THE ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

VOLUME XII SLICE VIII
Haller, Albrecht to Harmonium

Articles in This Slice

HALLER, ALBRECHT VON (1708-1777), Swiss anatomist and physiologist, was born of an old Swiss family at Bern, on the 16th of October 1708. Prevented by long-continued ill-health from taking part in boyish sports, he had the more opportunity for the development of his precocious mind. At the age of four, it is said, he used to read and expound the Bible to his father’s servants; before he was ten he had sketched a Chaldee grammar, prepared a Greek and a Hebrew vocabulary, compiled a collection of two thousand biographies of famous men and women on the model of the great works of Bayle and Moreri, and written in Latin verse a satire on his tutor, who had warned him against a too great excursiveness. When still hardly fifteen he was already the author of numerous metrical translations from Ovid, Horace and Virgil, as well as of original lyrics, dramas, and an epic of four thousand lines on the origin of the Swiss confederations, writings which he is said on one occasion to have rescued from a fire at the risk of his life, only, however, to burn them a little later (1729) with his own hand. Haller’s attention had been directed to the profession of medicine while he was residing in the house of a physician at Biel after his father’s death in 1721; and, following the choice then made, he while still a sickly and excessively shy youth went in his sixteenth year to the university of Tübingen (December 1723), where he studied under Camerarius and Duvernoy. Dissatisfied with his progress, he in 1725 exchanged Tübingen for Leiden, where Boerhaave was in the zenith of his fame, and where Albinus had already begun to lecture in anatomy. At that university he graduated in May 1727, undertaking successfully in his thesis to prove that the so-called salivary duct, claimed as a recent discovery by Coschwitz, was nothing more than a blood-vessel. Haller then visited London, making the acquaintance of Sir Hans Sloane, Cheselden, Pringle, Douglas and other scientific men; next, after a short stay in Oxford, he visited Paris, where he studied under Ledran and Winslöw; and in 1728 he proceeded to Basel, where he devoted himself to the study of the higher mathematics under John Bernoulli. It was during his stay there also that his first great interest in botany was awakened; and, in the course of a tour (July-August, 1828), through Savoy, Baden and several of the Swiss cantons, he began a collection of plants which was afterwards the basis of his great work on the flora of Switzerland. From a literary point of view the main result of this, the first of his many journeys through the Alps, was his poem entitled Die Alpen, which was finished in March 1729, and appeared in the first edition (1732) of his Gedichte. This poem of 490 hexameters is historically important as one of the earliest signs of the awakening appreciation of the mountains (hitherto generally regarded as horrible monstrosities), though it is chiefly designed to contrast the simple and idyllic life of the inhabitants of the Alps with the corrupt and decadent existence of the dwellers in the plains.

In 1729 he returned to Bern and began to practise as a physician; his best energies, however, were devoted to the botanical and anatomical researches which rapidly gave him a European reputation, and procured for him from George II. in 1736 a call to the chair of medicine, anatomy, botany and surgery in the newly founded university of Göttingen. He became F.R.S. in 1743, and was ennobled in 1749. The quantity of work achieved by Haller in the seventeen years during which he occupied his Göttingen professorship was immense. Apart from the ordinary work of his classes, which entailed upon him the task of newly organizing a botanical garden, an anatomical theatre and museum, an obstetrical school, and similar institutions, he carried on without interruption those original investigations in botany and physiology, the results of which are preserved in the numerous works associated with his name; he continued also to persevere in his youthful habit of poetical composition, while at the same time he conducted a monthly journal (the Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen), to which he is said to have contributed twelve thousand articles relating to almost every branch of human knowledge. He also warmly interested himself in most of the religious questions, both ephemeral and permanent, of his day; and the erection of the Reformed church in Göttingen was mainly due to his unwearied energy. Notwithstanding all this variety of absorbing interests he never felt at home in Göttingen; his untravelled heart kept ever turning towards his native Bern (where he had been elected a member of the great council in 1745), and in 1753 he resolved to resign his chair and return to Switzerland.

The twenty-one years of his life which followed were largely occupied in the discharge of his duties in the minor political post of a Rathhausammann which he had obtained by lot, and in the preparation of his Bibliotheca medica, the botanical, surgical and anatomical parts of which he lived to complete; but he also found time to write the three philosophical romances—Usong (1771), Alfred (1773) and Fabius and Cato (1774),—in which his views as to the respective merits of despotism, of limited monarchy and of aristocratic republican government are fully set forth. About 1773 the state of his health rendered necessary his entire withdrawal from public business; for some time he supported his failing strength by means of opium, on the use of which he communicated a paper to the Proceedings of the Göttingen Royal Society in 1776; the excessive use of the drug is believed, however, to have hastened his death, which occurred on the 17th of December 1777. Haller, who had been three times married, left eight children, the eldest of whom, Gottlieb Emanuel, attained to some distinction as a botanist and as a writer on Swiss historical bibliography (1785-1788, 7 vols.).

Subjoined is a classified but by no means an exhaustive list of his very numerous works in various branches of science and literature (a complete list, up to 1775, numbering 576 items, including various editions, was published by Haller himself, in 1775, at the end of vol. 6 of the correspondence addressed to him by various learned friends):—(1) Anatomical:—Icones anatomicae (1743-1754); Disputationes anatomicae selectiores (1746-1752); and Opera acad. minora anatomici argumenti (1762-1768). (2) Physiological:—De respiratione experimenta anatomica (1747); Primae lineae physiologiae (1747); and Elementa physiologiae corporis humani (1757-1760). (3) Pathological and surgical:—Opuscula pathologica (1754); Disputationum chirurg. collectio (1777); also careful editions of Boerhaave’s Praelectiones academicae in suas institutiones rei medicae (1739), and of the Artis medicae principia of the same author (1769-1774). (4) Botanical:—Enumeratio methodica stirpium Helveticarum (1742); Opuscula botanica (1749); Bibliotheca botanica (1771). (5) Theological:—Briefe über die wichtigsten Wahrheiten der Offenbarung (1772); and Briefe zur Vertheidigung der Offenbarung (1775-1777). (6) Poetical:—Gedichte (1732, 12th ed., 1777). His three romances have been already mentioned. Several volumes of lectures and “Tagebücher” or journals were published posthumously.

See J. G. Zimmermann, Das Leben des Herrn von Haller (1755), and the articles by Förster and Seiler in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyklopädie, and particularly the detailed biography (over 500 pages) by L. Hirzel, printed at the head of his elaborate edition (Frauenfeld, 1882) of Haller’s Gedichte.

HALLER, BERTHOLD (1492-1536), Swiss reformer, was born at Aldingen in Württemberg, and after studying at Pforzheim, where he met Melanchthon, and at Cologne, taught in the gymnasium at Bern. He was appointed assistant preacher at the church of St Vincent in 1515 and people’s priest in 1520. Even before his acquaintance with Zwingli in 1521 he had begun to preach the Reformation, his sympathetic character and his eloquence making him a great force. In 1526 he was at the abortive conference of Baden, and in January 1528 drafted and defended the ten theses for the conference of Bern which established the new religion in that city. He left no writings except a few letters which are preserved in Zwingli’s works. He died on the 25th of February 1536.

Life by Pestalozzi (Elberfeld, 1861).

HALLEY, EDMUND (1656-1742), English astronomer, was born at Haggerston, London, on the 29th of October 1656. His father, a wealthy soapboiler, placed him at St Paul’s school, where he was equally distinguished for classical and mathematical ability. Before leaving it for Queen’s College, Oxford, in 1673, he had observed the change in the variation of the compass, and at the age of nineteen, he supplied a new and improved method of determining the elements of the planetary orbits (Phil. Trans. xi. 683). His detection of considerable errors in the tables then in use led him to the conclusion that a more accurate ascertainment of the places of the fixed stars was indispensable to the progress of astronomy; and, finding that Flamsteed and Hevelius had already undertaken to catalogue those visible in northern latitudes, he assumed to himself the task of making observations in the southern hemisphere. A recommendation from Charles II. to the East India Company procured for him an apparently suitable, though, as it proved, ill-chosen station, and in November 1676 he embarked for St Helena. On the voyage he noticed the retardation of the pendulum in approaching the equator; and during his stay on the island he observed, on the 7th of November 1677, a transit of Mercury, which suggested to him the important idea of employing similar phenomena for determining the sun’s distance. He returned to England in November 1678, having by the registration of 341 stars won the title of the “Southern Tycho,” and by the translation to the heavens of the “Royal Oak,” earned a degree of master of arts, conferred at Oxford by the king’s command on the 3rd of December 1678, almost simultaneously with his election as fellow of the Royal Society. Six months later, the indefatigable astronomer started for Danzig to set at rest a dispute of long standing between Hooke and Hevelius as to the respective merits of plain or telescopic sights; and towards the end of 1680 he proceeded on a continental tour. In Paris he observed, with G. D. Cassini, the great comet of 1680 after its perihelion passage; and having returned to England, he married in 1682 Mary, daughter of Mr Tooke, auditor of the exchequer, with whom he lived harmoniously for fifty-five years. He now fixed his residence at Islington, engaged chiefly upon lunar observations, with a view to the great desideratum of a method of finding the longitude at sea. His mind, however, was also busy with the momentous problem of gravity. Having reached so far as to perceive that the central force of the solar system must decrease inversely as the square of the distance, and applied vainly to Wren and Hooke for further elucidation, he made in August 1684 that journey to Cambridge for the purpose of consulting Newton, which resulted in the publication of the Principia. The labour and expense of passing this great work through the press devolved upon Halley, who also wrote the prefixed hexameters ending with the well-known line—

Nec fas est propius mortali attingere divos.

In 1696 he was, although a zealous Tory, appointed deputy comptroller of the mint at Chester, and (August 19, 1698) he received a commission as captain of the “Paramour Pink” for the purpose of making extensive observations on the conditions of terrestrial magnetism. This task he accomplished in a voyage which lasted two years, and extended to the 52nd degree of S. latitude. The results were published in a General Chart of the Variation of the Compass in 1701; and immediately afterwards he executed by royal command a careful survey of the tides and coasts of the British Channel, an elaborate map of which he produced in 1702. On his return from a journey to Dalmatia, for the purpose of selecting and fortifying the port of Trieste, he was nominated, November 1703, Savilian professor of geometry at Oxford, and received an honorary degree of doctor of laws in 1710. Between 1713 and 1721 he acted as secretary to the Royal Society, and early in 1720 he succeeded Flamsteed as astronomer-royal. Although in his sixty-fourth year, he undertook to observe the moon through an entire revolution of her nodes (eighteen years), and actually carried out his purpose. He died on the 14th of January 1742. His tomb is in the old graveyard of St Margaret’s church, Lee, Kent.

Halley’s most notable scientific achievements were—his detection of the “long inequality” of Jupiter and Saturn, and of the acceleration of the moon’s mean motion (1693), his discovery of the proper motions of the fixed stars (1718), his theory of variation (1683), including the hypothesis of four magnetic poles, revived by C. Hansteen in 1819, and his suggestion of the magnetic origin of the aurora borealis; his calculation of the orbit of the 1682 comet (the first ever attempted), coupled with a prediction of its return, strikingly verified in 1759; and his indication (first in 1679, and again in 1716, Phil. Trans., No. 348) of a method extensively used in the 18th and 19th centuries for determining the solar parallax by means of the transits of Venus.

His principal works are Catalogus stellarum australium (London, 1679), the substance of which was embodied in vol. iii. of Flamsteed’s Historia coelestis (1725); Synopsis astronomiae cometicae (Oxford, 1705); Astronomical Tables (London, 1752); also eighty-one miscellaneous papers of considerable interest, scattered through the Philosophical Transactions. To these should be added his version from the Arabic (which language he acquired for the purpose) of the treatise of Apollonius De sectione rationis, with a restoration of his two lost books De sectione spatii, both published at Oxford in 1706; also his fine edition of the Conics of Apollonius, with the treatise by Serenus De sectione cylindri et coni (Oxford, 1710, folio). His edition of the Spherics of Menelaus was published by his friend Dr Costard in 1758. See also Biographia Britannica, vol. iv. (1757); Gent. Mag. xvii. 455, 503; A. Wood, Athenae Oxon. (Bliss), iv. 536; J. Aubrey, Lives, ii. 365; F. Baily, Account of Flamsteed; Sir D. Brewster, Life of Newton; R. Grant, History of Astronomy, p. 477 and passim; A. J. Rudolph, Bulletin of Bibliography, No. 14 (Boston, 1904); E. F. McPike, “Bibliography of Halley’s Comet,” Smithsonian Misc. Collections, vol. xlviii. pt. i. (1905); Notes and Queries, 9th series, vols. x. xi. xii., 10th series, vol. ii. (E. F. McPike). A collection of manuscripts regarding Halley is preserved among the Rigaud papers in the Bodleian library, Oxford; and many of his unpublished letters exist at the Record Office and in the library of the Royal Society.

(A. M. C.)

HALLGRÍMSSON, JÓNAS (1807-1844), the chief lyrical poet of Iceland, was born in 1807 at Steinsstaðir in Eyjafjarðarsýsla in the north of that island, and educated at the famous school of Bessastaðr. In 1832 he went to the university of Copenhagen, and shortly afterwards turned his attention to the natural sciences, especially geology. Having obtained pecuniary assistance from the Danish government, he travelled through all Iceland for scientific purposes in the years 1837-1842, and made many interesting geological observations. Most of his writings on geology are in Danish. His renown was, however, not acquired by his writings in that language, but by his Icelandic poems and short stories. He was well read in German literature, Heine and Schiller being his favourites, and the study of the German masters and the old classical writers of Iceland opened his eyes to the corrupt state of Icelandic poetry and showed him the way to make it better. The misuse of the Eddic metaphors made the lyrical and epical poetry of the day hardly intelligible, and, to make matters worse, the language of the poets was mixed up with words of German and Danish origin. The great Danish philologist and friend of Iceland, Rasmus Rask, and the poet Bjarni Thórarensen had done much to purify the language, but Jónas Hallgrímsson completed their work by his poems and tales, in a purer language than ever had been written in Iceland since the days of Snorri Sturlason. The excesses of Icelandic poetry were specially seen in the so-called rímur, ballads of heroes, &c., which were fiercely attacked by Jónas Hallgrímsson, who at last succeeded in converting the educated to his view. Most of the principal poems, tales and essays of Jónas Hallgrímsson appeared in the periodical Fjölnir, which he began publishing at Copenhagen in 1835, together with Konráð Gíslason, a well-known philologist, and the patriotic Thómas Saemundsson. Fjölnir had in the beginning a hard struggle against old prejudices, but as the years went by its influence became enormous; and when it at last ceased, its programme and spirit still lived in Ný Félagsrit and other patriotic periodicals which took its place. Jónas Hallgrímsson, who died in 1844, is the father of a separate school in Icelandic lyric poetry. He introduced foreign thoughts and metres, but at the same time revived the metres of the Icelandic classical poets. Although his poetical works are all comprised in one small volume, he strikes every string of the old harp of Iceland.

(S. Bl.)

HALLIDAY, ANDREW [Andrew Halliday Duff] (1830-1877), British journalist and dramatist, was born at Marnoch, Banffshire, in 1830. He was educated at Marischal College, Aberdeen, and in 1849 he came to London, and discarding the name of Duff, devoted himself to literature. His first engagement was with the daily papers, and his work having attracted the notice of Thackeray, he was invited to write for the Cornhill Magazine. From 1861 he contributed largely to All the Year Round, and many of his articles were republished in collected form. He was also the author, alone and with others, of a great number of farces, burlesques and melodramas and a peculiarly successful adapter of popular novels for the stage. Of these Little Em’ly (1869), his adaptation of David Copperfield, was warmly approved by Dickens himself, and enjoyed a long run at Drury Lane. Halliday died in London on the 10th of April 1877.

HALLIWELL-PHILLIPPS, JAMES ORCHARD (1820-1889), English Shakespearian scholar, son of Thomas Halliwell, was born in London, on the 21st of June 1820. He was educated privately and at Jesus College, Cambridge. He devoted himself to antiquarian research, particularly in early English literature. In 1839 he edited Sir John Mandeville’s Travels; in 1842 published an Account of the European MSS. in the Chetham Library, besides a newly discovered metrical romance of the 15th century (Torrent of Portugal). He became best known, however, as a Shakespearian editor and collector. In 1848 he brought out his Life of Shakespeare, which passed through several editions; in 1853-1865 a sumptuous edition, limited to 150 copies, of Shakespeare in folio, with full critical notes; in 1863 a Calendar of the Records at Stratford-on-Avon; in 1864 a History of New Place. After 1870 he entirely gave up textual criticism, and devoted his attention to elucidating the particulars of Shakespeare’s life. He collated all the available facts and documents in relation to it, and exhausted the information to be found in local records in his Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare. He was mainly instrumental in the purchase of New Place for the corporation of Stratford-on-Avon, and in the formation there of the Shakespeare museum. His publications in all numbered more than sixty volumes. He assumed the name of Phillipps in 1872, under the will of the grandfather of his first wife, a daughter of Sir Thomas Phillipps the antiquary. He took an active interest in the Camden Society, the Percy Society and the Shakespeare Society, for which he edited many early English and Elizabethan works. From 1845 Halliwell was excluded from the library of the British Museum on account of the suspicion attaching to his possession of some manuscripts which had been removed from the library of Trinity College, Cambridge. He published privately an explanation of the matter in 1845. His house, Hollingbury Copse, near Brighton, was full of rare and curious works, and he generously gave many of them to the Chetham library, Manchester, to the town library of Penzance, to the Smithsonian Institute, Washington, and to the library of Edinburgh university. He died on the 3rd of January 1889.

HALLOWE’EN, or All Hallows Eve, the name given to the 31st of October as the vigil of Hallowmas or All Saints’ Day. Though now known as little else but the eve of the Christian festival, Hallowe’en and its formerly attendant ceremonies long antedate Christianity. The two chief characteristics of ancient Hallowe’en were the lighting of bonfires and the belief that of all nights in the year this is the one during which ghosts and witches are most likely to wander abroad. Now on or about the 1st of November the Druids held their great autumn festival and lighted fires in honour of the Sun-god in thanksgiving for the harvest. Further, it was a Druidic belief that on the eve of this festival Saman, lord of death, called together the wicked souls that within the past twelve months had been condemned to inhabit the bodies of animals. Thus it is clear that the main celebrations of Hallowe’en were purely Druidical, and this is further proved by the fact that in parts of Ireland the 31st of October was, and even still is, known as Oidhche Shamhna, “Vigil of Saman.” On the Druidic ceremonies were grafted some of the characteristics of the Roman festival in honour of Pomona held about the 1st of November, in which nuts and apples, as representing the winter store of fruits, played an important part. Thus the roasting of nuts and the sport known as “apple-ducking”—attempting to seize with the teeth an apple floating in a tub of water,—were once the universal occupation of the young folk in medieval England on the 31st of October. The custom of lighting Hallowe’en fires survived until recent years in the highlands of Scotland and Wales. In the dying embers it was usual to place as many small stones as there were persons around, and next morning a search was made. If any of the pebbles were displaced it was regarded as certain that the person represented would die within the twelve months.

For details of the Hallowe’en games and bonfires see Brand’s Antiquities of Great Britain; Chambers’s Book of Days; Grimm’s Deutsche Mythologie, ch. xx. (Elemente) and ch. xxxiv. (Aberglaube); and J. G. Frazer’s Golden Bough, vol. iii. Compare also [Beltane] and [Bonfire].

HALLSTATT, a market-place of Austria, in Upper Austria, 67 m. S.S.W. of Linz by rail. Pop. (1900) 737. It is situated on the shore of the Hallstatter-see and at the foot of the Hallstatter Salzberg, and is built in amphitheatre with its houses clinging to the mountain side. The salt mine of Hallstatt, which is one of the oldest in existence, was rediscovered in the 14th century. In the neighbourhood is the celebrated Celtic burial ground, where a great number of very interesting antiquities have been found. Most of these have been removed to the museums at Vienna and Linz, but some are kept in the local museum.

The excavations (1847-1864) revealed a form of culture hitherto unknown, and accordingly the name Hallstatt has been applied to objects of like form and decoration since found in Styria, Carniola, Bosnia (at Glasinatz and Jezerin), Epirus, north Italy, France, Spain and Britain (see [Celt]). Everywhere else the change from iron weapons to bronze is immediate, but at Hallstatt iron is seen gradually superseding bronze, first for ornament, then for edging cutting instruments, then replacing fully the old bronze types, and finally taking new forms of its own. There can be no doubt that the use of iron first developed in the Hallstatt area, and that thence it spread southwards into Italy, Greece, the Aegean, Egypt and Asia, and northwards and westwards in Europe. At Noreia, which gave its name to Noricum (q.v.) less than 40 m. from Hallstatt, were the most famous iron mines of antiquity, which produced the Noric iron and Noric swords so prized and dreaded by the Romans (Pliny, Hist. Nat. xxxiv. 145; Horace, Epod. 17. 71). This iron needed no tempering, and the Celts had probably found it ready smelted by nature, just as the Eskimo had learned of themselves to use telluric iron embedded in basalt. The graves at Hallstatt were partly inhumation partly cremation; they contained swords, daggers, spears, javelins, axes, helmets, bosses and plates of shields and hauberks, brooches, various forms of jewelry, amber and glass beads, many of the objects being decorated with animals and geometrical designs. Silver was practically unknown. The weapons and axes are mostly iron, a few being bronze. The swords are leaf-shaped, with blunt points intended for cutting, not for thrusting; the hilts differ essentially from those of the Bronze Age, being shaped like a crescent to grasp the blade, with large pommels, or sometimes with antennae (the latter found also in Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden, Switzerland, the Pyrenees, Spain, north Italy): only six arrowheads (bronze) were found. Both flanged and socketed celts occurred, the iron being much more numerous than the bronze. The flat axes are distinguished by the side stops and in some cases the transition from palstave to socketed axe can be seen. The shields were round as in the early Iron Age of north Italy (see [Villanova]). Greaves were found at Glasinatz and Jezerin, though not at Hallstatt; two helmets were found at Hallstatt and others in Bosnia; broad bronze belts were numerous, adorned in repoussé with beast and geometric ornament. Brooches are found in great numbers, both those derived from the primitive safety-pin (“Peschiera” type) and the “spectacle” or “Hallstatt” type found all down the Balkans and in Greece. The latter are formed of two spirals of wire, sometimes four such spirals being used, whilst there were also brooches in animal forms, one of the latter being found with a bronze sword. The Hallstatt culture is that of the Homeric Achaeans (see [Achaeans]), but as the brooch (along with iron, cremation of the dead, the round shield and the geometric ornament) passed down into Greece from central Europe, and as brooches are found in the lower town at Mycenae, 1350 B.C., they must have been invented long before that date in central Europe. But as they are found in the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age, the early iron culture of Hallstatt must have originated long before 1350 B.C., a conclusion in accord with the absence of silver at Hallstatt itself.

See Baron von Sacken, Das Grabfeld von Hallstatt; Bertrand and S. Reinach, Les Celtes dans les vallées du Pô et du Danube; W. Ridgeway, Early Age of Greece; [Archaeology] (plate).

(W. Ri.)

HALLUCINATION (from Lat. alucinari or allucinari, to wander in mind, Gr. ἀλύσσειν or ἀλύειν, from ἄλη, wandering), a psychological term which has been the subject of much controversy, and to which, although there is now fair agreement as to its denotation, it is still impossible to give a precise and entirely satisfactory definition. Hallucinations constitute one of the two great classes of all false sense-perceptions, the other class consisting of the “illusions,” and the difficulty of definition is clearly to mark the boundary between the two classes. Illusion may be defined as the misinterpretation of sense-impression, while hallucination, in its typical instances, is the experiencing of a sensory presentation, i.e. a presentation having the sensory vividness that distinguishes perceptions from representative imagery, at a time when no stimulus is acting on the corresponding sense-organ. There is, however, good reason to think that in many cases, possibly in all cases, some stimulation of the sense-organ, coming either from without or from within the body, plays a part in the genesis of the hallucination. This being so, we must be content to leave the boundary between illusions and hallucinations ill-defined, and to regard as illusions those false perceptions in which impressions made on the sense-organ play a leading part in determining the character of the percept, and as hallucinations those in which any such impression is lacking, or plays but a subsidiary part and bears no obvious relation to the character of the false percept.

As in the case of illusion, hallucination may or may not involve delusion, or belief in the reality of the object falsely perceived. Among the sane the hallucinatory object is frequently recognized at once as unreal or at least as but quasi-real; and it is only the insane, or persons in abnormal states, such as hypnosis, who, when an hallucination persists or recurs, fail to recognize that it corresponds to no physical impression from, or object in, the outer world. Hallucinations of all the senses occur, but the most commonly reported are the auditory and the visual, while those of the other senses seem to be comparatively rare. This apparent difference of frequency is no doubt largely due to the more striking character of visual and auditory hallucinations, and to the relative difficulty of ascertaining, in the case of perceptions of the lower senses, e.g. of taste and smell, that no impression adequate to the genesis of the percept has been made upon the sense-organ; but, in so far as it is real, it is probably due in part to the more constant use of the higher senses and the greater strain consequently thrown upon them, in part also to their more intimate connexion with the life of ideas.

The hallucinatory perception may involve two or more senses, e.g., the subject may seem to see a human being, to hear his voice and to feel the touch of his hand. This is rarely the case in spontaneous hallucination, but in hypnotic hallucination the subject is apt to develop the object suggested to him, as present to one of his senses, and to perceive it also through other senses.

Among visual hallucinations the human figure, and among auditory hallucinations human voices, are the objects most commonly perceived. The figure seen always appears localized more or less definitely in the outer world. In many cases it appears related to the objects truly seen in just the same way as a real object; e.g. it is no longer seen if the eyes are closed or turned away, it does not move with the movements of the eyes, and it may hide objects lying behind it, or be hidden by objects coming between the place that it appears to occupy and the eye of the percipient. Visual hallucinations are most often experienced when the eyes are open and the surrounding space is well or even brightly illuminated. Less frequently the visual hallucination takes the form of a self-luminous figure in a dark place or appears in a luminous globe or mist which shuts out from view the real objects of the part of the field of view in which it appears.

Auditory hallucinations, especially voices, seem to fall into two distinct classes—(1) those which are heard as coming from without, and are more or less definitely localized in outer space, (2) those which seem to be within the head or, in some cases, within the chest, and to have less definite auditory quality. It seems probable that the latter are hallucinations involving principally kinaesthetic sensations, sensations of movement of the organs of speech.

Hallucinations occur under a great variety of bodily and mental conditions, which may conveniently be classified as follows.

I. Conditions which imply normal waking Consciousness and no distinct Departure from bodily and mental Sanity.

a. It would seem that a considerable number of perfectly healthy persons occasionally experience, while in a fully waking state, hallucinations for which no cause can be assigned. The census of hallucinations conducted by the Society for Psychical Research showed that about 10% of all sane persons can remember having experienced at least one hallucination while they believed themselves to be fully awake and in normal health. These sporadic hallucinations of waking healthy persons are far more frequently visual than auditory, and they usually take the form of some familiar person in ordinary attire. The figure in many cases is seen, on turning the gaze in some new direction, fully developed and lifelike, and its hallucinatory character may be revealed only by its noiseless movements, or by its fading away in situ. A special interest attaches to hallucinations of this type, owing to the occasional coincidence of the death of the person with his hallucinatory appearance. The question raised by these coincidences will be discussed in a separate paragraph below.

b. A few persons, otherwise normal in mind and body, seem to experience repeatedly some particular kind of hallucination. The voice (δαιμόνιον) so frequently heard by Socrates, warning or advising him, is the most celebrated example of this type.

II. Conditions more or less unusual or abnormal but not implying distinct Departure from Health.

a. A kind of hallucination to which perhaps every normal person is liable is that known technically as “recurrent sensation.” This kind is experienced only when some sense-organ has been continuously or repeatedly subjected to some one kind of impression or stimulation for a considerable period; e.g. the microscopist, after examining for some hours one particular kind of object or structure, may suddenly perceive the object faithfully reproduced in form and colour, and lying, as it were, upon any surface to which his gaze is directed. Perhaps the commonest experience of this type is the recurrence of the sensations of movement at intervals in the period following a sea voyage or long railway journey.

b. A considerable proportion of healthy sane persons can induce hallucinations of vision by gazing fixedly at a polished surface or into some dark translucent mass; or of hearing, by applying a large shell or similar object to the ear. These methods of inducing hallucinations, especially the former, have long been practised in many countries as modes of divination, various objects being used, e.g. a drop of ink in the palm of the hand, or a polished finger-nail. The object now most commonly used is a polished sphere of clear glass or crystal (see [Crystal-Gazing]). Hence such hallucinations go by the name of crystal visions. The crystal vision often appears as a picture of some distant or unknown scene lying, as it were, in the crystal; and in the picture figures may come and go, and move to and fro, in a perfectly natural manner. In other cases, written or printed words or sentences appear. The percipient, seer or scryer, commonly seems to be in a fully waking state as he observes the objects thus presented. He is usually able to describe and discuss the appearances, successively discriminating details by attentive observation, just as when observing an objective scene; and he usually has no power of controlling them, and no sense of having produced them by his own activity. In some cases these visions have brought back to the mind of the scryer facts or incidents which he could not voluntarily recollect. In other cases they are asserted by credible witnesses to have given to the scryer information, about events distant in time or place, that had not come to his knowledge by normal means. These cases have been claimed as evidence of telepathic communication or even of clairvoyance. But at present the number of well-attested cases of this sort is too small to justify acceptance of this conclusion by those who have only secondhand knowledge of them.

c. Prolonged deprivation of food predisposes to hallucinations, and it would seem that, under this condition, a large proportion of otherwise healthy persons become liable to them, especially to auditory hallucinations.

d. Certain drugs, notably opium, Indian hemp, and mescal predispose to hallucinations, each tending to produce a peculiar type. Thus Indian hemp and mescal, especially the latter, produce in many cases visual hallucinations in the form of a brilliant play of colours, sometimes a mere succession of patches of brilliant colour, sometimes in architectural or other definite spatial arrangement.

e. The states of transition from sleep to waking, and from waking to sleep, seem to be peculiarly favourable to the appearance of hallucinations. The recurrent sensations mentioned above are especially prone to appear at such times, and a considerable proportion of the sporadic hallucinations of persons in good health are reported to have been experienced under these conditions. The name “hypnagogic” hallucinations, first applied by Alfred Maury, is commonly given to those experienced in these transition states.

f. The presentations, predominantly visual, that constitute the principal content of most dreams, are generally described as hallucinatory, but the propriety of so classing them is very questionable. The present writer is confident that his own dream-presentations lack the sensory vividness which is the essential mark of the percept, whether normal or hallucinatory, and which is the principal, though not the only, character in which it differs from the representation or memory-image. It is true that the dream-presentation, like the percept, differs from the representative imagery of waking life in that it is relatively independent of volition; but that seems to be merely because the will is in abeyance or very ineffective during sleep. The wide currency of the doctrine that classes dream-images with hallucinations seems to be due to this independence of volitional control, and to the fact that during sleep the representative imagery appears without that rich setting of undiscriminated or marginal sensation which always accompanies waking imagery, and which by contrast accentuates for introspective reflection the lack of sensory vividness of such imagery.

g. Many of the subjects who pass into the deeper stages of hypnosis (see [Hypnotism]) show themselves, while in that condition, extremely liable to hallucination, perceiving whatever object is suggested to them as present, and failing to perceive any object of which it is asserted by the operator that it is no longer present. The reality of these positive and negative hallucinations of the hypnotized subject has been recently questioned, it being maintained that the subject merely gives verbal assent to the suggestions of the operator. But that the hypnotized subject does really experience hallucinations seems to be proved by the cases in which it is possible to make the hallucination, positive or negative, persist for some time after the termination of hypnosis, and by the fact that in some of these cases the subject, who in the post-hypnotic state seems in every other respect normal and wide awake, may find it difficult to distinguish between the hallucinatory and real objects. Further proof is afforded by experiments such as those by which Alfred Binet showed that a visual hallucination may behave for its percipient in many respects like a real object, e.g. that it may appear reflected in a mirror, displaced by a prism and coloured when a coloured glass is placed before the patient’s eyes. It was by means of experiments of this kind that Binet showed that hypnotic hallucinations may approximate to the type of the illusion, i.e. that some real object affecting the sense-organ (in the case of a visual hallucination some detail of the surface upon which it is projected) may provide a nucleus of peripherally excited sensation around which the false percept is built up. An object playing a part of this sort in the genesis of an hallucination is known as a “point de repère.” It has been maintained that all hallucinations involve some such point de repère or objective nucleus; but there are good reasons for rejecting this view.

h. In states of ecstasy, or intense emotional concentration of attention upon some one ideal object, the object contemplated seems at times to take on sensory vividness, and so to acquire the character of an hallucination. In these cases the state of mind of the subject is probably similar in many respects to that of the deeply hypnotized subject, and these two classes of hallucination may be regarded as very closely allied.

III. Hallucinations which occur as symptoms of both bodily and mental diseases.

a. Dr H. Head has the credit of having shown for the first time, in the year 1901, that many patients, suffering from more or less painful visceral diseases, disorders of heart, lungs, abdominal viscera, &c., are liable to experience hallucinations of a peculiar kind. These “visceral” hallucinations, which are constantly accompanied by headache of the reflected visceral type, are most commonly visual, more rarely auditory. In all Dr Head’s cases the visual hallucination took the form of a shrouded human figure, colourless and vague, often incomplete, generally seen by the patient standing by his bed when he wakes in a dimly lit room. The auditory “visceral” hallucination was in no instance vocal, but took such forms as sounds of tapping, scratching or rumbling, and were heard only in the absence of objective noises. In a few cases the “visceral” hallucination was bisensory, i.e. both auditory and visual.

In all these respects the “visceral” hallucination differs markedly from the commoner types of the sporadic hallucination of healthy persons.

b. Hallucinations are constant symptoms of certain general disorders in which the nervous system is involved, notably of the delirium tremens, which results from chronic alcohol poisoning, and of the delirium of the acute specific fevers. The hallucinations of these states are generally of a distressing or even terrifying character. Especially is this the rule with those of delirium tremens, and in the hallucinations of this disease certain kinds of objects, e.g. rats and snakes, occur with curious frequency.

c. Hallucinations occasionally occur as symptoms of certain nervous diseases that are not usually classed with the insanities, notably in cases of epilepsy and severe forms of hysteria. In the former disorder, the sensory aura that so often precedes the epileptic convulsion may take the form of an hallucinatory object, which in some cases is very constant in character. Unilateral hallucinations, an especially interesting class, occur in severe cases of hysteria, and are usually accompanied by hemi-anaesthesia of the body on the side on which the hallucinatory object is perceived.

d. Hallucinations occur in a large, but not accurately definable, proportion of all cases of mental disease proper. Two classes are recognized: (1) those that are intimately connected with the dominant emotional state or with some dominant delusion; (2) those that occur sporadically and have no such obvious relation to the other symptoms of disease. Hallucinations of the former class tend to accentuate, and in turn to be confirmed by, the congruent emotional or delusional state; but whether these are to be regarded as primary symptoms and as the cause of the hallucinations, or vice versa, it is generally impossible to say. Patients who suffer delusions of persecution are very apt to develop later in the course of their disease hallucinations of the voices of their persecutors; while in other cases hallucinatory voices, which are at first recognized as such, come to be regarded as real and in these cases seem to be factors of primary importance in the genesis of further delusions. Hallucinations occur in almost every variety of mental disease, but are commonest in the forms characterized by a cloudy dream-like condition of consciousness, and in extreme cases of this sort the patient (as in the delirium of chronic alcohol-poisoning) seems to move waking through a world consisting largely of the images of his own creation, set upon a background of real objects.

In some cases hallucinations are frequently experienced for long periods in the absence of any other symptom of mental disorder, but these no doubt usually imply some morbid condition of the brain.

Physiology of Hallucination.—There has been much discussion as to the nature of the neural process in hallucination. It is generally and rightly assumed that the hallucinatory perception of any object has for its immediate neural correlate a state of excitement which, as regards its characters and its distribution in the elements of the brain, is entirely similar to the neural correlate of the normal perception of the same object. The hallucination is a perception, though a false perception. In the perception of an object and in the representation of it, introspective analysis discovers a number of presentative elements. In the case of the representation these elements are memory images only (except perhaps in so far as actual kinaesthetic sensations enter into its composition); whereas, in the case of the percept, some of these elements are sensations, sensations which differ from images in having the attribute of sensory vividness; and the sensory vividness of these elements lends to the whole complex the sensory vividness or reality, the possession of which character by the percept constitutes its principal difference from the representation. Normally, sensory vividness attaches only to those presentative elements which are excited through stimulations of the sense-organs. The normal percept, then, owes its character of sensory reality to the fact that a certain number of its presentative elements are sensations peripherally excited by impressions made upon a sense-organ. The problem is, then, to account for the fact that the hallucination contains presentative elements that have sensory vividness, that are sensations, although they are not excited by impressions from the external world falling upon a sense-organ. Most of the discussions of this subject suffer from the neglect of this preliminary definition of the problem. Many authors, notably W. Wundt and his disciples, have been content to assume that the sensation differs from the memory-image only in having a higher degree of intensity; from which they infer that its neural correlate in the brain cortex also differs from that of the image only in having a higher degree of intensity. For them an hallucination is therefore merely a representation whose neural correlate involves an intensity of excitement of certain brain-elements such as is normally produced only by peripheral stimulation of sensory nerves in the sense-organs. But this view, so attractively simple, ignores an insuperable objection. Sensory vividness is not to be identified with superior intensity; for while the least intense sensation has it, the memory image of the most intense sensation lacks it completely. And, since intensity of sensation is a function of the intensity of the underlying neural excitement, we may not assume that sensory vividness is also the expression in consciousness of that intensity of excitement. If Wundt’s view were true a progressive diminution of the intensity of a sensory stimulus should bring the sensation to a point in the scale of diminishing intensity at which it ceases to be sensation, ceases to have sensory vividness and becomes an image merely. But this is not the case; with diminishing intensity of stimulation, the sensation declines to a minimal intensity and then disappears from consciousness. This objection applies not only to Wundt’s view of hallucinations, but also to H. Taine’s explanation of them by the aid of his doctrine of “reductives,” for this too identifies sensory vividness with intensity. (H. Taine, De l’intelligence, tome i. p. 108.)

Another widely current explanation is based on the view that the representation and the percept have their anatomical bases in different element-groups or “centres” of the brain, the “centre” of the representation being assigned to a higher level of the brain than that of the percept (the latter being sometimes assigned to the basal ganglia of the brain, the former to the cortex). It is then assumed that while the lower perceptual centre is normally excited only through the sense-organ, it may occasionally be excited by impulses playing down upon it from the corresponding centre of representation, when hallucination results.

This view also is far from satisfactory, because the great additions recently made to our knowledge of the brain tend very strongly to show that both sensations and memory-images have their anatomical bases in the same sensory areas of the cerebral cortex; and many considerations converge to show that their anatomical bases must be, in part at least, identical.

The views based on the assumptions of complete identity, and of complete separateness, of the anatomical bases of the percept and of the representation are then alike untenable; and the alternative—that their anatomical bases are in part identical, in part different, which is indicated by this conclusion—renders possible a far more satisfactory doctrine. We have good reason to believe that the neural correlate of sensation is the transmission of the nervous impulse through a sensori-motor arc of the cortex, made up of a chain of neurones; and the view suggests itself that the neural correlate of the corresponding memory-image is the transmission of the impulse through a part only of this chain of cortical elements, either the efferent motor part of this chain or the afferent sensory part of it. Professor W. James’s theory of hallucinations is based on the latter assumption. He suggests that the sensory vividness of sensation and of the percept is due to the discharge of the excitement of the chain of elements in the forward or motor direction; and that, in the case of the image and of the representation, the discharge takes place, not in this direction through the efferent channel of the centre, but laterally into other centres of the cortex. Hallucination may then be conceived as caused by obstruction, or abnormally increased resistance, of the paths connecting such a cortical centre with others, so that, when it becomes excited in any way, the tension or potential of its charge rises, until discharge takes place in the motor direction through the efferent limbs of the sensori-motor arcs which constitute the centre.

It is a serious objection to this view that, as James himself, in common with most modern authors, maintains, every idea has its motor tendency which commonly, perhaps always, finds expression in some change of tension of muscles, and in many cases issues in actual movements. Now if we accept James’s theory of hallucination, we should expect to find that whenever a representation issues in bodily action it should assume the sensory vividness of an hallucination; and this, of course, is not the case.

The alternative form of the view that assumes partial identity of the anatomical bases of the percept and the representation of an object, would regard the neural correlate of the sensation as the transmission of the nervous impulse throughout the length of the sensori-motor arc of the cortex, from sensory inlet to motor outlet; and that of the image as its transmission through the efferent part of this arc only; that is to say, in the case of the image, it would regard the excitement of the arc as being initiated at some point between its afferent inlet and its motor outlet, and as spreading, in accordance with the law of forward conduction, towards the motor outlet only, so that only the part of the arc distal or efferent to this point becomes excited.

This view of the neural basis of sensory vividness, which correlates the difference between the sensation and the image with the only known difference between their physiological conditions, namely the peripheral initiation of the one and the central initiation of the other, enables us to formulate a satisfactory theory of the physiology of hallucinations.

The anatomical basis of the perception and of the representation of any object is a functional system of nervous elements, comprising a number of sensori-motor arcs, whose excitement by impulses ascending to them by the sensory paths from the sense-organs determines sensations, and whose excitement in their efferent parts only determines the corresponding images. In the case of perception, some of these arcs are excited by impulses ascending from the sense-organs, others only by the spread of the excitement through the system from these peripherally excited arcs; while, in the case of the representation, all alike are excited by impulses that reach the system from other parts of the cortex and spread throughout its efferent parts only to its motor outlets.

If then impulses enter this system by any of the afferent limbs of its sensori-motor arcs, the presentation that accompanies its excitement will have sensory vividness and will be a true perception, an illusion, or an hallucination, according as these impulses have followed the normal course from the sense-organ, or have been diverted, to a lesser or greater degree, from their normal paths. If any such neural system becomes abnormally excitable, or becomes excited in any way with abnormal intensity, it is thereby rendered a path of exceptionally low-resistance capable of diverting to itself, from their normal path, any streams of impulses ascending from the sense-organ; which ascending impulses, entering the system by its afferent inlets, excite sensations that impart to the presentation the character of sensory vividness; the presentation thus acquires the character of a percept in spite of the absence of the appropriate impression on the sense-organ, and we call it an hallucination.

This view renders intelligible the modus operandi of many of the predisposing causes of hallucination; e.g. the pre-occupation with certain representations of the ecstatic, or of the sufferer from delusions of persecution; the intense expectation of a particular sense impression, the generally increased excitability of the cortex in states of delirium; in all these conditions the abnormally intense excitement of the cortical systems may be supposed to give them an undue directive and attractive influence upon the streams of impulses ascending from the sense-organs, so that sensory impulses may be diverted from their normal paths. Again, it renders intelligible the part played by chronic irritation of a sense-organ, as when chronic irritation of the internal ear leads on to hallucinations of hearing; perhaps also the chronic irritation of sensory nerves that must accompany the states of visceral disease, shown by Head to be so frequently accompanied by a liability to hallucinations; for any such chronic irritation supplies a stream of disorderly impulses rising constantly from the sense-organ, for the reception of which the brain has no appropriate system, and which, therefore, readily enters any organized cortical system that at any moment constitutes a path of low-resistance. A similar explanation applies to the influence of fixed gazing upon a crystal, or the placing of a shell over the ear, in inducing visual and auditory hallucinations. The “recurrent sensations” experienced after prolonged occupation with some one kind of sensory object may be regarded as due to an abnormal excitability of the cortical system concerned, resulting from its unduly prolonged exercise. The hypothesis renders intelligible also the liability to hallucination of persons in the hysterical and hypnotic states, in whose brains the cortical neural systems are in a state of partial dissociation, which renders possible an unduly intense and prolonged excitement of some one system at the expense of all other systems (cf. [Hypnotism]).

Coincidental Hallucinations.—It would seem that, in well-nigh all countries and in all ages, apparitions of persons known to be in distant places have been occasionally observed. Such appearances have usually been regarded as due to the presence, before the bodily eye of the seer, of the ghost, wraith, double or soul of the person who thus appears; and, since the soul has been very commonly supposed to leave the body, permanently at death and temporarily during sleep, trance or any period of unconsciousness, however induced, it was natural to regard such an appearance as evidence that the person whose wraith was thus seen was in some such condition. Such apparitions have probably played a part, second only to that of dreams, in generating the almost universal belief in the separability of soul and body.

In many parts of the world traditional belief has connected such apparitions more especially with the death of the person so appearing, the apparition being regarded as an indication that the person so appearing has recently died, is dying or is about to die. Since death is so much less common an event than sleep, trance, or other form of temporary unconsciousness, the wide extension of this belief suggests that such apparitions may coincide in time with death, with disproportionate frequency. The belief in the significance of such apparitions still survives in civilized communities, and stories of apparitions coinciding with the death of the person appearing are occasionally reported in the newspapers, or related as having recently occurred. The Society for Psychical Research has sought to find grounds for an answer to the question “Is there any sufficient justification for the belief in a causal relation between the apparition of a person at a place distant from his body and his death or other exceptional and momentous event in his experience?” The problem was attacked in a thoroughly scientific spirit, an extensive inquiry was made, and the results were presented and fully discussed in two large volumes, Phantasms of the Living, published in the year 1886, bearing on the title-page the names of Edmund Gurney, F. W. H. Myers and F. Podmore. Of the three collaborators Gurney took the largest share in the planning of the work, in the collection of evidence, and in the elaboration and discussion of it.

Gurney set out with the presumption that apparitions, whether coincidental or not, are hallucinations in the sense defined above; that they are false perceptions and are not excited by any object or process of the external world acting upon the sense-organs of the percipient in normal fashion; that they do not imply the presence, in the place apparently occupied by them, of any wraith or any form of existence emanating from, or specially connected with, the person whose phantasm appears. This initial assumption was abundantly justified by an examination of a large number of cases for it, which showed that, in all important respects, most of these apparitions of persons at a distance, whether coincidental or not, were similar to other forms of hallucination.

The acceptance of this conclusion does not, however, imply a negative answer to the question formulated above. The Society for Psychical Research had accumulated an impressive and, to almost all those who had first-hand acquaintance with it, a convincing mass of experimental evidence of the reality of telepathy (q.v.), the influence of mind on mind otherwise than through the recognized channels of sense. The successful experiments had for the most part been made between persons in close proximity, in the same room or in adjoining rooms; but they seemed to show that the state of consciousness of one person may induce directly (i.e. without the mediation of the organs of expression and sense-perception) a similar state of consciousness in another person, especially if the former, usually called the “agent,” strongly desired or “willed” that this effect should be produced on the other person, the “percipient.”

The question formulated above thus resolved itself for Gurney into the more definite form, “Can we find any good reason for believing that coincidental hallucinations are sometimes veridical, that the state of mind of a person at some great crisis of his experience may telepathically induce in the mind of some distant relative or friend an hallucinatory perception of himself?” It was at once obvious that, if coincidental apparitions can be proved to occur, this question can only be answered by a statistical inquiry; for each such coincidental hallucination, considered alone, may always be regarded as most educated persons of the present time have regarded them, namely, as merely accidental coincidences. That the coincidences are not merely accidental can only be proved by showing that they occur more frequently than the doctrine of chances would justify us in expecting. Now, the death of any person is a unique event, and the probability of its occurrence upon any particular day may be very simply calculated from the mortality statistics, if we assume that nothing is known of the individual’s vitality. On the other hand, hallucinatory perceptions of persons, occurring to sane and healthy individuals in the fully waking state, are comparatively rare occurrences, whose frequency we may hope to determine by a statistical inquiry. If, then, we can obtain figures expressing the frequency of such hallucinations, we can deduce, by the help of the laws of chance, the proportion of such hallucinations that may be expected to coincide with (or, for the purposes of the inquiry, to fall within twelve hours of) the death of the person whose apparition appears, if no causal relation obtains between the coinciding events. If, then, it appears that the proportion of such coincidental hallucinations is greater than the laws of probability will account for, a certain presumption of a causal relation between the coinciding events is thereby established; and the greater the excess of such coincidences, the stronger does this presumption become. Gurney attempted a census of hallucinations in order to obtain data for this statistical treatment, and the results of it, embodied in Phantasms of the Living, were considered by the authors of that work to justify the belief that some coincidental hallucinations are veridical. In the year 1889 the Society for Psychical Research appointed a committee, under the chairmanship of the late Henry Sidgwick, to make a second census of hallucinations on a more extensive and systematic plan than the first, in order that the important conclusion reached by the authors of Phantasms of the Living might be put to the severer test rendered possible by a larger and more carefully collected mass of data. Seventeen thousand adults returned answers to the question, “Have you ever, when believing yourself to be completely awake, had a vivid impression of seeing or being touched by a living being or inanimate object, or of hearing a voice; which impression, so far as you could discover, was not due to any external physical cause?” Rather more than two thousand persons answered affirmatively, and to each of these were addressed careful inquiries concerning their hallucinatory experiences. In this way it was found that of the total number, 381 apparitions of persons living at the moment (or not more than twelve hours dead) had been recognized by the percipients, and that, of these, 80 were alleged to have been experienced within twelve hours of the death of the person whose apparition had appeared. A careful review of all the facts, conditions and probabilities, led the committee to estimate that the former number should be enlarged to 1300 in order to make ample allowance for forgetfulness and for all other causes that might have tended to prevent the registration of apparitions of this class. On the other hand, a severe criticism of the alleged death-coincidences led them to reduce the number, admitted by them for the purposes of their calculation, to 30. The making of these adjustments gives us about 1 in 43 as the proportion of coincidental death-apparitions to the total number of recognized apparitions among the 17,000 persons reached by the census. Now the death-rate being just over 19 per thousand, the probability that any person taken at random will die on a given day is about 1 in 19,000; or, more strictly speaking, the average probability that any person will die within any given period of twenty-four hours duration is about 1 in 19,000. Hence the probability that any other particular event, having no causal relation to his death, but occurring during his lifetime (or not later than twelve hours after his death) will fall within the same twenty-four hours as his death is 1 in 19,000; i.e. if an apparition of any individual is seen and recognized by any other person, the probability of its being experienced within twelve hours of that individual’s death is 1 in 19,000, if no causal relation obtains between the two events. Therefore, of all recognized apparitions of living persons, 1 only in 19,000 may be expected to be a death-coincidence of this sort. But the census shows that of 1300 recognized apparitions of living persons 30 are death-coincidences and that is equivalent to 440 in 19,000. Hence, of recognized hallucinations, those coinciding with death are 440 times more numerous than we should expect, if no causal relation obtained; therefore, if neither the data nor the reasoning can be destructively criticized, we are compelled to believe that some causal relation obtains; and, since good evidence of telepathic communication has been experimentally obtained, the least improbable explanation of these death-apparitions is that the dying person exerts upon his distant friend some telepathic influence which generates an hallucinatory perception of himself.

These death-coincidences constitute the main feature of the argument in favour of telepathic communication between distant persons, but the census of hallucinations afforded other data from which a variety of arguments, tending to support this conclusion, were drawn by the committee; of these the most important are the cases in which the hallucinatory percept embodied details that were connected with the person perceived and which could not have become known to the percipient by any normal means. The committee could not find in the results of the census any evidence sufficient to justify a belief that hallucinations may be due to telepathic influence exerted by personalities surviving the death of the body.

The critical handling of the cases by the committee seems to be above reproach. Those who do not accept their conclusion based on the death-coincidences must direct their criticism to the question of the reliability of the reports of these cases. It is to be noted that, although only those cases are reckoned in which the percipient had no cause to expect the death of the person whose apparition he experienced, and although, in nearly all the accepted cases, some record or communication of the hallucination was made before hearing of the death, yet in very few cases was any contemporary written record of the event forthcoming for the inspection of the committee.

(W. McD.)

HALLUIN, a frontier town of northern France, in the department of Nord, near the right bank of the Lys, 14 m. N. by E. of Lille by rail. Pop. (1906) town, 11,670; commune, 16,158. Its church is of Gothic architecture. The manufactures comprise linen and cotton goods, chairs and rubber goods, and brewing and tanning are carried on; there is a board of trade arbitration. The family of Halluin is mentioned as early as the 13th century. In 1587 the title of duke and peer of the realm was granted to it, but in the succeeding century it became extinct.

HALM, CARL FELIX (1809-1882), German classical scholar and critic, was born at Munich on the 5th of April 1809. In 1849, after having held appointments at Spires and Hadamar, he became rector of the newly founded Maximiliansgymnasium at Munich, and in 1856 director of the royal library and professor in the university. These posts he held till his death on the 5th of October 1882. It is chiefly as the editor of Cicero and other Latin prose authors that Halm is known, although in early years he also devoted considerable attention to Greek. After the death of J. C. Orelli, he joined J. G. Baiter in the preparation of a revised critical edition of the rhetorical and philosophical writings of Cicero (1854-1862). His school editions of some of the speeches of Cicero in the Haupt and Sauppe series, with notes and introductions, were very successful. He also edited a number of classical texts for the Teubner series, the most important of which are Tacitus (4th ed., 1883); Rhetores Latini minores (1863); Quintilian (1868); Sulpicius Severus (1866); Minucius Felix together with Firmicus Maternus De errore (1867); Salvianus (1877) and Victor Vitensis’s Historia persecutionis Africanae provinciae (1878). He was also an enthusiastic collector of autographs.

See articles by W. Christ and G. Laubmann in Allgemeine deutsche Biographie and by C. Bursian in Biographisches Jahrbuch; and J. E. Sandys, Hist. of Classical Scholarship, iii. 195 (1908).

HALMA (Greek for “jump”), a table game, a form of which was known to the ancient Greeks, played on a board divided into 256 squares with wooden men, resembling chess pawns. In the two-handed game 19 men are employed on each side, coloured respectively black and white; in the four-handed each player has 13, the men being coloured white, black, red and green. At the beginning of the game the men are drawn up in triangular formation in the enclosures, or yards, diagonally opposite each other in the corners of the board. The object of each player is to get all his men into his enemy’s yard, the player winning who first accomplishes this. The moves are made alternately, the mode of progression being by a step, from one square to another immediately adjacent, or by a jump (whence the name), which is the jumping of a man from a square in front of it into an empty square on the other side of it. This corresponds to jumping in draughts, except that, in halma, the hop may be in any direction, over friendly as well as hostile men, and the men jumped over are not taken but remain on the board.

In the four-handed game either each player plays for himself, or two adjacent players play against the other two.

See Card and Table Games, by Professor Hoffmann (London, 1903).

HALMAHERA [“great land”; also Jilolo or Gilolo], an island of the Dutch East Indies, belonging to the residency of Ternate, lying under the equator and about 128° E. Its shape is extremely irregular, resembling that of the island of Celebes. It consists of four peninsulas so arranged as to enclose three great bays (Kayu, Bicholi, Weda), all opening towards the east, the northern peninsula being connected with the others by an isthmus only 5 m. wide. On the western side of the isthmus lies another bay, that of Dodinga, in the mouth of which are situated the two islands Ternate and Tidore, whose political importance exceeds that of the larger island (see these articles). Of the four peninsulas of Halmahera the northern and the southern are reckoned to the sultanate of Ternate, the north-eastern and south-eastern to that of Tidore; the former having eleven, the latter three districts. The distance between the extremities of the northern and southern peninsulas, measured along the curve of the west coast, is about 240 m.; and the total area of the island is 6700 sq. m. Knowledge of the island is very incomplete. It appears that the four peninsulas are traversed in the direction of their longitudinal axis by mountain chains 3000 to 4000 ft. high, covered with forest, without a central chain at the nucleus of the island whence the peninsulas diverge. The mountain chains are frequently interrupted by plains, such as those of Weda and Kobi. The northern part of the mountain chain of the northern peninsula is volcanic, its volcanoes continuing the line of those of Makian, Ternate and Tidore. Coral formations on heights in the interior would indicate oscillations of the land in several periods, but a detailed geology of the island is wanting. To the north-east of the northern peninsula is the considerable island of Morotai (635 sq. m.), and to the west of the southern peninsula the more important island of Bachian (q.v.) among others. Galela is a considerable settlement, situated on a bay of the same name on the north-east coast, in a well cultivated plain which extends southward and inland. Vegetation is prolific. Rice is grown by the natives, but the sago tree is of far greater importance to them. Dammar and coco-nuts are also grown. The sea yields trepang and pearl shells. A little trade is carried on by the Chinese and Macassars of Ternate, who, crossing the narrow isthmus of Dodinga, enter the bay of Kayu on the east coast. The total population is estimated at 100,000.

The inhabitants are mostly of immigrant Malayan stock. In the northern peninsula are found people of Papuan type, probably representing the aborigines, and a tribe around Galela, who are Polynesian in physique, possibly remnants, much mixed by subsequent crossings with the Papuan indigenes, of the Caucasian hordes emigrating in prehistoric times across the Pacific. M. Achille Raffray gives a description of them in Tour du monde (1879) where photographs will be found. “They are as unlike the Malays as we are, excelling them in tallness of stature and elegance of shape, and being perfectly distinguished by their oval face, with a fairly high and open brow, their aquiline nose and their horizontally placed eyes. Their beards are sometimes thick; their limbs are muscular; the colour of their skins is cinnamon brown. Spears of iron-wood, abundantly barbed, and small bows and bamboo arrows free from poison are their principal weapons.” They are further described as having temples (sabuas) in which they suspend images of serpents and other monsters as well as the trophies procured by war. They believe in a better life hereafter, but have no idea of a hell or a devil, their evil spirits only tormenting them in the present state.

The Portuguese and Spaniards were better acquainted with Halmahera than with many other parts of the archipelago; they called it sometimes Batu China and sometimes Moro. It was circumnavigated by one of their vessels in 1525, and the general outline of the coasts is correctly given in their maps at a time when separate portions of Celebes, such as Macassar and Menado, are represented as distinct islands. The name (Jilolo) was really that of a native state, the sultan of which had the chief rank among the princes of the Moluccas before he was supplanted by the sultan of Ternate about 1380. His capital, Jilolo, lay on the west coast on the first bay to the north of that of Dodinga. In 1876 Danu Hassan, a descendant of the sultans of Jilolo, raised an insurrection in the island for the purpose of throwing off the authority of the sultans of Tidore and Ternate; and his efforts would probably have been successful but for the intervention of the Dutch. In 1878 a Dutch expedition was directed against the pirates of Tobalai, and they were virtually extirpated. Slavery remains in the interior. Missionary work, carried on in the northern peninsula of Halmahera since 1866, has been fairly successful among the heathen natives, but less so among the Mahommedans, who have often incited the others against the missionaries and their converts.

HALMSTAD, a seaport of Sweden, chief town of the district (län) of Halland, on the E. shore of the Cattegat, 76 m. S.S.E. of Gothenburg by the railway to Helsingborg. Pop. (1900), 15,362. It lies at the mouth of the river Nissa, having an inner harbour (15 ft. depth), an outer harbour, and roads giving anchorage (24 to 36 ft.) exposed to S. and N.W. winds. In the neighbourhood there are quarries of granite, which is exported chiefly to Germany. Other industries are engineering, shipbuilding and brewing, and there are cloth, jute, hat, wood-pulp and paper factories. The principal exports are granite, timber and hats; and butter through Helsingborg and Gothenburg. The imports are coal, machinery and grain. Potatoes are largely grown in the district, and the salmon fisheries are valuable. The castle is the residence of the governor of the province. There are both mineral and sea-water baths in the neighbourhood.

Mention of the church of Halmstad occurs as early as 1462, and the fortifications are mentioned first in 1225. The latter were demolished in 1734. There were formerly Dominican and Franciscan monasteries in the town. The oldest town-privileges date from 1307. During the revolt of the miner Engelbrekt, it twice fell into the hands of the rebels—in 1434 and 1436. The town appears to have been frequently chosen as the meeting-place of the rulers and delegates of the three northern kingdoms; and under the union of Kalmar it was appointed to be the place for the election of a new Scandinavian monarch whenever necessary. The län of Halland formed part of the territory of Denmark in Sweden, and accordingly, in 1534, during his war with the Danes, Gustavus Vasa assaulted and took its chief town. In 1660, by the treaty of Copenhagen, the whole district was ceded to Sweden. In 1676 Charles XII. defeated near Halmstad a Danish army which was attempting to retake the district, and since that time Halland has formed part of Sweden.

HALO, a word derived from the Gr. ἄλως, a threshing-floor, and afterwards applied to denote the disk of the sun or moon, probably on account of the circular path traced out by the oxen threshing the corn. It was thence applied to denote any luminous ring, such as that viewed around the sun or moon, or portrayed about the heads of saints.

In physical science, a halo is a luminous circle, surrounding the sun or moon, with various auxiliary phenomena, and formed by the reflection and refraction of light by ice-crystals suspended in the atmosphere. The optical phenomena produced by atmospheric water and ice may be divided into two classes, according to the relative position of the luminous ring and the source of light. In the first class we have halos, and coronae, or “glories,” which encircle the luminary; the second class includes rainbows, fog-bows, mist-halos, anthelia and mountain-spectres, whose centres are at the anti-solar point. Here it is only necessary to distinguish halos from coronae. Halos are at definite distances (22° and 46°) from the sun, and are coloured red on the inside, being due to refraction; coronae closely surround the sun at variable distances, and are coloured red on the outside, being due to diffraction.

Fig. 1.	Fig. 2.

The phenomenon of a solar (or lunar) halo as seen from the earth is represented in fig. 1; fig. 2 is a diagrammatic sketch showing the appearance as viewed from the zenith; but it is only in exceptional circumstances that all the parts are seen. Encircling the sun or moon (S), there are two circles, known as the inner halo I, and the outer halo O, having radii of about 22° and 46°, and exhibiting the colours of the spectrum in a confused manner, the only decided tint being the red on the inside. Passing through the luminary and parallel to the horizon, there is a white luminous circle, the parhelic circle (P), on which a number of images of the luminary appear. The most brilliant are situated at the intersections of the inner halo and the parhelic circle; these are known as parhelia (denoted by the letter p in the figures) (from the Gr. παρά, beside, and ἥλιος, the sun) or “mock-suns,” in the case of the sun, and as paraselenae (from παρά and σελήνη, the moon) or “mock-moons,” in the case of the moon. Less brilliant are the parhelia of the outer halo. The parhelia are most brilliant when the sun is near the horizon. As the sun rises, they pass a little beyond the halo and exhibit flaming tails. The other images on the parhelic circle are the paranthelia (q) and the anthelion (a) (from the Greek ἀντί, opposite, and ἥλιος, the sun). The former are situated at from 90° to 140° from the sun; the latter is a white patch of light situated at the anti-solar point and often exceeding in size the apparent diameter of the luminary. A vertical circle passing through the sun may also be seen. From the parhelia of the inner halo two oblique curves (L) proceed. These are known as the “arcs of Lowitz,” having been first described in 1794 by Johann Tobias Lowitz (1757-1804). Luminous arcs (T), tangential to the upper and lower parts of each halo, also occur, and in the case of the inner halo, the arcs may be prolonged to form a quasi-elliptic halo.

The physical explanation of halos originated with René Descartes, who ascribed their formation to the presence of ice-crystals in the atmosphere. This theory was adopted by Edmé Mariotte, Sir Isaac Newton and Thomas Young; and, although certain of their assumptions were somewhat arbitrary, yet the general validity of the theory has been demonstrated by the researches of J. G. Galle and A. Bravais. The memoir of the last-named, published in the Journal de l’École royale polytechnique for 1847 (xviii., 1-270), ranks as a classic on the subject; it is replete with examples and illustrations, and discusses the various phenomena in minute detail.

The usual form of ice-crystals in clouds is a right hexagonal prism, which may be elongated as a needle or foreshortened like a thin plate. There are three refracting angles possible, one of 120° between two adjacent prism faces, one of 60° between two alternate prism faces, and one of 90° between a prism face and the base. If innumerable numbers of such crystals fall in any manner between the observer and the sun, light falling upon these crystals will be refracted, and the refracted rays will be crowded together in the position of minimum deviation (see [Refraction of Light]). Mariotte explained the inner halo as being due to refraction through a pair of alternate faces, since the minimum deviation of an ice-prism whose refracting angle is 60° is about 22°. Since the minimum deviation is least for the least refrangible rays, it follows that the red rays will be the least refracted, and the violet the more refracted, and therefore the halo will be coloured red on the inside. Similarly, as explained by Henry Cavendish, the halo of 46° is due to refraction by faces inclined at 90°. The impurity of the colours (due partly to the sun’s diameter, but still more to oblique refraction) is more marked in halos than in rainbows; in fact, only the red is at all pure, and as a rule, only a mere trace of green or blue is seen, the external portion of each halo being nearly white.

The two halos are the only phenomena which admit of explanation without assigning any particular distribution to the ice-crystals. But it is obvious that certain distributions will predominate, for the crystals will tend to fall so as to offer the least resistance to their motion; a needle-shaped crystal tending to keep its axis vertical, a plate-shaped crystal to keep its axis horizontal. Thomas Young explained the parhelic circle (P) as due to reflection from the vertical faces of the long prisms and the bases of the short ones. If these vertical faces become very numerous, the eye will perceive a colourless horizontal circle. Reflection from an excess of horizontal prisms gives rise to a vertical circle passing through the sun.

The parhelia (p) were explained by Mariotte as due to refraction through a pair of alternate faces of a vertical prism. When the sun is near the horizon the rays fall upon the principal section of the prisms; the minimum deviation for such rays is 22°, and consequently the parhelia are not only on the inner halo, but also on the parhelic circle. As the sun rises, the rays enter the prisms more and more obliquely, and the angle of minimum deviation increases; but since the emergent ray makes the same angle with the refracting edge as the incident ray, it follows that the parhelia will remain on the parhelic circle, while receding from the inner halo. The different values of the angle of minimum deviation for rays of different refrangibilities give rise to spectral colours, the red being nearest the sun, while farther away the overlapping of the spectra forms a flaming colourless tail sometimes extending over as much as 10° to 20°. The “arcs of Lowitz” (L) are probably due to small oscillations of the vertical prisms.

The “tangential arcs” (T) were explained by Young as being caused by the thin plates with their axes horizontal, refraction taking place through alternate faces. The axes will take up any position, and consequently give rise to a continuous series of parhelia which touch externally the inner halo, both above and below, and under certain conditions (such as the requisite altitude of the sun) form two closed elliptical curves; generally, however, only the upper and lower portions are seen. Similarly, the tangential arcs to the halo of 46° are due to refraction through faces inclined at 90°.

The paranthelia (q) may be due to two internal or two external reflections. A pair of triangular prisms having a common face, or a stellate crystal formed by the symmetrical interpenetration of two triangular prisms admits of two internal reflections by faces inclined at 120°, and so give rise to two colourless images each at an angular distance of 120° from the sun. Double internal reflection by a triangular prism would form a single coloured image on the parhelic circle at about 98° from the sun. These angular distances are attained only when the sun is on the horizon, and they increase as it rises.

The anthelion (a) may be explained as caused by two internal reflections of the solar rays by a hexagonal lamellar crystal, having its axis horizontal and one of the diagonals of its base vertical. The emerging rays are parallel to their original direction and form a colourless image on the parhelic circle opposite the sun.

References.—Auguste Bravais’s celebrated memoir, “Sur les halos et les phénomènes optiques qui les accompagnent” (Journ. École poly. vol. xviii., 1847), contains a full account of the geometrical theory. See also E. Mascart, Traité d’optique; J. Pernter, Meteorologische Optik (1902-1905); and R. S. Heath, Geometrical Optics.

HALOGENS. The word halogen is derived from the Greek ἅλς (sea-salt) and γεννᾶν (to produce), and consequently means the sea-salt producer. The term is applied to the four elements fluorine, chlorine, bromine and iodine, on account of the great similarity of their sodium salts to ordinary sea-salt. These four elements show a great resemblance to one another in their general chemical behaviour, and in that of their compounds, whilst their physical properties show a gradual transition. Thus, as the atomic weight increases, the state of aggregation changes from that of a gas in the case of fluorine and chlorine, to that of a liquid (bromine) and finally to that of the solid (iodine); at the same time the melting and boiling points rise with increasing atomic weights. The halogen of lower atomic weight can displace one of higher atomic weight from its hydrogen compound, or from the salt derived from such hydrogen compound, while, on the other hand, the halogen of higher atomic weight can displace that of lower atomic weight, from the halogen oxy-acids and their salts; thus iodine will liberate chlorine from potassium chlorate and also from perchloric acid. All four of the halogens unite with hydrogen, but the affinity for hydrogen decreases as the atomic weight increases, hydrogen and fluorine uniting explosively at very low temperatures and in the dark, whilst hydrogen and iodine unite only at high temperatures, and even then the resulting compound is very readily decomposed by heat. The hydrides of the halogens are all colourless, strongly fuming gases, readily soluble in water and possessing a strong acid reaction; they react readily with basic oxides, forming in most cases well defined crystalline salts which resemble one another very strongly. On the other hand the stability of the known oxygen compounds increases with the atomic weight, thus iodine pentoxide is, at ordinary temperatures, a well-defined crystalline solid, which is only decomposed on heating strongly, whilst chlorine monoxide, chlorine peroxide, and chlorine heptoxide are very unstable, even at ordinary temperatures, decomposing at the slightest shock. Compounds of fluorine and oxygen, and of bromine and oxygen, have not yet been isolated. In some respects there is a very marked difference between fluorine and the other members of the group, for, whilst sodium chloride, bromide and iodide are readily soluble in water, sodium fluoride is much less soluble; again, silver chloride, bromide and iodide are practically insoluble in water, whilst, on the other hand, silver fluoride is appreciably soluble in water. Again, fluorine shows a great tendency to form double salts, which have no counterpart among the compounds formed by the other members of the family.

HALS, FRANS (1580?-1666), Dutch painter, was born at Antwerp according to the most recent authorities in 1580 or 1581, and died at Haarlem in 1666. As a portrait painter second only to Rembrandt in Holland, he displayed extraordinary talent and quickness in the exercise of his art coupled with improvidence in the use of the means which that art secured to him. At a time when the Dutch nation fought for independence and won it, Hals appears in the ranks of its military gilds. He was also a member of the Chamber of Rhetoric, and (1644) chairman of the Painters’ Corporation at Haarlem. But as a man he had failings. He so ill-treated his first wife, Anneke Hermansz, that she died prematurely in 1616; and he barely saved the character of his second, Lysbeth Reyniers, by marrying her in 1617. Another defect was partiality to drink, which led him into low company. Still he brought up and supported a family of ten children with success till 1652, when the forced sale of his pictures and furniture, at the suit of a baker to whom he was indebted for bread and money, brought him to absolute penury. The inventory of the property seized on this occasion only mentions three mattresses and bolsters, an armoire, a table and five pictures. This humble list represents all his worldly possessions at the time of his bankruptcy. Subsequently to this he was reduced to still greater straits, and his rent and firing were paid by the municipality, which afterwards gave him (1664) an annuity of 200 florins. We may admire the spirit which enabled him to produce some of his most striking works in his unhappy circumstances: we find his widow seeking outdoor relief from the guardians of the poor, and dying obscurely in a hospital.

Hals’s pictures illustrate the various strata of society into which his misfortunes led him. His banquets or meetings of officers, of sharpshooters, and gildsmen are the most interesting of his works. But they are not more characteristic than his low-life pictures of itinerant players and singers. His portraits of gentlefolk are true and noble, but hardly so expressive as those of fishwives and tavern heroes.

His first master at Antwerp was probably van Noort, as has been suggested by M. G. S. Davies, but on his removal to Haarlem Frans Hals entered the atelier of van Mander, the painter and historian, of whom he possessed some pictures which went to pay the debt of the baker already alluded to. But he soon improved upon the practice of the time, illustrated by J. van Schoreel and Antonio Moro, and, emancipating himself gradually from tradition, produced pictures remarkable for truth and dexterity of hand. We prize in Rembrandt the golden glow of effects based upon artificial contrasts of low light in immeasurable gloom. Hals was fond of daylight of silvery sheen. Both men were painters of touch, but of touch on different keys—Rembrandt was the bass, Hals the treble. The latter is perhaps more expressive than the former. He seizes with rare intuition a moment in the life of his sitters. What nature displays in that moment he reproduces thoroughly in a very delicate scale of colour, and with a perfect mastery over every form of expression. He becomes so clever at last that exact tone, light and shade, and modelling are all obtained with a few marked and fluid strokes of the brush.

In every form of his art we can distinguish his earlier style from that of later years. It is curious that we have no record of any work produced by him in the first decade of his independent activity, save an engraving by Jan van de Velde after a lost portrait of “The Minister Johannes Bogardus,” who died in 1614. The earliest works by Frans Hals that have come down to us, “Two Boys Playing and Singing” in the gallery of Cassel, and a “Banquet of the officers of the ‘St Joris Doele’” or Arquebusiers of St George (1616) in the museum of Haarlem, exhibit him as a careful draughtsman capable of great finish, yet spirited withal. His flesh, less clear than it afterwards becomes, is pastose and burnished. Later he becomes more effective, displays more freedom of hand, and a greater command of effect. At this period we note the beautiful full-length of “Madame van Beresteyn” at the Louvre in Paris, and a splendid full-length portrait of “Willem van Heythuysen” leaning on a sword in the Liechtenstein collection at Vienna. Both these pictures are equalled by the other “Banquet of the officers, of the Arquebusiers of St George” (with different portraits) and the “Banquet of the officers of the ‘Cloveniers Doelen’” or Arquebusiers of St Andrew of 1627 and an “Assembly of the officers of the Arquebusiers of St Andrew” of 1633 in the Haarlem Museum. A picture of the same kind in the town hall of Amsterdam, with the date of 1637, suggests some study of the masterpieces of Rembrandt, and a similar influence is apparent in a picture of 1641 at Haarlem, representing the “Regents of the Company of St Elizabeth” and in the portrait of “Maria Voogt” at Amsterdam. But Rembrandt’s example did not create a lasting impression on Hals. He gradually dropped more and more into grey and silvery harmonies of tone; and two of his canvases, executed in 1664, “The Regents and Regentesses of the Oudemannenhuis” at Haarlem, are masterpieces of colour, though in substance all but monochromes. In fact, ever since 1641 Hals had shown a tendency to restrict the gamut of his palette, and to suggest colour rather than express it. This is particularly noticeable in his flesh tints which from year to year became more grey, until finally the shadows were painted in almost absolute black, as in the “Tymane Oosdorp,” of the Berlin Gallery. As this tendency coincides with the period of his poverty, it has been suggested that one of the reasons, if not the only reason, of his predilection for black and white pigment was the cheapness of these colours as compared with the costly lakes and carmines.

As a portrait painter Frans Hals had scarcely the psychological insight of a Rembrandt or Velazquez, though in a few works, like the “Admiral de Ruyter,” in Earl Spencer’s collection, the “Jacob Olycan” at the Hague Gallery, and the “Albert van der Meer” at Haarlem town hall, he reveals a searching analysis of character which has little in common with the instantaneous expression of his so-called “character” portraits. In these he generally sets upon the canvas the fleeting aspect of the various stages of merriment, from the subtle, half ironic smile that quivers round the lips of the curiously misnamed “Laughing Cavalier” in the Wallace Collection to the imbecile grin of the “Hille Bobbe” in the Berlin Museum. To this group of pictures belong Baron Gustav Rothschild’s “Jester,” the “Bohémienne” at the Louvre, and the “Fisher Boy” at Antwerp, whilst the “Portrait of the Artist with his second Wife” at the Ryks Museum in Amsterdam, and the somewhat confused group of the “Beresteyn Family” at the Louvre show a similar tendency. Far less scattered in arrangement than this Beresteyn group, and in every respect one of the most masterly of Frans Hals’s achievements is the group called “The Painter and his Family” in the possession of Colonel Warde, which was almost unknown until it appeared at the winter exhibition at the Royal Academy in 1906.

Though a visit to Haarlem town hall, which contains the five enormous Doelen groups and the two Regenten pictures, is as necessary for the student of Hals’s art as a visit to the Prado in Madrid is for the student of Velazquez, good examples of the Dutch master have found their way into most of the leading public and private collections. In the British Isles, besides the works already mentioned, portraits from his brush are to be found at the National Gallery, the Edinburgh Gallery, the Glasgow Corporation Gallery, Hampton Court, Buckingham Palace, Devonshire House, and the collections of Lord Northbrooke, Lord Ellesmere, Lord Iveagh and Lord Spencer.

At Amsterdam is the celebrated “Flute Player,” once in the Dupper collection at Dort; at Brussels, the patrician “Heythuysen”; at the Louvre, “Descartes”; at Dresden, the painter “Van der Vinne.” Hals’s sitters were taken from every class of society—admirals, generals and burgomasters pairing with merchants, lawyers, clerks. To register all that we find in public galleries would involve much space. There are eight portraits at Berlin, six at Cassel, five at St Petersburg, six at the Louvre, two at Brussels, five at Dresden, two at Gotha. In private collections, chiefly in Paris, Haarlem and Vienna, we find an equally important number. Amongst the painter’s most successful representations of fishwives and termagants we should distinguish the “Hille Bobbe” of the Berlin Museum, and the “Hille Bobbe with her Son” in the Dresden Gallery. Itinerant players are best illustrated in the Neville-Goldsmith collection at the Hague, and the Six collection at Amsterdam. Boys and girls singing, playing or laughing, or men drinking, are to be found in the gallery of Schwerin, in the Arenberg collection, and in the royal palace at Brussels.

For two centuries after his death Frans Hals was held in such poor esteem that some of his paintings, which are now among the proudest possessions of public galleries, were sold at auction for a few pounds or even shillings. The portrait of “Johannes Acronius,” now at the Berlin Museum, realized five shillings at the Enschede sale in 1786. The splendid portrait of the man with the sword at the Liechtenstein gallery was sold in 1800 for £4, 5s. With his rehabilitation in public esteem came the enormous rise in values, and, at the Secretan sale in 1889, the portrait of “Pieter van de Broecke d’Anvers” was bid up to £4420, while in 1908 the National Gallery paid £25,000 for the large group from the collection of Lord Talbot de Malahide.

Of the master’s numerous family none has left a name except Frans Hals the Younger, born about 1622, who died in 1669. His pictures represent cottages and poultry; and the “Vanitas” at Berlin, a table laden with gold and silver dishes, cups, glasses and books, is one of his finest works and deserving of a passing glance.

Quite in another form, and with much of the freedom of the elder Hals, Dirk Hals, his brother (born at Haarlem, died 1656), is a painter of festivals and ball-rooms. But Dirk had too much of the freedom and too little of the skill in drawing which characterized his brother. He remains second on his own ground to Palamedes. A fair specimen of his art is a “Lady playing a Harpsichord to a Young Girl and her Lover” in the van der Hoop collection at Amsterdam, now in the Ryks Museum. More characteristic, but not better, is a large company of gentle-folk rising from dinner, in the Academy at Vienna.

Literature.—See W. Bode, Frans Hals und seine Schule (Leipzig, 1871); W. Unger and W. Vosmaer, Etchings after Frans Hals (Leyden, 1873); Percy Rendell Head, Sir Anthony Van Dyck and Frans Hals (London, 1879); D. Knackfuss, Frans Hals (Leipzig, 1896); G. S. Davies, Frans Hals (London, 1902).

(P. G. K.)

HALSBURY, HARDINGE STANLEY GIFFARD, 1st Earl of (1825-  ), English lord chancellor, son of Stanley Lees Giffard, LL.D., was born in London on the 3rd of September 1825. He was educated at Merton College, Oxford, and was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in 1850, joining the North Wales and Chester circuit. Afterwards he had a large practice at the central criminal court and the Middlesex sessions, and he was for several years junior prosecuting counsel to the treasury. He was engaged in most of the celebrated trials of his time, including the Overend and Gurney and the Tichborne cases. He became queen’s counsel in 1865, and a bencher of the Inner Temple. Mr Giffard twice contested Cardiff in the Conservative interest, in 1868 and 1874, but he was still without a seat in the House of Commons when he was appointed solicitor-general by Disraeli in 1875 and received the honour of knighthood. In 1877 he succeeded in obtaining a seat, when he was returned for Launceston, which borough he continued to represent until his elevation to the peerage in 1885. He was then created Baron Halsbury and appointed lord chancellor, thus forming a remarkable exception to the rule that no criminal lawyer ever reaches the woolsack. Lord Halsbury resumed the position in 1886 and held it until 1892 and again from 1895 to 1905, his tenure of the office, broken only by the brief Liberal ministries of 1886 and 1892-1895, being longer than that of any lord chancellor since Lord Eldon. In 1898 he was created earl of Halsbury and Viscount Tiverton. Among Conservative lord chancellors Lord Halsbury must always hold a high place, his grasp of legal principles and mastery in applying them being pre-eminent among the judges of his day.

HALSTEAD, a market-town in the Maldon parliamentary division of Essex, England, on the Colne, 17 m. N.N.E. from Chelmsford; served by the Colne Valley railway from Chappel Junction on the Great Eastern railway. Pop. of urban district (1901), 6073. It lies on a hill in a pleasant wooded district. The church of St Andrew is mainly Perpendicular. It contains a monument supposed to commemorate Sir Robert Bourchier (d. 1349), lord chancellor to Edward III. The Lady Mary Ramsay grammar school dates from 1594. There are large silk and crape works. Two miles N. of Halstead is Little Maplestead, where the church is the latest in date of the four churches with round naves extant in England, being perhaps of 12th-century foundation, but showing early Decorated work in the main. The chancel, which is without aisles, terminates in an apse. Three miles N.W. from Halstead are the large villages of Sible Hedingham (pop. 1701) and Castle Hedingham (pop. 1097). At the second is the Norman keep of the de Veres, of whom Aubrey de Vere held the lordship from William I. The keep dates from the end of the 11th century, and exhibits much fine Norman work. The church of St Nicholas, Castle Hedingham, has fine Norman, Transitional and Early English details, and there is a black marble tomb of John de Vere, 15th earl of Oxford (d. 1540), with his countess.

There are signs of settlement at Halstead (Halsteda, Halgusted, Halsted) in the Bronze Age; but there is no evidence of the causes of its growth in historic times. Probably its situation on the river Colne made it to some extent a local centre. Throughout the middle ages Halstead was unimportant, and never rose to the rank of a borough.

HALT. (1) An adjective common to Teutonic languages and still appearing in Swedish and Danish, meaning lame, crippled. It is also used as a verb, meaning to limp, and as a substantive, especially in the term “string-halt” or “spring-halt,” a nervous disorder affecting the muscles of the hind legs of horses. (2) A pause or stoppage made on a march or a journey. The word came into English in the form “to make alto” or “alt,” and was taken from the French faire alte or Italian far alto. The origin is a German military term, Halt machen, Halt meaning “hold.”

HALUNTIUM (Gr. Ἀλόντιον, mod. S. Marco d’Alunzio), an ancient city of Sicily, 6 m. from the north coast and 25 m. E.N.E. of Halaesa. It was probably of Sicel origin, though its foundation was ascribed to some of the companions of Aeneas. It appears first in Roman times as a place of some importance, and suffered considerably at the hands of Verres. The abandoned church of S. Mark, just outside the modern town, is built into the cella of an ancient Greek temple, which measures 62 ft. by 18. A number of ancient inscriptions have been found there.

HALYBURTON, JAMES (1518-1589), Scottish reformer, was born in 1518, and was educated at St Andrews, where he graduated M.A. in 1538. From 1553 to 1586 he was provost of St Andrews and a prominent figure in the national life. He was chosen as one of the lords of the congregation in 1557, and commanded the contingents sent by Forfar and Fife against the queen regent in 1559. He took part in the defence of Edinburgh, and in the battles of Langside (1568) and Restalrig (1571). He had stoutly opposed the marriage of Mary with Darnley, and when, after Restalrig, he was captured by the queen’s troops, he narrowly escaped execution. He represented Morton at the conference of 1578, and was one of the royal commissioners to the General Assembly in 1582 and again in 1588. He died in February 1589.

HALYBURTON, THOMAS (1674-1712), Scottish divine, was born at Dupplin, near Perth, on the 25th of December 1674. His father, one of the ejected ministers, having died in 1682, he was taken by his mother in 1685 to Rotterdam to escape persecution, where he for some time attended the school founded by Erasmus. On his return to his native country in 1687 he completed his elementary education at Perth and Edinburgh, and in 1696 graduated at the university of St Andrews. In 1700 he was ordained minister of the parish of Ceres, and in 1710 he was recommended by the synod of Fife for the chair of theology in St Leonard’s College, St Andrews, to which accordingly he was appointed by Queen Anne. After a brief term of active professorial life he died from the effects of overwork in 1712.

The works by which he continues to be known were all of them published after his death. Wesley and Whitefield were accustomed to commend them to their followers. They were published as follows: Natural Religion Insufficient, and Revealed Religion Necessary, to Man’s Happiness in his Present State (1714), an able statement of the orthodox Calvinistic criticism of the deism of Lord Herbert of Cherbury and Charles Blount; Memoirs of the Life of Mr Thomas Halyburton (1715), three parts by his own hand, the fourth from his diary by another hand; The Great Concern of Salvation (1721), with a word of commendation by I. Watts; Ten Sermons Preached Before and After the Lord’s Supper (1722); The Unpardonable Sin Against the Holy Ghost (1784). See Halyburton’s Memoirs (1714).

HAM, in the Bible. (1) חם, Ḥām, in Gen. v. 32, vi. 10, vii. 13, ix. 18, x. 5, 1 Chron. i. 4, the second son of Noah; in Gen. ix. 24, the youngest son (but cf. below); and in Gen. x. 6, 1 Chron. i. 8, the father of Cush (Ethiopia), Mizraim (Egypt), Phut and Canaan. Genesis x. exhibits in the form of genealogies the political, racial and geographical relations of the peoples known to Israel; as it was compiled from various sources and has been more than once edited, it does not exactly represent the situation at any given date,[1] but Ham seems to stand roughly for the south-western division of the world as known to Israel, which division was regarded as the natural sphere of influence of Egypt. Ham is held to be the Egyptian word Khem (black) which was the native name of Egypt; thus in Pss. lxxviii. 51, cv. 23, 27, cvi. 22, Ham = Egypt. In Gen. ix. 20-26 Canaan was originally the third son of Noah and the villain of the story. Ham is a later addition to harmonize with other passages.

(2) חם, Ḥām, 1 Chron. iv. 40, apparently the name of a place or tribe. It can hardly be identical with (1); nothing else is known of this second Ham, which may be a scribe’s error; the Syriac version rejects the name.

(3) חם, Ḥam, Gen. xiv. 5; the place where Chedorlaomer defeated the Zuzim, apparently in eastern Palestine. The place is unknown, and the name may be a scribe’s error, perhaps for Ammon.

(W. H. Be.)

[1] A. Jeremias, Das A.T. im Lichte des alten Orients, p. 145, holds that it represents the situation in the 8th century B.C.

HAM, a small town of northern France, in the department of Somme, 36 m. E.S.E. of Amiens on the Northern railway between that city and Laon. Pop. (1906), 2957. It stands on the Somme in a marshy district where market-gardening is carried on. From the 9th century onwards it appears as the seat of a lordship which, after the extinction of its hereditary line, passed in succession to the houses of Coucy, Enghien, Luxembourg, Rohan, Vendôme and Navarre, and was finally united to the French crown on the accession of Henry IV. Notre-Dame, the church of an abbey of canons regular of St Augustin, dates from the 12th and 13th centuries, but in 1760 all the inflammable portions of the building were destroyed by a conflagration caused by lightning, and a process of restoration was subsequently carried out. Of special note are the bas-reliefs of the nave and choir, executed in the 17th and 18th centuries, and the crypt of the 12th century, which contains the sepulchral effigies of Odo IV. of Ham and his wife Isabella of Béthencourt. The castle, founded before the 10th century, was rebuilt early in the 13th, and extended in the 14th; its present appearance is mainly due to the constable Louis of Luxembourg, count of St Pol, who between 1436 and 1470 not only furnished it with outworks, but gave such a thickness to the towers and curtains, and more especially to the great tower or donjon which still bears his motto Mon Myeulx, that the great engineer and architect Viollet-le-Duc considered them, even in the 19th century, capable of resisting artillery. It forms a rectangle 395 ft. long by 263 ft. broad, with a round tower at each angle and two square towers protecting the curtains. The eastern and western sides are each defended by a demi-lune. The Constable’s Tower, for so the great tower is usually called in memory of St Pol, has a height of about 100 ft., and the thickness of the walls is 36 ft.; the interior is occupied by three large hexagonal chambers in as many stories. The castle of Ham, which now serves as barracks, has frequently been used as a state prison both in ancient and modern times, and the list of those who have sojourned there is an interesting one, including as it does Joan of Arc, Louis of Bourbon, the ministers of Charles X., Louis Napoleon, and Generals Cavaignac and Lamoricière. Louis Napoleon was there for six years, and at last effected his escape in the disguise of a workman. During 1870-1871 Ham was several times captured and recaptured by the belligerents. A statue commemorates the birth in the town of General Foy (1775-1825).

See J. G. Cappot, Le Château de Ham (Paris, 1842); and Ch. Gomart, Ham, son château et ses prisonniers (Ham, 1864).

HAMADĀN, a province and town of Persia. The province is bounded N. by Gerrūs and Khamseh, W. by Kermanshah, S. by Malāyir and Irāk, E. by Savah and Kazvin. It has many well-watered, fertile plains and more than four hundred flourishing villages producing much grain, and its population, estimated at 350,000—more than half being Turks of the Karaguzlu (black-eyed) and Shāmlu (Syrian) tribes—supplies several battalions of infantry to the army, and pays, besides, a yearly revenue of about £18,000.

Hamadān, the capital of the province, is situated 188 m. W.S.W. of Teheran, at an elevation of 5930 ft., near the foot of Mount Elvend (old Persian Arvand, Gr. Orontes), whose granite peak rises W. of it to an altitude of 11,900 ft. It is a busy trade centre with about 40,000 inhabitants (comprising 4000 Jews and 300 Armenians), has extensive and well-stocked bazaars and fourteen large and many small caravanserais. The principal industries are tanning leather and the manufacture of saddles, harnesses, trunks, and other leather goods, felts and copper utensils. The leather of Hamadān is much esteemed throughout the country and exported to other provinces in great quantities. The streets are narrow, and by a system called Kūcheh-bandi (street-closing) established long ago for impeding the circulation of crowds and increasing general security, every quarter of the town, or block of buildings, is shut off from its neighbours by gates which are closed during local disorders and regularly at night. Hamadān has post and telegraph offices and two churches, one Armenian, the other Protestant (of the American Presbyterian Mission).

Among objects of interest are the alleged tombs of Esther and Mordecai in an insignificant domed building in the centre of the town. There are two wooden sarcophagi carved all over with Hebrew inscriptions. That ascribed to Mordecai has the verses Isaiah lix. 8; Esther ii. 5; Ps. xvi. 9, 10, 11, and the date of its erection A.M. 4318 (A.D. 557). The inscriptions on the other sarcophagus consist of the verses Esther ix. 29, 32, x. 1; and the statement that it was placed there A.M. 4602 (A.D. 841) by “the pious and righteous woman Gemal Setan.” A tablet let into the wall states that the building was repaired A.M. 4474 (A.D. 713). Hamadān also has the grave of the celebrated physician and philosopher Abu Ali ibn Sina, better known as Avicenna (d. 1036). It is now generally admitted that Hamadān is the Hagmatana (of the inscriptions), Agbatana or Ecbatana (q.v., of the Greek writers), the “treasure city” of the Achaemenian kings which was taken and plundered by Alexander the Great, but very few ancient remains have been discovered. A rudely carved stone lion, which lies on the roadside close to the southern extremity of the city, and by some is supposed to have formed part of a building of the ancient city, is locally regarded as a talisman against famine, plague, cold, &c., placed there by Pliny, who is popularly known as the sorcerer Balinās (a corruption of Plinius).

Five miles S.W. from the city in a mountain gorge of Mount Elvend is the so-called Ganjnāma (treasure-deed), which consists of two tablets with trilingual cuneiform inscriptions cut into the rock and relating the names and titles of Darius I. (521-485 B.C.) and his son Xerxes I. (485-465 B.C.).

(A. H. S.)

HAMADHĀNĪ, in full Abū-l Faḍl Aḥmad ibn ul-Ḥusain ul-Hamadhānī (967-1007), Arabian writer, known as Badi‘ uz-Zamān (the wonder of the age), was born and educated at Hamadbān. In 990 be went to Jorjān, where he remained two years; then passing to Nīshapūr, where he rivalled and surpassed the learned Khwārizmī. After journeying through Khorasan and Sijistān, he finally settled in Herāt under the protection of the vizir of Mahmūd, the Ghaznevid sultan. There he died at the age of forty. He was renowned for a remarkable memory and for fluency of speech, as well as for the purity of his language. He was one of the first to renew the use of rhymed prose both in letters and maqāmas (see [Arabia]: Literature, section “Belles Lettres”).

His letters were published at Constantinople (1881), and with commentary at Beirut (1890); his maqāmas at Constantinople (1881), and with commentary at Beirut (1889). A good idea of the latter may be obtained from S. de Sacy’s edition of six of the maqāmas with French translation and notes in his Chrestomathie arabe, vol. iii. (2nd ed., Paris, 1827). A specimen of the letters is translated into German in A. von Kremer’s Culturgeschichte des Orients, ii. 470 sqq. (Vienna, 1877).

(G. W. T.)

HAMAH, the Hamath of the Bible, a Hittite royal city, situated in the narrow valley of the Orontes, 110 English miles N. (by E.) of Damascus. It finds a place in the northern boundaries of Israel under David, Solomon and Jeroboam II. (2 Sam. viii. 9; 1 Kings viii. 65; 2 Kings xiv. 25). The Orontes flows winding past the city and is spanned by four bridges. On the south-east the houses rise 150 ft. above the river, and there are four other hills, that of the Kalah or castle being to the north 100 ft. high. Twenty-four minarets rise from the various mosques. The houses are principally of mud, and the town stands amid poplar gardens with a fertile plain to the west. The castle is ruined, the streets are narrow and dirty, but the bazaars are good, and the trade with the Bedouins considerable. The numerous water-wheels (naūrah,) of enormous dimension, raising water from the Orontes are the most remarkable features of the view. Silk, woollen and cotton goods are manufactured. The population is about 40,000.

In the year 854 B.C. Hamath was taken by Shalmaneser II., king of Assyria, who defeated a large army of allied Hamathites, Syrians and Israelites at Karkor and slew 14,000 of them. In 738 B.C. Tiglath Pileser III. reduced the city to tribute, and another rebellion was crushed by Sargon in 720 B.C. The downfall of so ancient a state made a great impression at Jerusalem (Isa. x. 9). According to 2 Kings xvii. 24, 30, some of its people were transported to the land of N. Israel, where they made images of Ashima or Eshmun (probably Ishtar). After the Macedonian conquest of Syria Hamath was called Epiphania by the Greeks in honour of Antiochus IV., Epiphanes, and in the early Byzantine period it was known by both its Hebrew and its Greek name. In A.D. 639 the town surrendered to Abu ’Obeida, one of Omar’s generals, and the church was turned into a mosque. In A.D. 1108 Tancred captured the city and massacred the Ism’aileh defenders. In 1115 it was retaken by the Moslems, and in 1178 was occupied by Saladin. Abulfeda, prince of Hamah in the early part of the 14th century, is well known as an authority on Arab geography.

HAMANN, JOHANN GEORG (1730-1788), German writer on philosophical and theological subjects, was born at Königsberg in Prussia on the 27th of August 1730. His parents were of humble rank and small means. The education he received was comprehensive but unsystematic, and the want of definiteness in this early training doubtless tended to aggravate the peculiar instability of character which troubled Hamann’s after life. In 1746 be began theological studies, but speedily deserted them and turned his attention to law. That too was taken up in a desultory fashion and quickly relinquished. Hamann seems at this time to have thought that any strenuous devotion to “bread-and-butter” studies was lowering, and accordingly gave himself entirely to reading, criticism and philological inquiries. Such studies, however, were pursued without any definite aim or systematic arrangement, and consequently were productive of nothing. In 1752, constrained to secure some position in the world, he accepted a tutorship in a family resident in Livonia, but only retained it a few months. A similar situation in Courland he also resigned after about a year. In both cases apparently the rupture might be traced to the curious and unsatisfactory character of Hamann himself. After leaving his second post he was received into the house of a merchant at Riga named Johann Christoph Behrens, who contracted a great friendship for him and selected him as his companion for a tour through Danzig, Berlin, Hamburg, Amsterdam and London. Hamann, however, was quite unfitted for business, and when left in London, gave himself up entirely to his fancies, and was quickly reduced to a state of extreme poverty and want. It was at this period of his life, when his inner troubles of spirit harmonized with the unhappy external conditions of his lot, that he began an earnest and prolonged study of the Bible; and from this time dates the tone of extreme pietism which is characteristic of his writings, and which undoubtedly alienated many of his friends. He returned to Riga, and was well received by the Behrens family, in whose house he resided for some time. A quarrel, the precise nature of which is not very clear though the occasion is evident, led to an entire separation from these friends. In 1759 Hamann returned to Königsberg, and lived for several years with his father, filling occasional posts in Königsberg and Mitau. In 1767 he obtained a situation as translator in the excise office, and ten years later a post as storekeeper in a mercantile house. During this period of comparative rest Hamann was able to indulge in the long correspondence with learned friends which seems to have been his greatest pleasure. In 1784 the failure of some commercial speculations greatly reduced his means, and about the same time he was dismissed with a small pension from his situation. The kindness of friends, however, supplied provision for his children, and enabled him to carry out the long-cherished wish of visiting some of his philosophical allies. He spent some time with Jacobi at Pempelfort and with Buchholz at Walbergen. At the latter place he was seized with illness, and died on the 21st of June 1788.

Hamann’s works resemble his life and character. They are entirely unsystematic so far as matter is concerned, chaotic and disjointed in style. To a reader not acquainted with the peculiar nature of the man, which led him to regard what commended itself to him as therefore objectively true, they must be, moreover, entirely unintelligible and, from their peculiar, pietistic tone and scriptural jargon, probably offensive. A place in the history of philosophy can be yielded to Hamann only because he expresses in uncouth, barbarous fashion an idea to which other writers have given more effective shape. The fundamental thought is with him the unsatisfactoriness of abstraction or one-sidedness. The Aufklärung, with its rational theology, was to him the type of abstraction. Even Epicureanism, which might appear concrete, was by him rightly designated abstract. Quite naturally, then, Hamann is led to object strongly to much of the Kantian philosophy. The separation of sense and understanding is for him unjustifiable, and only paralleled by the extraordinary blunder of severing matter and form. Concreteness, therefore, is the one demand which Hamann expresses, and as representing his own thought he used to refer to Giordano Bruno’s conception (previously held by Nicolaus Curanus) of the identity of contraries. The demand, however, remains but a demand. Nothing that Hamann has given can be regarded as in the slightest degree a response to it. His hatred of system, incapacity for abstract thinking, and intense personality rendered it impossible for him to do more than utter the disjointed, oracular, obscure dicta which gained for him among his friends the name of “Magus of the North.” Two results only appear throughout his writings—first, the accentuation of belief; and secondly, the transference of many philosophical difficulties to language. Belief is, according to Hamann, the groundwork of knowledge, and he accepts in all sincerity Hume’s analysis of experience as being most helpful in constructing a theological view. In language, which he appears to regard as somehow acquired, he finds a solution for the problems of reason which Kant had discussed in the Kritik der reinen Vernunft. On the application of these thoughts to the Christian theology one need not enter.

None of Hamann’s writings is of great bulk; most are mere pamphlets of some thirty or forty pages. A complete collection has been published by F. Roth (Schriften, 8vo, 1821-1842), and by C. H. Gildemeister (Leben und Schriften, 6 vols., 1851-1873). See also M. Petri, Hamanns Schriften u. Briefe, (4 vols., 1872-1873); J. Poel, Hamann, der Magus im Norden, sein Leben u. Mitteilungen aus seinen Schriften (2 vols., 1874-1876); J. Claassen, Hamanns Leben und Werke (1885). Also H. Weber, Neue Hamanniana (1905). A very comprehensive essay on Hamann is to be found in Hegel’s Vermischte Schriften, ii. (Werke, Bd. xvii.). On Hamann’s influence on German literature, see J. Minor, J. G. Hamann in seiner Bedeutung für die Sturm- und Drang-Periode (1881).

HAMAR, or Storehammer (Great Hamar), a town of Norway in Hedemarken amt (county), 78 m. by rail N. of Christiania. Pop. (1900), 6003. It is pleasantly situated between two bays of the great Lake Mjösen, and is the junction of the railways to Trondhjem (N.) and to Otta in Gudbrandsdal (N.W.). The existing town was laid out in 1849, and made a bishop’s see in 1864. Near the same site there stood an older town, which, together with a bishop’s see, was founded in 1152 by the Englishman Nicholas Breakspeare (afterwards Pope Adrian IV.); but both town and cathedral were destroyed by the Swedes in 1567. Remains of the latter include a nave-arcade with rounded arches. The town is a centre for the local agricultural and timber trade.

ḤAMĀSA (Ḥamāsah), the name of a famous Arabian anthology compiled by Ḥabīb ibn Aus aṭ-Ṭā’ī, surnamed Abū Tammām (see [Abū Tammām]). The collection is so called from the title of its first book, containing poems descriptive of constancy and valour in battle, patient endurance of calamity, steadfastness in seeking vengeance, manfulness under reproach and temptation, all which qualities make up the attribute called by the Arabs ḥamāsah (briefly paraphrased by at-Tibrīzī as ash-shiddah fi-l-amr). It consists of ten books or parts, containing in all 884 poems or fragments of poems, and named respectively—(1) al-Ḥamāsa, 261 pieces; (2) al-Marāthī, “Dirges,” 169 pieces; (3) al-Adab, “Manners,” 54 pieces; (4) an-Nasīb, “The Beauty and Love of Women,” 139 pieces; (5) al-Hijā, “Satires,” 80 pieces; (6) al-Aḍyāf wa-l-Madīḥ, “Hospitality and Panegyric,” 143 pieces; (7) aṣ-Ṣifāt, “Miscellaneous Descriptions,” 3 pieces; (8) as-Sair wa-n-Nu’ās, “Journeying and Drowsiness,” 9 pieces; (9) al-Mulaḥ, “Pleasantries,” 38 pieces; and (10) Madhammat-an-nisā, “Dispraise of Women,” 18 pieces. Of these books the first is by far the longest, both in the number and extent of its poems, and the first two together make up more than half the bulk of the work. The poems are for the most part fragments selected from longer compositions, though a considerable number are probably entire. They are taken from the works of Arab poets of all periods down to that of Abū Tammām himself (the latest ascertainable date being A.D. 832), but chiefly of the poets of the Ante-Islamic time (Jāhiliyyūn), those of the early days of Al-Islām (Mukhaḍrimūn), and those who flourished during the reigns of the Omayyad caliphs, A.D. 660-749 (Islāmiyyūn). Perhaps the oldest in the collection are those relating to the war of Basūs, a famous legendary strife which arose out of the murder of Kulaib, chief of the combined clans of Bakr and Taghlib, and lasted for forty years, ending with the peace of Dhu-l-Majāz, about A.D. 534. Of the period of the Abbasid caliphs, under whom Abū Tammām himself lived, there are probably not more than sixteen fragments.

Most of the poems belong to the class of extempore or occasional utterances, as distinguished from qaṣīdas, or elaborately finished odes. While the latter abound with comparisons and long descriptions, in which the skill of the poet is exhibited with much art and ingenuity, the poems of the Ḥamāsa are short, direct and for the most part free from comparisons; the transitions are easy, the metaphors simple, and the purpose of the poem clearly indicated. It is due probably to the fact that this style of composition was chiefly sought by Abū Tammām in compiling his collection that he has chosen hardly anything from the works of the most famous poets of antiquity. Not a single piece from Imra ’al-Qais (Amru-ul-Qais) occurs in the Ḥamāsa, nor are there any from ‘Alqama, Zuhair or A‘shā; Nābigha is represented only by two pieces (pp. 408 and 742 of Freytag’s edition) of four and three verses respectively; ‘Antara by two pieces of four verses each (id. pp. 206, 209); Ṭarafa by one piece of five verses (id. p. 632); Labīd by one piece of three verses (id. p. 468); and ‘Amr ibn Kulthūm by one piece of four verses (id. p. 236). The compilation is thus essentially an anthology of minor poets, and exhibits (so far at least as the more ancient poems are concerned) the general average of poetic utterance at a time when to speak in verse was the daily habit of every warrior of the desert.

To this description, however, there is an important exception in the book entitled an-Nasīb, containing verses relating to women and love. In the classical age of Arab poetry it was the established rule that all qaṣīdas, or finished odes, whatever their purpose, must begin with the mention of women and their charms (tashbīb), in order, as the old critics said, that the hearts of the hearers might be softened and inclined to regard kindly the theme which the poet proposed to unfold. The fragments included in this part of the work are therefore generally taken from the opening verses of qaṣīdas; where this is not the case, they are chiefly compositions of the early Islamic period, when the school of exclusively erotic poetry (of which the greatest representative was ‘Omar ibn Abī Rabi‘a) arose.

The compiler was himself a distinguished poet in the style of his day, and wandered through many provinces of the Moslem empire earning money and fame by his skill in panegyric. About 220 A.H. he betook himself to Khorasan, then ruled by ‘Abdallah ibn Ṭāhir, whom he praised and by whom he was rewarded; on his journey home to ‘Irāk he passed through Hamadhān, and was there detained for many months a guest of Abu-l-Wafā, son of Salama, the road onward being blocked by heavy falls of snow. During his residence at Hamadhān, Abū Tammām is said to have compiled or composed, from the materials which he found in Abu-l-Wafā’s library, five poetical works, of which one was the Ḥamāsa. This collection remained as a precious heirloom in the family of Abu-l-Wafā until their fortunes decayed, when it fell into the hands of a man of Dīnawar named Abu-l-‘Awādhil, who carried it to Iṣfahān and made it known to the learned of that city.

The worth of the Ḥamāsa as a store-house of ancient legend, of faithful detail regarding the usages of the pagan time and early simplicity of the Arab race, can hardly be exaggerated. The high level of excellence which is found in its selections, both as to form and matter, is remarkable, and caused it to be said that Abū Tammām displayed higher qualities as a poet in his choice of extracts from the ancients than in his own compositions. What strikes us chiefly in the class of poetry of which the Ḥamāsa is a specimen, is its exceeding truth and reality, its freedom from artificiality and hearsay, the evident first-hand experience which the singers possessed of all of which they sang. For historical purposes the value of the collection is not small; but most of all there shines forth from it a complete portraiture of the hardy and manful nature, the strenuous life of passion and battle, the lofty contempt of cowardice, niggardliness and servility, which marked the valiant stock who bore Islām abroad in a flood of new life over the outworn civilizations of Persia, Egypt and Byzantium. It has the true stamp of the heroic time, of its cruelty and wantonness as of its strength and beauty.

No fewer than twenty commentaries are enumerated by Ḥājjī Khalīfa. Of these the earliest was by Abū Riyāsh (otherwise ar-Riyāshī), who died in 257 A.H.; excerpts from it, chiefly in elucidation of the circumstances in which the poems were composed, are frequently given by at-Tibrīzī (Tabrīzī). He was followed by the famous grammarian Abu-l-Fatḥ ibn al-Jinnī (d. 392 A.H.), and later by Shihāb ad-Din Aḥmad al-Marzūqī of Iṣfahān (d. 421 A.H.). Upon al-Marzūqī’s commentary is chiefly founded that of Abu Zakarīyā Yaḥyā at-Tibrīzī (b. 421 A.H., d. 502), which has been published by the late Professor G. W. Freytag of Bonn, together with a Latin translation and notes (1828-1851). This monumental work, the labour of a life, is a treasure of information regarding the classical age of Arab literature which has not perhaps its equal for extent, accuracy, and minuteness of detail in Europe. No other complete edition of the Ḥamāsa has been printed in the West; but in 1856 one appeared at Calcutta under the names of Maulavī Ghulām Rabbānī and Kabīru-d-dīn Aḥmad. Though no acknowledgment of the fact is contained in this edition, it is a simple reprint of Professor Freytag’s text (without at-Tibrīzī’s commentary), and follows its original even in the misprints (corrected by Freytag at the end of the second volume, which being in Latin the Calcutta editors do not seem to have consulted). It contains in an appendix of 12 pages a collection of verses (and some entire fragments) not found in at-Tibrīzī’s recension, but stated to exist in some copies consulted by the editors; these are, however, very carelessly edited and printed, and in many places unintelligible. Freytag’s text, with at-Tibrīzī’s commentary, has been reprinted at Būlāq (1870). In 1882 an edition of the text, with a marginal commentary by Munshi ‘Abdul-Qādir ibn Shaikh Luqmān, was published at Bombay.

The Ḥamāsa has been rendered with remarkable skill and spirit into German verse by the illustrious Friedrich Rückert (Stuttgart, 1846), who has not only given translations of almost all the poems proper to the work, but has added numerous fragments drawn from other sources, especially those occurring in the scholia of at-Tibrīzī, as well as the Mu‘allaqas of Zuhair and ‘Antara, the Lāmiyya of Ash-Shanfarà, and the Bānat Su‘ād of Ka‘b, son of Zuhair. A small collection of translations, chiefly in metres imitating those of the original, was published in London by Sir Charles Lyall in 1885.

When the Ḥamāsa is spoken of, that of Abū Tammām, as the first and most famous of the name, is meant; but several collections of a similar kind, also called Ḥamāsa, exist. The best-known and earliest of these is the Ḥamāsa of Buhturi (d. 284 A.H.), of which the unique MS. now in the Leiden University Library, has been reproduced by photo-lithography (1909); a critical edition has been prepared by Professor Chlikho at Beyreuth. Four other works of the same name, formed on the model of Abū Tammām’s compilation, are mentioned by Hājjī Khalīfa. Besides these, a work entitled Ḥamasat ar-Rāh (“the Ḥamāsa of wine”) was composed of Abu-l-‘Alāal-Ma‘arrī (d. 429 A.H.).

(C. J. L.)

HAMBURG, a state of the German empire, on the lower Elbe, bounded by the Prussian provinces of Schleswig-Holstein and Hanover. The whole territory has an area of 160 sq. m., and consists of the city of Hamburg with its incorporated suburbs and the surrounding district, including several islands in the Elbe, five small enclaves in Holstein; the communes of Moorburg in the Lüneburg district of the Prussian province of Hanover and Cuxhaven-Ritzebüttel at the mouth of the Elbe, the island of Neuwerk about 5 m. from the coast, and the bailiwick (amt) of Bergedorf, which down to 1867 was held in common by Lübeck and Hamburg. Administratively the state is divided into the city, or metropolitan district, and four rural domains (or Landherrenschaften), each under a senator as praeses, viz. the domain of the Geestlande, of the Marschlande, of Bergedorf and of Ritzebüttel with Cuxhaven. Cuxhaven-Ritzebüttel and Bergedorf are the only towns besides the capital. The Geestlande comprise the suburban districts encircling the city on the north and west; the Marschlande includes various islands in the Elbe and the fertile tract of land lying between the northern and southern arms of the Elbe, and with its pastures and market gardens supplying Hamburg with large quantities of country produce. In the Bergedorf district lies the Vierlande, or Four Districts (Neuengamme, Kirchwärder, Altengamme and Curslack), celebrated for its fruit gardens and the picturesque dress of the inhabitants. Ritzebüttel with Cuxhaven, also a watering-place, have mostly a seafaring population. Two rivers, the Alster and the Bille, flow through the city of Hamburg into the Elbe, the mouth of which, at Cuxhaven, is 75 m. below the city.

Government.—As a state of the empire, Hamburg is represented in the federal council (Bundesrat) by one plenipotentiary, and in the imperial diet (Reichstag) by three deputies. Its present constitution came into force on the 1st of January 1861, and was revised in 1879 and again in 1906. According to this Hamburg is a republic, the government (Staatsgewalt) residing in two chambers, the Senate and the House of Burgesses. The Senate, which exercises the greater part of the executive power, is composed of eighteen members, one half of whom must have studied law or finance, while at least seven of the remainder must belong to the class of merchants. The members of the Senate are elected for life by the House of Burgesses; but a senator is free to retire from office at the expiry of six years. A chief (ober-) and second (zweiter-) burgomaster, the first of whom bears the title of “Magnificence,” chosen annually in secret ballot, preside over the meetings of the Senate, and are usually jurists. No burgomaster can be in office for longer than two years consecutively, and no member of the Senate may hold any other public office. The House of Burgesses consists of 160 members, of whom 80 are elected in secret ballot by the direct suffrages of all tax-paying citizens, 40 by the owners of house-property within the city (also by ballot), and the remaining 40, by ballot also, by the so-called “notables,” i.e. active and former members of the law courts and administrative boards. They are elected for a period of six years, but as half of each class retire at the end of three years, new elections for one half the number take place at the end of that time. The House of Burgesses is represented by a Bürgerausschuss (committee of the house) of twenty deputies whose duty it is to watch over the proceedings of the Senate and the constitution generally. The Senate can interpose a veto in all matters of legislation, saving taxation, and where there is a collision between the two bodies, provision is made for reference to a court of arbitration, consisting of members of both houses in equal numbers, and also to the supreme court of the empire (Reichsgericht) sitting at Leipzig. The law administered is that of the civil and penal codes of the German empire, and the court of appeal for all three Hanse towns is the common Oberlandesgericht, which has its seat in Hamburg. There is also a special court of arbitration in commercial disputes and another for such as arise under accident insurance.

Religion.—The church in Hamburg is completely separated from the state and manages its affairs independently. The ecclesiastical arrangements of Hamburg have undergone great modifications since the general constitution of 1860. From the Reformation to the French occupation in the beginning of the 19th century, Hamburg was a purely Lutheran state; according to the “Recess” of 1529, re-enacted in 1603, non-Lutherans were subject to legal punishment and expulsion from the country. Exceptions were gradually made in favour of foreign residents; but it was not till 1785 that regular inhabitants were allowed to exercise the religious rites of other denominations, and it was not till after the war of freedom that they were allowed to have buildings in the style of churches. In 1860 full religious liberty was guaranteed, and the identification of church and state abolished. By the new constitution of the Lutheran Church, published at first in 1870 for the city only, but in 1876 extended to the rest of the Hamburg territory, the parishes or communes are divided into three church-districts, and the general affairs of the whole community are entrusted to a synod of 53 members and to an ecclesiastical council of 9 members which acts as an executive. Since 1887 a church rate has been levied on the Evangelical-Lutheran communities, and since 1904 upon the Roman Catholics also. The German Reformed Church, the French Reformed, the English Episcopal, the English Reformed, the Roman Catholic, and the Baptist are all recognized by the state. Civil marriages have been permissible in Hamburg since 1866, and since the introduction of the imperial law in January 1876 the number of such marriages has greatly increased.

Finance.—The jurisdiction of the Free Port was on the 1st of January 1882 restricted to the city and port by the extension of the Zollverein to the lower Elbe, and in 1888 the whole of the state of Hamburg, with the exception of the so-called “Free Harbour” (which comprises the port proper and some large warehouses, set apart for goods in bond), was taken into the Zollverein.

Population.—The population increased from 453,000 in 1880 to 622,530 in 1890, and in 1905 amounted to 874,878. The population of the country districts (exclusive of the city of Hamburg) was 72,085 in 1905. The crops raised in the country districts are principally vegetables and fruit, potatoes, hay, oats, rye and wheat. For manufactures and trade statistics see [Hamburg] (city).

The military organization of Hamburg was arranged by convention with Prussia. The state furnishes three battalions of the 2nd Hanseatic regiment, under Prussian officers. The soldiers swear the oath of allegiance to the senate.

HAMBURG, a seaport of Germany, capital of the free state of Hamburg, on the right bank of the northern arm of the Elbe, 75 m. from its mouth at Cuxhaven and 178 m. N.W. from Berlin by rail. It is the largest and most important seaport on the continent of Europe and (after London and New York) the third largest in the world. Were it not for political and municipal boundaries Hamburg might be considered as forming with Altona and Ottensen (which lie within Prussian territory) one town. The view of the three from the south, presenting a continuous river frontage of six miles, the river crowded with shipping and the densely packed houses surmounted by church towers—of which three are higher than the dome of St Paul’s in London—is one of great magnificence.

The city proper lies on both sides of the little river Alster, which, dammed up a short distance from its mouth, forms a lake, of which the southern portion within the line of the former fortifications bears the name of the Inner Alster (Binnen Alster), and the other and larger portion (2500 yards long and 1300 yards at the widest) that of the Outer Alster (Aussen Alster). The fortifications as such were removed in 1815, but they have left their trace in a fine girdle of green round the city, though too many inroads on its completeness have been made by railways and roadways. The oldest portion of the city is that which lies to the east of the Alster; but, though it still retains the name of Altstadt, nearly all trace of its antiquity has disappeared, as it was rebuilt after the great fire of 1842. To the west lies the new town (Neustadt), incorporated in 1678; beyond this and contiguous to Altona is the former suburb of St Pauli, incorporated in 1876, and towards the north-east that of St Georg, which arose in the 13th century but was not incorporated till 1868.

The old town lies low, and it is traversed by a great number of narrow canals or “fleets” (Fleeten)—for the same word which has left its trace in London nomenclature is used in the Low German city—which add considerably to the picturesqueness of the meaner quarters, and serve as convenient channels for the transport of goods. They generally form what may be called the back streets, and they are bordered by warehouses, cellars and the lower class of dwelling-houses. As they are subject to the ebb and flow of the Elbe, at certain times they run almost dry. As soon as the telegram at Cuxhaven announces high tide three shots are fired from the harbour to warn the inhabitants of the “fleets”; and if the progress of the tide up the river gives indication of danger, another three shots follow. The “fleets” with their quaint medieval warehouses, which come sheer down to the water, and are navigated by barges, have gained for Hamburg the name of “Northern Venice.” They are, however, though antique and interesting, somewhat dismal and unsavoury. In fine contrast to them is the bright appearance of the Binnen Alster, which is enclosed on three sides by handsome rows of buildings, the Alsterdamm in the east, the Alter Jungfernstieg in the south, and the Neuer Jungfernstieg in the west, while it is separated from the Aussen Alster by part of the rampart gardens traversed by the railway uniting Hamburg with Altona and crossing the lakes by a beautiful bridge—the Lombards-Brücke. Around the outer lake are grouped the suburbs Harvestehude and Pösseldorf on the western shore, and Uhlenhorst on the eastern, with park-like promenades and villas surrounded by well-kept gardens. Along the southern end of the Binnen Alster runs the Jungfernstieg with fine shops, hotels and restaurants facing the water. A fleet of shallow-draught screw steamers provides a favourite means of communication between the business centre of the city and the outlying colonies of villas.

The streets enclosing the Binnen Alster are fashionable promenades, and leading directly from this quarter are the main business thoroughfares, the Neuer-Wall, the Grosse Bleichen and the Hermannstrasse. The largest of the public squares in Hamburg is the Hopfenmarkt, which contains the church of St Nicholas (Nikolaikirche) and is the principal market for vegetables and fruit. Others of importance are the Gänsemarkt, the Zeughausmarkt and the Grossneumarkt. Of the thirty-five churches existing in Hamburg (the old cathedral had to be taken down in 1805), the St Petrikirche, Nikolaikirche, St Katharinenkirche, St Jakobikirche and St Michaeliskirche are those that give their names to the five old city parishes. The Nikolaikirche is especially remarkable for its spire, which is 473 ft. high and ranks, after those of Ulm and Cologne, as the third highest ecclesiastical edifice in the world. The old church was destroyed in the great fire of 1842, and the new building, designed by Sir George Gilbert Scott in 13th century Gothic, was erected 1845-1874. The exterior and interior are elaborately adorned with sculptures. Sandstone from Osterwald near Hildesheim was used for the outside, and for the inner work a softer variety from Postelwitz near Dresden. The Michaeliskirche, which is built on the highest point in the city and has a tower 428 ft. high, was erected (1750-1762) by Ernst G. Sonnin on the site of the older building of the 17th century destroyed by lightning; the interior, which can contain 3000 people, is remarkable for its bold construction, there being no pillars. The St Petrikirche, originally consecrated in the 12th century and rebuilt in the 14th, was the oldest church in Hamburg; it was burnt in 1842 and rebuilt in its old form in 1844-1849. It has a graceful tapering spire 402 ft. in height (completed 1878); the granite columns from the old cathedral, the stained glass windows by Kellner of Nuremberg, and H. Schubert’s fine relief of the entombment of Christ are worthy of notice. The St Katharinenkirche and the St Jakobikirche are the only surviving medieval churches, but neither is of special interest. Of the numerous other churches, Evangelical, Roman Catholic and Anglican, none are of special interest. The new synagogue was built by Rosengarten between 1857 and 1859, and to the same architect is due the sepulchral chapel built for the Hamburg merchant prince Johann Heinrich, Freiherr von Schröder (1784-1883), in the churchyard of the Petrikirche. The beautiful chapel of St Gertrude was unfortunately destroyed in 1842.

Hamburg has comparatively few secular buildings of great architectural interest, but first among them is the new Rathaus, a huge German Renaissance building, constructed of sandstone in 1886-1897, richly adorned with sculptures and with a spire 330 ft. in height. It is the place of meeting of the municipal council and of the senate and contains the city archives. Immediately adjoining it and connected with it by two wings is the exchange. It was erected in 1836-1841 on the site of the convent of St Mary Magdalen and escaped the conflagration of 1842. It was restored and enlarged in 1904, and shelters the commercial library of nearly 100,000 vols. During the business hours (1-3 P.M.) the exchange is crowded by some 5000 merchants and brokers. In the same neighbourhood is the Johanneum, erected in 1834 and in which are preserved the town library of about 600,000 printed books and 5000 MSS. and the collection of Hamburg antiquities. In the courtyard is a statue (1885) of the reformer Johann Bugenhagen. In the Fischmarkt, immediately south of the Johanneum, a handsome fountain was erected in 1890. Directly west of the town hall is the new Stadthaus, the chief police station of the town, in front of which is a bronze statue of the burgomaster Karl Friedrich Petersen (1809-1892), erected in 1897. A little farther away are the headquarters of the Patriotic Society (Patriotische Gesellschaft), founded in 1765, with fine rooms for the meetings of artistic and learned societies. Several new public buildings have been erected along the circuit of the former walls. Near the west extremity, abutting upon the Elbe, the moat was filled in in 1894-1897, and some good streets were built along the site, while the Kersten Miles-Brücke, adorned with statues of four Hamburg heroes, was thrown across the Helgoländer Allee. Farther north, along the line of the former town wall, are the criminal law courts (1879-1882, enlarged 1893) and the civil law courts (finished in 1901). Close to the latter stand the new supreme court, the old age and accident state insurance offices, the chief custom house, and the concert hall, founded by Karl Laeisz, a former Hamburg wharfinger. Farther on are the chemical and the physical laboratories and the Hygienic Institute. Facing the botanical gardens a new central post-office, in the Renaissance style, was built in 1887. At the west end of the Lombards-Brücke there is a monument by Schilling, commemorating the war of 1870-71. A few streets south of that is a monument to Lessing (1881); while occupying a commanding site on the promenades towards Altona is the gigantic statue of Bismarck which was unveiled in June 1906. The Kunst-Halle (the picture gallery), containing some good works by modern masters, faces the east end of Lombards-Brücke. The new Natural History Museum, completed in 1891, stands a little distance farther south. To the east of it comes the Museum for Art and Industry, founded in 1878, now one of the most important institutions of the kind in Germany, with which is connected a trades school. Close by is the Hansa-fountain (65 ft. high), erected in 1878. On the north-east side of the suburb of St Georg a botanical museum and laboratory have been established. There is a new general hospital at Eppendorf, outside the town on the north, built on the pavilion principle, and one of the finest structures of the kind in Europe; and at Ohlsdorf, in the same direction, a crematorium was built in 1891 in conjunction with the town cemeteries (370 acres). There must also be mentioned the fine public zoological gardens, Hagenbeck’s private zoological gardens in the vicinity, the schools of music and navigation, and the school of commerce. In 1900 a high school for shipbuilding was founded, and in 1901 an institute for seamen’s and tropical diseases, with a laboratory for their physiological study, was opened, and also the first public free library in the city. The river is spanned just above the Frei Hafen by a triple-arched railway bridge, 1339 ft. long, erected in 1868-1873 and doubled in width in 1894. Some 270 yds. higher up is a magnificent iron bridge (1888) for vehicles and foot passengers. The southern arm of the Elbe, on the south side of the island of Wilhelmsburg, is crossed by another railway bridge of four arches and 2050 ft. in length.

Railways.—The through railway traffic of Hamburg is practically confined to that proceeding northwards—to Kiel and Jutland—and for the accommodation of such trains the central (terminus) station at Altona is the chief gathering point. The Hamburg stations, connected with the other by the Verbindungs-Bahn (or metropolitan railway) crossing the Lombards-Brücke, are those of the Venloer (or Hanoverian, as it is often called) Bahnhof on the south-east, in close proximity to the harbour, into which converge the lines from Cologne and Bremen, Hanover and Frankfort-on-Main, and from Berlin, via Nelzen; the Klostertor-Bahnhof (on the metropolitan line) which temporarily superseded the old Berlin station, and the Lübeck station a little to the north-east, during the erection of the new central station, which occupies a site between the Klostertor-Bahnhof and the Lombards-Brücke. Between this central station and Altona terminus runs the metropolitan railway, which has been raised several feet so as to bridge over the streets, and on which lie the important stations Dammtor and Sternschanze. An excellent service of electric trams interconnect the towns of Hamburg, Altona and the adjacent suburbs, and steamboats provide communication on the Elbe with the riparian towns and villages; and so with Blankenese and Harburg, with Stade, Glückstadt and Cuxhaven.

Trade and Shipping.—Probably there is no place which during the last thirty years of the 19th century grew faster commercially than Hamburg. Its commerce is, however, almost entirely of the nature of transit trade, for it is not only the chief distributing centre for the middle of Europe of the products of all other parts of the world, but is also the chief outlet for German, Austrian, and even to some extent Russian (Polish) raw products and manufactures. Its principal imports are coffee (of which it is the greatest continental market), tea, sugar, spices, rice, wine (especially from Bordeaux), lard (from Chicago), cereals, sago, dried fruits, herrings, wax (from Morocco and Mozambique), tobacco, hemp, cotton (which of late years shows a large increase), wool, skins, leather, oils, dyewoods, indigo, nitrates, phosphates and coal. Of the total importations of all kinds of coal to Hamburg, that of British coal, particularly from Northumberland and Durham, occupies the first place, and despite some falling off in late years, owing to the competition made by Westphalian coal, amounts to more than half the total import. The increase of the trade of Hamburg is most strikingly shown by that of the shipping belonging to the port. Between 1876 and 1880 there were 475 sailing vessels with a tonnage of 230,691, and 110 steam-ships with a tonnage of 87,050. In 1907 there were (exclusive of fishing vessels) 470 sailing ships with a tonnage of 271,661, and 610 steamers with a tonnage of 1,256,449. In 1870 the crews numbered 6900 men, in 1907 they numbered 29,536.

Industries.—The development of manufacturing industries at Hamburg and its immediate vicinity since 1880, though not so rapid as that of its trade and shipping, has been very remarkable, and more especially has this been the case since the year 1888, when Hamburg joined the German customs union, and the barriers which prevented goods manufactured at Hamburg from entering into other parts of Germany were removed. Among the chief industries are those for the production of articles of food and drink. The import trade of various cereals by sea to Hamburg is very large, and a considerable portion of this corn is converted into flour at Hamburg itself. There are also, in this connexion, numerous bakeries for biscuit, rice-peeling mills and spice mills. Besides the foregoing there are cocoa, chocolate, confectionery and baking-powder factories, coffee-roasting and ham-curing and smoking establishments, lard refineries, margarine manufactories and fish-curing, preserving and packing factories. There are numerous breweries, producing annually about 24,000,000 gallons of beer, spirit distilleries and factories of artificial waters. Yarns, textile goods and weaving industries generally have not attained any great dimensions, but there are large jute-spinning mills and factories for cotton-wool and cotton driving-belts. Among other important articles of domestic industry are tobacco and cigars (manufactured mainly in bond, within the free harbour precincts), hydraulic machinery, electro-technical machinery, chemical products (including artificial manures), oils, soaps, india-rubber, ivory and celluloid articles and the manufacture of leather.

Shipbuilding has made very important progress, and there are at present in Hamburg eleven large shipbuilding yards, employing nearly 10,000 hands. Of these, however, only three are of any great extent, and one, where the largest class of ocean-going steamers and of war vessels for the German navy are built, employs about 5000 persons. There are also two yards for the building of pleasure yachts and rowing-boats (in both which branches of sport Hamburg takes a leading place in Germany). Art industries, particularly those which appeal to the luxurious taste of the inhabitants in fitting their houses, such as wall-papers and furniture, and those which are included in the equipment of ocean-going steamers, have of late years made rapid strides and are among the best productions of this character of any German city.

Harbour.—It was the accession of Hamburg to the customs union in 1888 which gave such a vigorous impulse to her more recent commercial development. At the same time a portion of the port was set apart as a free harbour, altogether an area of 750 acres of water and 1750 acres of dry land. In anticipation of this event a gigantic system of docks, basins and quays was constructed, at a total cost of some £7,000,000 (of which the imperial treasury contributed £2,000,000), between the confluence of the Alster and the railway bridge (1868-1873), an entire quarter of the town inhabited by some 24,000 people being cleared away to make room for these accessories of a great port. On the north side of the Elbe there are the Sandtor basin (3380 ft. long, 295 to 427 ft. wide), in which British and Dutch steamboats and steamboats of the Sloman (Mediterranean) line anchor. South of this lies the Grasbrook basin (quayage of 2100 ft. and 1693 ft. alongside), which is used by French, Swedish and transatlantic steamers. At the quay point between these two basins there are vast state granaries. On the outer (i.e. river) side of the Grasbrook dock is the quay at which the emigrants for South America embark, and from which the mail boats for East Africa, the boats of the Woermann (West Africa) line, and the Norwegian tourist boats depart. To the east of these two is the small Magdeburg basin, penetrating north, and the Baaken basin, penetrating east, i.e. parallel to the river. The latter affords accommodation to the transatlantic steamers, including the emigrant ships of the Hamburg-America line, though their “ocean mail boats” generally load and unload at Cuxhaven. On the south bank of the stream there follow in succession, going from east to west, the Moldau dock for river craft, the sailing vessel dock (Segelschiff Hafen, 3937 ft. long, 459 to 886 ft. wide, 26¼ ft. deep), the Hansa dock, India dock, petroleum dock, several swimming and dry docks; and in the west of the free port area three other large docks, one of 77 acres for river craft, the others each 56 acres in extent, and one 23¾ ft. deep, the other 26¼ ft. deep, at low water, constructed in 1900-1901. In 1897 Hamburg was provided with a huge floating dock, 558 ft. long and 84 ft. in maximum breadth, capable of holding a vessel of 17,500 tons and draught not exceeding 29 ft., so constructed and equipped that in time of need (war) it could be floated down to Cuxhaven. During the last 25 years of the 19th century the channel of the Elbe was greatly improved and deepened, and during the last two years of the 19th century some £360,000 was spent by Hamburg alone in regulating and correcting this lower course of the river. The new Kuhwärder-basin, on the left bank of the river, as well as two other large dock basins (now leased to the Hamburg-American Company), raise the number of basins to twelve in all.

Emigration.—Hamburg is one of the principal continental ports for the embarkation of emigrants. In 1881-1890, on an average they numbered 90,000 a year (of whom 60,000 proceeded to the United States). In 1900 the number was 87,153 (and to the United States 64,137). The number of emigrant Germans has enormously decreased of late years, Russia and Austria-Hungary now being most largely represented. For the accommodation of such passengers large and convenient emigrant shelters have been recently erected close to the wharf of embarkation.

Health and Population.—The health of the city of Hamburg and the adjoining district may be described as generally good, no epidemic diseases having recently appeared to any serious degree. The malady causing the greatest number of deaths is that of pulmonary consumption; but better housing accommodation has of late years reduced the mortality from this disease very considerably. The results of the census of 1905 showed the population of the city (not including the rural districts belonging to the state of Hamburg) to be 802,793.

Hamburg is well supplied with places of amusement, especially of the more popular kind. Its Stadt-Theater, rebuilt in 1874, has room for 1750 spectators and is particularly devoted to operatic performances; the Thalia-Theater dates from 1841, and holds 1700 to 1800 people, and the Schauspielhaus (for drama) from 1900 people, and there are some seven or eight minor establishments. Theatrical performances were introduced into the city in the 17th century, and 1678 is the date of the first opera, which was played in a house in the Gänsemarkt. Under Schröder and Lessing the Hamburg stage rose into importance. Though contributing few names of the highest rank to German literature, the city has been intimately associated with the literary movement. The historian Lappenberg and Friedrich von Hagedorn were born in Hamburg; and not only Lessing, but Heine and Klopstock lived there for some time.

History.—Hamburg probably had its origin in a fortress erected in 808 by Charlemagne, on an elevation between the Elbe and Alster, as a defence against the Slavs, and called Hammaburg because of the surrounding forest (Hamme). In 811 Charlemagne founded a church here, perhaps on the site of a Saxon place of sacrifice, and this became a great centre for the evangelization of the north of Europe, missionaries from Hamburg introducing Christianity into Jutland and the Danish islands and even into Sweden and Norway. In 834 Hamburg became an archbishopric, St Ansgar, a monk of Corbie and known as the apostle of the North, being the first metropolitan. In 845 church, monastery and town were burnt down by the Norsemen, and two years later the see of Hamburg was united with that of Bremen and its seat transferred to the latter city. The town, rebuilt after this disaster, was again more than once devastated by invading Danes and Slavs. Archbishop Unwan of Hamburg-Bremen (1013-1029) substituted a chapter of canons for the monastery, and in 1037 Archbishop Bezelin (or Alebrand) built a stone cathedral and a palace on the Elbe. In 1110 Hamburg, with Holstein, passed into the hands of Adolph I., count of Schauenburg, and it is with the building of the Neustadt (the present parish of St Nicholas) by his grandson, Adolph III. of Holstein, that the history of the commercial city actually begins. In return for a contribution to the costs of a crusade, he obtained from the emperor Frederick I. in 1189 a charter granting Hamburg considerable franchises, including exemption from tolls, a separate court and jurisdiction, and the rights of fishery on the Elbe from the city to the sea. The city council (Rath), first mentioned in 1190, had jurisdiction over both the episcopal and the new town. Craft gilds were already in existence, but these had no share in the government; for, though the Lübeck rule excluding craftsmen from the Rath did not obtain, they were excluded in practice. The counts, of course, as over-lords, had their Vogt (advocatus) in the town, but this official, as the city grew in power, became subordinate to the Rath, as at Lübeck.

The wealth of the town was increased in 1189 by the destruction of the flourishing trading centre of Bardowieck by Henry the Lion; from this time it began to be much frequented by Flemish merchants. In 1201 the city submitted to Valdemar of Schleswig, after his victory over the count of Holstein, but in 1225, owing to the capture of King Valdemar II. of Denmark by Henry of Schwerin, it once more exchanged the Danish over-lordship for that of the counts of Schauenburg, who established themselves here and in 1231 built a strong castle to hold it in check. The defensive alliance of the city with Lübeck in 1241, extended for other purpose by the treaty of 1255, practically laid the foundations of the Hanseatic League (q.v.), of which Hamburg continued to be one of the principal members. The internal organization of the city, too, was rendered more stable by the new constitution of 1270, and the recognition in 1292 of the complete internal autonomy of the city by the count of Schauenburg. The exclusion of the handicraftsmen from the Rath led, early in the 15th century, to a rising of the craft gilds against the patrician merchants, and in 1410 they forced the latter to recognize the authority of a committee of 48 burghers, which concluded with the senate the so-called First Recess; there were, however, fresh outbursts in 1458 and 1483, which were settled by further compromises. In 1461 Hamburg did homage to Christian I. of Denmark, as heir of the Schauenburg counts; but the suzerainty of Denmark was merely nominal and soon repudiated altogether; in 1510 Hamburg was made a free imperial city by the emperor Maximilian I.

In 1529 the Reformation was definitively established in Hamburg by the Great Recess of the 19th of February, which at the same time vested the government of the city in the Rath, together with the three colleges of the Oberalten, the Forty-eight (increased to 60 in 1685) and the Hundred and Forty-four (increased to 180). The ordinary burgesses consisted of the freeholders and the master-workmen of the gilds. In 1536 Hamburg joined the league of Schmalkalden, for which error it had to pay a heavy fine in 1547 when the league had been defeated. During the same period the Lutheran zeal of the citizens led to the expulsion of the Mennonites and other Protestant sects, who founded Altona. The loss this brought to the city was, however, compensated for by the immigration of Protestant refugees from the Low Countries and Jews from Spain and Portugal. In 1549, too, the English merchant adventurers removed their staple from Antwerp to Hamburg.

The 17th century saw notable developments. Hamburg had established, so early as the 16th century, a regular postal service with certain cities in the interior of Germany, e.g. Leipzig and Breslau; in 1615 it was included in the postal system of Turn and Taxis. In 1603 Hamburg received a code of laws regulating exchange, and in 1619 the bank was established. In 1615 the Neustadt was included within the city walls. During the Thirty Years’ War the city received no direct harm; but the ruin of Germany reacted upon its prosperity, and the misery of the lower orders led to an agitation against the Rath. In 1685, at the invitation of the popular leaders, the Danes appeared before Hamburg demanding the traditional homage; they were repulsed, but the internal troubles continued, culminating in 1708 in the victory of the democratic factions. The imperial government, however, intervened, and in 1712 the “Great Recess” established durable good relations between the Rath and the commonalty. Frederick IV. of Denmark, who had seized the opportunity to threaten the city (1712), was bought off with a ransom of 246,000 Reichsthaler. Denmark, however, only finally renounced her claims by the treaty of Gottorp in 1768, and in 1770 Hamburg was admitted for the first time to a representation in the diet of the empire.

The trade of Hamburg received its first great impulse in 1783, when the United States, by the treaty of Paris, became an independent power. From this time dates its first direct maritime communication with America. Its commerce was further extended and developed by the French occupation of Holland in 1795, when the Dutch trade was largely directed to its port. The French Revolution and the insecurity of the political situation, however, exercised a depressing and retarding effect. The wars which ensued, the closing of continental ports against English trade, the occupation of the city after the disastrous battle of Jena, and pestilence within its walls brought about a severe commercial crisis and caused a serious decline in its prosperity. Moreover, the great contributions levied by Napoleon on the city, the plundering of its bank by Davoust, and the burning of its prosperous suburbs inflicted wounds from which the city but slowly recovered. Under the long peace which followed the close of the Napoleonic wars, its trade gradually revived, fostered by the declaration of independence of South and Central America, with both of which it energetically opened close commercial relations, and by the introduction of steam navigation. The first steamboat was seen on the Elbe on the 17th of June 1816; in 1826 a regular steam communication was opened with London; and in 1856 the first direct steamship line linked the port with the United States. The great fire of 1842 (5th-8th of May) laid in waste the greatest part of the business quarter of the city and caused a temporary interruption of its commerce. The city, however, soon rose from its ashes, the churches were rebuilt and new streets laid out on a scale of considerable magnificence. In 1866 Hamburg joined the North German Confederation, and in 1871, while remaining outside the Zollverein, became a constituent state of the German empire. In 1883-1888 the works for the Free Harbour were completed, and on the 18th of October 1888 Hamburg joined the Customs Union (Zollverein). In 1892 the cholera raged within its walls, carried off 8500 of its inhabitants, and caused considerable losses to its commerce and industry; but the visitation was not without its salutary fruits, for an improved drainage system, better hospital accommodation, and a purer water-supply have since combined to make it one of the healthiest commercial cities of Europe.

Further details about Hamburg will be found in the following works: O. C. Gaedechens, Historische Topographie der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg (1880); E. H. Wichmann, Heimatskunde von Hamburg (1863); W. Melhop, Historische Topographie der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg von 1880-1895 (1896); Wulff, Hamburgische Gesetze und Verordnungen (1889-1896); and W. von Melle, Das hamburgische Staatsrecht (1891). There are many valuable official publications which may be consulted, among these being: Statistik des hamburgischen Staates (1867-1904); Hamburgs Handel und Schiffahrt (1847-1903); the yearly Hamburgischer Staatskalender; and Jahrbuch der Hamburger wissenschaftlichen Anstalten. See also Hamburg und seine Bauten (1890); H. Benrath, Lokalführer durch Hamburg und Umgebungen (1904); and the consular reports by Sir William Ward, H.B.M.’s consul-general at Hamburg, to whom the author is indebted for great assistance in compiling this article.

For the history of Hamburg see the Zeitschrift des Vereins für hamburgische Geschichte (1841, fol.); G. Dehio, Geschichte des Erzbistums Hamburg-Bremen (Berlin, 1877); the Hamburgisches Urkundenbuch (1842), the Hamburgische Chroniken (1852-1861), and the Chronica der Stadt Hamburg bis 1557 of Adam Tratziger (1865), all three edited by J. M. Lappenberg; the Briefsammlung des hamburgischen Superintendenten Joachim Westphal 1530-1575, edited by C. H. W. Sillem (1903); Gallois, Geschichte der Stadt Hamburg (1853-1856); K. Koppmann, Aus Hamburgs Vergangenheit (1885), and Kammereirechnungen der Stadt Hamburg (1869-1894); H. W. C. Hubbe, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Stadt Hamburg (1897); C. Mönckeberg, Geschichte der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg (1885); E. H. Wichmann, Hamburgische Geschichte in Darstellungen aus alter und neuer Zeit (1889); and R. Bollheimer, Zeittafeln der hamburgischen Geschichte (1895).

HAMDĀNĪ, in full Abū Maḥommed ul-Ḥasan ibn Aḥmad ibn Ya‘qūb ul-Hamdānī (d. 945), Arabian geographer, also known as Ibn ul-Ḥā‘ik. Little is known of him except that he belonged to a family of Yemen, was held in repute as a grammarian in his own country, wrote much poetry, compiled astronomical tables, devoted most of his life to the study of the ancient history and geography of Arabia, and died in prison at San‘a in 945. His Geography of the Arabian Peninsula (Kitāb Jazīrat ul-‘Arab) is by far the most important work on the subject. After being used in manuscript by A. Sprenger in his Post- und Reiserouten des Orients (Leipzig, 1864) and further in his Alte Geographie Arabiens (Bern, 1875), it was edited by D. H. Müller (Leiden, 1884; cf. A. Sprenger’s criticism in Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, vol. 45, pp. 361-394). Much has also been written on this work by E. Glaser in his various publications on ancient Arabia. The other great work of Hamdānī is the Iklīl (Crown) concerning the genealogies of the Himyarites and the wars of their kings in ten volumes. Of this, part 8, on the citadels and castles of south Arabia, has been edited and annotated by D. H. Müller in Die Burgen und Schlösser Südarabiens (Vienna, 1879-1881).

For other works said to have been written by Hamdānī cf. G. Flügel’s Die grammatischen Schulen der Araber (Leipzig, 1862), pp. 220-221.

(G. W. T.)

HAMELIN, FRANÇOIS ALPHONSE (1796-1864), French admiral, was born at Pont l’Évêque on the 2nd of September 1796. He went to sea with his uncle, J. F. E. Hamelin, in the “Vénus” frigate in 1806 as cabin boy. The “Vénus” was part of the French squadron in the Indian Ocean, and young Hamelin had an opportunity of seeing much active service. She, in company with another and a smaller vessel, captured the English frigate “Ceylon” in 1810, but was immediately afterwards captured herself by the “Boadicéa,” under Commodore Rowley (1765-1842). Young Hamelin was a prisoner of war for a short time. He returned to France in 1811. On the fall of the Empire he had better fortune than most of the Napoleonic officers who were turned ashore. In 1821 he became lieutenant, and in 1823 took part in the French expedition under the duke of Angoulême into Spain. In 1828 he was appointed captain of the “Actéon,” and was engaged till 1831 on the coast of Algiers and in the conquest of the town and country. His first command as flag officer was in the Pacific, where he showed much tact during the dispute over the Marquesas Islands with England in 1844. He was promoted vice-admiral in 1848. During the Crimean War he commanded in the Black Sea, and co-operated with Admiral Dundas in the bombardment of Sevastopol 17th of October 1854. His relations with his English colleague were not very cordial. On the 7th of December 1854 he was promoted admiral. Shortly afterwards he was recalled to France, and was named minister of marine. His administration lasted till 1860, and was remarkable for the expeditions to Italy and China organized under his directions; but it was even more notable for the energy shown in adopting and developing the use of armour. The launch of the “Gloire” in 1859 set the example of constructing sea-going iron-clads. The first English iron-clad, the “Warrior,” was designed as an answer to the “Gloire.” When Napoleon III. made his first concession to Liberal opposition, Admiral Hamelin was one of the ministers sacrificed. He held no further command, and died on the 10th of January 1864.

HAMELN, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hanover, at the confluence of the Weser and Hamel, 33 m. S.W. of Hanover, on the line to Altenbeken, which here effects a junction with railways to Löhne and Brunswick. Pop. (1905) 20,736. It has a venerable appearance and has many interesting and picturesque houses. The chief public buildings of interest are the minster, dedicated to St Boniface and restored in 1870-1875; the town hall; the so-called Rattenfängerhaus (rat-catcher’s house) with mural frescoes illustrating the legend (see below); and the Hochzeitshaus (wedding house) with beautiful gables. There are classical, modern and commercial schools. The principal industries are the manufacture of paper, leather, chemicals and tobacco, sugar refining, shipbuilding and salmon fishing. By the steamboats on the Weser there is communication with Karlshafen and Minden. In order to avoid the dangerous part of the river near the town a channel was cut in 1734, the repairing and deepening of which, begun in 1868, was completed in 1873. The Weser is here crossed by an iron suspension bridge 830 ft. in length, supported by a pier erected on an island in the middle of the river.

The older name of Hameln was Hameloa or Hamelowe, and the town owes its origin to an abbey. It existed as a town as early as the 11th century, and in 1259 it was sold by the abbot of Fulda to the bishop of Minden, afterwards passing under the protection of the dukes of Brunswick. About 1540 the Reformation gained an entrance into the town, which was taken by both parties during the Thirty Years’ War. In 1757 it capitulated to the French, who, however, vacated it in the following year. Its fortifications were strengthened in 1766 by the erection of Fort George, on an eminence to the west of the town, across the river. On the capitulation of the Hanoverian army in 1803 Hameln fell into the hands of the French; it was retaken by the Prussians in 1806, but, after the battle of Jena, again passed to the French, who dismantled the fortifications and incorporated the town in the kingdom of Westphalia. In 1814 it again became Hanoverian, but in 1866 fell with that kingdom to Prussia.

Legend of the Pied Piper.—Hameln is famed as the scene of the myth of the piper of Hameln. According to the legend, the town in the year 1284 was infested by a terrible plague of rats. One day there appeared upon the scene a piper clad in a fantastic suit, who offered for a certain sum of money to charm all the vermin into the Weser. His conditions were agreed to, but after he had fulfilled his promise the inhabitants, on the ground that he was a sorcerer, declined to fulfil their part of the bargain, whereupon on the 26th of June he reappeared in the streets of the town, and putting his pipe to his lips began a soft and curious strain. This drew all the children after him and he led them out of the town to the Koppelberg hill, in the side of which a door suddenly opened, by which he entered and the children after him, all but one who was lame and could not follow fast enough to reach the door before it shut again. Some trace the origin of the legend to the Children’s Crusade of 1211; others to an abduction of children; and others to a dancing mania which seized upon some of the young people of Hameln who left the town on a mad pilgrimage from which they never returned. For a considerable time the town dated its public documents from the event. The story is the subject of a poem by Robert Browning, and also of one by Julius Wolff. Curious evidence that the story rests on a basis of truth is given by the fact that the Koppelberg is not one of the imposing hills by which Hameln is surrounded, but no more than a slight elevation of the ground, barely high enough to hide the children from view as they left the town.

See C. Langlotz, Geschichte der Stadt Hameln (Hameln, 1888 fol.); Sprenger, Geschichte der Stadt Hameln (1861); O. Meinardus, Der historische Kern der Rattenfängersage (Hameln, 1882); Jostes, Der Rattenfänger von Hameln (Bonn, 1885); and S. Baring-Gould, Curious Myths of the Middle Ages (1868).

HAMERLING, ROBERT (1830-1889), Austrian poet, was born at Kirchenberg-am-Walde in Lower Austria, on the 24th of March 1830, of humble parentage. He early displayed a genius for poetry and his youthful attempts at drama excited the interest and admiration of some influential persons. Owing to their assistance young Hamerling was enabled to attend the gymnasium in Vienna and subsequently the university. In 1848 he joined the student’s legion, which played so conspicuous a part in the revolutions of the capital, and in 1849 shared in the defence of Vienna against the imperialist troops of Prince Windischgrätz, and after the collapse of the revolutionary movement he was obliged to hide for a long time to escape arrest. For the next few years he diligently pursued his studies in natural science and philosophy, and in 1855 was appointed master at the gymnasium at Trieste. For many years he battled with ill-health, and in 1866 retired on a pension, which in acknowledgment of his literary labours was increased by the government to a sum sufficient to enable him to live without care until his death at his villa in Stiftingstal near Graz, on the 13th of July 1889. Hamerling was one of the most remarkable of the poets of the modern Austrian school; his imagination was rich and his poems are full of life and colour. His most popular poem, Ahasver in Rom (1866), of which the emperor Nero is the central figure, shows at its best the author’s brilliant talent for description. Among his other works may be mentioned Venus im Exil (1858); Der König von Sion (1869), which is generally regarded as his masterpiece; Die sieben Todsünden (1872); Blätter im Winde (1887); Homunculus (1888); Amor und Psyche (1882). His novel, Aspasia (1876) gives a finely-drawn description of the Periclean age, but like his tragedy Danton und Robespierre (1870), is somewhat stilted, showing that Hamerling’s genius, though rich in imagination, was ill-suited for the realistic presentation of character.

A popular edition of Hamerling’s works in four volumes was published by M. M. Rabenlechner (Hamburg, 1900). For the poet’s life, see his autobiographical writings, Stationen meiner Lebenspilgerschaft (1889) and Lehrjahre der Liebe (1890); also M. M. Rabenlechner, Hamerling, sein Leben und seine Werke, i. (Hamburg, 1896); a short biography by the same (Dresden, 1901); R. H. Kleinert, R. Hamerling, ein Dichter der Schönheit (Hamburg, 1889); A. Polzer, Hamerling, sein Wesen und Wirken (Hamburg, 1890).

HAMERTON, PHILIP GILBERT (1834-1894), English artist and author, was born at Laneside, near Shaw, close to Oldham, on the 10th of September 1834. His mother died at his birth, and having lost his father ten years afterwards, he was educated privately under the direction of his guardians. His first literary attempt, a volume of poems, proving unsuccessful, he devoted himself for a time entirely to landscape painting, encamping out of doors in the Highlands, where he eventually rented the island of Innistrynych, upon which he settled with his wife, a French lady, in 1858. Discovering after a time that his qualifications were rather those of an art critic than of a painter he removed to the neighbourhood of his wife’s relatives in France, where he produced his Painter’s Camp in the Highlands (1863), which obtained a great success and prepared the way for his standard work on Etching and Etchers (1866). In the following year he published a book, entitled Contemporary French Painters, and in 1868 a continuation, Painting in France after the Decline of Classicism. He had meanwhile become art critic to the Saturday Review, a position which, from the burden it laid upon him of frequent visits to England, he did not long retain. He proceeded (1870) to establish an art journal of his own, The Portfolio, a monthly periodical, each number of which consisted of a monograph upon some artist or group of artists, frequently written and always edited by him. The discontinuance of his active work as a painter gave him time for more general literary composition, and he successively produced The Intellectual Life (1873), perhaps the best known and most valuable of his writings; Round my House (1876), notes on French society by a resident; and Modern Frenchmen (1879), admirable short biographies. He also wrote two novels, Wenderholme (1870) and Marmorne (1878). In 1884 Human Intercourse, another valuable volume of essays, was published, and shortly afterwards Hamerton began to write his autobiography, which he brought down to 1858. In 1882 he issued a finely illustrated work on the technique of the great masters of various arts, under the title of The Graphic Arts, and three years later another splendidly illustrated volume, Landscape, which traces the influence of landscape upon the mind of man. His last books were: Portfolio Papers (1889) and French and English (1889). In 1891 he removed to the neighbourhood of Paris, and died suddenly on the 4th of November 1894, occupied to the last with his labours on The Portfolio and other writings on art.

In 1896 was published Philip Gilbert Hamerton: an Autobiography, 1834-1858; and a Memoir by his Wife, 1858-1894.

HAMI, a town in Chinese Turkestan, otherwise called Kamil, Komul or Kamul, situated on the southern slopes of the Tian-Shan mountains, and on the northern verge of the Great Gobi desert, in 42° 48′ N., 93° 28′ E., at a height above sea-level of 3150 ft. The town is first mentioned in Chinese history in the 1st century, under the name I-wu-lu, and said to be situated 1000 lis north of the fortress Yü-men-kuan, and to be the key to the western countries. This evidently referred to its advantageous position, lying as it did in a fertile tract, at the point of convergence of two main routes running north and south of the Tian-Shan and connecting China with the west. It was taken by the Chinese in A.D. 73 from the Hiungnu (the ancient inhabitants of Mongolia), and made a military station. It next fell into the bands of the Uighurs or Eastern Turks, who made it one of their chief towns and held it for several centuries, and whose descendants are said to live there now. From the 7th to the 11th century I-wu-lu is said to have borne the name of Igu or I-chu, under the former of which names it is spoken of by the Chinese pilgrim, Hsüan tsang, who passed through it in the 7th century. The name Hami is first met in the Chinese Yüan-shi or “History of the Mongol Dynasty,” but the name more generally used there is Homi-li or Komi-li. Marco Polo, describing it apparently from hearsay, calls it Camul, and speaks of it as a fruitful place inhabited by a Buddhist people of idolatrous and wanton habits. It was visited in 1341 by Giovanni de Marignolli, who baptized a number of both sexes there, and by the envoys of Shah Rukh (1420), who found a magnificent mosque and a convent of dervishes, in juxtaposition with a fine Buddhist temple. Hadji Mahommed (Ramusio’s friend) speaks of Kamul as being in his time (c. 1550) the first Mahommedan city met with in travelling from China. When Benedict Goes travelled through the country at the beginning of the 17th century, the power of the king Mahommed Khan of Kashgar extended over nearly the whole country at the base of the Tian-Shan to the Chinese frontier, including Kamil. It fell under the sway of the Chinese in 1720, was lost to them in 1865 during the great Mahommedan rebellion, and the trade route through it was consequently closed, but was regained in 1873. Owing to its commanding position on the principal route to the west, and its exceptional fertility, it has very frequently changed hands in the wars between China and her western neighbours. Hami is now a small town of about 6000 inhabitants, and is a busy trading centre. The Mahommedan population consists of immigrants from Kashgaria, Bokhara and Samarkand, and of descendants of the Uighurs.

HAMILCAR BARCA, or Barcas (Heb. barak “lightning”), Carthaginian general and statesman, father of Hannibal, was born soon after 270 B.C. He distinguished himself during the First Punic War in 247, when he took over the chief command in Sicily, which at this time was almost entirely in the hands of the Romans. Landing suddenly on the north-west of the island with a small mercenary force he seized a strong position on Mt. Ercte (Monte Pellegrino, near Palermo), and not only maintained himself against all attacks, but carried his raids as far as the coast of south Italy. In 244 he transferred his army to a similar position on the slopes of Mt. Eryx (Monte San Giuliano), from which he was able to lend support to the besieged garrison in the neighbouring town of Drepanum (Trapani). By a provision of the peace of 241 Hamilcar’s unbeaten force was allowed to depart from Sicily without any token of submission. On returning to Africa his troops, which had been kept together only by his personal authority and by the promise of good pay, broke out into open mutiny when their rewards were withheld by Hamilcar’s opponents among the governing aristocracy. The serious danger into which Carthage was brought by the failure of the aristocratic generals was averted by Hamilcar, whom the government in this crisis could not but reinstate. By the power of his personal influence among the mercenaries and the surrounding African peoples, and by superior strategy, he speedily crushed the revolt (237). After this success Hamilcar enjoyed such influence among the popular and patriotic party that his opponents could not prevent him being raised to a virtual dictatorship. After recruiting and training a new army in some Numidian forays he led on his own responsibility an expedition into Spain, where he hoped to gain a new empire to compensate Carthage for the loss of Sicily and Sardinia, and to serve as a basis for a campaign of vengeance against the Romans (236). In eight years by force of arms and diplomacy he secured an extensive territory in Spain, but his premature death in battle (228) prevented him from completing the conquest. Hamilcar stood out far above the Carthaginians of his age in military and diplomatic skill and in strength of patriotism; in these qualities he was surpassed only by his son Hannibal, whom he had imbued with his own deep hatred of Rome and trained to be his successor in the conflict.

This Hamilcar has been confused with another general who succeeded to the command of the Carthaginians in the First Punic War, and after successes at Therma and Drepanum was defeated at Ecnomus (256 B.C.). Subsequently, apart from unskilful operations against Regulus, nothing is certainly known of him. For others of the name see [Carthage, Sicily], Smith’s Classical Dictionary. So far as the name itself is concerned, Milcar is perhaps the same as Melkarth, the Tyrian god.

See Polybius i.-iii.; Cornelius Nepos, Vita Hamilcaris; Appian, Res Hispanicae, chs. 4, 5, Diodorus, Excerpta, xxiv., xxv.; O. Meitzer, Geschichte der Karthager (Berlin, 1877), ii. also [Punic Wars].

(M. O. B. C.)

HAMILTON, the name of a famous Scottish family. Chief among the legends still clinging to this important family is that which gives a descent from the house of Beaumont, a branch of which is stated to have held the manor of Hamilton in Leicestershire; and it is argued that the three cinquefoils of the Hamilton shield bear some resemblance to the single cinquefoil of the Beaumonts. In face of this it has been recently shown that the single cinquefoil was also borne by the Umfravilles of Northumberland, who appear to have owned a place called Hamilton in that county. It may be pointed out that Simon de Montfort, the great earl of Leicester, in whose veins flowed the blood of the Beaumonts, obtained about 1245 the wardship of Gilbert de Umfraville, second earl of Angus, and it is conceivable that this name Gilbert may somehow be responsible for the legend of the Beaumont descent, seeing that the first authentic ancestor of the Hamiltons is one Walter FitzGilbert. He first appears in 1294-1295 as one of the witnesses to a charter by James, the high steward of Scotland, to the monks of Paisley; and in 1296 his name appears in the Homage Roll as Walter FitzGilbert of “Hameldone.” Who this Gilbert of “Hameldone” may have been is uncertain, “but the fact must be faced,” Mr John Anderson points out (Scots Peerage, iv. 340) “that in a charter of the 12th of December 1272 by Thomas of Cragyn or Craigie to the monks of Paisley of his church of Craigie in Kyle, there appears as witness a certain ‘Gilbert de Hameldun clericus,’ whose name occurs along with the local clergy of Inverkip, Blackhall, Paisley and Dunoon. He was therefore probably also a cleric of the same neighbourhood, and it is significant that ‘Walter FitzGilbert’ appears first in that district in 1294 and in 1296 is described as son of Gilbert de Hameldone....” Walter FitzGilbert took some part in the affairs of his time. At first he joined the English party but after Bannockburn went over to Bruce, was knighted and subsequently received the barony of Cadzow. His younger son John was father of Alexander Hamilton who acquired the lands of Innerwick by marriage, and from him descended a certain Thomas Hamilton, who acquired the lands of Priestfield early in the 16th century. Another Thomas, grandson of this last, who had with others of his house followed Queen Mary and with them had been restored to royal favour, became a lord of session as Lord Priestfield. Two of his younger sons enjoyed also this legal distinction, while the eldest, Thomas, was made an ordinary lord of session as early as 1592 and was eventually created earl of Haddington (q.v.). It is interesting to note that the 5th earl of Haddington by his marriage with Lady Margaret Leslie brought for a time the earldom of Rothes to the Hamiltons to be added to their already numerous titles.

Sir “David FitzWalter FitzGilbert,” who carried on the main line of the Hamiltons, was taken prisoner at the battle of Neville’s Cross (1346) and treated as of great importance, being ransomed, it is stated, for a large sum of money; in 1371 and 1373 he was one of the barons in the parliament. Of the four sons attributed to him David succeeded in the representation of the family, Sir John Hamilton of Fingaltoun was ancestor of the Hamiltons of Preston, and Walter is stated to have been progenitor of the Hamiltons of Cambuskeith and Sanquhar in Ayrshire.

David Hamilton, the first apparently to describe himself as lord of Cadzow, died before 1392, leaving four or five sons, from whom descended the Hamiltons of Bathgate and of Bardowie, and perhaps also of Udstown, to which last belong the lords Belhaven.

Sir John Hamilton of Cadzow, the eldest son, was twice a prisoner in England, but beyond this little is known of him; even the date of his death is uncertain. His two younger sons are stated to have been founders of the houses of Dalserf and Raploch. His eldest son, James Hamilton of Cadzow, like his father and great-grandfather, visited England as a prisoner, being one of the hostages for the king’s ransom. From him the Hamiltons of Silvertonhill and the lords Hamilton of Dalzell claim descent, among the more distinguished members of the former branch being General Sir Ian Hamilton, K.C.B. James Hamilton was succeeded by his eldest son Sir James Hamilton of Cadzow, who was created in 1445 an hereditary lord of parliament, and was thereafter known as Lord Hamilton. He had allied himself some years before with the great house of Douglas by marriage with Euphemia, widow of the 5th earl of Douglas, and was at first one of its most powerful supporters in the struggle with James II. Later, however, he obtained the royal favour and married about 1474 Mary, sister of James III. and widow of Thomas Boyd, earl of Arran. Of this marriage was born James, second Lord Hamilton, who as a near relative took an active part in the arrangements at the marriage of James IV. with Margaret Tudor; being rewarded on the same day (the 8th of August 1503) with the earldom of Arran. A champion in the lists he was scarcely so successful as a leader of men, his struggle with the Douglases being destitute of any great martial achievement. Of his many illegitimate children Sir James Hamilton of Finnart, beheaded in 1540, was ancestor of the Hamiltons of Gilkerscleugh; and John, archbishop of St Andrews, hanged by his Protestant enemies, was ancestor of the Hamiltons of Blair, and is said also to have been ancestor of Hamilton of London, baronet. James, second earl of Arran, son of the first earl by his second wife Janet Beaton, was chosen governor to the little Queen Mary, being nearest of kin to the throne through his grandmother, though the question of the validity of his mother’s marriage was by no means settled. He held the governorship till 1554, having in 1549 been granted the duchy of Châtellerault in France. In his policy he was vacillating and eventually he retired to France, being absent during the three momentous years prior to the deposition of Mary. On his return he headed the queen’s party, his property suffering in consequence. He was succeeded in the title in 1579 by his eldest son James, whose qualities were such that he was even proposed as a husband for Queen Elizabeth, but unfortunately he soon after became insane, his brother John, afterwards first marquess of Hamilton, administering the estates. From the third son, Claud, descends the duke of Abercorn, heir male of the house of Hamilton.

The first marquess of Hamilton had a natural son, Sir John Hamilton of Lettrick, who was legitimated in 1600 and was ancestor of the lords Bargany. His two legitimate sons were James, 3rd marquess and first duke of Hamilton, and William, who succeeded his brother as 2nd duke and was in turn succeeded under the special remainder contained in the patent of dukedom, by his niece Anne, duchess of Hamilton, who was married in 1656 to William Douglas, earl of Selkirk. The history of the descendants of this marriage belongs to the great house of Douglas, the 7th duke of Hamilton becoming the male representative and chief of the house of Douglas, earls of Angus.

The above mentioned Claud Hamilton, who with his brother, the first marquess, had taken so large a part in the cause of Queen Mary, was created a lord of parliament as Lord Paisley in 1587. He had five sons, of whom three settled in Ireland, Sir Claud being ancestor of the Hamiltons of Beltrim and Sir Frederick, distinguished in early life in the Swedish wars, being ancestor of the viscounts Boyne.

James, the eldest son of Lord Paisley, found favour with James VI. and was created in 1603 Lord of Abercorn, and three years later was advanced in the peerage as earl of Abercorn and lord of Paisley, Hamilton, Mountcastell and Kilpatrick. His eldest son James, 2nd earl of Abercorn, eventually heir male of the house of Hamilton and successor to the dukedom of Châtellerault, was created in his father’s lifetime lord of Strabane in Ireland, but he resigned this title in 1633 in favour of his brother Claud, whose grandson, Claud, 5th Lord Strabane, succeeded eventually as 4th earl of Abercorn. This earl, taking the side of James II., was with him in Ireland, his estate and title being afterwards forfeited, while his kinsman Gustavus Hamilton, afterwards first Lord Boyne, raised several regiments for William III., and greatly distinguished himself in the service of that monarch. His brother Charles, 5th earl of Abercorn, who obtained a reversal of the attainder, died without issue surviving in 1701 when the titles passed to his kinsman James Hamilton, grandson of Sir George Hamilton of Donalong in Ireland and great-grandson of the first earl. This branch, most faithful to the house of Stuart, counted among its many members distinguished in military annals Count Anthony Hamilton, author of the Mémoires du comte de Gramont and brother of “la belle Hamilton.” James, 6th earl of Abercorn (whose brother William was ancestor of Hamilton of the Mount, baronet), was a partizan of William III., and obtained in 1701 the additional Irish titles of lord of Mountcastle and viscount of Strabane.

The 8th earl of Abercorn, who was summoned to the Irish house of peers in his father’s lifetime as Lord Mountcastle, was created a peer of Great Britain in 1786 as Viscount Hamilton of Hamilton in Leicestershire, and renewed the family’s connexion with Scotland by repurchasing the barony of Duddingston and later the lordship of Paisley. His nephew and successor was created marquess of Abercorn in 1790, and was father of James, 1st duke of Abercorn.

See the article Hamilton and other articles on the different branches of the family (e.g. Haddington and Belhaven) in Sir J. B. Paul’s edition of Sir R. Douglas’s Peerage of Scotland; and also G. Marshall, Guide to Heraldry and Genealogy.

HAMILTON, MARQUESSES AND DUKES OF. The holders of these titles descended from Sir James Hamilton of Cadzow, who was made an hereditary lord of parliament in 1445, his lands and baronies at the same time being erected into the “lordship” of Hamilton. His first wife Euphemia, widow of the 5th earl of Douglas, died in 1468, and probably early in 1474 he married Mary, daughter of King James II. and widow of Thomas Boyd, earl of Arran; the consequent nearness of the Hamiltons to the Scottish crown gave them very great weight in Scottish affairs. The first Lord Hamilton has been frequently confused with his father, James Hamilton of Cadzow, who was one of the hostages in England for the payment of James I.’s ransom, and is sometimes represented as surviving until 1451 or even 1479, whereas he certainly died, according to evidence brought forward by J. Anderson in The Scots Peerage, before May 1441. James, 2nd Lord Hamilton, son of the 1st lord and Princess Mary, was created earl of Arran in 1503; and his son James, who was regent of Scotland from 1542 to 1554, received in February 1549 a grant of the duchy of Châtellerault in Poitou.

John, 1st marquess of Hamilton (c. 1542-1604), third son of James Hamilton, 2nd earl of Arran (q.v.) and duke of Châtellerault, was given the abbey of Arbroath in 1551. In politics he was largely under the influence of his energetic and unscrupulous younger brother Claud, afterwards Baron Paisley (c. 1543-1622), ancestor of the dukes of Abercorn. The brothers were the real heads of the house of Hamilton, their elder brother Arran being insane. At first hostile to Mary, they later became her devoted partisans. Their uncle, John Hamilton, archbishop of St Andrews, natural son of the 1st earl of Arran, was restored to his consistorial jurisdiction by Mary in 1566, and in May of the next year he divorced Bothwell from his wife. Lord Claud met Mary on her escape from Lochleven and escorted her to Hamilton palace. John appears to have been in France in 1568 when the battle of Langside was fought, and it was probably Claud who commanded Mary’s vanguard in the battle. With others of the queen’s party they were forfeited by the parliament and sought their revenge on the regent Murray. Although the Hamiltons disavowed all connexion with Murray’s murderer, James Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh, he had been provided with horse and weapons by the abbot of Arbroath, and it was at Hamilton that he sought refuge after the deed. Archbishop Hamilton was hanged at Stirling in 1571 for alleged complicity in the murder of Darnley, and is said to have admitted that he was a party to the murder of Murray. At the pacification of Perth in 1573 the Hamiltons abandoned Mary’s cause, and a reconciliation with the Douglases was sealed by Lord John’s marriage with Margaret, daughter of the 7th Lord Glamis, a cousin of the regent Morton. Sir William Douglas of Lochleven, however, persistently sought his life in revenge for the murder of Murray until, on his refusal to keep the peace, he was imprisoned. On the uncertain evidence extracted from the assassin by torture, the Hamiltons had been credited with a share in the murder of the regent Lennox in 1571. In 1579 proceedings against them for these two crimes were resumed, and when they escaped to England their lands and titles were seized by their political enemies, James Stewart becoming earl of Arran. John Hamilton presently dissociated himself from the policy of his brother Claud, who continued to plot for Spanish intervention on behalf of Mary; and Catholic plotters are even said to have suggested his murder to procure the succession of his brother. Hamilton had at one time been credited with the hope of marrying Mary; his desires now centred on the peaceful enjoyment of his estates. With other Scottish exiles he crossed the border in 1585 and marched on Stirling; he was admitted on the 4th of November and formally reconciled with James VI., with whom he was thenceforward on the friendliest terms. Claud returned to Scotland in 1586, and the abbey of Paisley was erected into a temporal barony in his favour in 1587. Much of his later years was spent in strict retirement, his son being authorized to act for him in 1598. John was created marquess of Hamilton and Lord Evan in 1599, and died on the 6th of April 1604.

His eldest surviving son James, 2nd marquess of Hamilton (c. 1589-1625), was created baron of Innerdale and earl of Cambridge in the peerage of England in 1619, and these honours descended to his son James, who in 1643 was created duke of Hamilton (q.v.). William, 2nd duke of Hamilton (1616-1651), succeeded to the dukedom on his brother’s execution in 1649. He was created earl of Lanark in 1639, and in the next year became secretary of state in Scotland. Arrested at Oxford by the king’s orders in 1643 for “concurrence” with Hamilton, he effected his escape and was temporarily reconciled with the Presbyterian party. He was sent by the Scottish committee of estates to treat with Charles I. at Newcastle in 1646, when he sought in vain to persuade the king to consent to the establishment of Presbyterianism in England. On the 26th of September 1647 he signed on behalf of the Scots the treaty with Charles known as the “Engagement” at Carisbrooke Castle, and helped to organize the second Civil War. In 1648 he fled to Holland, his succession in the next year to his brother’s dukedom making him an important personage among the Royalist exiles. He returned to Scotland with Prince Charles in 1650, but, finding a reconciliation with Argyll impossible, he refused to prejudice Charles’s cause by pushing his claims, and lived in retirement chiefly until the Scottish invasion of England, when he acted as colonel of a body of his dependants. He died on the 12th of September 1651 from the effects of wounds received at Worcester. He left no male heirs, and the title devolved on the 1st duke’s eldest surviving daughter Anne, duchess of Hamilton in her own right.

Anne married in 1656 William Douglas, earl of Selkirk (1635-1694), who was created duke of Hamilton in 1660 on his wife’s petition, receiving also several of the other Hamilton peerages, but for his life only. The Hamilton estates had been declared forfeit by Cromwell, and he himself had been fined £1000. He supported Lauderdale in the early stages of his Scottish policy, in which he adopted a moderate attitude towards the Presbyterians, but the two were soon alienated, through the influence of the countess of Dysart, according to Gilbert Burnet, who spent much time at Hamilton Palace in arranging the Hamilton papers. With other Scottish noblemen who resisted Lauderdale’s measures Hamilton was twice summoned to London to present his case at court, but without obtaining any result. He was dismissed from the privy council in 1676, and on a subsequent visit to London Charles refused to receive him. On the accession of James II. he received numerous honours, but he was one of the first to enter into communication with the prince of Orange. He presided over the convention of Edinburgh, summoned at his request, which offered the Scottish crown to William and Mary in March 1689. His death took place at Holyrood on the 18th of April 1694. His wife survived until 1716.

James Douglas, 4th duke of Hamilton (1658-1712), eldest son of the preceding and of Duchess Anne, succeeded his mother, who resigned the dukedom to him in 1698, and at the accession of Queen Anne he was regarded as leader of the Scottish national party. He was an opponent of the union with England, but his lack of decision rendered his political conduct ineffective. He was created duke of Brandon in the peerage of Great Britain in 1711; and on the 15th of November in the following year he fought the celebrated duel with Charles Lord Mohun, narrated in Thackeray’s Esmond, in which both the principals were killed. His son, James (1703-1743), became 5th duke, and his grandson James, 6th duke of Hamilton and Brandon (1724-1758), married the famous beauty, Elizabeth Gunning, afterwards duchess of Argyll. James George, 7th duke (1755-1769), became head of the house of Douglas on the death in 1761 of Archibald, duke of Douglas, whose titles but not his estates then devolved on the duke of Hamilton as heir-male. Archibald’s brother Douglas (1756-1799) was the 8th duke, and when he died childless the titles passed to his uncle Archibald (1740-1819). His son Alexander, 10th duke (1767-1852), who as marquess of Douglas was a great collector and connoisseur of books and pictures (his collections realized £397,562 in 1882), was ambassador at St Petersburg in 1806-1807. His sister, Lady Anne Hamilton, was lady-in-waiting and a faithful friend to Queen Caroline, wife of George IV.; she did not write the Secret History of the Court of England ... (1832) to which her name was attached. William Alexander, 11th duke of Hamilton (1811-1863), married Princess Marie Amélie, daughter of Charles, grand-duke of Baden, and, on her mother’s side, a cousin of Napoleon III. The title of duke of Châtellerault, granted to his remote ancestor in 1548, and claimed at different times by various branches of the Hamilton family, was conferred on the 11th duke’s son, William Alexander, 12th duke of Hamilton (1845-1895), by the emperor of the French in 1864. His sister, Lady Mary Douglas-Hamilton, married in 1869 Albert, prince of Monaco, but their marriage was declared invalid in 1880. She subsequently married Count Tassilo Festetics, a Hungarian noble. The 12th duke left no male issue and was succeeded in 1895 by his kinsman, Alfred Douglas, a descendant of the 4th duke. Claud Hamilton, 1st Baron Paisley, brother of the 1st marquess of Hamilton, was, as mentioned above, ancestor of the Abercorn branch of the Hamiltons. His son, who became earl of Abercorn in 1606, received among a number of other titles that of Lord Hamilton. This title, and also that of Viscount Hamilton, in the peerage of Great Britain, conferred on the 8th earl of Abercorn in 1786, are borne by the dukes of Abercorn, whose eldest son is usually styled by courtesy marquess of Hamilton, a title which was added to the other family honours when the 2nd marquess of Abercorn was raised to the dukedom in 1868.

See John Anderson, The House of Hamilton (1825); Hamilton Papers, ed. J. Bain (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1890-1892); Gilbert Burnet, Lives of James and William, dukes of Hamilton (1677); The Hamilton Papers relative to 1638-1650, ed. S. R. Gardiner for the Camden Society (1880); G. E. C[okayne], Complete Peerage (1887-1898); an article by the Rev. J. Anderson in Sir J. B. Paul’s edition of the Scots Peerage, vol. iv. (1907).

HAMILTON, ALEXANDER (1757-1804), American statesman and economist, was born, as a British subject, on the island of Nevis in the West Indies on the 11th of January 1757. He came of good family on both sides. His father, James Hamilton, a Scottish merchant of St Christopher, was a younger son of Alexander Hamilton of Grange, Lanarkshire, by Elizabeth, daughter of Sir R. Pollock. His mother, Rachael Fawcett (Faucette), of French Huguenot descent, married when very young a Danish proprietor of St Croix, John Michael Levine, with whom she lived unhappily and whom she soon left, subsequently living with James Hamilton; her husband procured a divorce in 1759, but the court forbade her remarriage.[1] Such unions as hers with James Hamilton were long not uncommon in the West Indies. By her James Hamilton had two sons, Alexander and James. Business misfortunes having caused his father’s bankruptcy, and his mother dying in 1768, young Hamilton was thrown upon the care of maternal relatives at St Croix, where, in his twelfth year, he entered the counting-house of Nicholas Cruger. Shortly afterward Mr Cruger, going abroad, left the boy in charge of the business. The extraordinary specimens we possess of his mercantile correspondence and friendly letters, written at this time, attest an astonishing poise and maturity of mind, and self-conscious ambition. His opportunities for regular schooling must have been very scant; but he had cultivated friends who discerned his talents and encouraged their development, and he early formed the habits of wide reading and industrious study that were to persist through his life. An accomplishment later of great service to Hamilton, common enough in the Antilles, but very rare in the English continental colonies, was a familiar command of French. In 1772 some friends, impressed by a description by him of the terrible West Indian hurricane in that year, made it possible for him to go to New York to complete his education. Arriving in the autumn of 1772, he prepared for college at Elizabethtown, N.J., and in 1774 entered King’s College (now Columbia University) in New York City. His studies, however, were interrupted by the War of American Independence.

A visit to Boston seems to have thoroughly confirmed the conclusion, to which reason had already led him, that he should cast in his fortunes with the colonists. Into their cause he threw himself with ardour. In 1774-1775 he wrote two influential anonymous pamphlets, which were attributed to John Jay; they show remarkable maturity and controversial ability, and rank high among the political arguments of the time.[2] He organized an artillery company, was awarded its captaincy on examination, won the interest of Nathanael Greene and Washington by the proficiency and bravery he displayed in the campaign of 1776 around New York City, joined Washington’s staff in March 1777 with the rank of lieutenant-colonel, and during four years served as his private secretary and confidential aide. The important duties with which he was entrusted attest Washington’s entire confidence in his abilities and character; then and afterwards, indeed, reciprocal confidence and respect took the place, in their relations, of personal attachment.[3] But Hamilton was ambitious for military glory—it was an ambition he never lost; he became impatient of detention in what he regarded as a position of unpleasant dependence, and (Feb. 1781) he seized a slight reprimand administered by Washington as an excuse for abandoning his staff position.[4] Later he secured a field command, through Washington, and won laurels at Yorktown, where he led the American column in the final assault on the British works. In 1780 he married Elizabeth, daughter of General Philip Schuyler, and thus became allied with one of the most distinguished families in New York.

Meanwhile, he had begun the political efforts upon which his fame principally rests. In letters of 1779-1780[5] he correctly diagnoses the ills of the Confederation, and suggests with admirable prescience the necessity of centralization in its governmental powers; he was, indeed, one of the first, if not to conceive, at least to suggest adequate checks on the anarchic tendencies of the time. After a year’s service in Congress in 1782-1783, in which he experienced the futility of endeavouring to attain through that decrepit body the ends he sought, he settled down to legal practice in New York.[6] The call for the Annapolis Convention (1786) was Hamilton’s opportunity. A delegate from New York, he supported Madison in inducing the Convention to exceed its delegated powers and summon the Federal Convention of 1787 at Philadelphia (himself drafting the call); he secured a place on the New York delegation; and, when his anti-Federal colleagues withdrew from the Convention, he signed the Constitution for his state. So long as his colleagues were present his own vote was useless, and he absented himself for some time from the debates after making one remarkable speech (June 18th, 1787). In this he held up the British government as the best model in the world.[7] Though fully conscious that monarchy in America was impossible, he wished to obtain the next best solution in an aristocratic, strongly centralized, coercive, but representative union, with devices to give weight to the influence of class and property.[8] His plan had no chance of success; but though unable to obtain what he wished, he used his great talents to secure the adoption of the Constitution.

To this struggle was due the greatest of his writings, and the greatest individual contribution to the adoption of the new government, The Federalist, which remains a classic commentary on American constitutional law and the principles of government, and of which Guizot said that “in the application of elementary principles of government to practical administration” it was the greatest work known to him. Its inception, and much more than half its contents were Hamilton’s (the rest Madison’s and Jay’s).[9] Sheer will and reasoning could hardly be more brilliantly and effectively exhibited than they were by Hamilton in the New York convention of 1788, whose vote he won, against the greatest odds, for the ratification of the Constitution. It was the judgment of Chancellor James Kent, the justice of which can hardly be disputed, that “all the documentary proof and the current observation of the time lead us to the conclusion that he surpassed all his contemporaries in his exertions to create, recommend, adopt and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

When the new government was inaugurated, Hamilton became secretary of the treasury in Washington’s cabinet.[10] Congress immediately referred to him a press of queries and problems, and there came from his pen a succession of papers that have left the strongest imprint on the administrative organization of the national government—two reports on public credit, upholding an ideal of national honour higher than the prevalent popular principles; a report on manufactures, advocating their encouragement (e.g. by bounties paid from surplus revenues amassed by tariff duties)—a famous report that has served ever since as a storehouse of arguments for a national protective policy;[11] a report favouring the establishment of a national bank, the argument being based on the doctrine of “implied powers” in the Constitution, and on the application that Congress may do anything that can be made, through the medium of money, to subserve the “general welfare” of the United States—doctrines that, through judicial interpretation, have revolutionized the Constitution; and, finally, a vast mass of detailed work by which order and efficiency were given to the national finances. In 1793 he put to confusion his opponents who had brought about a congressional investigation of his official accounts. The success of his financial measures was immediate and remarkable. They did not, as is often but loosely said, create economic prosperity; but they did prop it, in an all-important field, with order, hope and confidence. His ultimate purpose was always the strengthening of the union; but before particularizing his political theories, and the political import of his financial measures, the remaining events of his life may be traced.

His activity in the cabinet was by no means confined to the finances. He regarded himself, apparently, as premier, and sometimes overstepped the limits of his office in interfering with other departments. The heterogeneous character of the duties placed upon his department by Congress seemed in fact to reflect the English idea of its primacy. Hamilton’s influence was in fact predominant with Washington (so far as any man could have predominant influence). Thus it happens that in foreign affairs, whatever credit properly belongs to the Federalists as a party (see also the article [Federalist Party]) for the adoption of that principle of neutrality which became the traditional policy of the United States must be regarded as largely due to Hamilton. But allowance must be made for the mere advantage of initiative which belonged to any party that organized the government—the differences between Hamilton and Jefferson, in this question of neutrality, being almost purely factitious.[12] On domestic policy their differences were vital, and in their conflicts over Hamilton’s financial measures they organized, on the basis of varying tenets and ideals which have never ceased to conflict in American politics, the two great parties of Federalists and Democrats (or Democratic-Republicans). On the 31st of January 1795 Hamilton resigned his position as secretary of the treasury and returned to the practice of law in New York, leaving it for public service only in 1798-1800, when he was the active head, under Washington (who insisted that Hamilton should be second only to himself), of the army organized for war against France. But though in private life he remained the continual and chief adviser of Washington—notably in the serious crisis of the Jay Treaty, of which Hamilton approved. Washington’s Farewell Address (1796) was written for him by Hamilton.

After Washington’s death the Federalist leadership was divided (and disputed) between John Adams, who had the prestige of a varied and great career, and greater strength than any other Federalist with the people, and Hamilton, who controlled practically all the leaders of lesser rank, including much the greater part of the most distinguished men of the country, so that it has been very justly said that “the roll of his followers is enough of itself to establish his position in American history” (Lodge). But Hamilton was not essentially a popular leader. When his passions were not involved, or when they were repressed by a crisis, he was far-sighted, and his judgment of men was excellent.[13] But as Hamilton himself once said, his heart was ever the master of his judgment. He was, indeed, not above intrigue,[14] but he was unsuccessful in it. He was a fighter through and through, and his courage was superb; but he was indiscreet in utterance, impolitic in management, opinionated, self-confident, and uncompromising in nature and methods. His faults are nowhere better shown than in his quarrel with John Adams. Three times, in order to accomplish ends deemed by him, personally, to be desirable, Hamilton used the political fortunes of John Adams, in presidential elections, as a mere hazard in his manœuvres; moreover, after Adams became president, and so the official head of the party, Hamilton constantly advised the members of the president’s cabinet, and through them endeavoured to control Adams’s policy; and finally, on the eve of the crucial election of 1800, he wrote a bitter personal attack on the president (containing much confidential cabinet information), which was intended for private circulation, but which was secured and published by Aaron Burr, his legal and political rival.

The mention of Burr leads us to the fatal end of another great political antipathy of Hamilton’s life. He read Burr’s character correctly from the beginning; deemed it a patriotic duty to thwart him in his ambitions; defeated his hopes successively of a foreign mission, the presidency, and the governorship of New York; and in his conversations and letters repeatedly and unsparingly denounced him. If these denunciations were known to Burr they were ignored by him until his last defeat. After that he forced a quarrel on a trivial bit of hearsay (that Hamilton had said he had a “despicable” opinion of Burr); and Hamilton, believing as he explained in a letter he left before going to his death—that a compliance with the duelling prejudices of the time was inseparable from the ability to be in future useful in public affairs, accepted a challenge from him. The duel was fought at Weehawken on the Jersey shore of the Hudson opposite the City of New York. At the first fire Hamilton fell, mortally wounded, and he died on the following day, the 12th of July 1804. Hamilton himself did not intend to fire, but his pistol went off as he fell. The tragic close of his career appeased for the moment the fierce hatred of politics, and his death was very generally deplored as a national calamity.[15]

No emphasis, however strong, upon the mere consecutive personal successes of Hamilton’s life is sufficient to show the measure of his importance in American history. That importance lies, to a large extent, in the political ideas for which he stood. His mind was eminently “legal.” He was the unrivalled controversialist of the time. His writings, which are distinguished by clarity, vigour and rigid reasoning, rather than by any show of scholarship—in the extent of which, however solid in character Hamilton’s might have been, he was surpassed by several of his contemporaries—are in general strikingly empirical in basis. He drew his theories from his experiences of the Revolutionary period, and he modified them hardly at all through life. In his earliest pamphlets (1774-1775) he started out with the ordinary pre-Revolutionary Whig doctrines of natural rights and liberty; but the first experience of semi-anarchic states’-rights and individualism ended his fervour for ideas so essentially alien to his practical, logical mind, and they have no place in his later writings. The feeble inadequacy of conception, infirmity of power, factional jealousy, disintegrating particularism, and vicious finance of the Confederation were realized by many others; but none other saw so clearly the concrete nationalistic remedies for these concrete ills, or pursued remedial ends so constantly, so ably, and so consistently. An immigrant, Hamilton had no particularistic ties; he was by instinct a “continentalist” or federalist. He wanted a strong union and energetic government that should “rest as much as possible on the shoulders of the people and as little as possible on those of the state legislatures”; that should have the support of wealth and class; and that should curb the states to such an “entire subordination” as nowise to be hindered by those bodies. At these ends he aimed with extraordinary skill in all his financial measures. As early as 1776 he urged the direct collection of federal taxes by federal agents. From 1779 onward we trace the idea of supporting government by the interest of the propertied classes; from 1781 onward the idea that a not-excessive public debt would be a blessing[16] in giving cohesiveness to the union: hence his device by which the federal government, assuming the war debts of the states, secured greater resources, based itself on a high ideal of nationalism, strengthened its hold on the individual citizen, and gained the support of property. In his report on manufactures his chief avowed motive was to strengthen the union. To the same end he conceived the constitutional doctrines of liberal construction, “implied powers,” and the “general welfare,” which were later embodied in the decisions of John Marshall. The idea of nationalism pervaded and quickened all his life and works. With one great exception, the dictum of Guizot is hardly an exaggeration, that “there is not in the Constitution of the United States an element of order, of force, of duration, which he did not powerfully contribute to introduce into it and to cause to predominate.”

The exception, as American history showed, was American democracy. The loose and barren rule of the Confederation seemed to conservative minds such as Hamilton’s to presage, in its strengthening of individualism, a fatal looseness of social restraints, and led him on to a dread of democracy that he never overcame. Liberty, he reminded his fellows, in the New York Convention of 1788, seemed to be alone considered in government, but there was another thing equally important: “a principle of strength and stability in the organization ... and of vigour in its operation.” But Hamilton’s governmental system was in fact repressive.[17] He wanted a system strong enough, he would have said, to overcome the anarchic tendencies loosed by war, and represented by those notions of natural rights which he had himself once championed; strong enough to overbear all local, state and sectional prejudices, powers or influence, and to control—not, as Jefferson would have it, to be controlled by—the people. Confidence in the integrity, the self-control, and the good judgment of the people, which was the content of Jefferson’s political faith, had almost no place in Hamilton’s theories. “Men,” said he, “are reasoning rather than reasonable animals.” The charge that he laboured to introduce monarchy by intrigue is an under-estimate of his good sense.[18] Hamilton’s thinking, however, did carry him foul of current democratic philosophy; as he said, he presented his plan in 1787 “not as attainable, but as a model to which we ought to approach as far as possible”; moreover, he held through life his belief in its principles, and in its superiority over the government actually created; and though its inconsistency with American tendencies was yearly more apparent, he never ceased to avow on all occasions his aristocratic-monarchical partialities. Moreover, his preferences for at least an aristocratic republic were shared by many other men of talent. When it is added that Jefferson’s assertions, alike as regards Hamilton’s talk[19] and the intent and tendency of his political measures, were, to the extent of the underlying basic fact—but discounting Jefferson’s somewhat intemperate interpretations—unquestionably true,[20] it cannot be accounted strange that Hamilton’s Democratic opponents mistook his theoretic predilections for positive designs. Nor would it be a strained inference from much that be said, to believe that he hoped and expected that in the “crisis” he foresaw, when democracy should have caused the ruin of the country, a new government might be formed that should approximate to his own ideals.[21] From the beginning of the excesses of the French Revolution he was possessed by the persuasion that American democracy, likewise, might at any moment crush the restraints of the Constitution to enter on a career of licence and anarchy. To this obsession he sacrificed his life.[22] After the Democratic victory of 1800, his letters, full of retrospective judgments and interesting outlooks, are but rarely relieved in their sombre pessimism by flashes of hope and courage. His last letter on politics, written two days before his death, illustrates the two sides of his thinking already emphasized: in this letter he warns his New England friends against dismemberment of the union as “a clear sacrifice of great positive advantages, without any counterbalancing good; administering no relief to our real disease, which is democracy, the poison of which, by a subdivision, will only be more concentrated in each part, and consequently the more virulent.” To the end he never lost his fear of the states, nor gained faith in the future of the country. He laboured still, in mingled hope and apprehension, “to prop the frail and worthless fabric,”[23] but for its spiritual content of democracy he had no understanding, and even in its nationalism he had little hope. Yet probably to no one man, except perhaps to Washington, does American nationalism owe so much as to Hamilton.

In the development of the United States the influence of Hamiltonian nationalism and Jeffersonian democracy has been a reactive union; but changed conditions since Hamilton’s time, and particularly since the Civil War, are likely to create misconceptions as to Hamilton’s position in his own day. Great constructive statesman as he was, he was also, from the American point of view, essentially a reactionary. He was the leader of reactionary forces—constructive forces, as it happened—in the critical period after the War of American Independence, and in the period of Federalist supremacy. He was in sympathy with the dominant forces of public life only while they took, during the war, the predominant impress of an imperfect nationalism.[24] Jeffersonian democracy came into power in 1800 in direct line with colonial development; Hamiltonian Federalism was a break in that development; and this alone can explain how Jefferson could organize the Democratic Party in face of the brilliant success of the Federalists in constructing the government. Hamilton stigmatized his great opponent as a political fanatic; but actualist as he claimed to be,[25] Hamilton could not see, or would not concede, the predominating forces in American life, and would uncompromisingly have minimized the two great political conquests of the colonial period—local self-government and democracy.

Few Americans have received higher tributes from foreign authorities. Talleyrand, personally impressed when in America with Hamilton’s brilliant qualities, declared that he had the power of divining without reasoning, and compared him to Fox and Napoleon because he had “deviné l’Europe.” Of the judgments rendered by his countrymen, Washington’s confidence in his ability and integrity is perhaps the most significant. Chancellor James Kent, and others only less competent, paid remarkable testimony to his legal abilities. Chief-justice Marshall ranked him second to Washington alone. No judgment is more justly measured than Madison’s (in 1831): “That he possessed intellectual powers of the first order, and the moral qualities of integrity and honour in a captivating degree, has been awarded him by a suffrage now universal. If his theory of government deviated from the republican standard he had the candour to avow it, and the greater merit of co-operating faithfully in maturing and supporting a system which was not his choice.”

In person Hamilton was rather short and slender; in carriage, erect, dignified and graceful. Deep-set, changeable, dark eyes vivified his mobile features, and set off his light hair and fair, ruddy complexion. His head in the famous Trumbull portrait is boldly poised and very striking. The captivating charm of his manners and conversation is attested by all who knew him, and in familiar life he was artlessly simple. Friends he won readily, and he held them in devoted attachment by the solid worth of a frank, ardent, generous, warm-hearted and high-minded character. Versatile as were his intellectual powers, his nature seems comparatively simple. A firm will, tireless energy, aggressive courage and bold self-confidence were its leading qualities; the word “intensity” perhaps best sums up his character. His Scotch and Gallic strains of ancestry are evident; his countenance was decidedly Scotch; his nervous speech and bearing and vehement temperament rather French; in his mind, agility, clarity and penetration were matched with logical solidity. The remarkable quality of his mind lay in the rare combination of acute analysis and grasp of detail with great comprehensiveness of thought. So far as his writings show, he was almost wholly lacking in humour, and in imagination little less so. He certainly had wit, but it is hard to believe he could have had any touch of fancy. In public speaking he often combined a rhetorical effectiveness and emotional intensity that might take the place of imagination, and enabled him, on the coldest theme, to move deeply the feelings of his auditors.

Bibliography.—Hamilton’s Works have been edited by H. C. Lodge (New York, 9 vols., 1885-1886, and 12 vols., 1904); all references above are first to the latter edition, secondly (in brackets) to the former. There are various additional editions of The Federalist, notably those of H. B. Dawson (1863), H. C. Lodge (1888), and—the most scholarly—P. L. Ford (1898); cf. American Historical Review, ii. 413, 675. See also James Bryce, “Predictions of Hamilton and de Tocqueville,” in Johns Hopkins University Studies, vol. 5 (Baltimore, 1887); and the capital essay of Anson D. Morse in the Political Science Quarterly, v. (1890), pp. 1-23. For a bibliography of the period see the Cambridge Modern History, vol. vii. pp. 780-810. The unfinished Life of Alexander Hamilton, by his Son, J. C. Hamilton, going only to 1787 (New York, 2 vols., 1834-1840), was superseded by the same author’s valuable, but partisan and uncritical History of the Republic ... as traced in the Writings of Alexander Hamilton (New York, 7 vols., 1857-1864; 4th ed., Boston, 1879). Professor W. G. Sumner’s Alexander Hamilton (Makers of America series, New York, 1890) is appreciative, and important for its criticism from the point of view of an American free-trader; see also, on Hamilton’s finance and economic views, Prof. C. F. Dunbar, Quarterly Journal of Economics, iii. (1889), p. 32; E. G. Bourne in ibid. x. (1894), p. 328; E. C. Lunt in Journal of Political Economy, iii. (1895), p. 289. Among modern studies must also be mentioned J. T. Morse’s able Life (1876); H. C. Lodge’s (in the American Statesmen series, 1882); and G. Shea’s two books, his Historical Study (1877) and Life and Epoch (1879). C. J. Riethmüller’s Hamilton and his Contemporaries (1864), written during the Civil War, is sympathetic, but rather speculative. The most vivid account of Hamilton is in Mrs Gertrude Atherton’s historical romance, The Conqueror (New York, 1902), for the writing of which the author made new investigations into the biographical details, and elucidated some points previously obscure; see also her A Few of Hamilton’s Letters (1903). F. S. Oliver’s brilliant Alexander Hamilton: An Essay on American Union (London, 1906), which uses its subject to illustrate the necessity of British imperial federation, is strongly anti-Jeffersonian, but no other work by a non-American author brings out so well the wider issues involved in Hamilton’s economic policy.

(F. S. P.; H. Ch.)

[1] These facts were first definitely determined by Mrs Gertrude Atherton from the Danish Archives in Denmark and the West Indies; see article in North American Review, Aug. 1902, vol. 175, p. 229; and preface to her A Few of Hamilton’s Letters (New York, 1903).

[2] These were written in answer to the widely read pamphlets published over the nom de plume of “A Westchester Farmer,” and now known to have been written by Samuel Seabury (q.v.). Hamilton’s pamphlets were entitled “A Full Vindication of the Measures of the Congress from the Calumnies of their Enemies,” and “The Farmer Refuted.” Concerning them George Ticknor Curtis (Constitutional History of the United States, i. 274) has said, “There are displayed in these papers a power of reasoning and sarcasm, a knowledge of the principles of government and of the English constitution, and a grasp of the merits of the whole controversy, that would have done honour to any man at any age. To say that they evince precocity of intellect gives no idea of their main characteristics. They show great maturity—a more remarkable maturity than has ever been exhibited by any other person, at so early an age, in the same department of thought.”

[3] George Bancroft was the first to point out that there is small evidence that Hamilton ever really appreciated Washington’s great qualities; but on the score of personal and Federalist indebtedness he left explicit recognition.

[4] For Hamilton’s letter to General Schuyler on this episode—one of the most important letters, in some ways, that he ever wrote—see the Works, ix. 232 (8: 35).

[5] Especially the letter of September 1780 to James Duane, Works, i. 213 (1: 203); also the “Continentalist” papers of 1781.

[6] His most famous case at this time (Rutgers v. Waddington) was one that well illustrated his moral courage. Under a “Trespass Law” of New York, Elizabeth Rutgers, a widow, brought suit against one Joshua Waddington, a Loyalist, who during the war of American Independence, while New York was occupied by the British, had made use of some of her property. In face of popular clamour, Hamilton, who advocated a conciliatory treatment of the Loyalists, represented Waddington, who won the case, decided in 1784.

[7] As Mr Oliver points out (Alexander Hamilton, p. 156), Hamilton’s idea of the British constitution was not a correct picture of the British constitution in 1787, and still less of that of the 20th century. “What he had in mind was the British constitution as George III. had tried to make it.” Hamilton’s ideal was an elective monarchy, and his guiding principle a proper balance of authority.

[8] Briefly, he proposed a governor and two chambers—an Assembly elected by the people for three years, and a Senate—the governor and senate holding office for life or during good behaviour, and chosen, through electors, by voters qualified by property; the governor to have an unqualified veto on federal legislation; state governors to have a similar veto on state legislation, and to be appointed by the federal government; the federal government to control all militia. See Works, i. 347 (1: 331); and cf. his correspondence, which is scanty, passim in later years, notably x. 446, 431, 329 (8: 606, 596, 517), and references below.

[9] Nearly all the papers in The Federalist first appeared (between October 1787 and April 1788) in New York journals, over the signature “Publius.” Jay wrote only five. The authorship of twelve of them is uncertain, and has been the subject of much controversy between partisans of Hamilton and Madison. Concerning The Federalist Chancellor James Kent (Commentaries, i. 241) said: “There is no work on the subject of the Constitution, and on republican and federal government generally, that deserves to be more thoroughly studied. I know not indeed of any work on the principles of free government that is to be compared, in instruction and intrinsic value, to this small and unpretending volume.... It is equally admirable in the depth of its wisdom, the comprehensiveness of its views, the sagacity of its reflections, and the fearlessness, patriotism, candour, simplicity, and elegance, with which its truths are uttered and recommended.”

[10] The position was offered first to Robert Morris, who declined it, expressing the opinion that Hamilton was the man best fitted to meet its problems.

[11] Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures (1791) by itself entitles him to the place of an epoch-maker in economics. It was the first great revolt from Adam Smith, on whose Wealth of Nations (1776) he is said to have already written a commentary which is lost. In his criticism on Adam Smith, and his arguments for a system of moderate protective duties associated with the deliberate policy of promoting national interests, his work was the inspiration of Friedrich List, and so the foundation of the economic system of Germany in a later day, and again, still later, of the policy of Tariff Reform and Colonial Preference in England, as advocated by Mr Chamberlain and his supporters. See the detailed account given in the article [Protection].

[12] That is, while Jefferson hated British aristocracy and sympathized with French democracy, Hamilton hated French democracy and sympathized with British aristocracy and order; but neither wanted war; and indeed Jefferson, throughout life, was the more peaceful of the two. Neutrality was in the line of commonplace American thinking of that time, as may be seen in the writings of all the leading men of the day. The cry of “British Hamilton” had no good excuse whatever.

[13] e.g. his prediction in 1789 of the course of the French Revolution; his judgments of Burr from 1792 onward, and of Burr and Jefferson in 1800.

[14] After the Democrats won New York in 1799, Hamilton proposed to Governor John Jay to call together the out-going Federalist legislature, in order to choose Federalist presidential electors, a suggestion which Jay simply endorsed: “Proposing a measure for party purposes which it would not become me to adopt.”—Works, x. 371 (8: 549). Compare also with later developments of ward politics in New York City, Hamilton’s curious suggestions as to Federalist charities, &c., in connexion with the Christian Constitutional Society proposed by him in 1802 to combat irreligion and democracy (Works, x. 432 (8 : 596).

[15] Hamilton’s widow, who survived him for half a century, dying at the age of ninety-seven, was left with four sons and four daughters. He had been an affectionate husband and father, though his devotion to his wife had been consistent with occasional lapses from strict marital fidelity. One intrigue into which he drifted in 1791, with a Mrs Reynolds, led to the blackmailing of Hamilton by her husband; and when this rascal, shortly afterwards, got into trouble for fraud, his relations with Hamilton were unscrupulously misrepresented for political purposes by some of Hamilton’s opponents. But Hamilton faced the necessity of revealing the true state of things with conspicuous courage, and the scandal only reacted on his accusers. One of them was Monroe, whose reputation comes very badly out of this unsavoury affair.

[16] In later years he said no debt should be incurred without providing simultaneously for its payment.

[17] He warmly supported the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798 (in their final form).

[18] The idea, he wrote to Washington, was “one of those visionary things none but madmen could undertake, and that no wise man will believe” (1792). And see his comments on Burr’s ambitions, Works, x. 417, 450 (8: 585, 610). We may accept as just, and applicable to his entire career, the statement made by himself in 1803 of his principles in 1787: “(1) That the political powers of the people of this continent would endure nothing but a representative form of government. (2) That, in the actual situation of the country, it was itself right and proper that the representative system should have a full and fair trial. (3) That to such a trial it was essential that the government should be so constructed as to give it all the energy and the stability reconcilable with the principles of that theory.”

[19] Cf. Gouverneur Morris, Diary and Letters, ii. 455, 526, 531.

[20] Cf. even Mr Lodge’s judgments, pp. 90-92, 115-116, 122, 130, 140. When he says (p. 140) that “In Hamilton’s successful policy there were certainly germs of an aristocratic republic, there were certainly limitations and possibly dangers to pure democracy,” this is practically Jefferson’s assertion (1792) that “His system flowed from principles adverse to liberty”; but Jefferson goes on to add: “and was calculated to undermine and demolish the republic.” As to the intent of Hamilton to secure through his financial measures the political support of property, his own words are honest and clear; and in fact he succeeded. Jefferson merely had exaggerated fears of a moneyed political engine, and seeing that Hamilton’s measures of funding and assumption did make the national debt politically useful to the Federalists in the beginning he concluded that they would seek to fasten the debt on the country for ever.

[21] Cf. Gouv. Morris, op. cit. ii. 474.

[22] He dreamed of saving the country with an army in this crisis of blood and iron, and wished to preserve unweakened the public confidence in his personal bravery.

[23] His own words in 1802. In justification of the above statements see the correspondence of 1800-1804 passim—Works, vol. ix.-x. (or 7-8); especially x. 363, 425, 434, 440, 445 (or 8: 543, 591, 596, 602, 605).

[24] Cf. Anson D. Morse, article cited below, pp. 4, 18-21.

[25] Chancellor Kent tells us (Memoirs and Letters, p. 32) that in 1804 Hamilton was planning a co-operative Federalist work on the history and science of government on an inductive basis. Kent always speaks of Hamilton’s legal thinking as deductive, however (ibid. p. 290, 329), and such seems to have been in fact all his political reasoning: i.e. underlying them were such maxims as that of Hume, that in erecting a stable government every citizen must be assumed a knave, and be bound by self-interest to co-operation for the public good. Hamilton always seems to be reasoning deductively from such principles. He went too far and fast for even such a Federalist disbeliever in democracy as Gouverneur Morris; who, to Hamilton’s assertion that democracy must be cast out to save the country, replied that “such necessity cannot be shown by a political ratiocination. Luckily, or, to speak with a reverence proper to the occasion, providentially, mankind are not disposed to embark the blessings they enjoy on a voyage of syllogistic adventure to obtain something more beautiful in exchange. They must feel before they will act” (op. cit. ii. 531).

HAMILTON, ANTHONY, or Antoine (1646-1720), French classical author, was born about 1646. He is especially noteworthy from the fact that, though by birth he was a foreigner, his literary characteristics are more decidedly French than those of many of the most indubitable Frenchmen. His father was George Hamilton, younger brother of James, 2nd earl of Abercorn, and head of the family of Hamilton in the peerage of Scotland, and 6th duke of Châtellerault in the peerage of France; and his mother was Mary Butler, sister of the 1st duke of Ormonde. According to some authorities he was born at Drogheda, but according to the London edition of his works in 1811 his birthplace was Roscrea, Tipperary. From the age of four till he was fourteen the boy was brought up in France, whither his family had removed after the execution of Charles I. The fact that, like his father, he was a Roman Catholic, prevented his receiving the political promotion he might otherwise have expected on the Restoration, but he became a distinguished member of that brilliant band of courtiers whose chronicler he was to become. He took service in the French army, and the marriage of his sister Elizabeth, “la belle Hamilton,” to Philibert, comte de Gramont (q.v.) rendered his connexion with France more intimate, if possible, than before. On the accession of James II. he obtained an infantry regiment in Ireland, and was appointed governor of Limerick and a member of the privy council. But the battle of the Boyne, at which he was present, brought disaster on all who were attached to the cause of the Stuarts, and before long he was again in France—an exile, but at home. The rest of his life was spent for the most part at the court of St Germain and in the châteaux of his friends. With Ludovise, duchesse du Maine, he became an especial favourite, and it was at her seat at Sceaux that he wrote the Mémoires that made him famous. He died at St Germain-en-Laye on the 21st of April 1720.

It is mainly by the Mémoires ducomte de Gramont that Hamilton takes rank with the most classical writers of France. It was said to have been written at Gramont’s dictation, but it is very evident that Hamilton’s share is the most considerable. The work was first published anonymously in 1713 under the rubric of Cologne, but it was really printed in Holland, at that time the great patroness of all questionable authors. An English translation by Boyer appeared in 1714. Upwards of thirty editions have since appeared, the best of the French being Renouard’s (1812), forming part of a collected edition of Hamilton’s works, and Gustave Brunet’s (1859), and the best of the English, Edwards’s (1793), with 78 engravings from portraits in the royal collections at Windsor and elsewhere, A. F. Bertrand de Moleville’s (2 vols., 1811), with 64 portraits by E. Scriven and others, and Gordon Goodwin’s (2 vols., 1903). The original edition was reprinted by Benjamin Pifteau in 1876. In imitation and satiric parody of the romantic tales which Antoine Galland’s translation of The Thousand and One Nights had brought into favour in France, Hamilton wrote, partly for the amusement of Henrietta Bulkley, sister of the duchess of Berwick, to whom he was much attached, four ironical and extravagant contes, Le Bélier, Fleur d’épine, Zénéyde and Les Quatre Facardins. The saying in Le Bélier’ “Bélier, mon ami, tu me ferais plaisir si tu voulais commencer par le commencement,” has passed into a proverb. These tales were circulated privately during Hamilton’s lifetime, and the first three appeared in Paris in 1730, ten years after the death of the author; a collection of his Œuvres diverses in 1731 contained the unfinished Zénéyde. Hamilton was also the author of some songs as exquisite in their way as his prose, and interchanged amusing verses with the duke of Berwick. In the name of his niece, the countess of Stafford, Hamilton maintained a witty correspondence with Lady Mary Wortley Montagu.