Sergi considers the Hamites, using the term in the racial sense, as a branch of his “Mediterranean Race”; and divides them as follows:—1.Eastern Branch—(a) Ancient and Modern Egyptian (excluding the Arabs).(b) Nubians, Beja.(c) Abyssinians.(d) Galla, Danakil, Somali.(e) Masai.(f) Wahuma or Watusi.2.Northern Branch—(a) Berbers of the Mediterranean, Atlantic and Sahara.(b) Tibbu.(c) Fula.(d) Guanches (extinct).With regard to this classification the following conclusions may be regarded as comparatively certain: that the members of groupsd,eandfof the first branch appear to be closely inter-connected by ties of blood, and also the members of the second branch. The Abyssinians in the south have absorbed a certain amount of Galla blood, but the majority are Semitic or Semito-Negroid. The question of the racial affinities of the Ancient Egyptians and the Beja are still a matter of doubt, and the relation of the two groups to each other is still controversial. Sergi, it is true, arguing from physical data believes that a close connexion exists; but the data are so extremely scanty that the finality of his conclusion may well be doubted. His “Northern Branch” corresponds with the more satisfactory term “Libyan Race,” represented in fair purity by the Berbers, and, mixed with Negro elements, by the Fula and Tibbu. This Libyan race is distinctively a white race, with dark curly hair; the Eastern Hamites are equally distinctively a brown people with frizzy hair. If, as Sergi believes, these brown people are themselves a race, and not a cross between white and black in varying proportions, they are found in their greatest purity among the Somali and Galla, and mixed with Bantu blood among the Ba-Hima (Wahuma) and Watussi. The Masai seem to be as much Nilotic Negro as Hamite. This Galla type does not seem to appear farther north than the southern portion of Abyssinia, and it is not unlikely that the Beja are very early Semitic immigrants with an aboriginal Negroid admixture. It is also possible that they and the Ancient Egyptians may contain a common element. The Nubians appear akin to the Egyptians but with a strong Negroid element.To return to Sergi’s two branches, besides the differences in skin colour and hair-texture there is also a cultural difference of great importance. The Eastern Hamites are essentially a pastoral people and therefore nomadic or semi-nomadic; the Berbers, who, as said above, are the purest representatives of the Libyans, are agriculturists. The pastoral habits of the Eastern Hamites are of importance, since they show the utmost reluctance to abandon them. Even the Ba-Hima and Watussi, for long settled and partly intermixed with the agricultural Bantu, regard any pursuit but that of cattle-tending as absolutely beneath their dignity.It would seem therefore that, while sufficient data have not been collected to decide whether, on the evidence of exact anthropological measurements, the Libyans are connected racially with the Eastern Hamites, the testimony derived from broad “descriptive characteristics” and general culture is against such a connexion. To regard the Libyans as Hamites solely on the ground that the languages spoken by the two groups show affinities would be as rash and might be as false as to aver that the present-day Hungarians are Mongolians because Magyar is an Asiatic tongue. Regarding the present state of knowledge it would be safer therefore to restrict the term “Hamites” to Sergi’s first group; and call the second by the name “Libyans.” The difficult question of the origin of the ancient Egyptians is discussed elsewhere.As to the question whether the Hamites in this restricted sense are a definite race or a blend, no discussion can, in view of the paucity of evidence, as yet lead to a satisfactory conclusion, but it might be suggested very tentatively that further researches may possibly connect them with the Dravidian peoples of India. It is sufficient for present purposes that the term Hamite, using it as coextensive with Sergi’s Eastern Hamite, has a definite connotation. By the term is meant a brown people with frizzy hair, of lean and sinewy physique, with slender but muscular arms and legs, a thin straight or even aquiline nose with delicate nostrils, thin lips and no trace of prognathism.
Sergi considers the Hamites, using the term in the racial sense, as a branch of his “Mediterranean Race”; and divides them as follows:—
1.Eastern Branch—
(a) Ancient and Modern Egyptian (excluding the Arabs).(b) Nubians, Beja.(c) Abyssinians.(d) Galla, Danakil, Somali.(e) Masai.(f) Wahuma or Watusi.
(a) Ancient and Modern Egyptian (excluding the Arabs).
(b) Nubians, Beja.
(c) Abyssinians.
(d) Galla, Danakil, Somali.
(e) Masai.
(f) Wahuma or Watusi.
2.Northern Branch—
(a) Berbers of the Mediterranean, Atlantic and Sahara.(b) Tibbu.(c) Fula.(d) Guanches (extinct).
(a) Berbers of the Mediterranean, Atlantic and Sahara.
(b) Tibbu.
(c) Fula.
(d) Guanches (extinct).
With regard to this classification the following conclusions may be regarded as comparatively certain: that the members of groupsd,eandfof the first branch appear to be closely inter-connected by ties of blood, and also the members of the second branch. The Abyssinians in the south have absorbed a certain amount of Galla blood, but the majority are Semitic or Semito-Negroid. The question of the racial affinities of the Ancient Egyptians and the Beja are still a matter of doubt, and the relation of the two groups to each other is still controversial. Sergi, it is true, arguing from physical data believes that a close connexion exists; but the data are so extremely scanty that the finality of his conclusion may well be doubted. His “Northern Branch” corresponds with the more satisfactory term “Libyan Race,” represented in fair purity by the Berbers, and, mixed with Negro elements, by the Fula and Tibbu. This Libyan race is distinctively a white race, with dark curly hair; the Eastern Hamites are equally distinctively a brown people with frizzy hair. If, as Sergi believes, these brown people are themselves a race, and not a cross between white and black in varying proportions, they are found in their greatest purity among the Somali and Galla, and mixed with Bantu blood among the Ba-Hima (Wahuma) and Watussi. The Masai seem to be as much Nilotic Negro as Hamite. This Galla type does not seem to appear farther north than the southern portion of Abyssinia, and it is not unlikely that the Beja are very early Semitic immigrants with an aboriginal Negroid admixture. It is also possible that they and the Ancient Egyptians may contain a common element. The Nubians appear akin to the Egyptians but with a strong Negroid element.
To return to Sergi’s two branches, besides the differences in skin colour and hair-texture there is also a cultural difference of great importance. The Eastern Hamites are essentially a pastoral people and therefore nomadic or semi-nomadic; the Berbers, who, as said above, are the purest representatives of the Libyans, are agriculturists. The pastoral habits of the Eastern Hamites are of importance, since they show the utmost reluctance to abandon them. Even the Ba-Hima and Watussi, for long settled and partly intermixed with the agricultural Bantu, regard any pursuit but that of cattle-tending as absolutely beneath their dignity.
It would seem therefore that, while sufficient data have not been collected to decide whether, on the evidence of exact anthropological measurements, the Libyans are connected racially with the Eastern Hamites, the testimony derived from broad “descriptive characteristics” and general culture is against such a connexion. To regard the Libyans as Hamites solely on the ground that the languages spoken by the two groups show affinities would be as rash and might be as false as to aver that the present-day Hungarians are Mongolians because Magyar is an Asiatic tongue. Regarding the present state of knowledge it would be safer therefore to restrict the term “Hamites” to Sergi’s first group; and call the second by the name “Libyans.” The difficult question of the origin of the ancient Egyptians is discussed elsewhere.
As to the question whether the Hamites in this restricted sense are a definite race or a blend, no discussion can, in view of the paucity of evidence, as yet lead to a satisfactory conclusion, but it might be suggested very tentatively that further researches may possibly connect them with the Dravidian peoples of India. It is sufficient for present purposes that the term Hamite, using it as coextensive with Sergi’s Eastern Hamite, has a definite connotation. By the term is meant a brown people with frizzy hair, of lean and sinewy physique, with slender but muscular arms and legs, a thin straight or even aquiline nose with delicate nostrils, thin lips and no trace of prognathism.
(T. A. J.)
II.Hamitic Languages.—The whole north of Africa was once inhabited by tribes of the Caucasian race, speaking languages which are now generally called, after Genesis x., Hamitic, a term introduced principally by Friedrich Müller. The linguistic coherence of that race has been broken up especially by the intrusion of Arabs, whose language has exercised a powerful influence on all those nations. This splitting up, and the immense distances over which those tribes were spread, have made those languages diverge more widely than do the various tongues of the Indo-European stock, but still their affinity can easily be traced by the linguist, and is, perhaps, greater than the corresponding anthropologic similarity between the white Libyan, red Galla and swarthy Somali. The relationship of these languages to Semitic has long been noticed, but was at first taken for descent from Semitic (cf. the name “Syro-Arabian” proposed by Prichard). Now linguists are agreed that theProto-Semites and Proto-Hamites once formed a unity, probably in Arabia. That original unity has been demonstrated especially by Friedrich Müller (Reise der österreichischen Fregatte Novara, p. 51, more fully,Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft, vol. iii. fasc. 2, p. 226); cf. also A. H. Sayce,Science of Language, ii. 178; R. N. Cust,The Modern Languages of Africa, i. 94, &c. The comparative grammars of Semitic (W. Wright, 1890, and especially H. Zimmern, 1898) demonstrate this now to everybody by comparative tables of the grammatical elements.
The classification of Hamitic languages is as follows:2—1.The Libyan Dialects(mostly misnamed “Berber languages,” after an unfortunate, vague Arabic designation,barābra, “people of foreign language”). The representatives of this large group extend from the Senegal river (where they are called Zenaga; imperfectGrammaireby L. Faidherbe, 1877) and from Timbuktu (dialect of the Auelimmiden, sketched by Heinrich Barth,Travels, vol. v., 1857) to the oases of Aujila (Bengazi) and of Siwa on the western border of Egypt. Consequently, these “dialects” differ more strongly from each other than,e.g.the Semitic languages do between themselves. The purest representative seems to be the language of the Algerian mountaineers (Kabyles), especially that of the Zuawa (Zouaves) tribe, described by A. Hanoteau,Essai de grammaire kabyle(1858); Ben Sedira,Cours de langue kab.(1887);Dictionnaireby Olivier (1878). The learned littleManuel de langue kabyle, by R. Basset (1887) is an introduction to the study of the many dialects with full bibliography, cf. also Basset’sNotes de lexicographie berbère(1883 foll.). (The dictionaries by Brosselard and Venture de Paradis are imperfect.) The best now described is Shilḥ(a). a Moroccan dialect (H. Stumme,Handbuch des Schilhischen, 1899), but it is an inferior dialect. That of Ghat in Tripoli underlies theGrammarof F. W. Newman (1845) and theGrammaire Tamashekof Hanoteau (1860); cf. also theDictionnaireof Cid Kaoui (1900). Neither medieval reports on the language spoken by the Guanches of the Canary Islands (fullest in A. Berthelot,Antiquités canariennes, 1879; akin to Shilha; by no means primitive Libyan untouched by Arabic), nor the modern dialect of Siwa (still little known; tentative grammar by Basset, 1890), have justified hopes of finding a pure Libyan dialect. Of a few literary attempts in Arabic letters the religiousPoème de Çabi(ed. Basset,Journ. asiatique, vii. 476) is the most remarkable. The imperfect native writing (namedtifinaghen), a derivation from the Sabaean alphabet (not, as Halévy claimed, from the Punic), still in use among the Sahara tribes, can be traced to the 2nd centuryB.C.(bilingual inscription of Tucca, &c.; cf. J. Halévy,Essai d’épigraphie libyque, 1875), but hardly ever served for literary uses.2.The Cushitic or Ethiopian Family.—The nearest relative of Libyan is not Ancient Egyptian but the language of the nomadic Bisharin or Beja of the Nubian Desert (cf. H. Almkvist,Die Bischari Sprache, 1881 [the northern dialect], and L. Reinisch,Die Bedauye Sprache, 1893,Wörterbuch, 1895). The speech of the peoples occupying the lowland east of Abyssinia, the Saho (Reinisch, grammar inZeitschrift d. deutschen morgenländ. Gesellschaft, 32, 1878;Texte, 1889;Wörterbuch, 1890; cf. also Reinisch, Die Sprache der Irob Saho, 1878), and the Afar or Danakil (Reinisch,Die Afar Sprache, 1887; G. Colizza,Lingua Afar, 1887), merely dialects of one language, form the connecting link with the southern Hamitic group,i.e.Somali (Reinisch,Somali Sprache, 1900-1903, 3 vols.; Larajasse und de Sampont,Practical Grammar of the Somali Language, 1897; imperfect sketches by Hunter, 1880, and Schleicher, 1890), and Galla (L. Tutscheck,Grammar, 1845,Lexicon, 1844; Massaja,Lectiones, 1877; G. F. F. Praetorius,Zur Grammatik der Gallasprache, 1893, &c.). All these Cushitic languages, extending from Egypt to the equator, are separated by Reinisch asLower Cushiticfrom theHigh Cushiticgroup,i.e.the many dialects spoken by tribes dwelling in the Abyssinian highlands or south of Abyssinia. Of the original inhabitants of Abyssinia, called collectively Agâu (or Agâu) by the Abyssinians, or Falashas (this name principally for Jewish tribes), Reinisch considers the Bilin or Bogos tribe as preserving the most archaic dialect (Die Bilin Sprache, Texts, 1883;Grammatik, 1882;Wörterbuch, 1887); the same scholar gave sketches of the Khamir (1884) and Quara (1885) dialects. On other dialects, struggling against the spreading Semitic tongues (Tigré, Amharic, &c.), see Conti Rossini, “Appunti sulla lingua Khamta,” inGiorn. soc. orient.(1905); Waldmeyer,Wörtersammlung(1868); J. Halévy, “Essai sur la langue Agaou” (Actes soc. philologique, 1873), &c. Similar dialects are those of the Sid(d)âma tribes, south of Abyssinia, of which only Kaf(f)a (Reinisch,Die Kafa Sprache, 1888) is known at all fully. Of the various other dialects (Kullo, Tambaro, &c.), vocabularies only are known; cf. Borelli,Éthiopie méridionale(1890). (On Hausa see below.)There is no question that the northernmost Hamitic languages have preserved best the original wealth of inflections which reminds us so strongly of the formal riches of southern Semitic. Libyan and Beja are the best-preserved types, and the latter especially may be called the Sanskrit of Hamitic. The other Cushitic tongues exhibit increasing agglutinative tendencies the farther we go south, although single archaisms are found even in Somali. The early isolated High Cushitic tongues (originally branched off from a stock common with Galla and Somali) diverge most strongly from the original type. Already the Agâu dialects are full of very peculiar developments; the Hamitic character of the Sid(d)ama languages can be traced only by lengthy comparisons.The simple and pretty Haus(s)a language, the commercial language of the whole Niger region and beyond (Schoen,Grammar, 1862,Dictionary, 1876; Charles H. Robinson, 1897, in Robinson and Brookes’sDictionary) has fairly well preserved its Hamitic grammar, though its vocabulary was much influenced by the surrounding Negro languages. It is no relative of Libyan (though it has experienced some Libyan influences), but comes from the (High ?) Cushitic family; its exact place in this family remains to be determined. Various languages of the Niger regionwereonce Hamitic like Haus(s)a, or at least under some Hamitic influence, but have now lost that character too far to be classified as Hamitic,e.g.the Muzuk or Musgu language (F. Müller, 1886). The often-raised question of some (very remote) relationship between Hamitic and the great Bantu family is still undecided; more doubtful is that with the interesting Ful (a) language in the western Sudan, but a relationship with the Nilotic branch of negro languages is impossible (though a few of these,e.g.Nuba, have borrowed some words from neighbouring Hamitic peoples). The development of a grammatical gender, this principal characteristic of Semito-Hamitic, in Bari and Masai, may be rather accidental than borrowed; certainly, the same phenomenon in Hottentot does not justify the attempt often made to classify this with Hamitic.3.Ancient Egyptian, as we have seen, does not form the connecting link between Libyan and Cushitic which its geographical position would lead us to expect. It represents a third independent branch, or rather a second one, Libyan and Cushitic forming one division of Hamitic. A few resemblances with Libyan (M. de Rochemonteix inMémoires du congrès internat. des orientalistes, Paris, 1873; elementary) are less due to original relationship than to the general better preservation of the northern idioms (see above). Frequent attempts to detach Egyptian from Hamitic and to attribute it to a Semitic immigration later than that of the other Hamites cannot be proved. Egyptian is, in many respects, more remote from Semitic than the Libyan-Cushitic division, being more agglutinative than the better types of its sister branch, having lost the most characteristic verbal flection (the Hamito-Semitic imperfect), forming the nominal plural in its own peculiar fashion, &c. The advantage of Egyptian, that it is represented in texts of 3000B.C., while the sister tongues exist only in forms 5000 years later, allows us,e.g.to trace the Semitic principle of triliteral roots more clearly in Egyptian; but still the latter tongue is hardly more characteristically archaic or nearer Semitic than Beja or Kabylic.All this is said principally of the grammar. Of the vocabulary it must not be forgotten that none of the Hamitic tongues remained untouched by Semitic influences after the separation of the Hamites and Semites, say 4000 or 6000B.C.Repeated Semitic immigrations and influences have brought so many layers of loan-words that it is questionable if any modern Hamitic language has now more than 10% of original Hamitic words. Which Semitic resemblances are due to original affinity, which come from pre-Christian immigrations, which from later influences, are difficult questions not yet faced by science;e.g.the half-Arabic numerals of Libyan have often been quoted as a proof of primitive Hamito-Semitic kinship, but they are probably only a gift of some Arab invasion, prehistoric for us. Arab tribes seem to have repeatedly swept over the whole area of the Hamites, long before the time of Mahomet, and to have left deep impressions on races and languages, but none of these migrations stands in the full light of history (not even that of the Gee’z tribes of Abyssinia). Egyptian exhibits constant influences from its Canaanitish neighbours; it is crammed with such loan-words already in 3000B.C.; new affluxes can be traced, especiallyc.1600. (The Punic influences on Libyan are, however, very slight, inferior to the Latin.) Hence the relations of Semitic and Hamitic still require many investigations in detail, for which the works of Reinisch and Basset have merely built up a basis.
The classification of Hamitic languages is as follows:2—
1.The Libyan Dialects(mostly misnamed “Berber languages,” after an unfortunate, vague Arabic designation,barābra, “people of foreign language”). The representatives of this large group extend from the Senegal river (where they are called Zenaga; imperfectGrammaireby L. Faidherbe, 1877) and from Timbuktu (dialect of the Auelimmiden, sketched by Heinrich Barth,Travels, vol. v., 1857) to the oases of Aujila (Bengazi) and of Siwa on the western border of Egypt. Consequently, these “dialects” differ more strongly from each other than,e.g.the Semitic languages do between themselves. The purest representative seems to be the language of the Algerian mountaineers (Kabyles), especially that of the Zuawa (Zouaves) tribe, described by A. Hanoteau,Essai de grammaire kabyle(1858); Ben Sedira,Cours de langue kab.(1887);Dictionnaireby Olivier (1878). The learned littleManuel de langue kabyle, by R. Basset (1887) is an introduction to the study of the many dialects with full bibliography, cf. also Basset’sNotes de lexicographie berbère(1883 foll.). (The dictionaries by Brosselard and Venture de Paradis are imperfect.) The best now described is Shilḥ(a). a Moroccan dialect (H. Stumme,Handbuch des Schilhischen, 1899), but it is an inferior dialect. That of Ghat in Tripoli underlies theGrammarof F. W. Newman (1845) and theGrammaire Tamashekof Hanoteau (1860); cf. also theDictionnaireof Cid Kaoui (1900). Neither medieval reports on the language spoken by the Guanches of the Canary Islands (fullest in A. Berthelot,Antiquités canariennes, 1879; akin to Shilha; by no means primitive Libyan untouched by Arabic), nor the modern dialect of Siwa (still little known; tentative grammar by Basset, 1890), have justified hopes of finding a pure Libyan dialect. Of a few literary attempts in Arabic letters the religiousPoème de Çabi(ed. Basset,Journ. asiatique, vii. 476) is the most remarkable. The imperfect native writing (namedtifinaghen), a derivation from the Sabaean alphabet (not, as Halévy claimed, from the Punic), still in use among the Sahara tribes, can be traced to the 2nd centuryB.C.(bilingual inscription of Tucca, &c.; cf. J. Halévy,Essai d’épigraphie libyque, 1875), but hardly ever served for literary uses.
2.The Cushitic or Ethiopian Family.—The nearest relative of Libyan is not Ancient Egyptian but the language of the nomadic Bisharin or Beja of the Nubian Desert (cf. H. Almkvist,Die Bischari Sprache, 1881 [the northern dialect], and L. Reinisch,Die Bedauye Sprache, 1893,Wörterbuch, 1895). The speech of the peoples occupying the lowland east of Abyssinia, the Saho (Reinisch, grammar inZeitschrift d. deutschen morgenländ. Gesellschaft, 32, 1878;Texte, 1889;Wörterbuch, 1890; cf. also Reinisch, Die Sprache der Irob Saho, 1878), and the Afar or Danakil (Reinisch,Die Afar Sprache, 1887; G. Colizza,Lingua Afar, 1887), merely dialects of one language, form the connecting link with the southern Hamitic group,i.e.Somali (Reinisch,Somali Sprache, 1900-1903, 3 vols.; Larajasse und de Sampont,Practical Grammar of the Somali Language, 1897; imperfect sketches by Hunter, 1880, and Schleicher, 1890), and Galla (L. Tutscheck,Grammar, 1845,Lexicon, 1844; Massaja,Lectiones, 1877; G. F. F. Praetorius,Zur Grammatik der Gallasprache, 1893, &c.). All these Cushitic languages, extending from Egypt to the equator, are separated by Reinisch asLower Cushiticfrom theHigh Cushiticgroup,i.e.the many dialects spoken by tribes dwelling in the Abyssinian highlands or south of Abyssinia. Of the original inhabitants of Abyssinia, called collectively Agâu (or Agâu) by the Abyssinians, or Falashas (this name principally for Jewish tribes), Reinisch considers the Bilin or Bogos tribe as preserving the most archaic dialect (Die Bilin Sprache, Texts, 1883;Grammatik, 1882;Wörterbuch, 1887); the same scholar gave sketches of the Khamir (1884) and Quara (1885) dialects. On other dialects, struggling against the spreading Semitic tongues (Tigré, Amharic, &c.), see Conti Rossini, “Appunti sulla lingua Khamta,” inGiorn. soc. orient.(1905); Waldmeyer,Wörtersammlung(1868); J. Halévy, “Essai sur la langue Agaou” (Actes soc. philologique, 1873), &c. Similar dialects are those of the Sid(d)âma tribes, south of Abyssinia, of which only Kaf(f)a (Reinisch,Die Kafa Sprache, 1888) is known at all fully. Of the various other dialects (Kullo, Tambaro, &c.), vocabularies only are known; cf. Borelli,Éthiopie méridionale(1890). (On Hausa see below.)
There is no question that the northernmost Hamitic languages have preserved best the original wealth of inflections which reminds us so strongly of the formal riches of southern Semitic. Libyan and Beja are the best-preserved types, and the latter especially may be called the Sanskrit of Hamitic. The other Cushitic tongues exhibit increasing agglutinative tendencies the farther we go south, although single archaisms are found even in Somali. The early isolated High Cushitic tongues (originally branched off from a stock common with Galla and Somali) diverge most strongly from the original type. Already the Agâu dialects are full of very peculiar developments; the Hamitic character of the Sid(d)ama languages can be traced only by lengthy comparisons.
The simple and pretty Haus(s)a language, the commercial language of the whole Niger region and beyond (Schoen,Grammar, 1862,Dictionary, 1876; Charles H. Robinson, 1897, in Robinson and Brookes’sDictionary) has fairly well preserved its Hamitic grammar, though its vocabulary was much influenced by the surrounding Negro languages. It is no relative of Libyan (though it has experienced some Libyan influences), but comes from the (High ?) Cushitic family; its exact place in this family remains to be determined. Various languages of the Niger regionwereonce Hamitic like Haus(s)a, or at least under some Hamitic influence, but have now lost that character too far to be classified as Hamitic,e.g.the Muzuk or Musgu language (F. Müller, 1886). The often-raised question of some (very remote) relationship between Hamitic and the great Bantu family is still undecided; more doubtful is that with the interesting Ful (a) language in the western Sudan, but a relationship with the Nilotic branch of negro languages is impossible (though a few of these,e.g.Nuba, have borrowed some words from neighbouring Hamitic peoples). The development of a grammatical gender, this principal characteristic of Semito-Hamitic, in Bari and Masai, may be rather accidental than borrowed; certainly, the same phenomenon in Hottentot does not justify the attempt often made to classify this with Hamitic.
3.Ancient Egyptian, as we have seen, does not form the connecting link between Libyan and Cushitic which its geographical position would lead us to expect. It represents a third independent branch, or rather a second one, Libyan and Cushitic forming one division of Hamitic. A few resemblances with Libyan (M. de Rochemonteix inMémoires du congrès internat. des orientalistes, Paris, 1873; elementary) are less due to original relationship than to the general better preservation of the northern idioms (see above). Frequent attempts to detach Egyptian from Hamitic and to attribute it to a Semitic immigration later than that of the other Hamites cannot be proved. Egyptian is, in many respects, more remote from Semitic than the Libyan-Cushitic division, being more agglutinative than the better types of its sister branch, having lost the most characteristic verbal flection (the Hamito-Semitic imperfect), forming the nominal plural in its own peculiar fashion, &c. The advantage of Egyptian, that it is represented in texts of 3000B.C., while the sister tongues exist only in forms 5000 years later, allows us,e.g.to trace the Semitic principle of triliteral roots more clearly in Egyptian; but still the latter tongue is hardly more characteristically archaic or nearer Semitic than Beja or Kabylic.
All this is said principally of the grammar. Of the vocabulary it must not be forgotten that none of the Hamitic tongues remained untouched by Semitic influences after the separation of the Hamites and Semites, say 4000 or 6000B.C.Repeated Semitic immigrations and influences have brought so many layers of loan-words that it is questionable if any modern Hamitic language has now more than 10% of original Hamitic words. Which Semitic resemblances are due to original affinity, which come from pre-Christian immigrations, which from later influences, are difficult questions not yet faced by science;e.g.the half-Arabic numerals of Libyan have often been quoted as a proof of primitive Hamito-Semitic kinship, but they are probably only a gift of some Arab invasion, prehistoric for us. Arab tribes seem to have repeatedly swept over the whole area of the Hamites, long before the time of Mahomet, and to have left deep impressions on races and languages, but none of these migrations stands in the full light of history (not even that of the Gee’z tribes of Abyssinia). Egyptian exhibits constant influences from its Canaanitish neighbours; it is crammed with such loan-words already in 3000B.C.; new affluxes can be traced, especiallyc.1600. (The Punic influences on Libyan are, however, very slight, inferior to the Latin.) Hence the relations of Semitic and Hamitic still require many investigations in detail, for which the works of Reinisch and Basset have merely built up a basis.
(W. M. M.)
1G. Sergi,The Mediterranean Race. A Study of the Origin of European Peoples(London, 1901);idem. Africa, Antropologia della stirpe camitica(Turin, 1897).2Only works of higher linguistic standing are quoted here; many vocabularies and imperfect attempts of travellers cannot be enumerated.
1G. Sergi,The Mediterranean Race. A Study of the Origin of European Peoples(London, 1901);idem. Africa, Antropologia della stirpe camitica(Turin, 1897).
2Only works of higher linguistic standing are quoted here; many vocabularies and imperfect attempts of travellers cannot be enumerated.
HAMLET,the hero of Shakespeare’s tragedy, a striking figure in Scandinavian romance.
The chief authority for the legend of Hamlet is Saxo Grammaticus, who devotes to it parts of the third and fourth books of hisHistoria Danica, written at the beginning of the 13th century. It is supposed that the story of Hamlet, Amleth or Amloði,1was contained in the lost Skjöldunga saga, but we have no means of determining whether Saxo derived his information in this case from oral or written sources. The close parallels between thetale of Hamlet and the English romances of Havelok, Horn and Bevis of Hampton make it not unlikely that Hamlet is of British rather than of Scandinavian origin. His name does in fact occur in the IrishAnnals of the Four Masters(ed. O’Donovan, 1851) in a stanza attributed to the Irish Queen Gormflaith, who laments the death of her husband, Niall Glundubh, at the hands of Amhlaiðe in 919 at the battle of Ath-Cliath. The slayer of Niall Glundubh is by other authorities stated to have been Sihtric. Now Sihtric was the father of that Olaf or Anlaf Cuaran who was the prototype of the English Havelok, but nowhere else does he receive the nickname of Amhlaiðe. If Amhlaiðe may really be identified with Sihtric, who first went to Dublin in 888, the relations between the tales of Havelok and Hamlet are readily explicable, since nothing was more likely than that the exploits of father and son should be confounded (see Havelok). But, whoever the historic Hamlet may have been, it is quite certain that much was added that was extraneous to Scandinavian tradition. Later in the 10th century there is evidence of the existence of an Icelandic saga of Amlóði or Amleth in a passage from the poet Snaebjorn in the second part of the proseEdda.2According to Saxo,3Hamlet’s history is briefly as follows. In the days of Rorik, king of Denmark, Gervendill was governor of Jutland, and was succeeded by his sons Horvendill and Feng. Horvendill, on his return from a Viking expedition in which he had slain Koll, king of Norway, married Gerutha, Rorik’s daughter, who bore him a son Amleth. But Feng, out of jealousy, murdered Horvendill, and persuaded Gerutha to become his wife, on the plea that he had committed the crime for no other reason than to avenge her of a husband by whom she had been hated. Amleth, afraid of sharing his father’s fate, pretended to be imbecile, but the suspicion of Feng put him to various tests which are related in detail. Among other things they sought to entangle him with a young girl, his foster-sister, but his cunning saved him. When, however, Amleth slew the eavesdropper hidden, like Polonius, in his mother’s room, and destroyed all trace of the deed, Feng was assured that the young man’s madness was feigned. Accordingly he despatched him to England in company with two attendants, who bore a letter enjoining the king of the country to put him to death. Amleth surmised the purport of their instructions, and secretly altered the message on their wooden tablets to the effect that the king should put the attendants to death and give Amleth his daughter in marriage. After marrying the princess Amleth returned at the end of a year to Denmark. Of the wealth he had accumulated he took with him only certain hollow sticks filled with gold. He arrived in time for a funeral feast, held to celebrate his supposed death. During the feast he plied the courtiers with wine, and executed his vengeance during their drunken sleep by fastening down over them the woollen hangings of the hall with pegs he had sharpened during his feigned madness, and then setting fire to the palace. Feng he slew with his own sword. After a long harangue to the people he was proclaimed king. Returning to England for his wife he found that his father-in-law and Feng had been pledged each to avenge the other’s death. The English king, unwilling personally to carry out his pledge, sent Amleth as proxy wooer for the hand of a terrible Scottish queen Hermuthruda, who had put all former wooers to death, but fell in love with Amleth. On his return to England his first wife, whose love proved stronger than her resentment, told him of her father’s intended revenge. In the battle which followed Amleth won the day by setting up the dead men of the day before with stakes, and thus terrifying the enemy. He then returned with his two wives to Jutland, where he had to encounter the enmity of Wiglek, Rorik’s successor. He was slain in a battle against Wiglek, and Hermuthruda, although she had engaged to die with him, married the victor.
The other Scandinavian versions of the tale are: theHrolfssaga Kraka,4where the brothers Helgi and Hroar take the place of the hero; the tale of Harald and Halfdan, as related in the 7th book of Saxo Grammaticus; the modern IcelandicAmbales Saga,5a romantic tale the earliest MS. of which dates from the 17th century; and the folk-tale of Brjám6which was put in writing in 1707. Helgi and Hroar, like Harald and Halfdan, avenge their father’s death on their uncle by burning him in his palace. Harald and Halfdan escape after their father’s death by being brought up, with dogs’ names, in a hollow oak, and subsequently by feigned madness; and in the case of the other brothers there are traces of a similar motive, since the boys are called by dogs’ names. The methods of Hamlet’s madness, as related by Saxo, seem to point to cynanthropy. In theAmbales Saga, which perhaps is collateral to, rather than derived from, Saxo’s version, there are, besides romantic additions, some traits which point to an earlier version of the tale.
Saxo Grammaticus was certainly familiar with the Latin historians, and it is most probable that, recognizing the similarity between the northern Hamlet legend and the classical tale of Lucius Junius Brutus as told by Livy, by Valerius Maximus, and by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (with which he was probably acquainted through a Latin epitome), he deliberately added circumstances from the classical story. The incident of the gold-filled sticks could hardly appear fortuitously in both, and a comparison of the harangues of Amleth (Saxo, Book iv.) and of Brutus (Dionysius iv. 77) shows marked similarities. In both tales the usurping uncle is ultimately succeeded by the nephew who has escaped notice during his youth by a feigned madness. But the parts played by the personages who in Shakespeare became Ophelia and Polonius, the method of revenge, and the whole narrative of Amleth’s adventure in England, have no parallels in the Latin story.
Dr. O. L. Jiriczek7first pointed out the striking similarities existing between the story of Amleth in Saxo and the other northern versions, and that of Kei Chosro in theShahnameh(Book of the King) of the Persian poet Firdausi. The comparison was carried farther by R. Zenker (Boeve Amlethus, pp. 207-268, Berlin and Leipzig, 1904), who even concluded that the northern saga rested on an earlier version of Firdausi’s story, in which indeed nearly all the individual elements of the various northern versions are to be found. Further resemblances exist in theAmbales Sagawith the tales of Bellerophon, of Heracles, and of Servius Tullius. That Oriental tales through Byzantine and Arabian channels did find their way to the west is well known, and there is nothing very surprising in their being attached to a local hero.
The tale of Hamlet’s adventures in Britain forms an episode so distinct that it was at one time referred to a separate hero. The traitorous letter, the purport of which is changed by Hermuthruda, occurs in the popularDit de l’empereur Constant,8and in Arabian and Indian tales. Hermuthruda’s cruelty to her wooers is common in northern and German mythology, and closeparallels are afforded by Thrytho, the terrible bride of Offa I., who figures inBeowulf, and by Brunhilda in theNibelungenlied.
The story of Hamlet was known to the Elizabethans in François de Belleforest’sHistoires tragiques(1559), and found its supreme expression in Shakespeare’s tragedy. That as early as 1587 or 1589 Hamlet had appeared on the English stage is shown by Nash’s preface to Greene’sMenaphon: “He will afford you whole Hamlets, I should say, handfulls of tragical speeches.” The Shakespearian Hamlet owes, however, little but the outline of his story to Saxo. In character he is diametrically opposed to his prototype. Amleth’s madness was certainly altogether feigned; he prepared his vengeance a year beforehand, and carried it out deliberately and ruthlessly at every point. His riddling speech has little more than an outward similarity to the words of Hamlet, who resembles him, however, in his disconcerting penetration into his enemies’ plans. For a discussion of Shakespeare’s play and its immediate sources seeShakespeare.
See an appendix to Elton’s trans. of Saxo Grammaticus; I. Gollancz,Hamlet in Iceland(London, 1898); H. L. Ward,Catalogue of Romances, under “Havelok,” vol. i. pp. 423 seq.;English Historical Review, x. (1895); F. Detter, “Die Hamletsage,”Zeitschr. f. deut. Alter.vol. 36 (Berlin, 1892); O. L. Jiriczek, “Die Amlethsage auf Island,” inGermanistische Abhandlungen, vol. xii. (Breslau), and “Hamlet in Iran,” inZeitschr. des Vereins für Volkskunde, x. (Berlin, 1900); A. Olrik,Kilderne til Sakses Oldhistorie(Copenhagen, 2 vols., 1892-1894).
See an appendix to Elton’s trans. of Saxo Grammaticus; I. Gollancz,Hamlet in Iceland(London, 1898); H. L. Ward,Catalogue of Romances, under “Havelok,” vol. i. pp. 423 seq.;English Historical Review, x. (1895); F. Detter, “Die Hamletsage,”Zeitschr. f. deut. Alter.vol. 36 (Berlin, 1892); O. L. Jiriczek, “Die Amlethsage auf Island,” inGermanistische Abhandlungen, vol. xii. (Breslau), and “Hamlet in Iran,” inZeitschr. des Vereins für Volkskunde, x. (Berlin, 1900); A. Olrik,Kilderne til Sakses Oldhistorie(Copenhagen, 2 vols., 1892-1894).
1The word is used in modern Icelandic metaphorically of an imbecile or weak-minded person (see Cleasby and Vigfússon,Icelandic-English Dictionary, 1869).2“’Tis said that far out, off yonder ness, the Nine Maids of the Island Mill stir amain the host—cruel skerry-quern—they who in ages past ground Hamlet’s meal. The good Chieftain furrows the hull’s lair with his ship’s beaked prow.” This passage may be compared with some examples of Hamlet’s cryptic sayings quoted by Saxo: “Again, as he passed along the beach, his companions found the rudder of a ship which had been wrecked, and said they had discovered a huge knife. ‘This,’ said he, ‘was the right thing to carve such a huge ham....’ Also, as they passed the sand-hills, and bade him look at the meal, meaning the sand, he replied that it had been ground small by the hoary tempests of the ocean.”3Books iii. and iv., chaps. 86-106, Eng. trans. by O. Elton (London, 1894).4Printed in Fornaldar Sögur Norðtrlanda (vol. i. Copenhagen, 1829), analysed by F. Detter inZeitschr. für deutsches Altertum(vol. 36, Berlin, 1892).5Printed with English translation and with other texts germane to the subject by I. Gollancz (Hamlet in Iceland, London, 1898).6Professor I. Gollancz points out (p. lxix.) that Brjám is a variation of the Irish Brian, that the relations between Ireland and the Norsemen were very close, and that, curiously enough, Brian Boroimhe was the hero of that very battle of Clontarf (1014) where the device (which occurs in Havelok and Hamlet) of bluffing the enemy by tying the wounded to stakes to represent active soldiers was used.7“Hamlet in Iran,” inZeitschrift des Vereins für Volkskunde, x. (Berlin, 1900).8See A. B. Gough,The Constance Saga(Berlin, 1902).
1The word is used in modern Icelandic metaphorically of an imbecile or weak-minded person (see Cleasby and Vigfússon,Icelandic-English Dictionary, 1869).
2“’Tis said that far out, off yonder ness, the Nine Maids of the Island Mill stir amain the host—cruel skerry-quern—they who in ages past ground Hamlet’s meal. The good Chieftain furrows the hull’s lair with his ship’s beaked prow.” This passage may be compared with some examples of Hamlet’s cryptic sayings quoted by Saxo: “Again, as he passed along the beach, his companions found the rudder of a ship which had been wrecked, and said they had discovered a huge knife. ‘This,’ said he, ‘was the right thing to carve such a huge ham....’ Also, as they passed the sand-hills, and bade him look at the meal, meaning the sand, he replied that it had been ground small by the hoary tempests of the ocean.”
3Books iii. and iv., chaps. 86-106, Eng. trans. by O. Elton (London, 1894).
4Printed in Fornaldar Sögur Norðtrlanda (vol. i. Copenhagen, 1829), analysed by F. Detter inZeitschr. für deutsches Altertum(vol. 36, Berlin, 1892).
5Printed with English translation and with other texts germane to the subject by I. Gollancz (Hamlet in Iceland, London, 1898).
6Professor I. Gollancz points out (p. lxix.) that Brjám is a variation of the Irish Brian, that the relations between Ireland and the Norsemen were very close, and that, curiously enough, Brian Boroimhe was the hero of that very battle of Clontarf (1014) where the device (which occurs in Havelok and Hamlet) of bluffing the enemy by tying the wounded to stakes to represent active soldiers was used.
7“Hamlet in Iran,” inZeitschrift des Vereins für Volkskunde, x. (Berlin, 1900).
8See A. B. Gough,The Constance Saga(Berlin, 1902).
HAMLEY, SIR EDWARD BRUCE(1824-1893), British general and military writer, youngest son of Vice-Admiral William Hamley, was born on the 27th of April 1824 at Bodmin, Cornwall, and entered the Royal Artillery in 1843. He was promoted captain in 1850, and in 1851 went to Gibraltar, where he commenced his literary career by contributing articles to magazines. He served throughout the Crimean campaign as aide-de-camp to Sir Richard Dacres, commanding the artillery, taking part in all the operations with distinction, and becoming successively major and lieutenant-colonel by brevet. He also received the C.B. and French and Turkish orders. During the war he contributed toBlackwood’s Magazinean admirable account of the progress of the campaign, which was afterwards republished. The combination in Hamley of literary and military ability secured for him in 1859 the professorship of military history at the new Staff College at Sandhurst, from which in 1866 he went to the council of military education, returning in 1870 to the Staff College as commandant. From 1879 to 1881 he was British commissioner successively for the delimitation of the frontiers of Turkey and Bulgaria, Turkey in Asia and Russia, and Turkey and Greece, and was rewarded with the K.C.M.G. Promoted colonel in 1863, he became a lieutenant-general in 1882, when he commanded the 2nd division of the expedition to Egypt under Lord Wolseley, and led his troops in the battle of Tell-el-Kebir, for which he received the K.C.B., the thanks of parliament, and 2nd class of Osmanieh. Hamley considered that his services in Egypt had been insufficiently recognized in Lord Wolseley’s despatches, and expressed his indignation freely, but he had no sufficient ground for supposing that there was any intention to belittle his services. From 1885 until his death on the 12th of August 1893 he represented Birkenhead in parliament in the Conservative interest.
Hamley was a clever and versatile writer. His principal work,The Operations of War, published in 1867, became a text-book of military instruction. He published some pamphlets on national defence, was a frequent contributor to magazines, and the author of several novels, of which perhaps the best known isLady Lee’s Widowhood.
Hamley was a clever and versatile writer. His principal work,The Operations of War, published in 1867, became a text-book of military instruction. He published some pamphlets on national defence, was a frequent contributor to magazines, and the author of several novels, of which perhaps the best known isLady Lee’s Widowhood.
HAMLIN, HANNIBAL(1809-1891), vice-president of the United States (1861-1865), was born at Paris, Maine, on the 27th of August 1809. After studying in Hebron Academy, he conducted his father’s farm for a time, became schoolmaster, and later managed a weekly newspaper at Paris. He then studied law, was admitted to the bar in 1833, and rapidly acquired a reputation as an able lawyer and a good public speaker. Entering politics as an anti-slavery Democrat, he was a member of the state House of Representatives in 1836-1840, serving as its presiding officer during the last four years. He was a representative in Congress from 1843 to 1847, and was a member of the United States Senate from 1848 to 1856. From the very beginning of his service in Congress he was prominent as an opponent of the extension of slavery; he was a conspicuous supporter of the Wilmot Proviso, spoke against the Compromise Measures of 1850, and in 1856, chiefly because of the passage in 1854 of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, which repealed the Missouri Compromise, and his party’s endorsement of that repeal at the Cincinnati Convention two years later, he withdrew from the Democrats and joined the newly organized Republican party. The Republicans of Maine nominated him for governor in the same year, and having carried the election by a large majority he was inaugurated in this office on the 8th of January 1857. In the latter part of February, however, he resigned the governorship, and was again a member of the Senate from 1857 to January 1861. From 1861 to 1865, during the Civil War, he was Vice-President of the United States. While in this office he was one of the chief advisers of President Lincoln, and urged both the Emancipation Proclamation and the arming of the negroes. After the war he again served in the Senate (1869-1881), was minister to Spain (1881-1883), and then retired from public life. He died at Bangor, Maine, on the 4th of July 1891.
SeeLife and Times of Hannibal Hamlin(Cambridge, Mass., 1899), by C. E. Hamlin, his grandson.
SeeLife and Times of Hannibal Hamlin(Cambridge, Mass., 1899), by C. E. Hamlin, his grandson.
HAMM,a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Westphalia, on the Lippe, 19 m. by rail N.E. from Dortmund on the main line Cologne-Hanover. Pop. (1905) 38,430. It is surrounded by pleasant promenades occupying the site of the former engirdling fortifications. The principal buildings are four Roman Catholic and three Evangelical churches, several schools and an infirmary. The town is flourishing and rapidly increasing, and possesses very extensive wire factories (in connexion with which there are puddling and rolling works), machine works, and manufactories of gloves, baskets, leather, starch, chemicals, varnish, oil and beer. Near the town are some thermal baths.
Hamm, which became a town about the end of the 12th century, was originally the capital of the countship of Mark, and was fortified in 1226. It became a member of the Hanseatic League. In 1614 it was besieged by the Dutch, and it was several times taken and retaken during the Thirty Years’ War. In 1666 it came into the possession of Brandenburg. In 1761 and 1762 it was bombarded by the French, and in 1763 its fortifications were dismantled.
HAMMĀD AR-RĀWIYA[Abū-l-Qāsim Ḥammād ibn Abī Laila Sāpūr (or ibn Maisara)] (8th centuryA.D.), Arabic scholar, was of Dailamite descent, but was born in Kufa. The date of his birth is given by some as 694, by others as 714. He was reputed to be the most learned man of his time in regard to the “days of the Arabs” (i.e.their chief battles), their stories, poems, genealogies and dialects. He is said to have boasted that he could recite a hundred longqasīdasfor each letter of the alphabet (i.e.rhyming in each letter) and these all from pre-Islamic times, apart from shorter pieces and later verses. Hence his nameHammad ar-Rawiya, “the reciter of verses from memory.” The Omayyad caliph Walīd is said to have tested him, the result being that he recited 2900 qasīdas of pre-Islamic date and Walīd gave him 100,000 dirhems. He was favoured by Yazīd II. and his successor Hishām, who brought him up from Irak to Damascus. Arabian critics, however, say that in spite of his learning he lacked a true insight into the genius of the Arabic language, and that he made more than thirty—some say three hundred—mistakes of pronunciation in reciting the Koran. To him is ascribed the collecting of theMo‘allakāt(q.v.). No diwan of his is extant, though he composed verse of his own and probably a good deal of what he ascribed to earlier poets.
Biography in McG. de Slane’s trans. of Ibn Khallikān, vol. i. pp. 470-474, and many stories are told of him in theKitāb ul-Aghāni, vol. v. pp. 164-175.
Biography in McG. de Slane’s trans. of Ibn Khallikān, vol. i. pp. 470-474, and many stories are told of him in theKitāb ul-Aghāni, vol. v. pp. 164-175.
(G. W. T.)
HAMMER, FRIEDRICH JULIUS(1810-1862), German poet, was born on the 7th of June 1810 at Dresden. In 1831 he went to Leipzig to study law, but devoted himself mainly to philosophy and belles lettres. Returning to Dresden in 1834 a small comedy,Das seltsame Frühstück, introduced him to the literary society of the capital, notably to Ludwig Tieck, and from this time he devoted himself entirely to writing. In 1837 he returned to Leipzig, and, coming again to Dresden, from 1851 to 1859 edited the feuilleton ofSächsische konstitutionelle Zeitung, and took the lead in the foundation in 1855 of the Schiller Institute in Dresden. His marriage in 1851 had made him independent, and he bought a small property at Pillnitz, on which, soon after his return from a residence of several years at Nuremberg, he died, on the 23rd of August 1862.
Hammer wrote, besides several comedies, a dramaDie Brüder(1856), a number of unimportant romances, and the novelEinkehr und Umkehr(Leipzig, 1856); but his reputation rests upon his epigrammatic and didactic poems. HisSchau’ um dich, und schau’ in dich(1851), which made his name, has passed through more than thirty editions. It was followed byZu allen guten Stunden(1854),Fester Grund(1857),Auf stillen Wegen(1859), andLerne, liebe, lebe(1862). Besides these he wrote a book of Turkish songs,Unter dem Halbmond(Leipzig, 1860), and rhymed versions of the psalms (1861), and compiled the popular religious anthologyLeben und Heimat in Gott, of which a 14th edition was published in 1900.
See C. G. E. Am Ende,Julius Hammer(Nuremberg, 1872).
See C. G. E. Am Ende,Julius Hammer(Nuremberg, 1872).
HAMMER,an implement consisting of a shaft or handle with head fixed transversely to it. The head, usually of metal, has one flat face, the other may be shaped to serve various purposes,e.g.with a claw, a pick, &c. The implement is used for breaking, beating, driving nails, rivets, &c., and the word is applied to heavy masses of metal moved by machinery, and used for similar purposes. (SeeTool.) “Hammer” is a word common to Teutonic languages. It appears in the same form in German and Danish, and in Dutch ashamer, in Swedish ashammare. The ultimate origin is unknown. It has been connected with the root seen in the Greekκάμπτειν, to bend; the word would mean, therefore, something crooked or bent. A more illuminating suggestion connects the word with the Slavonickamy, a stone, cf. Russiankamen, and ultimately with Sanskritacman, a pointed stone, a thunderbolt. The legend of Thor’s hammer, the thunderbolt, and the probability of the primitive hammer being a stone, adds plausibility to this derivation. The word is applied to many objects resembling a hammer in shape or function. Thus the “striker” in a clock, or in a bell, when it is sounded by an independent lever and not by the swinging of the “tongue,” is called a “hammer”; similarly, in the “action” of a pianoforte the word is used of a wooden shank with felt-covered head attached to a key, the striking of which throws the “hammer” against the strings. In the mechanism of a fire-arm, the “hammer” is that part which by its impact on the cap or primer explodes the charge. (SeeGun.) The hammer, more usually known by its French name ofmartel de fer, was a medieval hand-weapon. With a long shaft it was used by infantry, especially when acting against mounted troops. With a short handle and usually made altogether of metal, it was also used by horse-soldiers. Themartelhad one part of the head with a blunted face, the other pointed, but occasionally both sides were pointed. There are 16th century examples in which a hand-gun forms the handle. The name of “hammer,” in Latinmalleus, has been frequently applied to men, and also to books, with reference to destructive power. Thus on the tomb of Edward I. in Westminster Abbey is inscribed his name ofScotorum Malleus, the “Hammer of the Scots.” The title of “Hammer of Heretics,”Malleus Haereticorum, has been given to St Augustine and to Johann Faber, whose tract against Luther is also known by the name. Thomas Cromwell was styledMalleus Monachorum. The famous text-book of procedure in cases of witchcraft, published by Sprenger and Krämer in 1489, was calledHexenhammerorMalleus Maleficarum(seeWitchcraft).
The origin of the word “hammer-cloth,” an ornamental cloth covering the box-seat on a state-coach, has been often explained from the hammer and other tools carried in the box-seat by the coachman for repairs, &c. TheNew English Dictionarypoints out that while the word occurs as early as 1465, the use of a box-seat is not known before the 17th century. Other suggestions are that it is a corruption of “hamper-cloth,” or of “hammock-cloth,” which is used in this sense, probably owing to a mistake. Neither of these supposed corruptions helps very much. Skeat connects the word with a Dutch wordhemel, meaning a canopy. In the name of the bird, the yellow-hammer, the latter part should be “ammer.” This appears in the German name,Emmerling, and the word probably means the “chirper,” cf. the Ger.jammern, to wail, lament.
HAMMERBEAM ROOF,in architecture, the name given to a Gothic open timber roof, of which the finest example is that over Westminster Hall (1395-1399). In order to give greater height in the centre, the ordinary tie beam is cut through, and the portions remaining, known as hammerbeams, are supported by curved braces from the wall; in Westminster Hall, in order to give greater strength to the framing, a large arched piece of timber is carried across the hall, rising from the bottom of the wall piece to the centre of the collar beam, the latter being also supported by curved braces rising from the end of the hammerbeam. The span of Westminster Hall is 68 ft. 4 in., and the opening between the ends of the hammerbeams 25 ft. 6 in. The height from the paving of the hall to the hammerbeam is 40 ft., and to the underside of the collar beam 63 ft. 6 in., so that an additional height in the centre of 23 ft. 6 in. has been gained. Other important examples of hammerbeam roofs exist over the halls of Hampton Court and Eltham palaces, and there are numerous examples of smaller dimensions in churches throughout England and particularly in the eastern counties. The ends of the hammerbeams are usually decorated with winged angels holding shields; the curved braces and beams are richly moulded, and the spandrils in the larger examples filled in with tracery, as in Westminster Hall. Sometimes, but rarely, the collar beam is similarly treated, or cut through and supported by additional curved braces, as in the hall of the Middle Temple, London.
HAMMERFEST,the most northern town in Europe. Pop. (1900) 2300. It is situated on an island (Kvalö) off the N.W. coast of Norway, in Finmarkenamt(county), in 70° 40′ 11″ N., the latitude being that of the extreme north of Alaska. Its position affords the best illustration of the warm climatic influence of the north-eastward Atlantic drift, the mean annual temperature being 36° F. (January 31°, July 57°). Hammerfest is 674 m. by sea N.E. of Trondhjem, and 78 S.W. from the North Cape. The character of this coast differs from the southern, the islands being fewer and larger, and of table shape. The narrow strait Strömmen separates Kvalö from the larger Seiland, whose snow-covered hills with several glaciers rise above 3500 ft., while an insular rampart of mountains, Sorö, protects the strait and harbour from the open sea. The town is timber-built and modern; and the Protestant church, town-hall, and schools were all rebuilt after fire in 1890. There is also a Roman Catholic church. The sun does not set at Hammerfest from the 13th of May to the 29th of July. This is the busy season of the townsfolk. Vessels set out to the fisheries, as far as Spitsbergen and the Kara Sea; and trade is brisk, not only Norwegian and Danish but British, German and particularly Russian vessels engaging in it. Cod-liver oil and salted fish are exported with some reindeer-skins, fox-skins and eiderdown; and coal and salt for curing are imported. In the spring the great herds of tame reindeer are driven out to swim Strömmen and graze in the summer pastures of Seiland; towards winter they are called home again. From the 18th of November to the 23rd of January the sun is not seen, and the enforced quiet of winter prevails. Electric light was introduced in the town in 1891. On the Fuglenaes or Birds’ Cape, which protects the harbour on the north, there stands a column with an inscription in Norse and Latin, stating that Hammerfest was one of the stations of theexpedition for the measurement of the arc of the meridian in 1816-1852. Nor is this its only association with science; for it was one of the spots chosen by Sir Edward Sabine for his series of pendulum experiments in 1823. The ascent of the Sadlen or the Tyven in the neighbourhood is usually undertaken by travellers for the view of the barren, snow-clad Arctic landscape, the bluff indented coast, and the vast expanse of the Arctic Ocean.
HAMMER-KOP,orHammerhead, an African bird, which has been regarded as a stork and as a heron, theScopus umbrettaof ornithologists, called the “Umbre” by T. Pennant, now placed in a separate familyScopidaebetween the herons and storks. It was discovered by M. Adanson, the French traveller, in Senegal about the middle of the 19th century, and was described by M. J. Brisson in 1760. It has since been found to inhabit nearly the whole of Africa and Madagascar, and is the “hammerkop” (hammerhead) of the Cape colonists. Though not larger than a raven, it builds an enormous nest, some six feet in diameter, with a flat-topped roof and a small hole for entrance and exit, and placed either on a tree or a rocky ledge. The bird, of an almost uniform brown colour, slightly glossed with purple and its tail barred with black, has a long occipital crest, generally borne horizontally, so as to give rise to its common name. It is somewhat sluggish by day, but displays much activity at dusk, when it will go through a series of strange performances.