Chapter 21

The compositions of Haydn include 104 symphonies, 16 overtures, 76 quartets, 68 trios, 54 sonatas, 31 concertos and a large number of divertimentos, cassations and other instrumental pieces; 24 operas and dramatic pieces, 16 Masses, a Stabat Mater, interludes for the “Seven Words,” 3 oratorios, 2 Te Deums and many smaller pieces for the church, over 40 songs, over 50 canons and arrangements of Scottish and Welsh national melodies.

His younger brother,Johann Michael Haydn(1737-1806), was also a chorister at St Stephen’s, and shortly after leaving the choir-school was appointedKapellmeisterat Grosswardein (1755) and at Salzburg (1762). The latter office he held for forty-three years, during which time he wrote over 360 compositionsfor the church and much instrumental music, which, though unequal, deserves more consideration than it has received. He was the intimate friend of Mozart, who had a high opinion of his genius, and the teacher of C. M. von Weber. His most important works were theMissa hispanica, which he exchanged for his diploma at Stockholm, a Mass in D minor, a Lauda Sion, a set of graduals, forty-two of which are reprinted in Diabelli’sEcclesiasticon, three symphonies (1785), and a string quintet in C major which has been erroneously attributed to Joseph Haydn. Another brother,Johann Evangelist Haydn(1743-1805), gained some reputation as a tenor vocalist, and was for many years a member of Prince Esterhazy’sKapelle.

Bibliography.—S. Mayr,Brevi notizie storiche della vita e delle opere di Giuseppe Haydn(1809); Griesinger,Biographische Notizen über Joseph Haydn(1810); Carpani,Le Haydeni(1812 and 1823); Bombet (M. de Stendhal),Vies de Haydn, de Mozart et de Métastase(Paris, 1854); Karajan,Joseph Haydn in London(1861); C. F. Pohl,Mozart und Haydn in London(1867);Joseph Haydn(vol. i. 1875, vol. ii. 1882: this, the standard biography, was left unfinished at Dr Pohl’s death and needs a third volume to complete it); article on Haydn in Grove’sDictionary of Music and Musicians; Fr. S. Kuhač,Josip Haydn i Hravatske Narodne Popievke(Joseph Haydn and the Croatian Folk-songs) (Agram, 1880); A. Niggli,Joseph Haydn, sein Leben und Werken(Basel, 1882); L. Nohl,Biographie Haydns(Leipzig, Reclam); P. D. Townsend;Joseph Haydn(London, 1884), Biography in H. Reimann’sBerühmte Musiker(Berlin, 1898); J. C. Hadden,Joseph Haydn(Great Musicians series) (London, 1902). To these should be added the list of Haydn’s symphonies printed in Alfred Wotquenne’sCatalogue de la Bibliothèque du Conservatoire Royal de Bruxelles, vol. ii. (1902).

(W. H. Ha.)

HAYDON, BENJAMIN ROBERT(1786-1846), English historical painter and writer, was born at Plymouth on the 26th of January 1786. His mother was the daughter of the Rev. Benjamin Cobley, rector of Dodbrook, Devon, whose son, General Sir Thomas Cobley, signalized himself in the Russian service at the siege of Ismail. His father, a prosperous printer, stationer and publisher, was a man of literary taste, and was well known and esteemed amongst all classes in Plymouth. Haydon, an only son, at an early date gave evidence of his taste for study, which was carefully fostered and promoted by his mother. At the age of six he was placed in Plymouth grammar school, and at twelve in Plympton St Mary school. He completed his education in this institution, where Sir Joshua Reynolds also had acquired all the scholastic training he ever received. On the ceiling of the school-room was a sketch by Reynolds in burnt cork, which it used to be Haydon’s delight to sit and contemplate. Whilst at school he had some thought of adopting the medical profession, but he was so shocked at the sight of an operation that he gave up the idea. A perusal of Albinus, however, inspired him with a love for anatomy; and Reynolds’s discourses revived within him a smouldering taste for painting, which from childhood had been the absorbing idea of his mind.

Sanguine of success, full of energy and vigour, he started from the parental roof, on the 14th of May 1804, for London, and entered his name as a student of the Royal Academy. He began and prosecuted his studies with such unwearied ardour that Fuseli wondered when he ever found time to eat. At the age of twenty-one (1807) Haydon exhibited, for the first time, at the Royal Academy, “The Repose in Egypt,” which was bought by Mr Thomas Hope the year after. This was a good start for the young artist, who shortly received a commission from Lord Mulgrave and an introduction to Sir George Beaumont. In 1809 he finished his well-known picture of “Dentatus,” which, though it brought him a great increase of fame, involved him in a lifelong quarrel with the Royal Academy, whose committee had hung the picture in a small side-room instead of the great hall. In 1810 his difficulties began through the stoppage of an allowance of £200 a year he had received from his father. His disappointment was embittered by the controversies in which he now became involved with Sir George Beaumont, for whom he had painted his picture of “Macbeth,” and Payne Knight, who had denied the beauties as well as the money value of the Elgin Marbles. “The Judgment of Solomon,” his next production, gained him £700, besides £100 voted to him by the directors of the British Institution, and the freedom of the borough of Plymouth. To recruit his health and escape for a time from the cares of London life, Haydon joined his intimate friend Wilkie in a trip to Paris; he studied at the Louvre; and on his return to England produced his “Christ’s Entry into Jerusalem,” which afterwards formed the nucleus of the American Gallery of Painting, erected by his cousin, John Haviland of Philadelphia. Whilst painting another large work, the “Resurrection of Lazarus,” his pecuniary difficulties increased, and for the first time he was arrested but not imprisoned, the sheriff-officer taking his word for his appearance. Amidst all these harassing cares he married in October 1821 a beautiful young widow who had some children, Mrs Hyman, to whom he was devotedly attached.

In 1823 Haydon was lodged in the King’s Bench, where he received consoling letters from the first men of the day. Whilst a prisoner he drew up a petition to parliament in favour of the appointment of “a committee to inquire into the state of encouragement of historical painting,” which was presented by Brougham. He also, during a second imprisonment in 1827, produced the picture of the “Mock Election,” the idea of which had been suggested by an incident that happened in the prison. The king (George IV.) gave him £500 for this work. Among Haydon’s other pictures were—1829, “Eucles” and “Punch”; 1831, “Napoleon at St Helena,” for Sir Robert Peel; “Xenophon, on his Retreat with the ‘Ten Thousand,’ first seeing the Sea”; and “Waiting for theTimes,” purchased by the marquis of Stafford; 1832, “Falstaff” and “Achilles playing the Lyre.” In 1834 he completed the “Reform Banquet,” for Lord Grey—this painting contained 197 portraits; in 1843, “Curtius Leaping into the Gulf,” and “Uriel and Satan.” There was also the “Meeting of the Anti-Slavery Society,” energetically treated, now in the National Portrait Gallery. When the competition took place at Westminster Hall, Haydon sent two cartoons, “The Curse of Adam” and “Edward the Black Prince,” but, with some unfairness, he was not allowed a prize for either. He then painted “The Banishment of Aristides,” which was exhibited with other productions under the same roof where the American dwarf Tom Thumb was then making his début in London. The exhibition was unsuccessful; and the artist’s difficulties increased to such an extent that, whilst employed on his last grand effort, “Alfred and the Trial by Jury,” overcome by debt, disappointment and ingratitude, he wrote “Stretch me no longer on this rough world,” and put an end to his existence with a pistol-shot, on the 22nd of June 1846, in the sixty-first year of his age. He left a widow and three children (various others had died), who, by the generosity of their father’s friends, were rescued from their pecuniary difficulties and comfortably provided for; amongst the foremost of these friends were Sir Robert Peel, Count D’Orsay, Mr Justice Talfourd and Lord Carlisle.

Haydon began his first lecture on painting and design in 1835, and afterwards visited all the principal towns in England and Scotland. His delivery was energetic and imposing, his language powerful, flowing and apt, and replete with wit and humour; and to look at the lecturer, excited by his subject, one could scarcely fancy him a man overwhelmed with difficulties and anxieties. The height of Haydon’s ambition was to behold the chief buildings of his country adorned with historical representations of her glory. He lived to see the acknowledgment of his principles by government in the establishment of schools of design, and the embellishment of the new houses of parliament; but in the competition of artists for the carrying out of this object, the commissioners (amongst whom was one of his former pupils) considered, or affected to consider, that he had failed. Haydon was well versed in all points of his profession; and hisLectures, which were published shortly after their delivery, showed that he was as bold a writer as painter. It may be mentioned in this connexion that he was the author of the long and elaborate article, “Painting,” in the 7th edition of theEncyclopaedia Britannica.

To form a correct estimate of Haydon it is necessary to read his autobiography. This is one of the most natural books ever written, full of various and abundant power, and fascinating to the reader. The author seems to have daguerreotyped his feelings and sentiments without restraint as they rose in his mind, and his portrait stands in these volumes limned to the life by his own hand. His love for his art was both a passion and a principle. He found patrons difficult to manage; and, not having the tact to lead them gently, he tried to drive them fiercely. He failed, abused patrons and patronage, and intermingled talk of the noblest independence with acts not always dignified. He was self-willed to perversity, but his perseverance was such as is seldom associated with so much vehemence and passion. With a large fund of genuine self-reliance he combined a considerable measure of vanity. To the last he believed in his own powers and in the ultimate triumph of art. In taste he was deficient, at least as concerned himself. Hence the tone of self-assertion which he assumed in his advertisements, catalogues and other appeals to the public. He proclaimed himself the apostle and martyr of high art, and, not without some justice, he believed himself to have on that account a claim on the sympathy and support of the nation. It must be confessed that he often tested severely those whom he called his friends. Every reader of his autobiography will be struck at the frequency and fervour of the short prayers interspersed throughout the work. Haydon had an overwhelming sense of a personal, overruling and merciful providence, which influenced his relations with his family, and to some extent with the world. His conduct as a husband and father entitles him to the utmost sympathy. In art his powers and attainments were undoubtedly very great, although his actual performances mostly fall short of the faculty which was manifestly within him; his general range and force of mind were also most remarkable, and would have qualified him to shine in almost any path of intellectual exertion or of practical work. His eager and combative character was partly his enemy; but he had other enemies actuated by motives as unworthy as his own were always high-pitched and on abstract grounds laudable. Of his three great works—the “Solomon,” the “Entry into Jerusalem” and the “Lazarus”—the second has generally been regarded as the finest. The “Solomon” is also a very admirable production, showing his executive power at its loftiest, and of itself enough to place Haydon at the head of British historical painting in his own time. The “Lazarus” (which belongs to the National Gallery, but is not now on view there) is a more unequal performance, and in various respects open to criticism and censure; yet the head of Lazarus is so majestic and impressive that, if its author had done nothing else, we must still pronounce him a potent pictorial genius.

The chief authorities for the life of Haydon areLife of B. R. Haydon, from his Autobiography and Journals, edited and compiled by Tom Taylor (3 vols., 1853); andB. R. Haydon’s Correspondence and Table Talk, with a memoir by his son, F. W. Haydon (2 vols., 1876).

(W. M. R.)

HAYES, RUTHERFORD BIRCHARD(1822-1893), nineteenth president of the United States, was born in Delaware, Ohio, on the 4th of October 1822. He received his first education in the common schools, graduated in 1842 at Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio, and was a student at the law school of Harvard University from 1843 until his graduation in 1845. He was admitted to the bar in 1845, and practised law, first at Lower Sandusky (now Fremont), and then at Cincinnati, where he won a very respectable standing, and in 1858-1861 served as city solicitor. In politics he was at first an anti-slavery Whig and then from the time of its organization in 1854 until his death was a member of the Republican party. In December 1852 he married Lucy Ware Webb of Chillicothe, Ohio, who survived him. After the breaking out of the Civil War the governor of Ohio, on the 7th of June 1861, appointed him a major of a volunteer regiment, and in July he was sent to western Virginia for active service. He served throughout the war, distinguished himself particularly at South Mountain, Winchester, Fisher’s Hill and Cedar Creek, and by successive promotions became a brigadier-general of volunteers and, by brevet, a major-general of volunteers. While still in the field he was elected a member of the National House of Representatives, and took his seat in December 1865. He was re-elected in 1866, and supported the reconstruction measures advocated by his party. From 1868 to 1872 he was governor of Ohio. In 1873 he removed from Cincinnati to Fremont, his intention being to withdraw from public life; but in 1875 the Republican party in Ohio once more selected him as its candidate for the governorship. He accepted the nomination with great reluctance. The Democrats adopted a platform declaring in favour of indefinitely enlarging the volume of the irredeemable paper currency which the Civil War had left behind it. Hayes stoutly advocated the speediest practicable resumption of specie payments, and carried the election. The “sound-money campaign” in Ohio having attracted the attention of the whole country, Hayes was marked out as a candidate for the presidency, and he obtained the nomination of the Republican National Convention of 1876, his chief competitor being James G. Blaine. The candidate of the Democratic party, Samuel J. Tilden, by his reputation as a statesman and a reformer of uncommon ability, drew many Republican votes. An excited controversy having arisen about the result of the balloting in the states of South Carolina, Florida, Oregon and Louisiana, the two parties in Congress in order to allay a crisis dangerous to public peace agreed to pass an act referring all contested election returns to an extraordinary commission, called the “Electoral Commission” (q.v.), which decided each contest by eight against seven votes in favour of the Republican candidates. Hayes was accordingly on the 2nd of March 1877 declared duly elected.

During his administration President Hayes devoted his efforts mainly to civil service reform, resumption of specie payments and the pacification of the Southern States, recently in rebellion. In order to win the co-operation of the white people in the South in maintaining peace and order, he put himself in communication with their leaders. He then withdrew the Federal troops which since the Civil War had been stationed at the southern State capitals. An end was thus made of the “carpet-bag governments” conducted by Republican politicians from the North, some of which were very corrupt, and had been upheld mainly by the Federal forces. This policy found much favour with the people generally, but displeased many of the Republican politicians, because it loosened the hold of the Republican party upon the Southern States. Though it did not secure to the negroes sufficient protection in the exercise of their political rights, it did much to extinguish the animosities still existing between the two sections of the Union and to promote the material prosperity of the South. President Hayes endeavoured in vain to induce Congress to appropriate money for a Civil Service Commission; and whenever he made an effort to restrict the operation of the traditional “spoils system,” he met the strenuous opposition of a majority of the most powerful politicians of his party. Nevertheless the system of competitive examinations for appointments was introduced in some of the great executive departments in Washington, and in the custom-house and the post-office in New York. Moreover, he ordered that “no officer should be required or permitted to take part in the management of political organizations, caucuses, conventions or election campaigns,” and that “no assessment for political purposes on officers or subordinates should be allowed”; and he removed from their offices the heads of the post-office in St Louis and of the custom-house in New York—influential party managers—on the ground that they had misused their official positions for partisan ends. In New York the three men removed were Chester A. Arthur, the collector; Alonzo B. Cornell, the naval officer of the Port; and George H. Sharpe, the surveyor of the customs. While these measures were of limited scope and effect, they served greatly to facilitate the more extensive reform of the civil service which subsequently took place, though at the same time they alienated a powerful faction of the Republican party in New York under the leadership of Roscoe Conkling. Although the resumption of specie payments had been provided for, to begin at a giventime by the Resumption Act of January 1875, opposition to it did not cease. A bill went through both Houses of Congress providing that a silver dollar should be coined of the weight of 412½ grains, to be full legal tender for all debts and dues, public and private, except where otherwise expressly stipulated in the contract. President Hayes returned this bill with his veto, but the veto was overruled in both Houses of Congress. Meanwhile, however, the preparations for the return to specie payments were continued by the Administration with unflinching constancy and on the 1st of January 1879 specie payments were resumed without difficulty. None of the evils predicted appeared. A marked revival of business and a period of general prosperity ensued. In his annual message of the 1st of December 1879 President Hayes urged the suspension of the silver coinage and also the withdrawal of the United States legal tender notes, but Congress failed to act upon the recommendation. His administration also did much to ameliorate the condition of the Indian tribes and to arrest the spoliation of the public forest lands.

Although President Hayes was not popular with the professional politicians of his own party, and was exposed to bitter attacks on the part of the Democratic opposition on account of the cloud which hung over his election, his conduct of public affairs gave much satisfaction to the people generally. In the presidential election of 1880 the Republican party carried the day after an unusually quiet canvass, a result largely due to popular contentment with the then existing state of public affairs. On the 4th of March 1881 President Hayes retired to his home at Fremont, Ohio. Various universities and colleges conferred honorary degrees upon him. His remaining years he devoted to active participation in philanthropic enterprises; thus he served as president of the National Prison Association and of the Board of Trustees chosen to administer the John F. Slater fund for the promotion of industrial education among the negroes of the South, and was a member, also, of the Board of Trustees of the Peabody Education fund for the promotion of education in the South. He died at Fremont, after a short illness, on the 17th of January 1893.

There is no adequate biography, but three “campaign lives” may be mentioned:Life, Public Services and Select Speeches of Rutherford B. Hayes, by James Quay Howard (Cincinnati, 1876);Life of R. B. Hayes, by William D. Howells (New York, 1876); and aLifeby Russell H. Conwell (Boston, 1876). See also Paul L. Haworth,The Hayes-Tilden Disputed Presidential Election of 1876(Cleveland, O., 1906).

(C. S.)

HAY FEVER,Hay Asthma, orSummer Catarrh, a catarrhal affection of the mucous membrane of the upper respiratory tract, due to the action of the pollen of certain grasses. It is often associated with asthmatic attacks. The disease affects certain families, and is hereditary in about one-third of the cases. It is more common among women than men, city than country dwellers, and the educated and highly nervous than the lower classes. It has no connexion with the coryzas that are produced in nervous people by the odour of cats, &c. The complaint has been investigated by Professor W. P. Dunbar of Hamburg, who has shown that it is due to the pollens of certain grasses (notably rye) and plants, and that the severity of the attack is directly proportional to the amount of pollen in the air. He has isolated an albuminoid poison which, when applied to the nose of a susceptible individual, causes an attack, while there is no result in the case of a normal person. By injecting the poison into animals, he has obtained an anti-toxin, which is capable of aborting an attack of hay fever. The symptoms are those commonly experienced in the case of a severe cold, consisting of headache, violent sneezing and watery discharge from the nostrils and eyes, together with a hard dry cough, and occasionally severe asthmatic paroxysms. The period of liability to infection naturally coincides with the pollen season.

The radical treatment is to avoid vegetation. Local treatment consisting of thorough destruction of the sensitive area of the mucous membrane of the nose often produces good results. There are various drugs, the best of which are cocaine and the extract of the suprarenal body, which, when applied to the nose, are sometimes effectual; in practice, however, it is found that larger and larger doses are required, and that sooner or later they afford no relief. The same remarks apply to a number of patent specifics, of which the principal constituent is one of the above drugs. An additional and stronger objection to the use of cocaine is that a “habit” is often contracted, with the most disastrous results. Finally Dunbar’s serum may be applied to the nose and eyes on rising, and on the slightest suggestion of irritation during the day; it will, in the large majority of cases, be found to be quite effectual.

HAYLEY, WILLIAM(1745-1820), English writer, the friend and biographer of William Cowper, was born at Chichester on the 9th of November 1745. He was sent to Eton in 1757, and to Trinity Hall, Cambridge, in 1763; his connexion with the Middle Temple, London, where he was admitted in 1766, was merely nominal. In 1767 he left Cambridge and went to live in London. Two years later he married Eliza, daughter of Thomas Ball, dean of Chichester. His private means enabled Hayley to live on his patrimonial estate at Eartham, Sussex, and he retired there in 1774. He had already written many occasional poetical pieces, when in 1771 his tragedy,The Afflicted Father, was rejected by David Garrick. In the same year his translation of Pierre Corneille’sRodogune as The Syrian Queenwas also declined by George Colman. Hayley won the fame he enjoyed amongst his contemporaries by his poeticalEssays and Epistles; aPoetical Epistle to an Eminent Painter(1780), addressed to his friend George Romney, anEssay on History(1780), in three epistles, addressed to Edward Gibbon;Essay on Epic Poetry(1782) addressed to William Mason;A Philosophical Essay on Old Maids(1785); and theTriumphs of Temper(1781). The last mentioned work was so popular as to run to twelve or fourteen editions; together with theTriumphs of Music(Chichester, 1804) it was ridiculed by Byron inEnglish Bards and Scotch Reviewers. So great was Hayley’s fame that on Thomas Warton’s death in 1790 he was offered the laureateship, which he refused. In 1792, while writing theLife of Milton(1794), Hayley made Cowper’s acquaintance. A warm friendship sprang up between the two which lasted till Cowper’s death in 1800. Hayley indeed was mainly instrumental in getting Cowper his pension. In 1800 Hayley also lost his natural son, Thomas Alphonso Hayley, to whom he was devotedly attached. He had been a pupil of John Flaxman’s, to whom Hayley’sEssay on Sculpture(1800) is addressed. Flaxman introduced William Blake to Hayley, and after the latter had moved in 1800 to his “marine hermitage” at Felpham, Sussex, Blake settled near him for three years to engrave the illustrations for theLife of Cowper. This, Hayley’s best known work, was published in 1803-1804 (Chichester) in 3 vols. In 1805 he publishedBallads founded on Anecdotes of Animals(Chichester), with illustrations by Blake, and in 1809The Life of Romney. For the last twelve years of his life Hayley received an allowance for writing hisMemoirs. He died at Felpham on the 12th of November 1820. Hayley’s first wife died in 1797; her mind had been seriously affected, and since 1789 they had been separated. He married in 1809 Mary Welford, but they also separated after three years. He left no children.

Hayley’sPoetical Workswere published in 3 vols. (1785); hisPoems and Playsin 6 vols. (1788).SeeMemoirs ... of William Hayley ... and Memoirs of his son T. A. Hayley, ed. John Johnson (2 vols., 1823) (containing many of Hayley’s letters); an article on these memoirs by Robert Southey in theQuarterly Review, vol. xxxi., 1825;William Blake, by A. C. Swinburne (2nd ed., 1868, pp. 28 et seq.);Life of William Blake, by Alexander Gilchrist (vol. i., 1880), with some of Blake’s letters to Hayley;The Correspondence of William Cowper, arranged by Thomas Wright (vol. iv., 1904), containing many letters to Hayley.

Hayley’sPoetical Workswere published in 3 vols. (1785); hisPoems and Playsin 6 vols. (1788).

SeeMemoirs ... of William Hayley ... and Memoirs of his son T. A. Hayley, ed. John Johnson (2 vols., 1823) (containing many of Hayley’s letters); an article on these memoirs by Robert Southey in theQuarterly Review, vol. xxxi., 1825;William Blake, by A. C. Swinburne (2nd ed., 1868, pp. 28 et seq.);Life of William Blake, by Alexander Gilchrist (vol. i., 1880), with some of Blake’s letters to Hayley;The Correspondence of William Cowper, arranged by Thomas Wright (vol. iv., 1904), containing many letters to Hayley.

HAYM, RUDOLF(1821-1901), German publicist and philosopher, was born at Grünberg, in Silesia, on the 5th of October 1821, and died at St Anton (Arlberg) on the 27th of August 1901. He studied philosophy and theology at Halle and Berlin, and lived at Halle during 1846 and 1847. He was a member of the National Assembly at Frankfort in 1848, and wrote an account of the proceedings from the standpoint of the Right Centre.From 1851 he lectured in literature and philosophy at the university of Halle, and became professor in 1860. His writings are biographical and critical, devoted mainly to modern German philosophy and literature. In 1870 he published a masterly history of the Romantic school. He also wrote biographies of W. von Humboldt (1856), Hegel (1857), Schopenhauer (1864), Herder (1877-1885), Max Duncker (1890). In 1901 he publishedErinnerungen aus meinem Leben.

HAYNAU, JULIUS JACOB(1786-1853), Austrian general, was the natural son of the landgrave—afterwards elector—of Hesse-Cassel, William IX. He entered the Austrian army as an infantry officer in 1801, and saw much service in the Napoleonic wars. He was wounded at Wagram, and distinguished during the operations in Italy in 1813 and 1814. Between 1815 and 1847 he rose to the rank of field marshal lieutenant. A violent temper, which he made no attempt to control or conceal, led him into trouble with his superiors. His hatred of revolutionary principles was fanatical. When the insurrectionary movements of 1848 broke out in Italy, his known zeal for the cause of legitimacy, as much as his reputation as an officer, marked him out for command. He fought with success in Italy, but was chiefly noted for the severity he showed in suppressing and punishing a rising in Brescia. It ought to be remembered that the mob of Brescia had massacred invalid Austrian soldiers in the hospital, a provocation which always leads to reprisals. In June 1849 Haynau was called to Vienna to command first an army of reserve, and then in the field against the Hungarians. His successes against the declining revolutionary cause were numerous and rapid. In Hungary, as in Italy, he was accused of brutality. It was, for instance, asserted that he caused women who showed any sympathy with the insurgents to be whipped. His ostentatious hatred of the revolutionary parties marked him out as the natural object for these accusations. On the restoration of peace he was appointed to high command in Hungary. His temper quickly led him into quarrels with the minister of war, and he resigned his command in 1850. He then travelled abroad. The refugees had spread his evil reputation. In London he was attacked and beaten by Messrs Barclay & Perkins’ draymen when visiting the brewery, and he was saved from mob violence in Brussels with some difficulty. He died on the 14th of March 1853. On the 11th of October 1808 Haynau had married Thérèse von Weber, the daughter of Field Marshal Lieutenant Weber, who was slain at Aspern. She died, leaving one daughter, in 1850.

See R. v. Schönhals,Biographie des K. K. Feldzeugmeisters Julius Freiherrn von Haynau(Vienna, 1875).

HAYNE, ROBERT YOUNG(1791-1839), American political leader, born in St Paul’s parish, Colleton district, South Carolina, on the 10th of November 1791. He studied law in the office Of Langdon Cheves (1776-1857) in Charleston, S.C., and in November 1812 was admitted to the bar there, soon obtaining a large practice. For a short time during the War of 1812 against Great Britain, he was captain in the Third South Carolina Regiment. He was a member of the lower house of the state legislature from 1814 to 1818, serving as speaker in the latter year; was attorney-general of the state from 1818 to 1822, and in 1823 was elected, as a Democrat, to the United States Senate. Here he was conspicuous as an ardent free-trader and an uncompromising advocate of “States Rights,” opposed the protectionist tariff bills of 1824 and 1828, and consistently upheld the doctrine that slavery was a domestic institution and should be dealt with only by the individual states. In one of his speeches opposing the sending by the United States of representatives to the Panama Congress, he said, “The moment the federal government shall make the unhallowed attempt to interfere with the domestic concerns of the states, those states will consider themselves driven from the Union.” Hayne is best remembered, however, for his great debate with Daniel Webster (q.v.) in January 1830. The debate arose over the so-called “Foote’s Resolution,” introduced by Senator Samuel A. Foote (1780-1846) of Connecticut, calling for the restriction of the sale of public lands to those already in the market, but was concerned primarily with the relation to one another and the respective powers of the federal government and the individual states, Hayne contending that the constitution was essentially a compact between the states, and the national government and the states, and that any state might, at will, nullify any federal law which it considered to be in contravention of that compact. He vigorously opposed the tariff of 1832, was a member of the South Carolina Nullification Convention of November 1832, and reported the ordinance of nullification passed by that body on the 24th of November. Resigning from the Senate, he was governor of the state from December 1832 to December 1834, and as such took a strong stand against President Jackson, though he was more conservative than many of the nullificationists in the state. He was intendant (mayor) of Charleston, S.C., from 1835 to 1837, and was president of the Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston railway from 1837 to 1839. He died at Asheville, N.C., on the 24th of September 1839. His son, Paul Hamilton Hayne (1830-1886), was a poet of some distinction, and in 1878 published a life of his father.

See Theodore D. Jervey,Robert Y. Hayne and his Times(New York, 1909).

HAYTER, SIR GEORGE(1792-1871), English painter, was the son of a popular drawing-master and teacher of perspective who published a well-known introduction to perspective and other works. He was born in London, and in his early youth went to sea. He afterwards studied in the Royal Academy, became a miniature-painter, and was appointed in 1816 miniature-painter to the princess Charlotte. He passed some years in Italy, more especially in Rome, between 1816 and 1831, returned to London in the last-named year, resumed portrait-painting, now chiefly in oil-colour, executed many likenesses of the royal family, and attained such a reputation for finish and refinement in his work that he received the appointment of principal painter to Queen Victoria and teacher of drawing to the princesses. In 1842 he was knighted. He painted various works on a large scale of a public and semi-historical character, but essentially works of portraiture; such as “The Trial of Queen Caroline” (189 likenesses), “The Meeting of the First Reformed Parliament,” now in the National Portrait Gallery, “Queen Victoria taking the Coronation Oath” (accounted his finest production), “The Marriage of the Queen,” and the “Trial of Lord William Russell.” The artistic merits of Hayter’s works are not, however, such as to preserve to him with posterity an amount ofprestigecorresponding to that which court patronage procured him.

He is not to be confounded with a contemporary artist, John Hayter, who produced illustrations for theBook of Beauty, &c.

HAYTON(Haithon,Hethum), king of Little Armenia or Cilicia from 1224 to 1269, traveller in western and central Asia, Mongolia, &c., was the son of Constantine Rupen, and became heir to the throne of Lesser Armenia by his marriage with Isabella, daughter and only child of Leo II. After a reign of forty-five years he abdicated (1269) in favour of his son Leo III., became a monk and died in 1271. Before his accession he had been “constable,” or head of the Armenian army, and “bailiff” of the realm. Throughout his reign he followed the policy of friendship and alliance with the overwhelming power of the Mongols. In about 1248 he sent his brother Sempad, who was now constable in his place, on a mission to Kuyuk Khan, the supreme Mongol emperor. Sempad was well received and returned home in 1250, bringing letters from Kuyuk. After Mangu’s accession in 1251, Batu (the most powerful of the Mongol princes and generals, and the conqueror—in name at least—of eastern Europe, now commanding on the line of the Volga) summoned Hayton to the court of the new grand khan. Carefully disguised, so as to pass safely through the Turkish states in the interior of eastern Asia Minor (where he was hated as an ally of the Mongols against Islam), Hayton made his way to Kars, the central Mongol camp in Great Armenia, where the famous general Bachu, or Baiju, commanded. Here he reported himself, and was permitted to remain some time in the Ararat region, at the foot of Mt Alagoz, near the metropolitan church ofEchmiadzin. Being joined by his suite, especially the clerical diplomatists Basil the Priest, and James the Abbot, Hayton next passed through eastern Caucasia, threading the pass of the Iron Gates of Derbent, and so reached the camp of Batu on the Volga, where he was cordially welcomed. Thence he set out (May 13th, 1254) on the “very long road beyond the Caspian Sea” to the residence of Mangu at or near Karakorum, south of Lake Baikal. After passing the Ural river, we only hear of his arrival at Or, probably the present Ili province, east of Balkhash, and of his reaching the Irtish, entering the Naiman country, and passing through “Karakhitai” (apparently the capital of the ruined Karakhitai empire is intended, a place perhaps situated on the Chu, mentioned out of its proper place in Hayton’s record). On the 13th of September the travellers entered Mongolia, and on the 14th (?) of September were received by Mangu. Here the king remained till the 1st of November, when he left with diplomas, seals and letters of enfranchisement which promised great things for the Armenian state, church and people. His return journey was by very unusual and interesting routes—through the Urumtsi region, the basin of “the sea of milk,” Lake Sairam, the valley of the Ili, the neighbourhood of Kulja, and so over mountains, which probably answer to certain outliers of the Alexander range, to Talas near the present Aulie Ata, midway between the Syr Daria and the Chu. Here he met and conferred with Hulagu Khan, Mangu’s brother, the future conqueror of Bagdad: probably Hayton was expected to aid in the coming forward movement of the Mongol armies against the Moslem world. From Talas Hayton made a detour to the north-west to meet another Mongol prince, Sartach the son of Batu; after which he ascended the valley of the Syr Daria, crossed into Trans-Oxiana, visited Samarkand and Bokhara, and passed the Oxus apparently near Charjui. By way of Merv and Sarakhs he then entered Khorasan and traversed north Persia, passing through Rai near Tehran, Kazvin and Tabriz, and so returning to the camp of Bachu in Armenia, now at Sisian near Lake Gokcha (July 1255). Thanks to his powerful friends, Hayton’s journey was unusually rapid. Eight months after quitting Mangu’s horde, he was back in Great Armenia. The narrative of this journey, which was written by a member of the king’s suite, one Kirakos of Gandsak (the modern Elizavetpol), concludes with some interesting references to Buddhist tenets, to Chinese habits, to various monstrous races and to certain “women endowed with reason” dwelling “beyond Cathay.” It also gives some notes, compounded of truth and legend, on the wild tribes and animals of the Gobi and adjoining regions.

The record drawn up by Kirakos Gandsaketsi was in Armenian. A MS. of his, dated 1616, was found in the Sanahin monastery in Georgia, and translated into Russian by Prince Argutinsky in theSibirsky Vyestnikfor 1822, pp. 69, &c. This Russian version was again translated into French by Klaproth in theNouveau Journal asiatiquefor 1833 (vol. xii. pp. 273, &c.). Another French translation was made direct from the Armenian by M. Brosset in theMémoires de l’Académie des Sciences de St Pétersbourgfor 1870; a fresh Russian version of the original, by Professor Patkanov, appeared in 1874. See also E. Bretschneider,Medieval Researches from Eastern Asiatic Sources, i. 164-172 (London, 1888, “Trübner’s Oriental” Series); C. R. Beazley,Dawn of Modern Geography, ii. 381-391 (1901).

(C. R. B.)

HAYWARD, ABRAHAM(1801-1884), English man of letters, son of Joseph Hayward, of an old Wiltshire family, was born at Wilton, near Salisbury, on the 22nd of November 1801. After education at Blundell’s school, Tiverton, he entered the Inner Temple in 1824, and was called to the bar in June 1832. He took part as a conservative in the discussions of the London Debating Society, where his opponents were J. A. Roebuck and John Stuart Mill. The editorship of theLaw Magazine; or, Quarterly Review of Jurisprudence, which he held from 1829 to 1844, brought him into connexion with John Austin, G. Cornewall Lewis, and such foreign jurists as Savigny, whose tractate on contemporary legislation and jurisprudence he rendered into English. In 1833 he travelled abroad, and on his return printed privately a translation of Goethe’sFaustinto English prose (pronounced by Carlyle to be the best version extant in his time). A second and revised edition was published after another visit to Germany in January 1834, in the course of which Hayward met Tieck, Chamisso, De La Motte Fouqué, Varnhagen von Ense and Madame Goethe. In 1878 he contributed the rather colourless volume on Goethe to Blackwood’sForeign Classics. A successful translation was in those days a first-rate credential for a reviewer, and Hayward began contributing to theNew Monthly, theForeign Quarterly, theQuarterly Reviewand theEdinburgh Review. His first successes in this new field were won in 1835-1836 by articles on Walker’s “Original” and on “Gastronomy.” The essays were reprinted to form one of his best volumes,The Art of Dining, in 1852. In February 1835 he was elected to the Athenaeum Club under Rule II., and he remained for nearly fifty years one of its most conspicuous and most influential members. He was also a subscriber to the Carlton, but ceased to frequent it when he became a Peelite. At the Temple, Hayward, whose reputation was rapidly growing as a connoisseur not only of a bill of fare but also (as Swift would have said) of a bill of company, gaverecherchédinners, at which ladies of rank and fashion appreciated the wit of Sydney Smith and Theodore Hook, the dignity of Lockhart and Lyndhurst and the oratory of Macaulay. At the Athenaeum and in political society he to some extent succeeded to the position of Croker. He and Macaulay were commonly said to be the two best-read men in town. Hayward got up every important subject of discussion immediately it came into prominence, and concentrated his information in such a way that he habitually had the last word to say on a topic. When Rogers died, whenVanity Fairwas published, when theGreville Memoirswas issued or a revolution occurred on the continent, Hayward, whose memory was as retentive as his power of accumulating documentary evidence was exhaustive, wrote an elaborate essay on the subject for theQuarterlyor theEdinburgh. He followed up his paper by giving his acquaintances no rest until they either assimilated or undertook to combat his views. Political ladies first, and statesmen afterwards, came to recognize the advantage of obtaining Hayward’s good opinion. In this way the “old reviewing hand” became an acknowledged link between society, letters and politics. As a professional man he was less successful; his promotion to be Q.C. in 1845 excited a storm of opposition, and, disgusted at not being elected a Bencher of his Inn in the usual course, Hayward virtually withdrew from legal practice. In February 1848 he became one of the chief leader-writers for the Peelite organ, theMorning Chronicle. The morbid activity of his memory, however, continued to make him many enemies. He alienated Disraeli by tracing a purple patch in his official eulogy of Wellington to a newspaper translation from Thiers’s funeral panegyric on General St Cyr. His sharp tongue made an enemy of Roebuck, and he disgusted the friends of Mill by the stories he raked up for an obituary notice of the great economist (The Times, 10th May 1873). He broke with Henry Reeve in 1874 by a venomous review of theGreville Memoirs, in which Reeve was compared to the beggarly Scot deputed to let off the blunderbuss which Bolingbroke (Greville) had charged. His enemies prevented him from enjoying a well-selectedquasi-sinecure, which both Palmerston and Aberdeen admitted to be his due. Samuel Warren attacked him (very unjustly, for Hayward was anything but a parasite) as Venom Tuft inTen Thousand a Year; and Disraeli aimed at him partially in Ste Barbe (inEndymion), though the satire here was directed primarily against Thackeray. After his break with Reeve, Hayward devoted himself more exclusively to theQuarterly. His essays on Chesterfield and Selwyn were reprinted in 1854. Collective editions of his articles appeared in volume form in 1858, 1873 and 1874, andSelected Essaysin two volumes, 1878. In his useful but far from flawless edition of theAutobiography, Letters and Literary Remains of Mrs(Thrale)Piozzi(1861), he again appears as a supplementer and continuator of J. W. Croker. HisEminent Statesmen and Writers(1880) commemorates to a large extent personal friendships with such men as Dumas, Cavour and Thiers, whom he knew intimately. As a counsellor of great ladies and of politicians, to whom heheld forth with a sense of all-round responsibility surpassing that of a cabinet minister, Hayward retained his influence to the last years of his life. But he had little sympathy with modern ideas. He used to say that he had outlived every one that he could really look up to. He died, a bachelor, in his rooms at 8 St James’s Street (a small museum of autograph portraits and reviewing trophies) on the 2nd of February 1884.

Two volumes of Hayward’sCorrespondence(edited by H. E. Carlisle) were published in 1886. InVanity Fair(27th November 1875) he may be seen as he appeared in later life.

(T. Se.)

HAYWARD, SIR JOHN(c.1560-1627), English historian, was born at or near Felixstowe, Suffolk, where he was educated, and afterwards proceeded to Pembroke College, Cambridge, where he took the degrees of B.A., M.A. and LL.D. In 1599 he publishedThe First Part of the Life and Raigne of King Henrie IV.dedicated to Robert Devereux, earl of Essex. This was reprinted in 1642. Queen Elizabeth and her advisers disliked the tone of the book and its dedication, and the queen ordered Francis Bacon to search it for “places in it that might be drawn within case of treason.” Bacon reported “for treason surely I find none, but for felony very many,” explaining that many of the sentences were stolen from Tacitus; but nevertheless Hayward was put in prison, where he remained until about 1601. On the accession of James I. in 1603 he courted the new king’s favour by publishing two pamphlets—“An Answer to the first part of a certaine conference concerning succession,” and “A Treatise of Union of England and Scotland.” The former pamphlet, an argument in favour of the divine right of kings, was reprinted in 1683 as “The Right of Succession” by the friends of the duke of York during the struggle over the Exclusion Bill. In 1610 Hayward was appointed one of the historiographers of the college which James founded at Chelsea; in 1613 he published hisLives of the Three Norman Kings of England, written at the request of James’s son, Prince Henry; in 1616 he became a member of the College of Advocates; and in 1619 he was knighted. He died in London on the 27th of June 1627. Among his manuscripts was foundThe Life and Raigne of King Edward VI., first published in 1630, andCertain Yeres of Queen Elizabeth’s Raigne, the beginning of which was printed in an edition of hisEdward VI., published in 1636, but which was first published in a complete form in 1840 for the Camden Society under the editorship of John Bruce, who prefixed an introduction on the life and writings of the author. Hayward was conscientious and diligent in obtaining information, and although his reasoning on questions of morality is often childish, his descriptions are generally graphic and vigorous. Notwithstanding his imprisonment under Elizabeth, his portrait of the qualities of the queen’s mind and person is flattering rather than detractive. He also wrote several works of a devotional character.

HAYWOOD, ELIZA(c.1693-1756), English writer, daughter of a London tradesman named Fowler, was born about 1693. She made an early and unhappy marriage with a man named Haywood, and her literary enemies circulated scandalous stories about her, possibly founded on her works rather than her real history. She appeared on the stage as early as 1715, and in 1721 she revised for Lincoln’s Inn FieldsThe Fair Captive, by a Captain Hurst. Two other pieces followed, but Eliza Haywood made her mark as a follower of Mrs Manley in writing scandalous and voluminous novels. ToMemoirs of a certain Island adjacent to Utopia, written by a celebrated author of that country.Now translated into English(1725), she appended a key in which the characters were explained by initials denoting living persons. The names are supplied to these initials in the copy in the British Museum.The Secret History of the Present Intrigues of the Court of Caramania(1727) was explained in a similar manner. The style of these productions is as extravagant as their matter. Pope attacked her in a coarse passage inThe Dunciad(bk. ii. 11. 157 et seq.), which is aggravated by a note alluding to the “profligate licentiousness of those shameless scribblers (for the most part of that sex which ought least to be capable of such malice or impudence) who in libellous Memoirs and Novels reveal the faults or misfortunes of both sexes, to the ruin of public fame, or disturbance of private happiness.” Swift, writing to Lady Suffolk, says, “Mrs Haywood I have heard of as a stupid, infamous, scribbling woman, but have not seen any of her productions.” She continued to be a prolific writer of novels until her death on the 25th of February 1756, but her later works are characterized by extreme propriety, though an anonymous story ofThe Fortunate Foundlings(1744), purporting to be an account of the children of Lord Charles Manners, is generally ascribed to her.

Back to Index Next