate army
was in a condition to stand the shock just at the decisive
moment. An attempt of the Turks to cross the Raab at the
bridge of Kerment was repulsed by Coligni [commanding the
French], July 26, 1664. The Grand Vizier reascended the Raab
to St. Gothard, where were the headquarters of the
Confederates, and, on August 1, the attack was made by all the
Mussulman forces. The janizaries and spahis crossed the river
and overthrew the troops of the Diet and a part of the
Imperial regiments; the Germans rallied, but the Turks were
continually reinforced, and the whole Mussulman army was soon
found united on the other side of the Raab. The battle seemed
lost, when the French moved. It is said that Achmet
Kiouprougli, on seeing the young noblemen pour forth, with
their uniforms decked with ribbons, and their blond perukes,
asked, 'Who are these maidens?' The 'maidens' broke the
terrible janizaries at the first shock; the mass of the
Turkish army paused and recoiled on itself; the Confederate
army, reanimated by the example of the French, rushed forward
and charged on the whole line; the Turks fell back, at first
slowly, their faces towards the enemy, then lost footing and
fled precipitately to the river to recross it under the fire
of the Christians; they filled it with their corpses. The
fatigue of the troops, the night that supervened, the waters
of the Raab, swelled the next day by a storm, and above all
the lack of harmony among the generals, prevented the
immediate pursuit of the Turks, who had rallied on the
opposite bank of the river and had preserved the best part of
their cavalry. It was expected, nevertheless, to see them
expelled from all Hungary, when it was learned with
astonishment that Leopold had hastened to treat, without the

approbation of the Hungarian Diet, on conditions such that he
seemed the conquered rather than the conqueror. A twenty
years' truce was signed, August 10, in the camp of the Grand
Vizier. Transylvania became again independent under its
elective princes, but the protégé of the Turks, Abaffi, kept
his principality; the Turks retained the two chief towns which
they had conquered in Upper Hungary, and the Emperor made the
Sultan a 'present,' that is, he paid him 200,000 florins
tribute."
H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 1, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapter 62 (volume 2).
{1680}
HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.
Increased religious persecution and Austrian oppression.
Tekeli's revolt.
The Turks again called in.
Kara Mustapha's great invasion and siege of Vienna.
Deliverance of the city by John Sobieski.
In Hungary, "the discontent caused by the oppressive
Government and the fanatical persecution of Protestantism by
the Austrian Cabinet had gone on increasing. At length, the
Austrian domination had rendered itself thoroughly odious to
the Hungarians. To hinder the progress of Protestantism, the
Emperor Leopold, in the excess of his Catholic zeal, sent to
the galleys a great number of preachers and ministers; and to
all the evils of religious persecution were added the violence
and devastations of the generals and the German
administrators, who treated Hungary as a conquered province.
The Hungarians in vain invoked the charters which consecrated
their national liberties. To their most legitimate complaints
Leopold replied by the infliction of punishments; he spared
not even the families of the most illustrious; several
magnates perished by the hands of the executioner. Such
oppression was certain to bring about a revolt. In 1668 a
conspiracy had been formed against Leopold by certain
Hungarian leaders, which, however, was discovered and
frustrated; and it was not till 1677, when the young Count
Emmerich Tekeli, having escaped from prison, placed himself at
the head of the malcontents, that these disturbances assumed
any formidable importance. … Tekeli, who possessed much
military talent, and was an uncompromising enemy of the House
of Austria, having entered Upper Hungary with 12,000 men,
defeated the Imperial forces, captured several towns, occupied
the whole district of the Carpathian Mountains, and compelled
the Austrian generals, Counts Wurmb and Leslie, to accept the
truce he offered." In 1681 the Emperor made some concessions,
which weakened the party of independence, while, at the same
time, the Peace of Nimeguen, with France, allowed the House of
Austria to employ all its forces against the rebels. "In this
conjuncture Tekeli turned for aid towards the Turks, making an
appeal to Mahomet IV.; and after the conclusion of the Turkish
and Russian war in 1681, Kara Mustapha [the Grand Vizier]
determined to assist the insurgents openly, their leader
offering, in exchange, to acknowledge the suzerainty of the
Porte. Tekeli sought also succour from France. Louis XIV. gave
him subsidies, solicited the Sultan to send an army into
Hungary, and caused an alliance between the Hungarians,
Transylvanians, and Wallachians to be concluded against
Austria (1682). The truce concluded in 1665 between Austria
and Turkey had not yet expired," but the Sultan was persuaded
to break it. "The Governor of Buda received orders to support
Tekeli, who took the title of King. … Early in the spring of
1683 Sultan Mahomet marched forth from his capital with a
large army, which at Belgrade he transferred to the command of
Kara Mustapha. Tekeli formed a junction with the Turks at Essek."
S. Menzies,
Turkey, Old and New,
book 2, chapter 9, section 3 (volume 1).
"The strength of the regular forces, which Kara Mustapha led
to Vienna, is known from the muster-roll which was found in
his tent after the siege. It amounted to 275,000 men. The
attendants and camp-followers cannot be reckoned; nor can any
but an approximate speculation be made as to the number of the
Tartar and other irregular troops that joined the Vizier. It
is probable that not less than half a million of men were set
in motion in this last great aggressive effort of the Ottomans
against Christendom. The Emperor Leopold had neither men nor
money sufficient to enable him to confront such a deluge of
invasion; and, after many abject entreaties, he obtained a
promise of help from King Sobieski of Poland, whom he had
previously treated with contumely and neglect. … The Turkish
army proceeded along the western side of the Danube from
Belgrade, and reached Vienna without experiencing any serious
check, though a gallant resistance was made by some of the
strong places which it besieged during its advance. The city
of Vienna was garrisoned by 11,000 men under Count
Stahremberg, who proved himself a worthy successor of the
Count Salm, who had fulfilled the same duty when the city was
besieged by Sultan Solyman. The second siege of Vienna lasted
from the 15th July to the 12th September, 1683, during which
the most devoted heroism was displayed by both the garrison
and the inhabitants. … The garrison was gradually wasted by
the numerous assaults which it was called on to repulse, and
in the frequent sorties, by which the Austrian commander
sought to impede the progress of the besiegers. Kara Mustapha,
at the end of August, had it in his power to carry the city by
storm, if he had thought fit to employ his vast forces in a
general assault, and to continue it from day to day, as
Amurath IV. had done when Bagdad fell. But the Vizier kept the
Turkish troops back out of avarice, in the hope that the city
would come into his power by capitulation; in which case he
would himself be enriched by the wealth of Vienna, which, if
the city were taken by storm, would become the booty of the
soldiery. … Sobieski had been unable to assemble his troops
before the end of August; and, even then, they only amounted
to 20,000 men. But he was joined by the Duke of Lorraine and
some of the German commanders, who were at the head of a
considerable army, and the Polish King crossed the Danube at
Tulm, above Vienna, with about 70,000 men. He then wheeled
round behind the Kalemberg Mountains to the north-west of
Vienna, with the design of taking the besiegers in the rear.
The Vizier took no heed of him; nor was any opposition made to
the progress of the relieving army through the difficult
country which it was obliged to traverse. On the 11th of
September the Poles were on the summit of the Mount
Kalemberg," overlooking the vast encampment of the besiegers.
Sobieski "saw instantly the Vizier's want of military skill,
and the exposure of the long lines of the Ottoman camp to a
sudden and fatal attack. 'This man,' said he, 'is badly
encamped: he knows nothing of war; we shall certainly beat
him.' … The ground through which Sobieski had to move down
from the Kalemberg was broken by ravines; and was so difficult
for the passage of the troops that Kara Mustapha might, by an
able disposition of part of his forces, have long kept the
Poles in check, especially as Sobieski, in his hasty march,
had brought but a small part of his artillery to the scene of
action. But the Vizier displayed the same infatuation and
imbecility that had marked his conduct throughout the
campaign. … Unwilling to resign Vienna, Mustapha left the
chief part of his Janissary force in the trenches before the
city, and led the rest of his army towards the hills, down
which Sobieski and his troops were advancing.
{1691}
In some parts of the field, where the Turks had partially
intrenched the roads, their resistance to the Christians was
obstinate; but Sobieski led on his best troops in person in a
direct line for the Ottoman centre, where the Vizier's tent
was conspicuous; and the terrible presence of the victor of
Khoczim was soon recognised. 'By Allah! the King is really
among us,' exclaimed the Khan of the Crimea, Selim Ghirai; and
turned his horse's head for flight. The mass of the Ottoman
army broke and fled in hopeless rout, hurrying Kara Mustapha
with them from the field. The Janissaries, who had been left
in the trenches before the city, were now attacked both by the
garrison and the Poles and were cut to pieces. The camp, the
whole artillery, and the military stores of the Ottomans
became the spoil of the conquerors; and never was there a
victory more complete, or signalised by more splendid
trophies. The Turks continued their panic flight as far as
Raab. … The great destruction of the Turks before Vienna was
rapturously hailed throughout Christendom as the announcement
of the approaching downfall of the Mahometan Empire in
Europe."
Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 16.
"It was cold comfort to the inhabitants of Vienna, or to the
King of Poland, to know that even if St. Stephen's had shared
the fate of St. Sophia and become a mosque of Allah, and if
the Polish standards had been borne in triumph to the
Bosphorus, yet that, nevertheless, the undisciplined Ottomans
would infallibly have been scattered by French, German and
Swedish armies on the fields of Bavaria or of Saxony. Vienna
would have been sacked; Poland would have been a prey to
internal anarchy and to Tartar invasion. The ultimate triumph
of their cause would have consoled few for their individual
destruction. … So cool and experienced a diplomatist as Sir
William Temple did indeed believe, at the time, that the fall
of Vienna would have been followed by a great and permanent
increase of Turkish power. Putting this aside, however, there
were other results likely to spring from Turkish success. The
Turks constantly made a powerful diversion in favour of France
and her ambitious designs. Turkish victories upon the one side
of Germany meant successful French aggressions upon the other,
and Turkish schemes were promoted with that object by the
French. … 'If France would but stand neutral, the
controversy between Turks and Christians might soon be
decided,' says the Duke of Lorraine. But France would not
stand neutral."
H. E. Malden,
Vienna, 1683,
chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
G. B. Malleson,
The Battle-Fields of Germany,
chapter 9.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687.
End of the insurrection of Tekeli.
Bloody vengeance of the Austrian.
The crown made hereditary in the House of Hapsburg.
The defeat of the Turks was likewise a defeat for the
insurgent Tekeli, or Tököli, "whom they called the king of the
Kurucz, and after it he found himself reduced to guerilla
warfare. The victory over the Turks was followed by the
capture of some of the chief Magyar towns … and in the end
[1686] Buda itself, which was at last recovered after so long
an occupation. … Kara Mustapha attributed his defeat to
Tököli, and had his former ally arrested and imprisoned in
Belgrade. His captivity put an end to the party of the king of
the Kurucz. … An amnesty was proclaimed and immediately
afterwards violated, the Italian general, Caraffa, becoming
the merciless executioner of imperial vengeance. He
established a court at Éperjes, and the horrors of this
tribunal recall the most atrocious deeds of the Spaniards in
the Low Countries. … After having terrorized Hungary,
Leopold thought he had the right to expect every sort of
concession. Notwithstanding persecution, up to this date the
monarchy had remained elective. He was determined it should
now become hereditary; and the diet of 1687, in conformity
with the wishes of the sovereign, made the crown hereditary in
the male line of the house of Habsburg."
L. Leger,
History of Austro-Hungary,
chapter 20.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
Expulsion of the Turks.
Battle of Zenta.
Peace of Carlowitz.
After the great defeat of the Turks before Vienna, their
expulsion from Hungary was only a question of time. It began
the same autumn, in October, by the taking of Gran. In 1684,
the Imperialists under the Duke of Lorraine captured Visegrad
and Waitzen, but failed in a siege of Ofen, although they
defeated a Turkish army sent to its relief in July. In 1685
they took Neuhäusel by storm, and drove the Turks from Gran,
which these latter had undertaken to recover. Next year they
laid siege again to Ofen, investing the city on the 21st of
June and carrying it by a final assault on the 2d of
September. "Ofen, after having been held by the Porte, and
regarded as the third city in the Ottoman Empire, for 145
years, was restored to the sway of the Habsburgs." Before the
year closed the Austrians had acquired Szegedin, and several
lesser towns. The great event of the campaign of 1687 was a
battle on the field of Mohacs, where, in 1526, the Turks
became actual masters of Hungary, for the most part, while the
House of Austria acquired nominally the right to its crown. On
this occasion the fortune of 1526 was reversed. "The defeat
became a rout as decisive against the Turks as the earlier
battle on the same spot had proved to the Jagellons."
Transylvania and Slavonia were occupied as the consequence,
and Erlau surrendered before the close of the year. In 1688,
what seemed the crowning achievement of these campaigns was
reached in the recovery of Belgrade, after a siege of less
than a month. A Turkish army in Bosnia was destroyed; another
was defeated near Nissa, and that city occupied; and at the
end of 1689 the Turks held nothing north of the Danube except
Temeswar and Grosswardein (Great Waradein); while the
Austrians had made extensive advances, on the south of the
river, into Bosnia and Servia. Then occurred a great rally of
Ottoman energies, under an able Grand Vizier. In 1690, both
Nissa and Belgrade were retaken, and the Austrians were
expelled from Servia. But next year fortune favored the
Austrians once more and the Turks were severely beaten, by
Louis of Baden, on the field of Salankament. They still held
Belgrade, however, and the Austrians suffered heavily in
another attempt to regain that stronghold. For several years
little progress in the war was made on either side; until
Prince Eugene of Savoy received the command, in 1697, and
wrought a speedy change in the military situation.
{1682}
The Sultan, Mustapha II., had taken the Turkish command in
person, "with the finest army the Osmanli had raised since
their defeat at Mohacs." Prince Eugene attacked him, September
11, at Zenta, on the Theiss, and destroyed his army almost
literally. "When the battle ceased about 20,000 Osmanli lay on
the ground; some 10,000 had been drowned; scarcely 1,000 had
reached the opposite bank. There were but few prisoners.
Amongst the slain were the Grand Vizier and four other
Viziers. … By 10 o'clock at night not a single living
Osmanli remained on the right bank of the Theiss. … The
booty found in the camp surpassed all … expectations.
Everything had been left by the terror-stricken Sultan. There
was the treasury-chest, containing 3,000,000 piastres. … The
cost of these spoils had been to the victors only 300 killed
and 200 wounded. … The battle of Zenta, … regarded as part
of the warfare which had raged for 200 years between the
Osmanli and the Imperialists, … was the last, the most
telling, the decisive blow." It was followed by a period of
inaction, during which England and Holland undertook to
mediate between the Porte and its several Christian enemies.
Their mediation resulted in the meeting of a Congress at
Carlowitz, or Karlowitz, on the Danube, which was attended by
representatives of the Sultan, the Emperor, the Czar of
Russia, the King of Poland, and the republic of Venice. "Here,
after much negotiation, lasting seventy-two days, was
concluded, the 26th January, 1699, the famous Peace of
Carlowitz. The condition that each party should possess the
territories occupied by each at the moment of the meeting of
the congress formed its basis. By the treaty, then, the
frontier of Hungary, which, when the war broke out, extended
only to within a short distance of the then Turkish towns of
Gran and Neuhäusel, was pushed forward to within a short
distance of Temeswar and Belgrade. Transylvania and the
country of Bacska, between the Danube and the Theiss, were
yielded to the Emperor. To Poland were restored Kaminietz,
Podolia, and the supremacy over the lands watered by the
Ukraine, the Porte receiving from her in exchange, Soczava,
Nemos, and Soroka; to Venice, who renounced the conquests she
had made in the gulfs of Corinth and Ægina, part of the Morea,
and almost all Dalmatia, including the towns of Castelnuovo
and Cattaro; to Russia, the fortress and sea of Azof." By the
Peace of Carlowitz "the Ottoman Power lost nearly one-half of
its European dominions, and ceased to be dangerous to
Christendom. Never more would the discontented magnates of
Hungary be able to find a solid supporter in the sultan."
G. B. Malleson,
Prince Eugene of Savoy,
chapters 2 and 4.
ALSO IN:
Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 17.
See, also, on the "Holy War," or "War of the "Holy League"
against the Turks, of which the war in Hungary formed only
a part, the TURKS: A. D. 1684—1696.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
The revolt of Rakoczy and its suppression.
The Treaty of Szathmar.
Recovery of Belgrade and final expulsion of the Turks.
Peace of Passarowitz.
"The peace of Carlowitz, which disposed of the Hungarian
territory without the will or knowledge of the Hungarian
States, in utter contempt of repeatedly confirmed laws, was in
itself a deep source of new discontent,—which was
considerably increased by the general policy continually
pursued by the Court of Vienna. Even after the coronation of
Joseph I., a prince who; if left to himself, might have
perhaps followed a less provoking line of conduct, Leopold,
the real master of Hungary, did not relinquish his design of
entirely demolishing its institutions. … The high clergy
were ready to second any measure of the government, provided
they were allowed full scope in their persecutions of the
Protestants. … Scarcely had three years passed since the
peace of Carlowitz was signed, when Leopold, just embarking in
the war of the Spanish succession, saw the Hungarians suddenly
rise up as one man in arms. … The head and soul of this new
struggle in Hungary was Francis Rakoczy II., the son of Helen
Zriny, by her first husband, after the death of whom she
became the wife of Tököli." Rakoczy entered the country from
Poland, with a few hundred men, in 1703, and issued a
proclamation which brought large numbers to his support. The
Austrian forces had been mostly drawn away, by the war of the
Spanish succession, into Italy and to the Rhine, and during
the first year of the insurrection the Hungarian patriot
became master of the greater part of the country. Then there
occurred a suspension of hostilities, while the English
government made a fruitless effort at mediation. On the
reopening of warfare, the Austrians were better prepared and
more encouraged by the circumstances of the larger contest in
which they were engaged; while the Hungarians were
correspondingly discouraged. They had promises of help from
France, and France failed them; they had expectations from
Russia, but nothing came of them. "The fortune of war
decidedly turned in favour of the imperialists, in consequence
of which numerous families, to escape their fury, left their
abodes to seek shelter in the national camp; a circumstance
which, besides clogging the military movements, contributed to
discourage the army and spread general consternation." In 1710
Rakoczy went to Poland, where he was long absent, soliciting
help which he did not get. "Before his departure, the chief
command of the troops was entrusted to Karoly, who, tired of
Rakoczy's prolonged and useless absence in Poland, assembled
the nobles at Szathmar, and concluded, in 1711, a peace known
as the Treaty of Szathmar. By this treaty the emperor engaged
to redress all grievances, civil and religious, promising,
besides, amnesty to all the adherents of Rakoczy, as well as
the restitution of many properties illegally confiscated.
Rakoczy protested from Poland against the peace concluded by
Karoly; but of what effect could be the censure and
remonstrance of a leader who, in the most critical emergency,
had left the scene of action in quest of foreign assistance,
which, he might have foreseen, would never be accorded. …
After the peace of Szathmar, Hungarian history assumes a quite
different character." Revolts are at an end for more than a
century, and "Hungary, without producing a single man of note,
lay in a state of deep lethargy." In 1714, the Emperor Charles
VI. (who, as King of Hungary, was Charles III.) began a new
war against the Porte, with Prince Eugene again commanding in
Hungary. "The sultan Achmet III., anticipating the design of
the imperial general [to concentrate his troops on the
Danube], marched his army across the Save, and, as will be
seen, to his own destruction.
{1683}
After a small success gained by Palfy, Eugene routed the Turks
at Petervardein [August 13, 1716], and captured besides nearly
all their artillery. Profiting by the general consternation of
the Turks, Eugene sent Palfy and the Prince of Wurtemberg to
lay siege to the fortress of Temesvar, which commands the
whole Banat, and which was surrendered by the Turks after a
heavy siege. By these repeated disasters the Mussulmans lost
all confidence in the success of their arms; and in the year
1717 they opened the gates of Belgrade to the imperial army.
The present campaign paved the way for the peace of
Passarowitz, a little town in Servia,—a peace concluded
between the Porte and the Emperor in 1718. In virtue of the
provisions of this treaty, the Porte abandoned the Banat, the
fortress of Belgrade, and a part of Bosnia, on the hither side
of the Unna, promising besides the free navigation of the
Danube to the people of the Austrian empire."
E. Szabad,
Hungary, Past and Present,
part 2, chapter 5-6.
ALSO in:
L. Felbermann,
Hungary and its People,
chapter 4.
See, also,
TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1739:
Belgrade restored to the Turks.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1740.
The question of the Austrian Succession.
The Pragmatic Sanction.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1740-1741.
Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession:
Faithlessness of Frederick the Great.
His seizure of Silesia.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1741.
The War of the Austrian Succession:
Maria Theresa's appeal and the Magyar response.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
HUNGARY: A. D. 1780-1790.
Irritations of the reign of Joseph II.
Illiberality of the Hungarian nobles.
"The reign of Joseph II. is described by the historians of
Hungary and Bohemia as a disastrous time for the two
countries. Directly he ascended the throne he began to carry
out a series of measures which deeply irritated the Magyars.
With his philosophical ideas, the crown of Hungary was to him
nothing more than a Gothic bauble, and the privileges of the
nation only the miserable remains of an age of barbarism; the
political opinions of the Hungarians were as distasteful to
him as their customs, and he amused himself with ridiculing
the long beards and the soft boots of the great nobles. He
never would be crowned. He annoyed the bishops by his laws
against convents, while his tyrannical tolerance never
succeeded in contenting the Protestants. … On the 7th of
April, 1784, he ordered that the holy crown should be brought
to him in Vienna and placed in the imperial treasury. To
confiscate this symbol of Hungarian independence was, in the
eyes of the Magyars, an attempt at the suppression of the
nation itself, and the affront was deeply resented. Up to this
time the official language of the kingdom had been Latin, a
neutral tongue among the many languages in use in the various
parts of Hungary. Joseph believed he was proving his liberal
principles in substituting German, and that language took the
place of Latin. … Joseph II. soon learned that it is not
wise to attack the dearest prejudices of a nation. The edict
which introduced a foreign language was the signal for the new
birth of Magyar. … At the time of the death of Joseph II.
Hungary was in a state of violent disturbance. The 'comitat'
of Pesth proclaimed that the rule of the Hapsburgs was at an
end, and others threatened to do the same unless the national
liberties were restored by the new sovereign. All united in
demanding the convocation of the diet in order that the
long-suppressed wishes of the people might be heard. The
revolutionary wind which had passed over France had been felt
even by the Magyars, but there was this great difference in
its effect upon France and Hungary—in France, ideas of
equality had guided the revolution; in Hungary, the great
nobles and the squirearchy who formed the only political
element claimed, under the name of liberties, privileges which
were for the most part absolutely opposed to the ideas of the
Revolution of 1789. … Among the late reforms only one had
found favour in the eyes of the Magyars, and that was
toleration towards Protestants, and the reason of this was to
be found in the fact that the small landowners of Hungary were
themselves to a large extent Protestant; yet a democratic
party was gradually coming into existence which appealed to
the masses. … When France declared war against Francis II.
the Magyar nobles showed themselves quite ready to support
their sovereign; they asked for nothing better than to fight
the revolutionary democrats of Paris. Francis was crowned very
soon after his accession, and was able to obtain both men and
money from the diet; but before long, the reactionary measures
carried by Thugut his minister, lost him all the popularity
which had greeted him at the beginning of his reign. The
censorship of the press, the employment of spies, and the
persecution of the Protestants—a persecution, however, in
which the Hungarian Catholics themselves took an active
part—all helped to create discontent."
L. Leger,
History of Austro-Hungary,
chapters 23 and 28.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1787-1791.
War with the Turks.
Treaty of Sistova.
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844.
The wakening of the national spirit.
Patriotic labors of Szechenyi and Kossuth.
"The battle of Waterloo, in 1815, put an end to the terrible
struggle by which every country in Europe had for twenty years
been agitated. The sovereigns of the continent now breathed
freely … and their first act was to enter into a league
against their deliverers, to revoke all their concessions, and
break all their promises. … The most audacious of all those
who joined in framing the Holy Alliance was the emperor of
Austria. The Hungarians reminded him, in 1815, of his repeated
promises to redress their grievances, while they were voting
him men and money to defend his capital against the assaults
of Napoleon. He could not deny the promises, but he
emphatically declined to fulfil them. They asked him to
convoke the diet, but he … determined to dispense with it
for the future. … At last the popular ferment reached such a
pitch, that the government found it absolutely necessary to
yield the point in dispute. In 1825, Francis I. convoked the
diet, and from that moment the old struggle, which the wars
with France had suspended, was renewed. … The session was
… rendered for ever memorable by an incident, in itself of
trifling importance, but of vast significance when viewed in
connexion with subsequent events.
{1684}
It was in it that Count Stephen Szechenyi made his first
speech in the Magyar language. The life of this extraordinary
man is more remarkable as an instance of what may be achieved
by well-directed energy, labouring in obedience to the
dictates of patriotism, than for any brilliant triumphs of
eloquence or diplomacy. … He was no great orator; so that
his influence over the Magyars—an influence such as no
private individual has ever acquired over a people, except,
perhaps, Kossuth and O'Connell—must be looked upon rather as
the triumph of practical good sense and good intentions than
of rhetorical appeals to prejudices or passion. … The first
object to which his attention was directed was the restoration
of the Magyar language, which, under the Germanizing efforts
of Austria, had fallen into almost total disuse amongst the
higher classes. He knew how intimately the use of the national
language is connected with the feeling of nationality. … But
the Magyar was now totally neglected by the Magyar gentlemen.
Latin was the language of the diet, and of all legal and
official documents, and German and French were alone used in
good society. Szechenyi, as the first step in his scheme of
reformation, set about rescuing it from the degradation and
disuse into which it had fallen; and as the best of all ways
to induce others to do a thing is to do it oneself first, he
rose in the diet of 1825, and, contrary to previous usage,
made a speech in Magyar. His colleagues were surprised; the
magnates were shocked; the nation was electrified. … The
diet sat for two years, and during the whole of that period
Szechenyi continued his use of the native language, in which
he strenuously opposed the designs of the court, and was soon
considered the leader of the opposition or liberal party,
which speedily grew up around him. His efforts were so
successful, that before the close of the session, Francis was
compelled to acknowledge the illegality of his previous acts,
formally to recognize the independence of the country, and
promise to convoke the diet at least once in every three
years. … He [Szechenyi] soon had the satisfaction of seeing
the Hungarian language growing to general use, but he was
still vexed to see the total want of unity, co-operation, and
communion which prevailed amongst the nobles, owing to the
want of a newspaper press, or of any place of re-union where
political subjects could be discussed amongst men of the same
party with freedom and confidence. This he remedied by the
establishment of the casino, at Pesth, upon the plan of the
London clubs. He next turned his attention to the
establishment of steam navigation on the Danube. … He …
rigged out a boat, sailed down the Danube right to the Black
Sea, explored it thoroughly, found it navigable in every part,
went over to England, studied the principles of the
steam-engine as applied to navigation, brought back English
engineers, formed a company, and at last confounded the
multitude of sceptics, who scoffed at his efforts, by the
sight of a steam-boat on the river in full work. This feat was
accomplished in October, 1830. … In the interval which
followed the dissolution of the diet, Szechenyi still followed
up his plan of reform with unwearied diligence, and owing to
his exertions, a party was now formed which sought not merely
the strict observance of the existing laws, but the reform of
them, the abolition of the unjust privileges of the nobles,
the emancipation of the peasantry, the establishment of a
system of education, the equal distribution of the taxes, the
equality of all religious sects, the improvement of the
commercial code and of internal communication, and though
last, not least, the freedom of the press. These projects were
all strenuously debated, but on this occasion without any
practical result. The next meeting was for a long time
delayed, upon one pretext or another. At last it was convened
in 1832, and proved in many respects one of the most important
that had ever assembled. … The man who in future struggles
was destined to play so prominent a part, during the whole of
these … proceedings, was merely an intent and diligent
looker-on. … He was a gentleman of noble origin, of course,
but his whole fortune lay in his talents, which at that period
were devoted to journalism—a profession which the Hungarians
had not yet learned to estimate at its full value. He was
still but thirty years of age, and within the diet he was
known as a promising young man, although, amongst the world
without, his name—the name of Louis Kossuth, which has since
become a household word in two hemispheres—had never yet been
heard. … Whether from the jealousy of the government or the
apathy of the Magyars, no printed reports of the parliamentary
proceedings had ever yet been published. … To supply this
defect, Kossuth resolved to devote the time, which would
otherwise have been wasted in idle listening, to carefully
reporting everything that took place, and circulated it all
over the country on a small printed sheet. The importance of
the proceedings which then occupied the attention of the diet
caused it to be read with extraordinary eagerness, and Kossuth
rendered it still more attractive by amplifying, and often
even embellishing, the speeches. The cabinet, however, soon
took the alarm, and although the censorship was unknown to the
Hungarian law, prohibited the printing and publication of the
reports. This was a heavy blow, but Kossuth was not baffled.
He instantly gathered round him a great number of young men to
act as secretaries, who wrote out a great number of copies of
the journal, which were then circulated in manuscript
throughout Hungary. The government was completely foiled, and
new ardour was infused into the liberal party. When the
session was at an end he resolved to follow up his plan by
reporting the meetings of the county assemblies, which were
then the scenes of fiery debates. … The government stopped
his journal in the post-office. He then established a staff of
messengers and carriers, who circulated it from village to
village. The enthusiasm of the people was fast rising to a
flame. A crisis was imminent. It was resolved to arrest
Kossuth. … He was seized, and shut up in the Neuhaus, a
prison built at Pesth by Joseph II. He was, however, not
brought to trial till 1839, and was then sentenced to four
years' imprisonment. The charge brought against him was, that
he had circulated false and inaccurate reports; but the real
ground of offence was, as everyone knew, that he had
circulated any reports at all. … Kossuth, after his
liberation from prison, had taken up his abode for a short
period at a watering place called Parad, for the purpose of
recruiting his shattered health, and for a time wholly
abstained from taking any part in public affairs.
{1685}
On the first of January, 1841, however, a printer in Pesth,
named Landerer, obtained permission to publish a journal
entitled 'Pesthi Hirlap,' or the Pesth Gazette. He offered the
editorship to Kossuth, who accepted it, but only on condition
that he should be perfectly untrammelled in the expression of
his opinions. … Kossuth … soon raised the circulation of
his paper to 10,000 copies—an immense number in a country
where the newspaper press had hitherto hardly had a footing.
He made vigorous onslaughts upon the privileges of the
noblesse, and pleaded the cause of the middle and lower
classes unanswerably. … In 1844, owing to a change of
ministry which threw the liberals out of office, he lost the
editorship of the Gazette; but he had kindled a flame which
now blazed fiercely enough of itself."
E. L. Godkin,
History of Hungary,
chapter 21.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1847-1849.
The struggle for National Independence and its failure.
"A strong spirit of nationality had been growing up for many
years, greatly fostered by Louis Kossuth, a newspaper editor.
The old Magyar language, which had been treated as barbarous,
was cultivated. Books and papers were printed in the tongue,
all with the spirit of independence as a country and a race
apart from that of the Austrians. In November, 1847, Ferdinand
V. had opened the Diet in person, and proposed reforms in the
Constitution were put before him. Count Batthyani, Prince
Esterhazy, Kossuth, and others, drew up a scheme which was
laid before the Emperor in the April of 1848, amid the crash
of revolutions, and was assented to by him. But the other
tribes within the kingdom of Hungary, the Rascians and Croats,
began to make separate demands, and to show themselves
stronger than the Magyars and Germans scattered among them. It
was strongly suspected that they were encouraged by the
Austrian powers in order to break down the new Hungarian
constitution. The Hungarian council applied to have their
national troops recalled from Lombardy, where, under Radetzky,
they were preserving the Emperor's power; but this could not
be granted, and only a few foreign regiments, whom they
distrusted, were sent them. Disturbances broke out, and at the
same time the Wallachians in Transylvania rose, and committed
ravages on the property of Hungarians. The confusion was
great, for these insurgents called the constitutional
government of Hungary rebels, and professed to be upholding
the rights of the Emperor, and, on the other hand, the
Hungarian government viewed them as rebels. … Meantime a
high-spirited Croatian officer, Baron Jellachich, had been
appointed Ban of Croatia, and collected forces from among his
wild countrymen to put down the Hungarian rule. … Jellachich
advanced upon Pesth, and thus showed the Government there that
in Ferdinand's eyes they were the rebels. Batthyani resigned,
and Kossuth set himself to raise the people. Jellachich was
defeated, and entered the Austrian states, appearing to menace
Vienna. The effect of this was a tremendous insurrection of
the Viennese, who seized Latour, the minister at war, savagely
murdered him, and hung his body, stripped naked, to a
lamp-post. The Viennese, under the command of the Polish
General Bern, now prepared for a siege, while Windischgrätz
and Jellachich collected a large army of Austrians and
Croatians, besieged the city, stormed it on the 30th of
October, and made an entrance, when all the ringleaders of the
rebellion were treated with great severity. Jellachich then
prepared to lead his Croats into Hungary, which was a very
different matter, since the constitutional government there
had been formed under the sanction and encouragement of
Ferdinand. Kossuth and the rest of the ministry therefore
thought themselves justified in naming a committee of public
safety, and voting the raising of an army of 200,000 men.
Ferdinand V., now an old man, felt himself no longer capable
of coping with all the discordant forces of the empire; a
family council was held at Olmütz, whither the Court had
retired, and it was decided that he should abdicate, and that
his next brother, Francis Charles, should waive his right in
favour of his son, Francis Joseph, a promising and amiable
young man of twenty, who, it was hoped, would conciliate
matters. On December 2d, 1848, the change was made, and the
new Emperor put forth a proclamation, promising constitutional
government, liberty of the press, and all that could conduce
to true freedom, but called on all faithful subjects to
repress the rebellions that were raging in the provinces. Both
in Lombardy and in Hungary this was taken as defiance; indeed,
the Magyars considered that neither the abdication of
Ferdinand, nor the accession of Francis Joseph to their
throne, was valid without the consent of the Diet. Prince
Windischgrätz was sent to reduce them with a considerable
army, while Kossuth showed remarkable ability in getting
together supplies for the Hungarian force, which was commanded
by Generals Bem and Görgei. The difficulties of passing the
mountains in the winter told much against the Austrians,
though a corps of Russians was sent to their assistance. Five
considerable battles were fought in the early spring of 1849,
and in April Windischgrätz was fairly driven across the Danube
out of the country."
C. M. Yonge,
Landmarks of Recent History,
chapter 3, part 5.
"On the 4th of March [1849] a new Imperial Charter was
promulgated at Olmütz, containing many excellent provisions,
but having this fatal defect, that in it Hungary was merged
completely in the Austrian Empire, and all its ancient
institutions obliterated. On the 14th of April the Imperial
Decree was answered by the Declaration of Independence, in
which the Hapsburg dynasty was proclaimed to have forfeited
all right to the Hungarian throne, and to be banished for ever
from the country. Kossuth was appointed Governor, and a new
Ministry was chosen, under the Premiership of M. Szemere, the
late Minister for Home Affairs in the Batthyány Government.
For a while the national army was victorious. … But the
despotic princes of Europe were now recovering from the panic
that had demoralised them and their principles in 1848; the
time had come for absolutism to rally its forces and reassert
itself after the old fashion. Acting on the maxim that 'La
raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure,' the Emperor of
Austria, after previous arrangement with his imperial brother
in St. Petersburg, felt at liberty to disavow and ignore the
arguments for constitutional government which had seemed so
cogent to his predecessor. … In July the Czar's troops a
second time entered Hungary, this time with no disavowal of
political motives, but on the ground that His majesty, having
always reserved to himself entire freedom of action whenever
revolutions in neighboring States should place his own in
danger, was now convinced that the internal security of his
empire was menaced by what was passing and preparing in
Hungary.'
{1686}
… In August, Gorgei, the commander-in-chief of the national
army, who had been nominated Dictator in the place of Kossuth,
was invested with full powers to treat for a peace, and
instructed to act according to the best of his ability to save
the national existence of Hungary. At Vilagós, on the 13th of
August, the Hungarian army, by order of the new Dictator, laid
down their arms, and surrendered—not to the Austrians, but to
the Russian general Rudiger. Thanks to the united efforts of
300,000 of the flower of the Austrian and Russian troops, the
Hungarian rebellion was at an end. … General Haynau presided
over the Bloody Assizes of Pesth and Arad, and the long roll
of Hungarian patriots condemned to death at the hands of the
Austrian hangman was headed by such names as Count Batthyány
and General Damyanics, the wounded leader of the 'Redcaps,'
the famous student brigade. Those who escaped death found a
refuge in England, America, or Turkey, whither they carried
with them bitter memories of wrong and suffering inflicted,
and an undying 'love for the country of their birth. Those
bitter memories have happily died away, under the healing
influence of time, and still more of that great work of
reconciliation which a wise generosity on both sides has
effected between the two countries."
Francis Deak,
Hungarian Statesman: a memoir,
chapter 14.
See, also,
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1849-1850.
Contemplated recognition of the revolutionary government by
the United States.
The Hülsemann Letter of Daniel Webster.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1849-1859.
Completed Emancipation of the peasantry.
Restoration of pure absolutism.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1859.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1856-1868.
Recovery of nationality.
Formation of the dual Austro-Hungarian empire.
In 1856, the Emperor, Francis Joseph, "proclaimed an amnesty
against the political offenders, and in the following year he
decreed the restoration of their estates, and further steps
were taken to study the wishes of the Hungarians. In 1859
other concessions were made, notably as to provincial
Governments in Hungary, and they were given free
administration as to their educational and religious rites in
the Magyar tongue. In 1860 the 'Curia Regia' were reinstated,
and finally, in 1861, the whole Constitution was restored to
Hungary and its dependencies, Transylvania, Croatia, and
Slavonia. The Hungarian Parliament, which had been closed for
so many years, reopened its gates. These concessions, however,
did not satisfy the Magyars, who wanted perfect autonomy for
their country. … The Hungarians refused to pay taxes, which
therefore had to be collected by military aid. In 1865 the
Hungarian Parliament was opened by the Emperor in person, who
gave his assent to the Self-Government of Hungary, but further
details had still to be arranged, and the war which broke out
between Austria, Prussia and Italy in 1866 prevented these
from being carried out. On the strength of the Emperor's
promise to accede to the wishes of his Hungarian subjects, the
Hungarians fought most bravely in Germany and in Italy for the
Austrian cause, but the disorganized system that then existed
in the Austrian army was the cause of their defeat, and the
dissolution of the German confederation, over which Austria
presided for so many years. The final result of this was that
a perfect autonomy for Hungary was reinstated in 1867, and the
Dual System was introduced, by which Hungary received perfect
freedom and independence as to the administration of its
affairs without any interference from Austria, and became, so
to say, a partner in the newly-formed Austro-Hungarian
Monarchy. The Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy, as also
described in the able 'Memoir' on Francis Deák, to which Sir
Mountstuart E. Grant-Duff wrote a preface, is constituted as
follows:
I. The Common Ministry for the Austro-Hungarian monarchy
consists of a Minister for Foreign Affairs, for War, and for
Finance.
II. In each half of the monarchy there is a separate Ministry
of Worship, of Finance, Commerce, Justice, Agriculture, and
National Defence, headed respectively by a Minister-President
of the Council.
III. The Lower House in the Austrian Reichsrath consists of
353 members, in the Hungarian Diet of 444, now chosen in both
cases by direct election.
IV. The Delegations, composed respectively of sixty members
from each half of the monarchy, are elected annually from
amongst their parliamentary representatives of the majority in
each province by the members of the two Houses of the Austrian
and Hungarian Legislatures.
V. The two Delegations, who meet alternately at Vienna and
Budapest, deliberate separately, their discussions being
confined strictly to affairs of common interest, with regard
to which the Delegations have the right to interpellate the
Common Minister and to propose laws or amendments. In case of
disagreement between the two Delegations the question of
policy at issue is discussed by an interchange of written
messages; drawn up in the official language—German or
Hungarian—of the Delegation sending the message, and
accompanied by an authorized translation in the language of
the Delegation to which it is addressed.
VI. If, after the interchange of three successive notes, an
agreement between the two bodies is not arrived at, the
question is put to the vote by ballot without further debate.
The Delegates, of whom in a plenary session there must be an
equal number present from each Delegation, vote individually,
the Emperor-King having the casting vote.
VII. By virtue of the present definition of common affairs,
the cost of the diplomatic service and the army, except the
Honvéds (militia), is defrayed out of the Imperial revenues,
to which Hungary contributes a proportion of 30 per 100.
VIII. With reference to the former, it is stipulated that all
international treaties be submitted to the two Legislatures by
their respective Ministries; with reference to the latter,
that whilst the appointment to the military command of the
whole army, as also to that of the national force of Hungary,
is in the hands of the Sovereign, the settlement of matters
affecting the recruiting, length of service, mobilization, and
pay of the Honvéd army (the militia) remains with the
Hungarian Legislature.
{1687}
IX. Those matters which it is desirable should be subject to
the same legislation, such as customs, indirect taxation,
currency, etc., etc., are regulated by means of treaties,
subject to the approval of the two Legislatures. In cases
where the two parties are unable to come to an agreement, each
retains the right to decide such questions in accordance with
their own special interests.
X. In common affairs, the decisions arrived at by the
Delegations (within the scope of their powers), and sanctioned
by the Sovereign, become thenceforth fundamental laws; each
Ministry is bound to announce them to its respective National
Legislature, and is responsible for their execution.
It should be here mentioned that the late great and lamented
Hungarian statesman, Deák, and also the late Count Beust, have
by their personal efforts contributed a great deal to these
concessions being granted. The Hungarian Parliament was
reopened in 1867, and the late Count Julius Andrássy, … who
escaped to England from the noose of the hangman, became its
Prime Minister. … In 1868 the Emperor and Empress entered in
great state the town of Buda, and were crowned with the
greatest pomp with the Apostolic crown of St. Stephen."
L. Felbermann,
Hungary and its People,
chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
Francis Deak: a memoir,
chapters 26-31.
Count von Beust,
Memoirs,
volume 2, chapter 38.
See, also,
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867,
and FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS: MODERN FEDERATIONS.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1866-1887.
Difficulties and promises of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
Its ambitions in southeastern Europe.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1887.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1894.
Death of Kossuth.
Louis Kossuth, the leader of the revolutionary movement of
1848, died at Turin on the 20th of March, 1894, aged
ninety-two years. He had refused to the end of his life to be
reconciled to the Austro-Hungarian government, or to
countenance the acceptance by the Hungarians of the dual
nationality established by the constitution of 1867, and
remained an exile in Italy. After his death his remains were
brought to Budapest, and their burial, which took place on
Sunday, April 1st, was made the occasion of a great national
demonstration of respect.
----------HUNGARY: End--------
HUNIADES AND THE HUNGARIAN WARS WITH THE TURKS.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458;
and TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.
HUNINGEN, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
HUNKERS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.
----------HUNS: Start--------
HUNS, Gothic account of the.
"We have ascertained that the nation of the Huns, who
surpassed all others in atrocity, came thus into being. When
Filimer, fifth king of the Goths after their departure from
Sweden, was entering Scythia, with his people, as we have
before described, he found among them certain sorcerer-women,
whom they call in their native tongue Aliorumnas (or
Al-runas), whom he suspected and drove forth from the midst of
his army into the wilderness. The unclean spirits that wander
up and down in desert places, seeing these women, made
concubines of them; and from this union sprang that most
fierce people (of the Huns) who were at first little, foul,
emaciated creatures, dwelling among the swamps, and possessing
only the shadow of human speech by way of language. …
Nations whom they would never have vanquished in fair fight
fled horrified from those frightful—faces I can hardly call
them, but rather—shapeless black collops of flesh, with
little points instead of eyes. No hair on their cheeks or
chins gives grace to adolescence or dignity to age, but deep
furrowed scars instead, down the sides of their faces, show
the impress of the iron which with characteristic ferocity
they apply to every male child that is born among them. …
They are little in stature, but lithe and active in their
motions, and especially skilful in riding, broad-shouldered,
good at the use of the bow and arrows, with sinewy necks, and
always holding their heads high in their pride."
Jornandes,
De Rebus Geticis,
translated by T. Hodgkin in Italy and Her Invaders,
book 1, chapter 1.
HUNS:
First appearance in Europe.
See GOTHS: A. D. 376.
HUNS: A. D. 433-453.
The empire of Attila.
After driving the Goths from Dacia, the terrible Huns had
halted in their march westward for something more than a
generation. They were hovering, meantime, on the eastern
frontiers of the empire "taking part like other barbarians in
its disturbances and alliances. Emperors paid them tribute,
and Roman generals kept up a politic or a questionable
correspondence with them. Stilicho had detachments of Huns in
the armies which fought against Alaric; the greatest Roman
soldier after Stilicho,—and, like Stilicho, of barbarian
parentage,—Aetius, who was to be their most formidable
antagonist, had been a hostage and a messmate in their camps.
… About 433, Attila, the son of Mundzukh, like Charles the
Great, equally famous in history and legend, became their
king. Attila was the exact prototype and forerunner of the
Turkish chiefs of the house of Othman. In his profound hatred
of civilized men, in his scorn of their knowledge, their arts,
their habits and religion, and, in spite of this, in his

systematic use of them as his secretaries and officers, in his
rapacity combined with personal simplicity of life, in his
insatiate and indiscriminate destructiveness, in the cunning
which veiled itself under rudeness, in his extravagant
arrogance, and audacious pretensions, in his sensuality, in
his unscrupulous and far-reaching designs, in his ruthless
cruelty joined with capricious displays of generosity, mercy,
and good faith, we see the image of the irreclaimable Turkish
barbarians who ten centuries later were to extinguish the
civilization of [eastern?] Europe. The attraction of Attila's
daring character, and his genius for the war which nomadic
tribes delight in, gave him absolute ascendency over his
nation, and over the Teutonic and Slavonic tribes near him.
Like other conquerors of his race, he imagined and attempted
an empire of ravage and desolation, a vast hunting ground and
preserve, in which men and their works should supply the
objects and zest of the chase."
R. W. Church,
Beginning of the Middle Ages,
chapter 1.
{1688}
"He [Attila] was truly the king of kings; for his court was
formed of chiefs, who, in offices of command, had learned the
art of obedience. There were three brothers of the race of the
Amales, all of them kings of the Ostrogoths; Ardaric, king of
the Gepidæ, his principal confidant; a king of the Merovingian
Franks; kings of the Burgundians, Thuringians, Rugians, and
Heruli, who commanded that part of their nation which had
remained at home, when the other part crossed the Rhine half a
century before."
J. C. L. de Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 7 (volume 1).
"The amount of abject, slavish fear which this little swarthy
Kalmuck succeeded in instilling into millions of human hearts
is not to be easily matched in the history of our race.
Whether he had much military talent may be doubted, since the
only great battle in which he figured was a complete defeat.
The impression left upon us by what history records of him is
that of a gigantic bully, holding in his hands powers
unequalled in the world for ravage and spoliation. … Some
doubt has recently been thrown on the received accounts of the
wide extent of Attila's power. … The prince who felt China
on his left, who threatened Persepolis, Byzantium, Ravenna in
front, who ruled Denmark and its islands in his rear, and who
ultimately appeared in arms on the soil of Champagne on his
right, was no minor monarch, and had his empire been as deep
as it was widespread, he might worthily have taken rank with
Cyrus and Alexander. At the same time it is well to remember
that over far the larger part of this territory Attila's can
have been only an over-lordship, Teutonic, Slavonic, and
Tartar chieftains of every name bearing rule under him. His
own personal government, if government it can be called, may
very likely have been confined nearly within the limits of the
modern Hungary and Transylvania."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 2, chapter 2 (volume 2).
"As far as we may ascertain the vague and obscure geography of
Priscus, this [Attila's] capital appears to have been seated
between the Danube, the Theiss [Teyss] and the Carpathian
hills, in the plains of Upper Hungary, and most probably in
the neighbourhood of Jazberin, Agria, or Tokay. In its origin
it could be no more than an accidental camp, which, by the
long and frequent residence of Attila, had insensibly swelled
into a huge village."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 34.
HUNS: A. D. 441-446.
Attila's attack on the Eastern Empire.
Attila's first assault upon the Roman power was directed
against the Eastern Empire. The court at Constantinople had
been duly obsequious to him, but he found a pretext for war.
"It was pretended that the Roman bishop of Margus had
surreptitiously introduced himself into the sepulchre of the
Hunnic kings and stolen from it the buried treasure. The Huns
immediately fell upon a Roman town during the time of a fair,
and pillaged everything before them, slaying the men and
carrying off the women. To all complaints from Constantinople
the answer was, "The bishop, or your lives.' The emperor
thought, and with reason, that to give up an innocent man to
be massacred would be displeasing to Heaven, would alienate
the clergy, and only appease for a moment the demands of his
merciless enemy. He refused, though timidly and in vague
terms. The Huns replied by scouring Pannonia, laying Sirmium,
its capital, in ruins, and extending their ravages far south
of the Danube to the cities of Naissa and Sardica, upon both
of which they wrought the extremity of their vengeance. A
truce of four years only increased their fury and aggravated
its effects. The war was suddenly recommenced. This time they
reached Thessaly, and renewed with a somewhat similar result
the far-famed passage of Thermopylæ by the hordes of Xerxes.
Two Roman armies were put to complete rout, and seventy cities
levelled to the ground. Theodosius purchased the redemption of
his capital by the cession of territory extending for fifteen
days' journey south of the Danube, by an immediate payment of
6,000 pounds of gold, and the promise of 2,000 more as an
annual tribute."
J. G. Sheppard,
Fall of Rome,
lecture 4.
HUNS: A. D. 451.
Attila's invasion of Gaul.
In the spring of the year 451 Attila moved the great host
which he had assembled in the Hungarian plains westward toward
the Rhine and the provinces of Gaul. He hesitated, it was
said, between the Eastern and Western Empires as the objects
of his attack. But the East had found an emperor, at last, in
Marcian, who put some courage into the state,—who refused
tribute to the insolent Hun and showed a willingness for war.
The West, under Valentinian III. and his mother Placidia, with
the Goths, Vandals, Burgundians and Franks in the heart of its
provinces, seemed to offer the most inviting field of
conquest. Hence Attila turned his horses and their savage
riders to the West. "The kings and nations of Germany and
Scythia, from the Volga perhaps to the Danube, obeyed the
warlike summons of Attila. From the royal village in the
plains of Hungary his standard moved towards the West, and
after a march of seven or eight hundred miles he reached the
conflux of the Rhine and the Neckar, where he was joined by
the Franks who adhered to his ally, the elder of the sons of
Clodion. … The Hercynian forest supplied materials for a
bridge of boats, and the hostile myriads were poured with
resistless violence into the Belgic provinces." At Metz, the
Huns "involved in a promiscuous massacre the priests who
served at the altar and the infants who, in the hour of
danger, had been providently baptized by the bishop; the
flourishing city was delivered to the flames, and a solitary
chapel of St. Stephen marked the place where it formerly
stood. From the Rhine and the Moselle, Attila advanced into
the heart of Gaul, crossed the Seine at Auxerre, and, after a
long and laborious march, fixed his camp under the walls of
Orleans."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 35.
Meantime the energy of the unscrupulous but able Count Aetius,
who ruled the court and commanded the resources of the Western
Empire, had brought about a general combination of the
barbarian forces in Gaul with those of the Romans. It
included, first in importance, the Goths of the kingdom of
Toulouse, under their king Theodoric, and with them the
Burgundians, the Alans, a part of the Franks, and detachments
of Saxons, Armoricans and other tribes. There were Goths, too,
and Franks and Burgundians in the host of the Hun king. The
latter laid siege to Orleans and the walls of the brave city
were already crumbling under his battering rams when the
banners of Aetius and Theodoric came in sight. Attila
retreated beyond the Seine and took a position somewhere
within the wide extent of what were anciently called the
Catalaunian fields, now known as the Champagn country
surrounding Chalons. There, in the early days of July, A. D.
451, was fought the great and terrible battle which rescued
Europe from the all-conquering Tartar.
{1689}
The number of the slain, according to one chronicler, was 162,000;
according to others 300,000. Neither army could claim a
victory; both feared to renew the engagement. The Goths, whose
king Theodoric was slain, withdrew in one direction, to their
own territory; the Huns retreated in the other direction and
quitted Gaul forever. The wily Roman, Aetins, was probably
best satisfied with a result which crippled both Goth and Hun.
As for the battle, its latest historian says: "Posterity has
chosen to call it the battle of Chalons, but there is good
reason to think that it was fought fifty miles distant from
Chalons-sur-Marne, and that it would be more correctly named
the battle of Troyes, or, to speak with complete accuracy, the
battle of Mery-sur-Seine."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 2, chapter 3 (volume 2).
"It was during the retreat from Orleans that a Christian
hermit is reported to have approached the Hunnish king, and
said to him, 'Thou art the Scourge of God for the chastisement
of Christians.' Attila instantly assumed this new title of
terror, which thenceforth became the appellation by which he
was most widely and most fearfully known."
Sir E. Creasy,
Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,
chapter 6.
HUNS: A. D. 452.
Attila's invasion of Italy.
In the summer of 451 Attila, retreating from the bloody plain
of Chalons, recrossed the Rhine and returned to his quarters
in Hungary. There, through the following autumn and winter, he
nursed his chagrin and his wrath, and in the spring of 452 he
set his host in motion again, directing its march to the
Julian Alps and through their passes into Italy. The city of
Aquileia, then prominent in commerce, and prosperous and rich,
was the first to obstruct the savage invasion. The defence of
the city proved so obstinate that Attila was at the point of
abandoning his siege, when a flight of storks, which his
shrewdness construed favorably as an omen, encouraged the Huns
to one more irresistible assault and the doomed town was
carried by storm. "In proportion to the stubbornness of the
defence was the severity of the punishment meted out to
Aquileia. The Roman soldiers were, no doubt, all slain. Attila
was not a man to encumber himself with prisoners. The town was
absolutely given up to the rage, the lust, and the greed of
the Tartar horde who had so long chafed around its walls. …
When the barbarians could plunder no more, they probably used
fire, for the very buildings of Aquileia perished, so that, as
Jornandes tells us, in his time, a century later than the
siege, scarcely the vestiges of it yet remained. A few houses
may have been left standing, and others must have slowly
gathered round them, for the Patriarch of Aquileia retained
all through the middle ages considerable remains of his old
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and a large and somewhat stately
cathedral was reared there in the eleventh century. But the
City of the North Wind never really recovered from the blow.
… The terrible invaders, made more wrathful and more
terrible by the resistance of Aquileia, streamed on through
the trembling cities of Venetia." Patavium (modern Padua),
Altinum and Julia Concordia, were blotted out of existence. At
Vicenza, Verona, Brescia, Bergamo, Pavia and Milan, the towns
were sacked, but spared destruction, and the inhabitants who
did not escape were carried away into captivity. Many of the
fugitives from these towns escaped the Huns by hiding in the
islands and fens of the neighboring Adriatic coast, and out of
the poor fishing villages that they formed there grew, in
time, the great commercial city and republic of Venice. "The
valley of the Po was now wasted to the heart's content of the
invaders. Should they cross the Appennines and blot out Rome
as they had blotted out Aquileia from among the cities of the
world? This was the great question that was being debated in
the Hunnish camp, and strange to say, the voices were not all
for war. Already Italy began to strike that strange awe into
the hearts of her northern conquerors which so often in later
ages has been her best defence. The remembrance of Alaric, cut
off by a mysterious death immediately after his capture of
Rome, was present in the mind of Attila, and was frequently
insisted upon by his counsellors." So, the grim Hun was
prepared by his superstitions to listen to the embassy from
Rome which met him at the Ticino, praying for peace. At the
head of the embassy was the venerable bishop of Rome, Leo
I.—the first of the great Popes. To his influence the pacific
disposition into which Attila was persuaded has been commonly
ascribed. At all events, the king of the Huns consented to
peace with the Romans, and withdrew beyond the Danube in
fulfilment of the treaty, leaving Italy a desert to the
Appennines, but not beyond.
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 2, chapter 4 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 35.
See, also,
VENICE: A. D. 452.
HUNS: A. D. 453.
Death of Attila and fall of his empire.
Attila died suddenly and mysteriously in his sleep, after a
drunken debauch, some time in the early months of the year
453, and his death was the end of the "reign of terror" under
which he had reduced half the world. "Immediately after his
death, the Germans refused to submit to the divided rule of
his sons. The army of Attila split up into two great camps; on
the one side were the Gepidæ and Ostrogoths, with the majority
of the Teutonic nations; on the other the Huns, the Alans, the
Sarmatians or Slavonians, and the few Germans who still owned
allegiance to the memory of Attila. A vast plain between the
Drave and the Danube was selected to decide this vital
struggle, known as the battle of Netad, which, though less
famous in history, may perhaps claim equal importance with
that of Chalons, as an arbiter of the destinies of
civilization. … Fortune at first seemed to favour the Huns;
but German steadfastness prevailed; Goths and Gepidæ scattered
the less-disciplined bands of Asia; and Ardaric, the king of
the latter tribe for the time, established himself in the
royal residence of Attila, and assumed the leading position in
the barbarian world."
J. G. Sheppard,
Fall of Rome,
lecture 4.
"Thirty thousand of the Huns and their confederates lay dead
upon the field, among them Ellak, Attila's first-born. … The
rest of his nation fled away across the Dacian plains, and
over the Carpathian mountains to those wide steppes of
Southern Russia in which at the commencement of our history we
saw the three Gothic nations taking up their abode. Ernak,
Attila's darling, ruled tranquilly under Roman protection in
the district between the lower Danube and the Black Sea, which
we now call the Dobrudscha, and which was then 'the lesser
Scythia.'
{1690}
Others of his family maintained a precarious footing higher up
the stream. … There is nothing in the after-history of these
fragments of the nation with which anyone need concern
himself. … Dacia, that part of Hungary which lies east and
north of the Danube, and which had been the heart of Attila's
domains, fell to the lot of the Gepidae, under the wise and
victorious Ardaric. Pannonia, that is the western portion of
Hungary, with Sclavonia, and parts of Croatia, Styria and
Lower Austria, was ruled over by the three Amal-descended
kings of the Ostrogoths."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).
HUNS:
Attila in Teutonic legend.
"Short as was the sway of Attila (from 434 to 453), the terror
it had inspired and the great commotion it had brought over
the whole Teuton and Roman world, were, not … soon
forgotten. … The memory of the great chieftain hovered for a
long time, like a bloody phantom, in the Roman annals and in
the German sagas. … When we compare the historical Attila,
before whose piercing glance Rome and Constantinople trembled,
with Etzel of the Nibelungen Lied, we find that the latter
bears but a slight resemblance to the former. It is true that
Attila's powerful sway is still reflected in the Nibelungen
Lied, as Kriemhild at her arrival in the land of the Huns is
surprised at seeing so many nations submitted to his sceptre.
Yet upon the whole Etzel plays in the German epic the part of
a weak and sometimes even contemptible king, while glimpses of
his real might can be detected only at rare intervals,
fluttering as it were in the far-distant background of a
by-gone time. … The Eddas and the Volsunga Saga bear the
impress of the early Teutonic era, when the king was little
more than the chosen leader in war; and the Northern people
for a long time had in their political institutions nothing by
which the conception of a great monarchy, or still less of a
far-stretching realm like that of Attila, could be expressed."
G. T. Dippold,
Great Epics of Mediæval Germany,
chapter 4.
----------HUNS: End--------
HUNS, The White.
"It was during the reign of this prince [Varahran V., king of
Persia, A. D. 420-440] that those terrible struggles commenced
between the Persians and their neighbours upon the north-east
which continued, from the early part of the fifth till the
middle of the sixth century, to endanger the very existence of
the empire. Various names are given to the people with whom
Persia waged her wars during this period. They are called
Turks, Huns, sometimes even Chinese; but these terms seem to
be used in a vague way, as 'Scythian' was by the ancients; and
the special ethnic designation of the people appears to be
quite a different name from any of them. It is a name the
Persian form of which is 'Haïthal,' or 'Haïtheleh,' the
Armenian 'Hephthagh,' and the Greek 'Ephthalites,' or
sometimes 'Nephthalites.' … All that we know of the
Ephthalites is, that they were established in force, during
the fifth and sixth centuries of our era, in the regions east
of the Caspian, especially in those beyond the Oxus river, and
that they were generally regarded as belonging to the Scythic
or Finno-Turkic population, which, at any rate from B. C. 200,
had become powerful in that region. They were called 'White
Huns' by some of the Greeks; but it is admitted that they were
quite distinct from the Huns who invaded Europe under Attila.
… They were a light-complexioned race, whereas the Huns were
decidedly swart; they were not ill-looking, whereas the Huns
were hideous; they were an agricultural people, while the Huns
were nomads; they had good laws, and were tolerably well
civilised, but the Huns were savages. It is probable that they
belonged to the Thibetic or Turkish stock."
G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 14.
"We are able to distinguish the two great divisions of these
formidable exiles [the Huns], which directed their march
towards the Oxus and towards the Volga. The first of these
colonies established their dominion in the fruitful and
extensive plains of Sogdiana, on the eastern side of the
Caspian, where they preserved the name of Huns, with the
epithet of Euthalites [Ephthalites], or Nephthalites. Their
manners were softened, and even their features were insensibly
improved, by the mildness of the climate and their long
residence in a flourishing province; which might still retain
a faint impression of the arts of Greece. The White Huns, a
name which they derived from the change of their complexion,
soon abandoned the pastoral life of Scythia. Gorgo, which,
under the appellation of Carizine, has since enjoyed a
temporary splendour, was the residence of the king, who
exercised a legal authority over an obedient people. Their
luxury was maintained by the labour of the Sogdians."
E. Gibbon.
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 26.
The White Huns were subjugated by the Turks.
See TURKS: SIXTH CENTURY.
HUNTER, General David.
Command in Kansas.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
Emancipation Order.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY).
Command in the Shenandoah.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).
HUNTSVILLE, Capture of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: ALABAMA).
HUPAS, OR HOOPAHS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS.
----------HURON, Lake: Start--------
HURON, Lake:
Discovery.
See CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616; and 1634-1673.
HURON, Lake: A. D. 1679.
Navigated by La Salle.
See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.
----------HURON, Lake: End--------
HURONS, OR WYANDOTS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS,
and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
HURST CASTLE, King Charles at.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
HUS AND THE REFORMATION IN BOHEMIA.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415.
HUSCARLS.
See HOUSECARLS.
HUSSARS.
Matthias, son of John Hunyadi, was elected king of Hungary in
1458. "The defence of the country chiefly engaged the
attention of Matthias at the commencement of his reign.
Measures of defence were accordingly carried on with the
utmost speed, the most important of which was the
establishment of regular cavalry; to levy which one man was
enrolled out of every 20 families. This was the origin of the
'Hussar,' meaning in Hungarian the price or due of twenty."
E. Szabad,
Hungary, Past and Present,
page 50.
HUSSEIN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1694-1722.
{1691}
HUSTINGS.
COURT OF HUSTING.
"The 'hygh and auncyent' Court of Husting of the City of
London is of Anglo-Saxon, or, to speak more accurately, of
Scandinavian origin, being a remarkable memorial of the sway
once exercised over England by the Danes and other Northmen.
The name of the Court is derived from [hus], 'a house,' and
[dhing], a thing, 'cause,' or 'council,' and signifies,
according to general acceptation, 'a court held in a house,'
in contradistinction to other 'things,' or courts, which in
Saxon times were usually held in the open air. … The term
'Husting' or, less correctly, 'Hustings' is commonly applied
at the present day to open-air assemblies or temporary courts,
usually held in some elevated position, for the purpose of
electing members of Parliament in counties and boroughs, its
strict etymological meaning, being lost sight of. … [The
Court of Husting] is the oldest court of record within the
City, and at one time constituted the sole court for settling
disputes between citizen and citizen."
R. R. Sharpe,
Introduction to Calendar of Wills,
Court of Husting, London.
HUTCHINSON, Mrs. Anne, and the Antinomian troubles.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638;
and RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
HUTCHINSON, Governor Thomas,
and the outbreak of Revolution in Massachusetts.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765,
NEWS OF THE STAMP ACT; 1772-1773; 1774 (MAY-JUNE).
HWICCAS.
A name borne by the West Saxons who first settled in
Gloucestershire and Worcestershire when that region was
conquered. They led a revolt against the West Saxon king
Ceawlin, in which they were joined by the Britons, or Welsh.
The battle of Wanborough, fought A. D. 591, drove Ceawlin from
the throne.
J. R. Green,
The Making of England,
pages 129-208.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
HYACINTHIA, Feast of the.
"The feast of the Hyacinthia was held annually at Amyclæ
[Lacedæmonia], on the longest day of the Spartan month
Hecatombeus, corresponding to our June and July. …
Hyacinthus, the beautiful youth slain accidentally by Apollo,
was the chief object of the worship. He took his name from the
flower, which was an emblem of death; and the original feast
seems to have been altogether a mournful ceremony,—a
lamentation over the destruction of the flowers of spring by
the summer heat, passing on to a more general lament over
death itself.'
G. Rawlinson,
History of Herodotus,
Note, book 9, section 7.
ALSO IN:
E. Abbott,
History of Greece,
volume 1, page 222.
HYBLA.
"There was a Sikel goddess Hybla, whom the Greeks looked on as
the same with several goddesses of their own mythology, here
with one, there with another. Three towns in Sicily were
called after her, one in the southeastern part of the island,
now Ragusa, another on the coast north of Syracuse, near the
place where the Greek colony of Megara was afterwards planted.
This gave Its name to the Hyblaian hills not far off, famous
for their honey; but there is no hill strictly called Mount
Hybla. The third Hybla is inland, not far from Catania, and is
now called Paterno."
E. A. Freeman,
Story of Sicily,
page 33.
HYDASPES, The.
The ancient name of the river Jelum, or Jhelum, in the Punjab,
on the banks of which the Indian king Porus made a vain
attempt to oppose the invasion of Alexander.
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 53.
HYDER ALI AND TIPPOO SAIB,
English Wars with.
See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769; 1780-1783;
and 1785-1793.
HYDERABAD OR HAIDERABAD,
The Nizam of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748; and 1877.
HY-IVAR, The.
See NORMANS.
NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES, and 10TH-13TH CENTURIES.
HYKSOS, The.
See EGYPT: THE HYKSOS.
HYLLEANS, The.
"The Hylleans are never mentioned in any historical narrative,
but always in mythical [Greek] legends; and they appear to
have been known to the geographers only from mythological
writers. Yet they are generally placed in the islands of
Melita and Black-Corcyra, to the south of Liburnia."
C. O. Müller,
History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
volume 1, introduction.
HYMETTUS.
One of the noted mountains of Attica, "celebrated for its
excellent honey, and the broad belt of flowers at its base,
which scented the air with their delicious perfume."
M. and R. P. Willson,
Mosaics of Grecian History,
page 9.
HY-NIALS AND EUGENIANS.
"As surnames were not generally used, either in Ireland or
anywhere else, till after the 10th century, the great families
are distinguishable at first only by their tribe or clan
names. Thus, at the north we have the Hy-Nial race; in the
south the Eugenian race, so called, from Nial and Eoghan,
their mutual ancestors."
T. D. McGee,
Popular History of Ireland,
book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).
HYPATIA.
See ALEXANDRIA: A.D. 413-415.
HYPERBOREANS, The.
A mythical people, supposed by the ancients to dwell beyond
the north wind, and therefore to enjoy a perfect climate in
the extreme north.
HYPHASIS, The.
The ancient name of the river Sutlej, in the Punjab.
HYRCANIA.
HYRCANIAN SEA.
"The mountain-chain which skirts the Great Plateau [of Iran]
on the north, distinguished in these pages by the name of
Elburz, broadens out after it passes the south-eastern corner
of the Caspian Sea till it covers a space of nearly three
degrees (more than 200 miles). Instead of the single lofty
ridge which separates the Salt Desert from the low Caspian
region, we find between the 54th and 59th degrees of east
longitude three or four distinct ranges, all nearly parallel
to one another, having a general direction of east and west.
… Here in Persian times was settled a people called Hyrcani;
and from them the tract derived the name of Hyrcania
(Vehrkana), while the lake [Caspian Sea] on which it adjoined
came to be known as 'the Hyrcanian Sea.' The fertility of the
region, its broad plains, shady woods, and lofty mountains
were celebrated by the ancient writers."
G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
chapter 1.
"In the inscriptions of the Achæmenids their land [Hyrcania]
is known as Valkana; the modern name is Jorjan. Here,
according to the Greeks, the mountains were covered with
forests of oaks, where swarms of wild bees had their hives; in
the valleys vines and fig-trees flourished, and the soil down
to the sea was so luxuriant that corn grew from the fallen
grains without any special sowing."
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 7, chapter 1.
See, also, PARTHIA.
{1692}
I.
IAPYGIANS, The.
See ITALY, ANCIENT;
also, ŒNOTRIANS.
IAZYGES, OR JAZYGES, The.
See LIMIGANTES.
IBERA, Battle at.
See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.
IBERIANS, The eastern.
"The Sapeires [of Herodotus] appear to be the Iberians of
later writers. The name is found under the various forms of
Saspeires, Sapeires, Sabeires, or Sabeiri, and Abeires, whence
the transition to Iberes is easy. They are always represented
as adjoining on the Colchians to the east and southeast, so
that they must evidently have inhabited the greater part of
the modern province of Georgia. … There is reason to believe
that the modern Georgians—still called 'Virk' by their
neighbours—are their descendants, and preserve, in the
original seat of the nation, a name and a nationality which
have defied the destroying touch of time for more than
twenty-four centuries."
G. Rawlinson,
History of Herodotus,
book 7, appendix 1.
See, also, ALARODIANS.
If these Iberians of the east were connected in race or origin
of name with the Iberians of western Europe, the connection
does not seem to have been traced. Iberia was devastated and
subjugated by the Seljuk Turks in the 11th century.
See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073.
IBERIANS, The western.
"The numerous skulls obtained from Basque cemeteries possess
exactly those characters which have been remarked … in the
Neolithic tombs and caves in Britain and on the Continent, and
may therefore be taken to imply that the Basque-speaking
peoples are to be looked upon as a fragment of the race which
occupied the British isles, and the area west of the Rhine and
north of the Alps, in the Neolithic age. … Nor can there be
any reasonable doubt as to this small, dark-haired people
being identical with the ancient Iberians of history, who have
left their name in the Iberian peninsula [Spain] as a mark of
their former dominion in the west. … In ancient times they
were spread through Spain as far to the south as the Pillars
of Hercules, and as far to the north-east as Germany and
Denmark. The Iberic population of the British Isles was
apparently preserved from contact with other races throughout
the whole of the Neolithic age. On the Continent, however, it
is not so; a new set of men, differing in physical
characteristics from them, make their appearance. … The new
invader is identified by Thurnam and Huxley with the Celtæ of
history. … These two races were in possession of Spain
during the very earliest times recorded in history, the
Iberians occupying the north-western region, and the Celts, or
Gauls, extending in a broad band south of the Pyrenees along
the Mediterranean shore. … In the north the Vascones then,
as now, held the Basque provinces of Spain. The distribution
of these two races in Gaul is similar to that which we have
noted in Spain. … When Cæsar conquered Gaul, the Iberian
Aquitani possessed the region bounded by the river Garonne,
the Cevennes, and the Pyrenees. … An ethnological connection
also between Aquitaine and Brittany (Armorica) may be inferred
from the remark of Pliny, 'Aquitania Armorica ante dicta.' …
Just as the Celts pushed back the Iberian population of Gaul
as far south as Aquitania, and swept round it into Spain, so
they crossed the channel and overran the greater portion of
Britain, until the Silures, identified by Tacitus with the
Iberians, were left only in those fastnesses which were
subsequently a refuge for the Welsh against the English
invaders."
W. B. Dawkins,
Early Man in Britain,
chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
I. Taylor,
Origin of the Aryans,
chapter 2, section 5.
See CELTS; LIGURIANS;
AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES;
AND PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY;
and, also, volume 1, APPENDIX A.
IBERION.
See ALBION.
IBRAHIM,
Caliph, A. D. 744.
Ibrahim, Turkish Sultan, 1640-1649.
ICARIA, Attica.
One of the demes or ancient townships of Attica, where
Icarius, in a Greek legend, was taught the art of wine-making
by Dionysus.
ICARIA, in the Ægean.
An island near Samos and anciently belonging to the Samians,
who used it chiefly for their pasture land.
----------ICELAND: Start--------
ICELAND:
Supposed identity with the Ultima Thule of the ancients.
See THULE.
ICELAND: A. D. 860-1100.
Discovery and Settlement by the Northmen.
A Norse Commonwealth.
Development of the Saga Literature.
See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100.
ICELAND: A. D. 1800-1874.
Political relations with Denmark.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.
----------ICELAND: End--------
ICELANDIC "THING," The.
See THING.
ICENI, The.
See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES; and A. D. 61.
ICONIUM, Sultans of.
See TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1073-1092.
ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY, The.
"Of the controversies that disquieted this age [the eighth
century], the greatest and the most pernicious related to the
worship of sacred images. Originating in Greece, it thence
spread over the East, and the West, producing great harm both
to the state and to the church. The first sparks of it
appeared under Phillippicus Bardanes, who was emperor of the
Greeks near the beginning of this century. With the consent of
the patriarch John, in the year 712, he removed from the
portico of the church of St. Sophia a picture representing the
sixth general council, which condemned the Monothelites, whom
the emperor was disposed to favour; and he sent his mandate to
Rome, requiring all such pictures to be removed out of the
churches. But Constantine, the Roman pontiff, not only
protested against the emperor's edict, but … , having
assembled a council at Rome, he caused the emperor himself to
be condemned as an apostate from the true religion. These
first commotions, however, terminated the next year, when the
emperor was hurled from the throne. Under Leo the Isaurian, a
very heroic emperor, another conflict ensued; which was far
more terrific, severe, and lasting. Leo, unable to bear with
the extravagant superstition of the Greeks in worshipping
religious images, which rendered them a reproach both to the
Jews and the Saracens; in order to extirpate the evil
entirely, issued an edict in the year 726, commanding all
images of saints, with the exception of that of Christ on the
cross, to be removed out of the churches, and the worship of
them to be wholly discontinued and abrogated.
{1693}
… A civil war broke out; first in the islands of the
Archipelago and a part of Asia, and afterwards in Italy. For
the people, either spontaneously, or being so instructed by
the priests and monks, to whom the images were productive of
gain, considered the emperor as an apostate from true
religion. … In Italy, the Roman pontiffs, Gregory II. and
Gregory III., were the principal authors of the revolt. …
The Romans and the other people of Italy who were subjects of
the Greek empire, violated their allegiance, and either
massacred or expelled the viceroys of Leo. Exasperated by
these causes, the emperor contemplated making war upon Italy,
and especially upon the pontiff: but circumstances prevented
him. Hence in the year 730, fired with resentment and
indignation, he vented his fury against images and their
worshippers, much more violently than before. For having
assembled a council of bishops, he deposed Germanus, bishop of
Constantinople, who favoured images, and substituted
Anastasius in his place; commanded that images should be
committed to the flames, and inflicted various punishments
upon the advocates of them. The consequence of this severity
was, that the Christian church was unhappily rent into two
parties; that of the Iconoduli or Iconolatrae, who adored and
worshipped images, and that of the Iconomachi or Iconoclastae,
who would not preserve but destroyed them; and these parties
furiously contended with mutual invectives, abuses, and
assassinations. The course commenced by Gregory II. was warmly
prosecuted by Gregory III., and although we cannot determine
at this distance of time the precise degree of fault in either
of these prelates, thus much is unquestionable, that the loss
of their Italian possessions in this contest by the Greeks, is
to be ascribed especially to the zeal of these two pontiffs in
behalf of images. Leo's son Constantine, surnamed Copronymus
by the furious tribe of Image-worshippers, after he came to
the throne, A. D. 741, trod in his father's steps; for he
laboured with equal vigour to extirpate the worship of images,
in opposition to the machinations of the Roman pontiff and the
monks. Yet he pursued the business with more moderation than
his father had done: and being, aware that the Greeks were
governed entirely by the authority of councils in religious
matters, he collected a council of eastern bishops at
Constantinople in the year 754, to examine and decide this
controversy. By the Greeks this is called the seventh general
council. The bishops pronounced sentence, as was customary,
according to the views of the emperor; and therefore condemned
images. … Leo IV., who succeeded to the throne on the death
of Constantine, A. D. 775, entertained the same views as his
father and grandfather. For when he saw, that the abettors of
images were not to be moved at all by mild and gentle
measures, he coerced them with penal statutes. But Leo IV.
being removed by poison, through the wickedness of his
perfidious wife Irene, in the year 780, images became
triumphant. For that guilty woman, who governed the empire
during the minority of her son Constantine, with a view to
establish her authority, after entering into a league with
Hadrian the Roman pontiff, assembled a council at Nice in
Bithynia in the year 786, which is known by the title of the
second. Nicene council. Here the laws of the emperors,
together with the decrees of the council of Constantinople,
were abrogated; the worship of images and of the cross was
established. … In these contests most of the Latins,—as the
Britons, the Germans, and the French, took middle ground
between the contending parties; for they decided, that images
were to be retained indeed, and to be placed in the churches,
but that no religious worship could be offered to them without
dishonouring the Supreme Being. In particular Charlemagne, at
the suggestion of the French bishops who were displeased with
the Nicene decrees, caused four Books concerning images to be
drawn up by some learned man, and sent them in the year 790 to
the Roman pontiff Hadrian, with a view to prevent his
approving the decrees of Nice. In this work, the arguments of
the Nicene bishops in defence of image-worship, are acutely
and vigorously combated. But Hadrian was not to be taught by
such a master, however illustrious, and therefore issued his
formal confutation of the book. Charlemagne next assembled, in
the year 794, a council of 300 bishops, at Frankfort on the
Maine, in order to re-examine this controversy. This council
approved the sentiments contained in the Books of Charlemagne,
and forbid the worship of images."
J. L. von Mosheim,
Institutes of Ecclesiastical History,
book 3, century 8, part 2, chapter 3 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
P. Schaff,
History of the Christian Church,
volume 4, chapter 10, section 101.
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 49.
G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire,
book 1.
H. F. Tozer,
The Church and the Eastern Empire,
chapter 6.
See, also,
PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.
ICONOCLASTS OF THE NETHERLANDS.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.
ICTIS.
An island off the coast of Britain, to which tin is said to
have been brought from the main shore by natives to be sold to
Greek merchants. Whether it was the Isle of Thanet, at the
mouth of the Thames, or the Isle of Wight, or St. Michael's
Mount, is a disputed question.
IDA, Mount.
See TROJA.
----------IDAHO: Start--------
IDAHO:
The Aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
IDAHO: A. D. 1803.
Was it embraced in the Louisiana Purchase?
Grounds of American possession.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
IDAHO: A. D. 1863.
Organized as a Territory.
The Territory of Idaho was created by an act of
Congress passed March 3, 1863.
IDAHO: A. D. 1890.
Admission to the Union as a State.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.
----------IDAHO: End--------
IDES.
See CALENDAR, JULIAN.
IDLE, Battle of the.
Fought A. D. 617, between the East English, or East Angles,
and the Northumbrians; the former victorious.
IDOMENE, Battle of.
One of the battles of the Peloponnesian War, in which the
Ambrakiots were surprised and almost totally destroyed by
Messenians and Akarnanians, under the Athenian general
Demosthenes, B. C. 426.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 51 (volume 6).
IDSTEDT, Battle of (1850).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.
IDUMEANS, The.
See EDOMITES.
IERNE.
See IRELAND: THE NAME.
{1694}
IGANIE, Battle of (1831).
See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.
IGUALA, The Plan of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.
IGUALADA, Battle of (1809).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).
IKENILD-STRETE.
See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.
ILA.
ILARCH.
The Spartan boys were divided into companies, according to
their several ages; each company was called an Ila, and was
commanded by a young officer called an Ilarch.
G. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 1.
ILERDA.
Modern Lerida, in Spain, the scene of Cæsar's famous campaign
against Afranius and Petreius, in the civil war.
See ROME: B. C. 49.
ILIAD, The.
See HOMER.
ILIUM.
See TROJA.
ILKHANS, The.
See PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.
ILLINOIA,
The proposed State of.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.
----------ILLINOIS: Start--------
ILLINOIS:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS,
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and ILLINOIS.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1673.
Traversed by Marquette and Joliet.
See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1679-1682.
LaSalle's fort and colony.
See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1679-1735.
The French occupation.
See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1700-1750.
The "Illinois country" under the French.
"For many years the term 'Illinois country' embraced all the
region east of the Upper Mississippi as far as Lake Michigan,
and from the Wisconsin on the north to the Ohio on the south.
The extent of the Illinois country under the French varied but
little from the extent of the present State of Illinois. At a
later date, its limits on the east were restricted by the
'Wabash country,' which was erected into a separate
government, under the commandant of 'Post St. Vincent,'on the
Wabash River. … The early French on the Illinois were
remarkable for their talent of ingratiating themselves with
the warlike tribes around them, and for their easy
amalgamation in manners and customs, and blood. … Their
settlements were usually in the form of small, compact,
patriarchal villages, like one great family assembled around
their old men and patriarchs."
J. W. Monette,
History of the Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of
the Mississippi,
volume 1, pages 181-183.
See, also, LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1751.
Settlements and population.
"Up to this time, the 'Illinois country,' east of the Upper
Mississippi, contained six distinct settlements, with their
respective villages. These were:
1. Cahokia, near the mouth of Cahokia Creek, and nearly five
miles below the present site of St. Louis;
2. St. Philip, forty-five miles below the last, and four miles
above Fort Chartres, on the cast side of the Mississippi;
3. Fort Chartres, on the east bank of the Mississippi, twelve
miles above Kaskaskia;
4. Kaskaskia, situated upon the Kaskaskia River, five miles
above its mouth, upon a peninsula, and within two miles of the
Mississippi River;
5. Prairie du Rocher, near Fort Chartres;
6. St. Geneviève, on the west side of the Mississippi, and
about one mile from its bank, upon Gabarre Creek.
These are among the oldest towns in what was long known as the
Illinois country. Kaskaskia, in its best days, under the
French regime, was quite a large town, containing 2,000 or
3,000 inhabitants. But after it passed from the crown of
France, its population for many years did not exceed 1,500
souls. Under the British dominion the population decreased to
460 souls, in 1773."
J. W. Monette,
History of the Discovery and Settlement
of the Mississippi Valley,
volume 1, pages 167-168.
"The population of the French and Indian villages in the
district of the Illinois, at the period of which we write, is
largely a matter of conjecture and computation. Father Louis
Vivier, a Jesuit missionary, in a letter dated June 8, 1750,
and written from the vicinity of Fort Chartres, says: 'We have
here whites, negroes, and Indians, to say nothing of the
cross-breeds. There are five French villages, and three
villages of the natives within a space of twenty-five
leagues, situate between the Mississippi and another river
called (Kaskaskia). In the French villages are, perhaps,
eleven hundred whites, three hundred blacks, and sixty red
slaves or savages. The three Illinois towns do not contain
more than eight hundred souls, all told.' This estimate does
not include the scattered French settlers or traders north of
Peoria, nor on the Wabash. It is stated that the Illinois
nation, then dwelling for the most part along the river of
that name, occupied eleven different villages, with four or
five fires at each village, and each fire warming a dozen
families, except at the principal village, where there were
three hundred lodges. These data would give us something near
eight thousand as the total number of the Illinois of all
tribes."
J. Wallace,
History of Illinois and Louisiana under the French Rule,
chapter 16.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1763.
Cession to Great Britain.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1763.
The king's proclamation excluding settlers.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.
Possession taken by the English.
"The French officers had, since the peace, been ready loyally
to surrender the country to the English. But the Illinois, the
Missouri, and the Osage tribes would not consent. At a council
held in the spring of 1765, at Fort Chartres, the chief of the
Kaskaskias, turning to the English officer, said: 'Go hence,
and tell your chief that the Illinois and all our brethren
will make war on you if you come upon our lands.' … But when
Fraser, who arrived from Pittsburg, brought proofs that their
elder brothers, the Senecas, the Delawares and the Shawnees,
had made peace with the English, the Kaskaskias said: 'We
follow as they shall lead.' 'I waged this war,' said Pontiac,
'because, for two years together, the Delawares and Shawnees
begged me to take up arms against the English. So I became
their ally, and was of their mind;' and, plighting his word

for peace, he kept it with integrity. A just curiosity may ask
how many persons of foreign lineage had gathered in the valley
of the Illinois since its discovery by the missionaries.
Fraser was told that there were of white men, able to bear
arms, 700; of white women, 500; of their children, 850; of
negroes of both sexes, 900. The banks of the Wabash, we learn
from another source, were occupied by about 110 French
families, most of which were at Vincennes.
{1695}
Fraser sought to overawe the French traders with the menace of
an English army that was to come among them; but they pointed
to the Mississippi, beyond which they would be safe from
English jurisdiction [France having ceded to Spain her
territory on the western side of the river]. … With Croghan,
an Indian agent, who followed from Fort Pitt, the Illinois
nations agreed that the English should take possession of all
the posts which the French formerly held; and Captain
Stirling, with 100 men of the 42d regiment, was detached down
the Ohio, to relieve the French garrison. At Fort Chartres,
St. Ange, who had served for fifty years in the wilderness,
gave them a friendly reception; and on the morning of the 10th
of October he surrendered to them the left bank of the
Mississippi. Some of the French crossed the river, so that at
St. Genevieve there were at least five-and-twenty families,
while St. Louis, whose origin dates from the 15th of February
1764, and whose skilfully chosen site attracted the admiration
of the British commander, already counted about twice that
number, and ranked as the leading settlement on the western
side of the Mississippi. In the English portion of the distant
territory, the government then instituted was the absolute
rule of the British army, with a local judge to decide all
disputes among the inhabitants according to the customs of the
country, yet subject to an appeal to the military chief."
G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision),
volume 3, pages 151-152.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765-1774.
Early years of English rule.
"Just before and during the first years of the English
domination, there was a large exodus of the French inhabitants
from Illinois. Such, in fact, was their dislike of British
rule that fully one-third of the population, embracing the
wealthier and more influential families, removed with their
slaves and other personal effects, beyond the Mississippi, or
down that river to Natchez and New Orleans. Some of them
settled at Ste. Genevieve, while others, after the example set
by St. Ange, took up their abode in the village of St. Louis,
which had now become a depot for the fur company of Louisiana.
… At the close of the year 1765, the whole number of
inhabitants of foreign birth or lineage, in Illinois,
excluding the negro slaves, and including those living at Post
Vincent on the Wabash, did not much exceed two thousand
persons; and, during the entire period of British possession,
the influx of alien population hardly more than kept pace with
the outflow. Scarcely any Englishmen, other than the officers
and troops composing the small garrisons, a few enterprising
traders and some favored land speculators, were then to be
seen in the Illinois, and no Americans came hither, for the
purpose of settlement, until after the conquest of the country
by Colonel Clark. All the settlements still remained
essentially French, with whom there was no taste for
innovation or change. But the blunt and sturdy Anglo-American
had at last gained a firm foot-hold on the banks of the great
Father of Rivers, and a new type of civilization, instinct
with energy, enterprise and progress, was about to be
introduced into the broad and fertile Valley of the
Mississippi. … Captain Thomas Stirling began the military
government of the country on October 10, 1765, with fair and
liberal concessions, calculated to secure the good-will and
loyalty of the French-Canadians, and to stay their further
exodus; but his administration was not of long duration. On
the 4th of the ensuing December, he was succeeded by Major
Robert Farmer, who had arrived from Mobile with a detachment
of the 34th British infantry. In the following year, after
exercising an arbitrary authority over these isolated and
feeble settlements, Major Farmer was displaced by Colonel
Edward Cole, who had commanded a regiment under Wolfe, at
Quebec. Colonel Cole remained in command at Fort Chartres
about eighteen months; but the position was not congenial to
him. … He was accordingly relieved at his own request, early
in the year 1768. His successor was Colonel John Reed, who
proved a bad exchange for the poor colonists. He soon became
so notorious for his military oppressions of the people that
he was removed, and gave place to Lieutenant-Colonel John
Wilkins, of the 18th, or royal regiment of Ireland, who had
formerly commanded at Fort Niagara. Colonel Wilkins arrived
from Philadelphia and assumed the command September 5, 1768.
He brought out with him seven companies of his regiment for
garrison duty. … One of the most noticeable features of
Colonel Wilkins' administration was the liberality with which
he parceled out large tracts of the domain over which he ruled
to his favorites in Illinois, Philadelphia, and elsewhere,
without other consideration than requiring them to re-convey
to him a certain interest in the same. Lieutenant Colonel
Wilkins' government of the Illinois country eventually became
unpopular, and specific charges were preferred against him,
including a misappropriation of the public funds. He asked for
an official investigation, claiming that he was able to
justify his public conduct. But he was deposed from office in
September, 1771, and sailed for Europe in July of the
following year. Captain Hugh Lord, of the 18th regiment,
became Wilkins' successor at Fort Chartres, and continued in
command until the year 1775. … On the 2d of June, 1774,
Parliament passed an act enlarging and extending the province
of Quebec to the Mississippi River so as to include the
territory of the Northwest. … Who was the immediate
successor of Captain Lord in command of the Illinois is not
positively determined."
J. Wallace,
History of Illinois and Louisiana Under the French Rule,
chapter 20.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1774.
Embraced in the Province of Quebec.
See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1778-1779.
Conquest from the British by the Virginian General Clark and
annexation to the Kentucky District of Virginia.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779,
CLARK'S CONQUEST.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1784.
Included in the proposed states of Assenisipia, Illinoia, and
Polypotamia.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1785-1786.
Partially covered by the western land claims of Massachusetts
and Connecticut, ceded to the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1787.
The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1809.
Detached from Indiana and organized as a distinct Territory.
See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.
{1696}
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1818.
Admission into the Union as a State.
See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818;
and WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.
The Black Hawk War.
"In 1830 a treaty was made with the tribes of Sacs and Foxes,
by which their lands in Illinois were ceded to the United
States. They were nevertheless unwilling to leave their
country. … Black Hawk, a chief of the Sacs, then about 60
years of age, refused submission, and the next year returned
with a small force. He was driven back by the troops at Rock
Island, but in March, 1832, he reappeared, at the head of
about 1,000 warriors,—Sacs, Foxes, and Winnebagos,—and
penetrated into the Rock river valley, declaring that he came
only to plant corn. But either he would not or could not
restrain his followers, and the devastation of Indian warfare
soon spread among the frontier settlements. … The force at
Rock Island was sent out to stay these ravages, and Generals
Scott and Atkinson ordered from Buffalo with a reënforcement,
which on the way was greatly diminished by cholera and
desertions. The Governor of Illinois called for volunteers,
and an effective force of about 2,400 men was soon marched
against the enemy. Black Hawk's band fled before it. General
Whiteside, who was in command, burned the Prophet's Town, on
Rock River, and pursued the Indians up that stream. … The
Indians were overtaken and badly defeated on Wisconsin River;
and the survivors, still retreating northward, were again
overtaken near Bad Axe River, on the left bank of the
Mississippi. … Many of the Indians were shot in the water
while trying to swim the stream; others were killed on a
little island where they sought refuge. Only about 50
prisoners were taken, and most of these were squaws and
children. The dispersion was complete, and the war was soon
closed by the surrender or capture of Black Hawk, Keokuk, and
other chiefs."
W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
Popular History of the United States,
volume 4, chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
T. Ford,
History of Illinois,
chapters 4-5.
J. B. Patterson, editor,
History of Black Hawk, dictated by himself.
Wisconsin Historical Society Collections,
volume 10.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1840-1846.
The settlement and the expulsion of the Mormons.
See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846; and 1846-1848.
----------ILLINOIS: End--------
ILLUMINATI, The.
See ROSICRUCIANS.
ILLYRIA, Slavonic settlement of.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, ETC.).
ILLYRIAN PROVINCES OF NAPOLEON.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
ILLYRIANS, The.
"Northward of the tribes called Epirotic lay those more
numerous and widely extended tribes who bore the general name
of Illyrians, bounded on the west by the Adriatic, on the east
by the mountain-range of Skardus, the northern continuation of
Pindus, and thus covering what is now called Middle and Upper
Albania, together with the more northerly mountains of
Montenegro, Herzegovina, and Bosnia. Their limits to the north
and north-east cannot be assigned. … Appian and others
consider the Liburnians and Istrians as Illyrian, and
Herodotus even includes under that name the Eneti or Veneti at
the extremity of the Adriatic Gulf. … The Illyrians
generally were poor, rapacious, fierce and formidable in
battle. They shared with the remote Thracian tribes the custom
of tattooing their bodies and of offering human sacrifices:
moreover, they were always ready to sell their military
service for hire, like the modern Albanian Schkipetars, in
whom probably their blood yet flows, though with considerable
admixture from subsequent immigrations. Of the Illyrian
kingdom on the Adriatic coast, with Skodra (Scutari) for its
capital city, which became formidable by its reckless piracies
in the third century B. C., we hear nothing in the flourishing
period of Grecian history."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 25 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 6.
ILLYRICUM OF THE ROMANS.
"The provinces of the Danube soon acquired the general
appellation of Illyricum, or the Illyrian frontier, and were
esteemed the most warlike of the empire; but they deserve to
be more particularly considered under the names of Rhætia,
Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia, Dacia, Mœsia, Thrace, Macedonia,
and Greece. … Dalmatia, to which the name of Illyricum more
properly belonged, was a long but narrow tract, between the
Save and the Adriatic. … The inland parts have assumed the
Sclavonian names of Croatia and Bosnia."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 1.
See, also, ROME: A. D. 394-305.
IMAGE-BREAKING IN THE NETHERLANDS.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.
IMAMS.
THE IMAMATE.
"When an assembly of Moslems meet together for prayer, an Imam
is chosen, who leads the prayer, and the congregation regulate
their motions by his, prostrating themselves when he does so,
and rising when he rises. In like manner, the khalif is set up
on high as the Imam, or leader of the Faithful, in all the
business of life. He must be a scrupulous observer of the law
himself, and diligent in enforcing it upon others. The
election of an Imam is imperative. … The qualities requisite
in an Imam are four: knowledge, integrity, mental and physical
soundness. … Among strict Moslems, it is a doctrine that
Islam has been administered by only four veritable Imams—the
'rightly-guided khalifs': Abou Bekr, Omar, Othman, and Ali.
But the Muhammadan world, in general, was not so exacting.
They recognized the Commander of the Faithful in the prince
who ruled with the title of khalif in Damascus or Baghdad, in
Cordova or Kairo. The one condition absolutely essential was
that the sovereign thus reigning should be a
member of the tribe of Kuraish [or Koreish]."
R. D. Osborn,
Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad,
part 3, chapter 1.
See, also, ISLAM.
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE VIRGIN MARY,
Promulgation of the Dogma of the.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1854.
IMMÆ, Battle of (A. D. 217).
See ROME: A. D. 192-284.
IMMORTALS, The.
A select corps of cavalry in the army of the Persians, under
the Sassanian kings, bore this name. It numbered 10,000.
----------IMPEACHMENT: Start--------
IMPEACHMENT:
Acquisition of the right by the English House of Commons.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1413-1422.
{1697}
IMPEACHMENT:
Revival of the right.
In the English Parliament of 1620-21 (reign of James I.), "on
the motion of the Ex-Chief Justice, Sir Edward Coke, a
committee of inquiry into grievances had been early appointed.
The first abuse to which their attention was directed was that
of monopolies, and this led to the revival of the ancient
right of parliamentary impeachment—the solemn accusation of
an individual by the Commons at the bar of the Lords—which
had lain dormant since the impeachment of the Duke of Suffolk
in 1449. Under the Tudors impeachments had fallen into disuse,
partly through the subservience of the Commons, and partly
through the preference of those sovereigns for bills of
attainder, or of pains and penalties. Moreover, the power
wielded by the Crown through the Star Chamber enabled it to
inflict punishment for many state offences without resorting
to the assistance of Parliament. With the revival of the
spirit of liberty in the reign of James I., the practice of
impeachment revived also, and was energetically used by the
Commons in the interest alike of public justice and of popular
power."
T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 13.
----------IMPEACHMENT: End--------
IMPEACHMENTS:
Warren Hastings.
See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1795.
President Johnson.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (MARCH-MAY)
Strafford.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.
----------IMPERATOR: Start--------
IMPERATOR.
"There can be no doubt that the title Imperator properly
signifies one invested with Imperium, and it may very probably
have been assumed in ancient times by every general on whom
Imperium had been bestowed by a Lex Curiata. It is, however,
equally certain, that in those periods of the republic with
the history and usages of which we are most familiar, the
title Imperator was not assumed as a matter of course by those
who had received Imperium, but was, on the contrary, a much
valued and eagerly coveted distinction. Properly speaking, it
seems to have been in the gift of the soldiers, who hailed
their victorious leader by this appellation on the field of
battle; but occasionally, especially towards the end of the
commonwealth, it was conferred by a vote of the Senate. …
But the designation Imperator was employed under the empire in
a manner and with a force altogether distinct from that which
we have been considering. On this point we have the distinct
testimony of Dion Cassius (xliii. 44, comp. liii. 17), who
tells us that, in B. C. 46, the Senate bestowed upon Julius
Cæsar the title of Imperator, not in the sense in which it had
hitherto been applied, as a term of military distinction, but
as the peculiar and befitting appellation of supreme power,
and in this signification it was transmitted to his
successors, without, however, suppressing the original import
of the word. … Imperator, when used to denote supreme power,
comprehending in fact the force of the titles Dictator and
Rex, is usually, although not invariably, placed before the
name of the individual to whom it is applied."
W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 5.
See, also,
ROME: B. C. 45-44.
IMPERATOR:
Final Signification of the Roman title.
"When the Roman princes had lost sight of the senate and of
their ancient capital, they easily forgot the origin and
nature of their legal power. The civil offices of consul, of
proconsul, of censor, and of tribune, by the union of which it
had been formed, betrayed to the people its republican
extraction. Those modest titles were laid aside; and if they
still distinguished their high station by the appellation of
Emperor, or Imperator, that word was understood in a new and
more dignified sense, and no longer denoted the general of the
Roman armies, but the sovereign of the Roman world. The name
of Emperor, which was at first of a military nature, was
associated with another of a more servile kind. The epithet of
Dominus, or Lord, in its primitive signification, was
expressive, not of the authority of a prince over his
subjects, or of a commander over his soldiers, but of the
despotic power of a master over his domestic slaves. Viewing
it in that odious light, it had been rejected with abhorrence
by the first Cæsars. Their resistance insensibly became more
feeble, and the name less odious; till at length the style of
'our Lord and Emperor' was not only bestowed by flattery, but
was regularly admitted into the laws and public monuments."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 13.
See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.
----------IMPERATOR: End--------
IMPERIAL CHAMBER, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
IMPERIAL CITIES OF GERMANY.
See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
and (as affected by the Treaties of Westphalia)
GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
IMPERIAL FEDERATION.
See FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: BRITANNIC FEDERATION.
IMPERIAL INDICTIONS.
See INDICTIONS.
IMPERIUM, The.
"The supreme authority of the magistrates [in the Roman
Republic], the 'imperium,' embraced not only the military but
also the judicial power over the citizens. By virtue of the
imperium a magistrate issued commands to the army, and by
virtue of the imperium he sat in judgment over his
fellow-citizens."
W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 6, chapter 5 (volume 4).
IMPEY, Sir Elijah, Macaulay's injustice to.
See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.
IMPORTANTS, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.
IMPRESSMENT OF AMERICAN SEAMEN BY BRITISH NAVAL OFFICERS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.
INCAS, OR YNCAS, The.
See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.
INCUNABULA.
See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.
INDEPENDENCE, MO.,
Confederate capture of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
INDEPENDENCE DAY.
The anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence,
adopted July 4, 1776.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).
INDEPENDENCE HALL.
The Liberty Bell.
The hall in the old State House of Pennsylvania, at
Philadelphia, within which the Declaration of American
Independence was adopted and promulgated by the Continental
Congress, on the 4th of July, 1776. The venerable State House,
which was erected between 1729 and 1734, is carefully
preserved, and the "Hall of Independence is kept closed,
except when curious visitors seek entrance, or some special
occasion opens its doors to the public.
{1698}
Nothing now remains of the old furniture of the hall except
two antique mahogany chairs, covered with red leather, one of
which was used by Hancock as president, and the other by
Charles Thomson as secretary of Congress, when the Declaration
of Independence was adopted. … I ascended to the steeple,
where hangs, in silent grandeur, the Liberty Bell. It is four
feet in diameter at the lip, and three inches thick at the
heaviest part. Its tone is destroyed by a crack, which extends
from the lip to the crown, passing directly through the names
of the persons who cast it. An attempt was made to restore
the tone by sawing the crack wider, but without success. …
The history of this bell is interesting. In 1752, a bell for
the State House was imported from England. On the first
trial-ringing, after its arrival, it was cracked. It was
recast by Pass and Stow, of Philadelphia, in 1753, under the
direction of Isaac Norris, Esq., the then speaker of the
Colonial Assembly. And that is the bell, 'the greatest in
English America,' which now hangs in the old State House
steeple and claims our reverence. Upon fillets around its
crown, cast there twenty-three years before the Continental
Congress met in the State House, are the words of Holy Writ:
'Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the
inhabitants thereof.' How prophetic! Beneath that very bell
the representatives of the thirteen colonies 'proclaimed
liberty.' Ay, and when the debates were ended, and the result
was announced, on the 4th of July, 1776, the iron tongue of
that very bell first 'proclaimed liberty throughout all the
land, unto all the inhabitants thereof,' by ringing out the
joyful annunciation for more than two hours."
B. J. Lossing,
Field-book of the Revolution,
volume 2, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,
History of Philadelphia,
volume I, chapters 15 and 17.
INDEPENDENT REPUBLICANS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.
----------INDEPENDENTS: Start--------
INDEPENDENTS, OR SEPARATISTS:
Their origin and opinions.
"The Puritans continued members of the church, only pursuing
courses of their own in administering the ordinances, and it
was not till about the middle of the reign of Elizabeth that
the disposition was manifested among them to break away from
the church altogether, and to form communities of their own.
And then it was but a few of them who took this course: the
more sober part remained in the church. The communities of
persons who separated themselves were formed chiefly in
London: there were very few in the distant counties, and those
had no long continuance. It was not till the time of the Civil
Wars that such bodies of Separatists, as they were called, or
Congregationalists, or Independents, became numerous. At first
they were often called Brownist churches, from Robert Brown, a
divine of the time, who was for a while a zealous maintainer
of the duty of separation."
J. Hunter,
The Founders of New Plymouth,
pages 12-13.
"The peculiar tenet of Independency … consists in the belief
that the only organization recognised in the primitive Church
was that of the voluntary association of believers into local
congregations, each choosing its own office-bearers and
managing its own affairs, independently of neighbouring
congregations, though willing occasionally to hold friendly
conferences with such neighbouring congregations, and to
profit by the collective advice. Gradually, it is asserted,
this right or habit of occasional friendly conference between
neighbouring congregations had been mismanaged and abused,
until the true independency of each voluntary society of
Christians was forgotten, and authority came to be vested in
Synods or Councils of the office-bearers of the churches of a
district or province. This usurpation of power by Synods or
Councils, it is said, was as much a corruption of the
primitive Church-discipline as was Prelacy itself. … So, I
believe, though with varieties of expression, English
Independents argue now. But, while they thus seek the original
warrant for their clews in the New Testament and in the
practice of the primitive Church, … they admit that the
theory of Independency had to be worked out afresh by a new
process of the English mind in the 16th and 17th centuries,
and they are content, I believe, that the crude immediate
beginning of that process should be sought in the opinions
propagated, between 1580 and 1590, by the erratic Robert
Brown, a Rutlandshire man, bred at Cambridge, who had become a
preacher at Norwich. … Though Brown himself had vanished
from public view since 1590, the Brownists, or Separatists, as
they were called, had persisted in their course, through
execration and persecution, as a sect of outlaws beyond the
pale of ordinary Puritanism, and with whom moderate Puritans
disowned connexion or sympathy. One hears of considerable
numbers of them in the shires of Norfolk and Essex, and
throughout Wales; and there was a central association of them
in London, holding conventicles in the fields, or shifting
from meeting-house to meeting-house in the suburbs, so as to
elude Whitgift's ecclesiastical police. At length, in 1592,
the police broke in upon one of the meetings of the London
Brownists at Islington. … There ensued a vengeance far more
ruthless than the Government dared against Puritans in
general. Six of the leaders were brought to the scaffold. …
Among the observers of these severities was Francis Bacon,
then rising into eminence as a politician and lawyer. His
feeling on the subject was thus expressed at the time: 'As for
those which we call Brownists, being, when they were at the
most, a very small number of very silly and base people here
and there in corners dispersed, they are now (thanks be to
God), by the good remedies that have been used, suppressed and
worn out, so as there is scarce any news of them.' … Bacon
was mistaken in supposing that Brownism was extinguished.
Hospitable Holland received and sheltered what England cast
out."
D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 2, book 4, sections 1-2.
"The name 'Brownist' had never been willingly borne by most of
those who had accepted the distinguishing doctrine of the
heresiarch to whom it related. Nor was it without reason that
a distinction was alleged, and a new name preferred, when,
relaxing the offensive severity of Brown's system, some who
had adopted his tenet of the absolute independence of churches
came to differ from him respecting the duty of avoiding and
denouncing dissentients from it as rebellious, apostate,
blasphemous, antichristian and accursed.
{1699}
To this amendment of 'Brownism' the mature reflections and
studies of the excellent Robinson of Leyden conducted him; and
with reference to it he and his followers were sometimes
called 'Semi-separatists.' Such a deference to reason and to
charity gave a new position and attractiveness to the sect,
and appears to have been considered as entitling Robinson to
the character of 'father of the Independents.' Immediately on
the meeting of the Long Parliament [1640], 'the Brownists, or
Independents, who had assembled in private, and shifted from
house to house for twenty or thirty years, resumed their
courage, and showed themselves in public.' During this period
of the obscurity of a sect which, when arrived at its full
vigor, was to give law to the mother country, the history of
the progress of its principles is mainly to be sought in New
England. … Their opponents and their votaries alike referred
to Massachusetts as the source of the potent element which had
made its appearance in the religious politics of England."
J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
book 2, chapter 2 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 2, chapters 1, 2 and 7.
L. Bacon,
Genesis of the New England Churches.
B. Hanbury,
Historical Memorials of the Independents,
volume 1.
G. Punchard,
History of Congregationalism,
volume 3.
H. M. Dexter,
The Congregationalism of the last 300 Years,
lectures 1-5.
See, also,
ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640, and PURITANS:
IN DISTINCTION FROM THE INDEPENDENTS, OR SEPARATISTS.
INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.
The church at Scrooby and its migration to Holland.
"The flimsiness of Brown's moral texture prevented him from
becoming the leader in the Puritan exodus to New England. That
honour was reserved for William Brewster, son of a country
gentleman who had for many years been postmaster at Scrooby."
After King James' Hampton Court Conference with the Puritan
divines, in 1604, and his threatening words to them,
nonconformity began to assume among the churches more
decidedly the form of secession. "The key-note of the conflict
was struck at Scrooby. Staunch Puritan as he was, Brewster had
not hitherto favoured the extreme measures of the Separatists.
Now he withdrew from the church, and gathered together a
company of men and women who met on Sunday for divine service
in his own drawing-room at Scrooby Manor. In organizing this
independent Congregationalist society, Brewster was powerfully
aided by John Robinson, a native of Lincolnshire. Robinson was
then thirty years of age, and had taken his master's degree at
Cambridge in 1600. He was a man of great learning and rare
sweetness of temper, and was moreover distinguished for a
broad and tolerant habit of mind too seldom found among the
Puritans of that day. Friendly and unfriendly writers alike
bear witness to his spirit of Christian charity and the
comparatively slight value which he attached to orthodoxy in
points of doctrine; and we can hardly be wrong in supposing
that the comparatively tolerant behaviour of the Plymouth
colonists, whereby they were contrasted with the settlers of
Massachusetts, was in some measure due to the abiding
influence of the teachings of this admirable man. Another
important member of the Scrooby congregation was William
Bradford, of the neighbouring village of Austerfield, then a
lad of seventeen years, but already remarkable for maturity of
intelligence and weight of character, afterward governor of
Plymouth for nearly thirty years, he became the historian of
his colony; and to his picturesque chronicle, written in pure
and vigorous English, we are indebted for most that we know of
the migration that started from Scrooby and ended in Plymouth.
It was in 1606—two years after King James's truculent
threat—that this independent church of Scrooby was organized.
Another year had not elapsed before its members had suffered
so much at the hands of officers of the law, that they began
to think of following the example of former heretics and
escaping to Holland. After an unsuccessful attempt in the
autumn of 1607, they at length succeeded a few months later in
accomplishing their flight to Amsterdam, where they hoped to
find a home. But here they found the English exiles who had
preceded them so fiercely involved in doctrinal controversies,
that they decided to go further in search of peace and quiet:
This decision, which we may ascribe to Robinson's wise
counsels, served to keep the society of Pilgrims from getting
divided and scattered. They reached Leyden in 1609, just as
the Spanish government had sullenly abandoned the hopeless
task of conquering the Dutch, and had granted to Holland the
Twelve Years Truce. During eleven of these twelve years the
Pilgrims remained in Leyden, supporting themselves by various
occupations, while their numbers increased from 300 to more
than 1,000. … In spite of the relief from persecution,
however, the Pilgrims were not fully satisfied with their new
home. The expiration of the truce with Spain might prove that
this relief was only temporary; and at any rate, complete
toleration did not fill the measure of their wants. Had they
come to Holland as scattered bands of refugees, they might
have been absorbed into the Dutch population, as Huguenot
refugees have been absorbed in Germany, England, and America.
But they had come as an organized community, and absorption
into a foreign nation was something to be dreaded. They wished
to preserve their English speech and English traditions, keep
up their organization, and find some favoured spot where they
might lay the corner-stone of a great Christian state. The
spirit of nationality was strong in them; the spirit of
self-government was strong in them; and the only thing which
could satisfy these feelings was such a migration as had not
been seen since ancient times, a migration like that of
Phokaians to Massilia or Tyrians to Carthage. It was too late
in the world's history to carry out such a scheme upon
European soil. Every acre of territory there was appropriated.
The only favourable outlook was upon the Atlantic coast of
America, where English cruisers had now successfully disputed
the pretensions of Spain, and where after forty years of
disappointment and disaster a flourishing colony had at length
been founded in Virginia."
J. Fiske,
The Beginnings of New England,
chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
G. Punchard,
History of Congregationalism,
volume 1, chapters 12-15.
G. Sumner,
Memoirs of the Pilgrims at Leyden
(Massachusetts Historical Society Collection, 3d series,
volume 9).
A. Steele,
Life and Time of Brewster,
chapters 8-14.
D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
chapter 17 (volume 2).
{1700}
INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1617-1620.
Preparations for the exodus to New England.
"'Upon their talk of removing, sundry of the Dutch would have
them go under them, and made them large offers'; but an inborn
love for the English nation and for their mother tongue led
them to the generous purpose of recovering the protection of
England by enlarging her dominions. They were 'restless' with
the desire to remove to 'the most northern parts of Virginia,'
hoping, under the general government of that province, 'to
live in a distinct body by themselves.' To obtain the consent
of the London Company, John Carver, with Robert Cushman, in
1617, repaired to England. They took with them 'seven
articles,' from the members of the church at Leyden, to be
submitted to the council in England for Virginia. These
articles discussed the relations which, as separatists in
religion, they bore to their prince; and they adopted the
theory which the admonitions of Luther and a century of
persecution had developed as the common rule of plebeian
sectaries on the continent of Europe. They expressed their
concurrence in the creed of the Anglican church, and a desire
of spiritual communion with its members. Toward the king and
all civil authority derived from him, including the civil
authority of bishops, they promised, as they would have done
to Nero and the Roman pontifex, 'obedience in all things,
active if the thing commanded be not against God's word, or
passive if it be.' They denied all power to ecclesiastical
bodies, unless it were given by the temporal magistrate. …
The London company listened very willingly to their proposal,
so that their agents 'found God going along with them'; and,
through the influence of 'Sir Edwin Sandys, a religious
gentleman then living,' a patent might at once have been
taken, had not the envoys desired first to consult 'the
multitude' at Leyden. On the 15th of December, 1617, the
pilgrims transmitted their formal request, signed by the hands
of the greatest part of the congregation. … The messengers
of the pilgrims, satisfied with their reception by the
Virginia company, petitioned the king for liberty of religion,
to be confirmed under the king's broad seal. But here they
encountered insurmountable difficulties. … Even while the
negotiations were pending, a royal declaration constrained the
Puritans of Lancashire to conform or leave the kingdom; and
nothing more could be obtained for the wilds of America than
an informal promise of neglect. On this the community relied,
being advised not to entangle themselves with the bishops. 'If
there should afterward be a purpose to wrong us,' thus they
communed with themselves, 'though we had a seal as broad as
the house-floor, there would be means enough found to recall
or reverse it. We must rest herein on God's providence.'
Better hopes seemed to dawn when, in 1619, the London company
for Virginia elected for their treasurer Sir Edwin Sandys, who
from the first had befriended the pilgrims. Under his
presidency, so writes one of their number, the members of the
company in their open court 'demanded our ends of going; which
being related, they said the thing was of God, and granted a
large patent.' As it was taken in the name of one who failed
to accompany the expedition [Mr. John Wincob], the patent was
never of any service. And, besides, the pilgrims, after
investing all their own means, had not sufficient capital to
execute their schemes. In this extremity, Robinson looked for
aid to the Dutch. He and his people and their friends, to the
number of 400 families, professed themselves well inclined to
emigrate to the country on the Hudson, and to plant there a
new commonwealth under the command of the stadholder and the
states general. The 'West India company was willing to
transport them without charge, and to furnish them with
cattle; but when its directors petitioned the states general
to promise protection to the enterprise against all violence
from other potentates, the request was found to be in conflict
with the policy of the Dutch republic, and was refused. The
members of the church of Leyden, ceasing 'to meddle with the
Dutch, or to depend too much on the Virginia company,' now
trusted to their own resources and the aid of private friends.
The fisheries had commended American expeditions to English
merchants; and the agents from Leyden were able to form a
partnership between their employers and men of business in
London. The services of each emigrant were rated as a capital
of £10, and belonged to the company; all profits were to be
reserved till the end of seven years, when the whole amount,
and all houses and land, gardens and fields, were to be
divided among the share-holders according to their respective
interests. The London merchant, who risked £100, would receive
for his money tenfold as much as the penniless laborer for his
services. This arrangement threatened a seven years' check to
the pecuniary prosperity of the community; yet, as it did not
interfere with civil rights or religion, it was accepted. And
now, in July, 1620, the English at Leyden, trusting in God and
in themselves, made ready for their departure."
G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision),
part 1, chapter 12 (volume 1).
INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1620.
The exodus of the Pilgrims to New England.
See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH COLONY): A. D. 1620.
INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1646-1649.
In the English Civil War.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1646 (MARCH);
1647 (APRIL-AUGUST), and after.
----------INDEPENDENTS: End--------
INDEX EXPURGATORIUS, The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1559-1595.
----------INDIA: Start--------
INDIA.
The name.
"To us … it seems natural that the whole country which is
marked off from Asia by the great barrier of the Himalaya and
the Suleiman range should have a single name. But it has not
always seemed so. The Greeks had but a very vague idea of this
country. To them for a long time the word India was for
practical purposes what it was etymologically, the province of
the Indus. When they say that Alexander invaded India, they
refer to the Punjab. At a later time they obtained some
information about the valley of the Ganges, but little or none
about the Deccan. Meanwhile in India itself it did not seem so
natural as it seems to us to give one name to the whole
region. For there is a very marked difference between the
northern and southern parts of it.
{1701}
The great Aryan community which spoke Sanscrit and invented
Brahminism spread itself chiefly from the Punjab along the
great valley of the Ganges; but not at first far southward.
Accordingly the name Hindostan properly belongs to this
northern region. In the South or peninsula we find other races
and non-Aryan languages. … It appears then that India is not
a political name, but only a geographical expression like
Europe or Africa."
J. R. Seeley,
The Expansion of England,
pages 221-222.
"The name 'Hindustan' … is not used by the natives as it has
been employed by writers of books and map-makers in Europe.
… The word really means 'the land of the Hindus'; the
northern part of the Peninsula, distinguished from the
'Deccan,' from which it is parted by the river Narbada. …
The word Hindu' is of Zend (ancient Persian) origin, and may
be taken to denote 'river-people,' so named, perhaps, from
having first appeared on the line of the Indus, q. d., 'the
river.'"
E. G. Keene,
Sketch of the History of Hindustan,
page 1.
"Sinde, India, and Hindu-stan are various representatives of
the same native word. 'Hindu' is the oldest known form, since
it occurs in one of the most ancient portions of the
Zendavesta. The Greeks and Romans sometimes called the river
Sindus, instead of Indus."
G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
chapter 1, note.
INDIA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
"Our earliest glimpses of India disclose two races struggling
for the soil. The one was a fair-skinned people, which had
lately entered by the north-western passes,—a people who
called themselves Aryan, literally of 'noble' lineage,
speaking a stately language, worshipping friendly and powerful
gods. These Aryans became the Brahmans and Rajputs of India.
The other race was of a lower type, who had long dwelt in the
land, and whom the lordly newcomers drove back into the
mountains, or reduced to servitude on the plains. The
comparatively pure descendants of these two races are now
nearly equal in numbers; the intermediate castes, sprung
chiefly from the ruder stock, make up the mass of the present
Indian population. … The victorious Aryans called the early
tribes Dasyus, or 'enemies,' and Dasas, or 'slaves.' The
Aryans entered India from the colder north, and prided
themselves on their fair complexion. Their Sanskrit word for
'colour' (varna) came to mean 'race' or 'caste.' The old Aryan
poets, who composed the Veda at least 3,000 and perhaps 4,000
years ago, praised their bright gods, who, 'slaying the
Dasyus, protected the Aryan colour;' who, 'subjected the
black-skin to the Aryan man.' They tell us of their own
'stormy deities, who rush on like furious bulls and scatter
the black-skin.' Moreover, the Aryan, with his finely-formed
features, loathed the squat Mongolian faces of the Aborigines.
One Vedic poet speaks of the non-Aryans as 'noseless' or
flat-nosed, while another praises his own 'beautiful-nosed'
gods. … Nevertheless all the non-Aryans could not have been
savages. We hear of wealthy Dasyus or non-Aryans; and the
Vedic hymns speak of their 'seven castles' and 'ninety forts.'
The Aryans afterwards made alliance with non-Aryan tribes; and
some of the most powerful kingdoms of India were ruled by
non-Aryan kings. … Let us now examine these primitive
peoples as they exist at the present day. Thrust back by the
Aryan invaders from the plains, they have lain hidden away in
the mountains, like the remains of extinct animals found in
hill-caves. India thus forms a great museum of races, in which
we can study man from his lowest to his highest stages of
culture. … Among the rudest fragments of mankind are the
isolated Andaman islanders, or non-Aryans of the Bay of
Bengal. The Arab and early European voyagers described them as
dog-faced man-eaters. The English officers sent to the islands
in 1855 to establish a settlement, found themselves in the
midst of naked cannibals; who daubed themselves at festivals
with red earth, and mourned for their dead friends by
plastering themselves with dark mud. … The Anamalai hills,
in Southern Madras, form the refuge of many non-Aryan tribes.
The long-haired, wild-looking Puliars live on jungle products,
mice, or any small animals they can catch; and worship demons.
Another clan, the Mundavers, have no fixed dwellings, but
wander over the innermost hills with their cattle. They
shelter themselves in caves or under little leaf sheds, and
seldom remain in one spot more than a year. The thick-lipped,
small-bodied Kaders, 'Lords of the Hills,' are a remnant of a
higher race. They live by the chase, and wield some influence
over the ruder forest-folk. These hills abound in the great
stone monuments (kistvaens and dolmens) which the ancient
non-Aryans erected over their dead. The Nairs, or hillmen of
South-Western India, still keep up the old system of
polyandry, according to which one woman is the wife of several
husbands, and a man's property descends not to his own sons,
but to his sister's children. This system also appears among
the non-Aryan tribes of the Himalayas at the opposite end of
India. In the Central Provinces, the non-Aryan races form a
large part of the population. In certain localities they
amount to one-half of the inhabitants. Their most important
race, the Gonds, have made advances in civilisation; but the
wilder tribes still cling to the forest, and live by the
chase. … The Maris fly from their grass-built huts on the
approach of a stranger. … Farther to the north-east, in the
Tributary States of Orissa, there is a poor tribe, 10,000 in
number, of Juangs or Patuas, literally the 'leaf-wearers.'
Until lately their women wore no clothes, but only a few
strings of beads around the waist, with a bunch of leaves
before and behind. … Proceeding to the northern boundary of
India, we find the slopes and spurs of the Himalayas peopled
by a great variety of rude non-Aryan tribes. Some of the Assam
hillmen have no word for expressing distance by miles or by
any land-measure, but reckon the length of a journey by the
number of plugs of tobacco or pan which they chew upon the
way. They hate work; and, as a rule, they are fierce, black,
undersized, and ill-fed. … Many of the aboriginal tribes,
therefore, remain in the same early stage of human progress as
that ascribed to them by the Vedic poets more than 3,000 years
ago. But others have made great advances, and form communities
of a well-developed type. These higher races, like the ruder
ones, are scattered over the length and breadth of India, and
I must confine myself to a very brief account of two of
them,—the Santals and the Kandhs. The Santals have their
home among the hills which abut on the valley of the Ganges in
Lower Bengal.
{1702}
They dwell in villages of their own, apart from the people of
the plains, and number about a million. Although still
clinging to many customs of a hunting forest tribe, they have
learned the use of the plough, and settled down into skilful
husbandmen. Each hamlet is governed by its own headman, who is
supposed to be a descendant of the original founder of the
village. … Until near the end of the last century, the
Santals lived by plundering the adjacent plains. But under
British rule they settled down into peaceful cultivators. …
The Kandhs, literally 'The Mountaineers,' a tribe about
100,000 strong, inhabit the steep and forest-covered ranges
which rise from the Orissa coast. Their idea of government is
purely patriarchal. The family is strictly ruled by the
father. The grown-up sons have no property during his life,
but live in his house with their wives and children, and all
share the common meal prepared by the grandmother. The head of
the tribe is usually the eldest son of the patriarchal family.
… The Kandh system of tillage represents a stage half way
between the migratory cultivation of the ruder non-Aryan
tribes and the settled agriculture of the Hindus. … Whence
came these primitive peoples, whom the Aryan invaders found in
the land more than 3,000 years ago, and who are still
scattered over India, the fragments of a pre-historic world?
Written annals they do not possess. Their traditions tell us
little. But from their languages we find that they belong to
three stocks. First, the Tibeto-Burman tribes, who entered
India from the north-east, and still cling to the skirts of
the Himalayas. Second, the Kolarians, who also seem to have
entered Bengal by the north-eastern passes. They dwell chiefly
along the north-eastern ranges of the three-sided tableland
which covers the southern half of India. Third, the
Dravidians, who appear, on the other hand, to have found their
way into the Punjab by the north-western passes. They now
inhabit the southern part of the three-sided tableland as far
down as Cape Comorin, the southernmost point of India. As a
rule, the non-Aryan races, when fairly treated, are truthful,
loyal, and kind. Those in the hills make good soldiers; while
even the thieving tribes of the plains can be turned into
clever police. The non-Aryan castes of Madras supplied the
troops which conquered Southern India for the British; and
some of them fought at the battle of Plassey, which won for us
Bengal. The gallant Gurkhas, a non-Aryan tribe of the
Himalayas, now rank among the bravest regiments in our Indian
army, and lately covered themselves with honour in
Afghanistan."
W. W. Hunter,
Brief History of the Indian People,
chapters 2-3.
ALSO IN:
R. Brown,
Races of Mankind,
volume 4, chapter 1.
R. G. Latham,
Ethnology of British Colonies and Dependencies,
chapter 3.
See, also,
TURANIAN RACES.
INDIA:
The immigration and conquests of the Aryas.
The hymns and prayers of their religion.
Vedism.
Brahmanism.
Hinduism
"The immigration of the Aryas into India took place from the
west. They stand in the closest relation to the inhabitants of
the table-land of Iran, especially the inhabitants of the
eastern half. These also call themselves Aryas, though among
them the word becomes Airya, or Ariya, and among the Greeks
Arioi. The language of the Aryas is in the closest connection
with that of the Avesta, the religious books of Iran, and in
very close connection with the language of the monuments of
Darius and Xerxes, in the western half of that region. The
religious conceptions of the Iranians and Indians exhibit
striking traits of a homogeneous character. A considerable
number of the names of gods, of myths, sacrifices, and
customs, occurs in both nations, though the meaning is not
always the same, and is sometimes diametrically opposed.
Moreover, the Aryas in India are at first confined to the
borders of Iran, the region of the Indus, and the Panjab.
Here; in the west, the Aryas had their most extensive
settlements, and their oldest monuments frequently mention the