Chapter 8

Bibliography.—General summaries:L. Messerschmidt,The Hittites(“Ancient East” series, vi., 1903); A. H. Sayce,The Hittites(“Bypaths of Biblical Knowledge” series, xii., 2nd ed. 1892); G. Perrot and C. Chipiez,History of Art in Sardinia, Judaea, Syria and Asia Minor(Eng. trans., vol. ii., 1890); L. Lantsheere,De la race et de la langue des Hétéens(1891); P. Jensen,Hittiter und Armenier(1898); M. Jastrow, final chapter in H. V. Hilprecht,Exploration in Bible Lands(1903); W. Wright,Empire of the Hittites(1884); F. Hommel,Hettiter und Skythen(1898); D. G. Hogarth,Ionia and the East(1909); W. Max Müller,Asien und Europa, chap. xxv. (1893). See also authorities for Egyptian and Assyrian history.Inscriptions:L. Messerschmidt, “Corpus inscr. Hettiticarum,”Zeitsch. d. d. morgenländ. Gesellschaft(1900, 1902, 1906, &c.), and “Bemerkungen zu d. Heth. Inschriften,”Mitteil. d. vorderasiat. Gesellschaft(1898); P. Jensen, “Grundlagen für eine Entzifferung der (Hat. oder) Cilicischen Inschriften,”Zeitschr. d. d. morgenländ. Gesellschaft(1894); F. E. Peiser,Die Hettitischen Inschriften(1892); A. H. Sayce, “Decipherment of the Hittite Inscriptions,”Proc. Soc. of Bibl. Archaeology(1903), and “Hittite Inscriptions, translated and annotated,” ibid. (1905, 1907); J. Menant, “Études Hétéennes,”Recueil de travaux rel. à la philologie, &c., andMém. de l’Acad. Inscr., vol. xxxiv. (1890); J. Halévy inRevue sémitique, vol. i. Also divers articles by A. H. Sayce, F. Hommel and others inProc.andTrans. Soc. Bibl. Arch.since 1876, and inRecueil de travaux, &c., since its beginning.Exploration:G. Perrot and E. Guillaume,Exploration arch. de la Galatie, &c. (1862-1872); E. Chantre,Mission en Cappadocie(1898); Sir W. M. Ramsay, “Syro-Cappadocian Monuments,” inAthen. Mitteilungen(1889), with D. G. Hogarth, “Pre-Hellenic Monuments of Cappadocia,” inRecueil de travaux, &c. (1892-1895); and with Miss Gertrude Bell,The Thousand and One Churches(1909); C. Humann and O. Puchstein,Reisen in Nord-Syrien, &c. (1890). J. Garstang inAnnals of Archaeology and Anthropology, i. (1908) and following numbers. Reports on excavations at Sinjerli inBerl.Philol. Wochenschrift(1891), pp. 803, 951; and F. von Luschan, and others, “Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli” inMitteil. Orient-Sammlungen(Berlin Museum, 1893 ff.); and on excavations at Boghaz-Keui, H. Winckler inOrient. Literaturzeitung(Berlin, 1907);Mitteil. Orient-Gesellschaft(Dec. 1907). See alsos.v.Pteria.

Inscriptions:L. Messerschmidt, “Corpus inscr. Hettiticarum,”Zeitsch. d. d. morgenländ. Gesellschaft(1900, 1902, 1906, &c.), and “Bemerkungen zu d. Heth. Inschriften,”Mitteil. d. vorderasiat. Gesellschaft(1898); P. Jensen, “Grundlagen für eine Entzifferung der (Hat. oder) Cilicischen Inschriften,”Zeitschr. d. d. morgenländ. Gesellschaft(1894); F. E. Peiser,Die Hettitischen Inschriften(1892); A. H. Sayce, “Decipherment of the Hittite Inscriptions,”Proc. Soc. of Bibl. Archaeology(1903), and “Hittite Inscriptions, translated and annotated,” ibid. (1905, 1907); J. Menant, “Études Hétéennes,”Recueil de travaux rel. à la philologie, &c., andMém. de l’Acad. Inscr., vol. xxxiv. (1890); J. Halévy inRevue sémitique, vol. i. Also divers articles by A. H. Sayce, F. Hommel and others inProc.andTrans. Soc. Bibl. Arch.since 1876, and inRecueil de travaux, &c., since its beginning.

Exploration:G. Perrot and E. Guillaume,Exploration arch. de la Galatie, &c. (1862-1872); E. Chantre,Mission en Cappadocie(1898); Sir W. M. Ramsay, “Syro-Cappadocian Monuments,” inAthen. Mitteilungen(1889), with D. G. Hogarth, “Pre-Hellenic Monuments of Cappadocia,” inRecueil de travaux, &c. (1892-1895); and with Miss Gertrude Bell,The Thousand and One Churches(1909); C. Humann and O. Puchstein,Reisen in Nord-Syrien, &c. (1890). J. Garstang inAnnals of Archaeology and Anthropology, i. (1908) and following numbers. Reports on excavations at Sinjerli inBerl.Philol. Wochenschrift(1891), pp. 803, 951; and F. von Luschan, and others, “Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli” inMitteil. Orient-Sammlungen(Berlin Museum, 1893 ff.); and on excavations at Boghaz-Keui, H. Winckler inOrient. Literaturzeitung(Berlin, 1907);Mitteil. Orient-Gesellschaft(Dec. 1907). See alsos.v.Pteria.

(D. G. H.)

1First described by the Turk, Hajji Khalifa, in the 17th century; first seen by the Swedish traveller Otter in 1736, and first published in 1840 in Ritter’sErdkunde, iii., after a drawing by Major Fischer, made in 1837.2The “Niobe” statue near Manisa was not definitely known for “Hittite” till 1882, when G. Dennis detected pictographs near it.3The “pseudo-Sesostres” of Herodotus, already demonstrated non-Egyptian by Rosellini. The second figure was unknown, till found by Dr Beddoe in 1856.4Five intramural graves were explored at Sinjerli, but whether of the Hittite or of the Assyrian occupation is doubtful.5The Assyrian records, as well as the Egyptian, distinguish many peoples in both areas from the Kheta-Khatti; and the most we can infer from these records is that there was an occasional league formed under the Hittites, not any imperial subjection or even a continuous federation.6Pseudo-Hethitische Kunst(Berlin, 1890).

2The “Niobe” statue near Manisa was not definitely known for “Hittite” till 1882, when G. Dennis detected pictographs near it.

3The “pseudo-Sesostres” of Herodotus, already demonstrated non-Egyptian by Rosellini. The second figure was unknown, till found by Dr Beddoe in 1856.

4Five intramural graves were explored at Sinjerli, but whether of the Hittite or of the Assyrian occupation is doubtful.

5The Assyrian records, as well as the Egyptian, distinguish many peoples in both areas from the Kheta-Khatti; and the most we can infer from these records is that there was an occasional league formed under the Hittites, not any imperial subjection or even a continuous federation.

6Pseudo-Hethitische Kunst(Berlin, 1890).

HITTORFF, JACQUES IGNACE(1792-1867), French architect, was born at Cologne on the 20th of August 1792. After serving an apprenticeship to a mason in his native town, he went in 1810 to Paris, and studied for some years at the Academy of Fine Arts, where he was a favourite pupil of Bélanger, the government architect, who in 1814 appointed him his principal inspector. Succeeding Bélanger as government architect in 1818, he designed many important public and private buildings in Paris and also in the south of France. From 1819 to 1830 in collaboration with le Cointe he directed the royal fêtes and ceremonials. After making architectural tours in Germany, England, Italy and Sicily, he published the result of his observations in the latter country in the workArchitecture antique de la Sicile(3 vols., 1826-1830; new edition, 1866-1867), and also inArchitecture moderne de la Sicile(1826-1835). One of his important discoveries was that colour had been made use of in ancient Greek architecture, a subject which he especially discussed inArchitecture polychrome chez les Grecs(1830) and inRestitution du temple d’Empédocle à Sélinunte(1851); and in accordance with the doctrines enunciated in these works he was in the habit of making colour an important feature in most of his architectural designs. His principal building is the church of St Vincent de Paul in the basilica style, which was constructed between 1830 and 1844. He also designed the two fountains in the Place de la Concorde, the Circus of the Empress, the Rotunda of the panoramas, many cafés and restaurants of the Champs Elysées, the houses forming the circle round the Arc de Triomphe de l’Étoile, besides many embellishments of the Bois de Boulogne and other places. In 1833 he was elected a member of the Academy of Fine Arts. He died in Paris on the 25th of March 1867.

HITZACKER,a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hanover at the influx of the Jeetze into the Elbe, 33 m. N.E. of Lüneburg by the railway to Wittenberge. Pop. (1905) 1106. It has an Evangelical church and an old castle and numerous medieval remains. There are chalybeate springs and a hydropathic establishment in the town. The famous library now in Wolfenbüttel was originally founded here by Augustus, duke of Brunswick (d. 1666) and was removed to its present habitation in 1643.

HITZIG, FERDINAND(1807-1875), German biblical critic, was born at Hauingen, Baden, where his father was a pastor, on the 23rd of June 1807. He studied theology at Heidelberg under H. E. G. Paulus, at Halle under Wilhelm Gesenius and at Göttingen under Ewald. Returning to Heidelberg he becamePrivatdozentin theology in 1829, and in 1831 published hisBegriff der Kritik am Alten Testamente praktisch erörtert, a study of Old Testament criticism in which he explained the critical principles of the grammatico-historical school, and hisDes Propheten Jonas Orakel über Moab, an exposition of the 15th and 16th chapters of the book of Isaiah attributed by him to the prophet Jonah mentioned in 2 Kings xiv. 25. In 1833 he was called to the university of Zürich as professor ordinarius of theology. His next work was a commentary on Isaiah with a translation (Übersetzung u. Auslegung des Propheten Jesajas), which he dedicated to Heinrich Ewald, and which Hermann Hupfeld (1796-1866), well known as a commentator on the Psalms (1855-1861), pronounced to be his best exegetical work. At Zürich he laboured for a period of twenty-eight years, during which, besides commentaries onThe Psalms(1835-1836; 2nd ed., 1863-1865),The Minor Prophets(1838; 3rd ed., 1863),Jeremiah(1841; 2nd ed., 1866),Ezekiel(1847),Daniel(1850),Ecclesiastes(1847),Canticles(1855), andProverbs(1858), he published a monograph,Über Johannes Markus u. seine Schriften(1843), in which he maintained the chronological priority of the second gospel, and sought to prove that the Apocalypse was written by the same author. He also published various treatises of archaeological interest, of which the most important areDie Erfindung des Alphabets(1840),Urgeschichte u. Mythologie der Philistäer(1845), andDie Grabschrift des Eschmunezar(1855). After the death of Friedrich Umbreit (1795-1860), one of the founders of the well-knownStudien und Kritiken, he was called in 1861 to succeed him as professor of theology at Heidelberg. Here he wrote hisGeschichte des Volkes Israel(1869-1870), in two parts, extending respectively to the end of the Persian domination and to the fall of Masada,A.D.72, as well as a work on the Pauline epistles,Zur Kritik Paulinischer Briefe(1870), on the Moabite Stone,Die Inschrift des Mescha(1870), and on Assyrian,Sprache u. Sprachen Assyriens(1871), besides revising the commentary on Job by Ludwig Hirzel (1801-1841), which was first published in 1839. He was also a contributor to theMonatsschrift des wissenschaftlichen Vereins in Zürich, theZeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, theTheologische Studien u. Kritiken, Eduard Zeller’sTheologische Jahrbücher, and Adolf Hilgenfeld’sZeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie. Hitzig died at Heidelberg on the 22nd of January 1875. As a Hebrew philologist he holds high rank; and as a constructive critic he is remarkable for acuteness and sagacity. As a historian, however, some of his speculations have been considered fanciful. “He places the cradle of the Israelites in the south of Arabia, and, like many other critics, makes the historical times begin only with Moses” (F. Lichtenberger,History of German Theology, p. 569).

His lectures on biblical theology (Vorlesungen über biblische Theologie u. messianische Weissagungen) were published in 1880 after his death, along with a portrait and biographical sketch by his pupil, J. J. Kneucker (b. 1840), professor of theology at Heidelberg. See Heinrich Steiner,Ferdinand Hitzig(1882); and Adolf Kamphausen’s article in Herzog-Hauck’sRealencyklopädie.

HIUNG-NU,Hiong-nu,Heung-nu, a people who about the end of the 3rd centuryB.C.formed, according to Chinese records, a powerful empire from the Great Wall of China to the Caspian. Their ethnical affinities have been much discussed; but it is most probable that they were of the Turki stock, as were the Huns, their later western representatives. They are the first Turkish people mentioned by the Chinese. A theory which seems plausible is that which assumes them to have been a heterogenous collection of Mongol, Tungus, Turki and perhaps even Finnish hordes under a Mongol military caste, though the Mongolo-Tungus element probably predominated. Towards the close of the 1st century of the Christian era the Hiung-nu empire broke up. Their subsequent history is obscure. Some of them seem to have gone westward and settled on the Ural river. These, de Guiques suggests, were the ancestors of the Huns, and many ethnologists hold that the Hiung-nu were the ancestors of the modern Turks.

SeeJournal Anthropological Institutefor 1874; Sir H. H. Howorth,History of the Mongols(1876-1880); 6th Congress of Orientalists, Leiden, 1883 (Actes, part iv. pp. 177-195); de Guiques,Histoire générale des Huns, des Turcs, des Mongoles, et des autres Tartares occidentaux(1756-1758).

HIVITES,an ancient tribe of Palestine driven out by the invading Israelites. In Josh. ix. 7, xi. 19 they are connected with Gibeon. The meaning of the name is uncertain; Wellhausen derives it fromחוה“Eve,” or “serpent,” in which case the Hivites were originally the snake clan; others explain it from the Arabichayy, “family,” as meaning “dwellers in (Bedouin) encampments.” (SeePalestine;Jews.)

HJÖRRING,an ancient town of Denmark, capital of theamt(county) of its name, in the northern insular part of the peninsula of Jutland. Pop. (1901) 7901. It lies 7 m. inland from the shore of Jammer Bay, a stretch of coast notoriously dangerous to shipping. On the coast is Lönstrup, a favoured seaside resort. In this neighbourhood as well as to the south-east of Hjörring, slight elevations are seen, deserving the name of hills in this low-lying district. Hjörring is on the northern railway of Jutland, which here turns eastward to the Cattegat part of Frederikshavn (23 m.), a harbour of refuge.

HKAMTI LÔNG(called Kantigyi by the Burmese, and Bor Hkampti by the peoples on the Assam side), a collection of sevenShan states subordinate to Burma, but at present beyond the administrative border. Estimated area, 900 sq. m.; estimated pop. 11,000. It lies between 27° and 28° N. and 97° and 98° E., and is bordered by the Mishmi country on the N., by the Patkai range on the W., by the Hukawng valley on the S. and E., and indeed all round by various Chingpaw or Kachin communities. The country is little known. It was visited by T. T. Cooper, the Chinese traveller and political agent at Bhamo, where he was murdered; by General Woodthorpe and Colonel Macgregor in 1884, by Mr Errol Grey in the following year, and by Prince Henry of Orleans in 1895. All of these, however, limited their explorations to the valley of the Mali-hka, the western branch of the Irrawaddy river. Hkamti has shrunk very much from its old size. It was no doubt the northernmost province of the Shan kingdom, founded at Mogaung by Sam Lōng-hpa, the brother of the ruler of Kambawsa, when that empire had reached its greatest extension. The irruption of Kachins or Chingpaw from the north has now completely hemmed the state in. Prince Henry of Orleans described it as “a splendid territory, fertile in soil and abundant in water, where tropical and temperate culture flourish side by side, and the inhabitants are protected on three fronts by mountains.” According to him the Kiutze, the people of the hills between the Irrawaddy and the Salween, call it the kingdom of Moam.

HLOTHHERE,king of Kent, succeeded his brother Ecgberht in 673, and appears for a time to have reigned jointly with his nephew Eadric, son of Ecgberht, as a code of laws still extant was issued under both names. Neither is mentioned in the account of the invasion of Æthelred in 676. In 685 Eadric, who seems to have quarrelled with Hlothhere, went into exile and led the South Saxons against him. Hlothhere was defeated and died of his wounds.

See Bede,Hist. eccl.(Plummer), iv. 5, 17, 26, v. 24;Saxon Chronicle(Earle and Plummer), s.a. 685; Schmid,Gesetze, pp. 10 sqq.; Thorpe,Ancient Laws, i. 26 sqq.

HOACTZIN,orHoatzin, a bird of tropical South America, thought by Buffon to be that indicated by Hernandez or Fernandez under these names, theOpisthocomus hoazinorO. cristatusof modern ornithologists—a very curious and remarkable form, which has long exercised the ingenuity of classifiers. Placed by Buffon among his “Hoccos” (Curassows), and then by P. L. S. Müller and J. F. Gmelin in the Linnaean genusPhasianus, some of its many peculiarities were recognized by J. K. W. Illiger in 1811 as sufficient to establish it as a distinct genus,Opisthocomus; but various positions were assigned to it by subsequent systematic authors. L’Herminier was the first to give any account of its anatomy (Comptes rendus, 1837, v. 433), and from his time our knowledge of it has been successively increased by Johannes Müller (Ber. Akad. Wissensch. Berlin, 1841, p. 177), Deville (Rev. et mag. de zoologie, 1852, p. 217), Gervais (Castelnau,Expéd. Amérique du Sud, zoologie, anatomie, p. 66), Huxley (Proc. Zool. Society, 1868, p. 304), Perrin (Trans. Zool. Society, ix. p. 353), and A. H. Garrod (Proc. Zool. Society, 1879, p. 109). After a minute description of the skeleton ofOpisthocomus, with the especial object of determining its affinities, Huxley declared that it “resembles the ordinary gallinaceous birds and pigeons more than it does any others, and that when it diverges from them it is either sui generis or approaches theMusophagidae.” He accordingly regarded it as the type and sole member of a group, named by himHeteromorphae, which sprang from the great Carinate stem later than theTinamomorphae,Turnicomorphae, orCharadriomorphae, but before thePeristeromorphae,PteroclomorphaeorAlectoromorphae. This conclusion is substantially the same as that at which A. H. Garrod subsequently arrived after closely examining and dissecting specimens preserved in spirit; but the latter has gone further and endeavoured to trace more particularly the descent of this peculiar form and some others, remarking that the ancestor ofOpisthocomusmust have left the parent stem very shortly before the trueGallinaefirst appeared, and at about the same time as the independent pedigree of theCuculidaeandMusophagidaecommenced—these two groups being, he believed, very closely related, andOpisthocomusserving to fill the gap between them.

The first thing that strikes the observer of its skeleton is the extraordinary structure of the sternal apparatus, which is wholly unlike that of any other bird known. The keel is only developed on the posterior part of the sternum—the fore part being, as it were, cut away, while the short furcula at its symphysis meets the manubrium, with which it is firmly consolidated by means of a prolonged and straight hypocleidium, and anteriorly ossifies with the coracoids. This unique arrangement seems to be correlated with the enormously capacious crop, which rests upon the furcula and fore part of the sternum, and is also received in a cavity formed on the surface of each of the great pectoral muscles. Furthermore this crop is extremely muscular, so as more to resemble a gizzard, and consists of two portions divided by a partial constriction, after a fashion of which no other example is known among birds. The true gizzard is greatly reduced.

The hoactzin appears to be about the size of a small pheasant, but is really a much smaller bird. The beak is strong, curiously denticulated along the margin of the maxilla near the base, and is beset by diverging bristles. The eyes, placed in the middle of a patch of bare skin, are furnished with bristly lashes, resembling those of horn-bills and some few other birds. The head bears a long pendant crest of loose yellowish feathers. The body is olive-coloured, varied with white above, and beneath is of a dull bay. The wings are short and rounded. The tail is long and tipped with yellow. The legs are rather short, the feet stout, the tarsi reticulated, and the toes scutellated; the claws long and slightly curved. According to all who have observed the habits of this bird, it lives in bands on the lower trees and bushes bordering the streams and lagoons, feeding on leaves and various wild fruits, especially, says H. W. Bates (Naturalist on the River Amazons, i. 120), those of a species ofPsidium, and it is also credited with eating those of an arum (Caladium arborescens), which grows plentifully in its haunts. “Its voice is a harsh, grating hiss,” continues the same traveller, and “it makes the noise when alarmed, all the individuals sibilating as they fly heavily away from tree to tree, when disturbed by passing canoes.” It exhales a very strong odour—wherefore it is known in British Guiana as the “stink-bird”—compared by Bates to “musk combined with wet hides,” and by Deville to that of a cow-house. The species is said to be polygamous; the nest is built on trees, of sticks placed above one another, and softer materials atop. Therein the hen lays her eggs to the number of three or four, of a dull-yellowish white, somewhat profusely marked with reddish blotches and spots, so as to resemble those of some of theRallidae(Proc. Zool. Society, 1867, pl. xv. fig. 7. p. 164). The young are covered only with very scanty hair, like down, and have well-developed claws on the first and second fingers of the wing, which they usein clambering about the twigs in a quadrupedal manner; if placed in the water they swim and dive well, although the adults seem to be not at all aquatic.

(A. N.)

HOADLY, BENJAMIN(1676-1761), English divine, was born at Westerham, Kent, on the 14th of November 1676. In 1691 he entered Catharine Hall, Cambridge, where he graduated M.A. and was for two years tutor, after which he held from 1701 to 1711 the lectureship of St Mildred in the Poultry, and along with it from 1704 the rectory of St Peter-le-Poer, London. His first important appearance as a controversialist was against Edmund Calamy “the younger” in reference to conformity (1703-1707), and after this he came into conflict with Francis Atterbury, first on the interpretation of certain texts and then on the whole Anglican doctrine of non-resistance. His principal treatises on this subject were theMeasures of Submission to the Civil MagistrateandThe Origin and Institution of Civil Government discussed; and his part in the discussion was so much appreciated by the Commons that in 1709 they presented an address to the queen praying her to “bestow some dignity in the church on Mr Hoadly for his eminent services both to church and state.” The queen returned a favourable answer, but the dignity was not conferred. In 1710 he was presented by a private patron to the rectory of Streatham in Surrey. In 1715 he was appointed chaplain to the king, and the same year he obtained the bishopric of Bangor. He held the see for six years, but never visited the diocese. In 1716, in reply to George Hickes (q.v.), he published aPreservative against the Principles and Practices of Nonjurors in Church and State, and in the following year preached before the king his famous sermon on theKingdom of Christ, which was immediately published by royal command. These works were attacks on the divine authority of kings and of the clergy, but as the sermon dealt more specifically and distinctly with the power of the church, its publication caused an ecclesiastical ferment which in certain aspects has no parallel in religious history. It was at once resolved to proceed against him in convocation, but this was prevented by the king proroguing the assembly, a step which had consequences of vital bearing on the history of the Church of England, since from that period the great Anglican council ceased to transact business of a more than formal nature. The restrained sentiments of the council in regard to Hoadly found expression in a war of pamphlets known as the Bangorian Controversy, which, partly from a want of clearness in the statements of Hoadly, partly from the disingenuousness of his opponents and the confusion resulting from exasperated feelings, developed into an intricate and bewildering maze of side discussions in which the main issues of the dispute were concealed almost beyond the possibility of discovery. But however vague and uncertain might be the meaning of Hoadly in regard to several of the important bearings of the questions around which he aroused discussion, he was explicit in denying the power of the Church over the conscience, and its right to determine the condition of men in relation to the favour of God. The most able of his opponents was William Law; others were Andrew Snape, provost of Eton, and Thomas Sherlock, dean of Chichester. So exercised was the mind of the religious world over the dispute that in July 1717 as many as seventy-four pamphlets made their appearance; and at one period the crisis became so serious that the business of London was for some days virtually at a stand-still. Hoadly, being not unskilled in the art of flattery, was translated in 1721 to the see of Hereford, in 1723 to Salisbury and in 1734 to Winchester. He died at his palace at Chelsea on the 17th of April 1761. His controversial writings are vigorous if prolix and his theological essays have little merit. He must have been a much hated man, for his latitudinarianism offended the high church party and his rationalism the other sections. He was an intimate friend of Dr Samuel Clarke, of whom he wrote a life.

Hoadly’s brother,John Hoadly(1678-1746), was archbishop of Dublin from 1730 to 1742 and archbishop of Armagh from the latter date until his death on the 19th of July 1746. In early life the archbishop was very intimate with Gilbert Burnet, then bishop of Salisbury, and in later life he was a prominent figure in Irish politics.

The works of Benjamin Hoadly were collected and published by his son John in 3 vols. (1773). To the first volume was prefixed the article “Hoadly” from the supplement to theBiographia Britannica. See also L. Stephen,English Thought in the 18th Century.

HOAR, SAMUEL(1778—1856), American lawyer, was born in Lincoln, Massachusetts, on the 18th of May 1778. He was the son of Samuel Hoar, an officer in the American army during the War of Independence, for many years a member of the Massachusetts General Court, and a member in 1820-1821 of the state Constitutional Convention. The son graduated at Harvard in 1802, was admitted to the Massachusetts bar in 1805 and began practice at Concord. His success in his profession was immediate, and for a half-century he was one of the leading lawyers of Massachusetts. He was in early life a Federalist and was later an ardent Whig in politics. He was a member of the state senate in 1825, 1832 and 1833, and of the national house of representatives in 1835-1837, during which time he made a notable speech in favour of the constitutional right of congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. In November 1844, having retired from active legal practice some years before, he went to Charleston, S.C., at the request of Governor George Nixon Briggs (1796-1861), to test in the courts of South Carolina the constitutionality of the state law which provided that “it shall not be lawful for any free negro, or person of color, to come into this state on board any vessel, as a cook, steward or mariner, or in any other employment,” and that such free negroes should be seized and locked up until the vessels on which they had come were ready for sea, when they should be returned to such vessels. His visit aroused great excitment, he was threatened with personal injury, the state legislature passed resolutions calling for his expulsion, and he was compelled to leave early in December. In 1848 he was prominent in the Free Soil movement in Massachusetts, and subsequently assisted in the organization of the Republican Party. In 1850 he served in the Massachusetts house of representatives. He married a daughter of Roger Sherman of Connecticut. He died at Concord, Massachusetts, on the 2nd of November 1856.

See a memoir by his son G. F. Hoar inMemorial Biographies of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, vol. iii. (Boston, 1883); the estimate by R. W. Emerson inLectures and Biographical Sketches(Boston, 1903); and “Samuel Hoar’s Expulsion from Charleston,”Old South Leaflets, vol. vi. No. 140.

His son,Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar(1816-1895), was born at Concord, Massachusetts, on the 21st of February 1816. He graduated at Harvard in 1835 and at the Harvard Law School in 1839, and was admitted to the Massachusetts bar in 1840. From 1849 to 1855 he was a judge of the Massachusetts court of common pleas, from 1859 to 1869 a judge of the state supreme court, and in 1869-1870 attorney-general of the United States in the cabinet of President Grant, and in that position fought unmerited “machine” appointments to offices in the civil service until at the pressure of the “machine” Grant asked for his resignation from the cabinet. The Senate had already shown its disapproval of Hoar’s policy of civil service reform by its failure in 1870 to confirm the President’s nomination of Hoar as associate-justice of the supreme court. In 1871 he was a member of the Joint High Commission which drew up the Treaty of Washington. In 1872 he was a presidential elector on the Republican ticket, and in 1873-1875 was a representative in Congress. He was a member of the Board of Overseers of Harvard University from 1868 to 1880 and from 1881 to 1887, and was president of the Board in 1878-1880 and in 1881-1887. He was also prominent in the affairs of the Unitarian church. He was a man of high character and brilliant wit. He died at Concord on the 31st of January 1895.

Another son,George Frisbie Hoar(1826-1904), was born in Concord, Massachusetts, on the 29th of August 1826. He graduated at Harvard in 1846 and at the Harvard Law School in 1849. He settled in the practice of law in Worcester, Massachusetts, where in 1852 he became a partner of Emory Washburn (1800-1877). In 1852 he was elected as a Free-Soiler to theMassachusetts House of Representatives, and during his single term of service became the leader of his party in that body. He was active in the organization of the Republican party in Massachusetts, and in 1857 was elected to the State senate, but declined a re-election. During 1856-1857 he was active in behalf of the Free-State cause in Kansas. He was a member of the National House of Representatives from 1869 until 1877, and in this body took high rank as a ready debater and a conscientious committee worker. He was prominent as a defender and supporter of the Freedman’s Bureau, took a leading part in the later reconstruction legislation and in the investigation of the Crédit Mobilier scandal, and in 1876 was one of the House managers of the impeachment of General W. W. Belknap, Grant’s secretary of war. In 1877 he was a member of the Electoral Commission which settled the disputed Hayes-Tilden election. From 1877 until his death he was a member of the United States senate. In the senate almost from the start he took rank as one of the most influential leaders of the Republican party; he was a member from 1882 until his death of the important Judiciary Committee, of which he was chairman in 1891-1893 and in 1895-1904. His most important piece of legislation was the Presidential Succession Act of 1886. He was a delegate to every Republican National Convention from 1876 to 1904, and presided over that at Chicago in 1880. He was a conservative by birth and training, and although he did not leave his party he disagreed with its policy in regard to the Philippines, and spoke and voted against the ratification of the Spanish Treaty. He was regent of the Smithsonian Institution in 1880-1881, and long served as an overseer of Harvard University (1896-1904) and as president of its alumni association. He was also president of the American Historical Association (1894-1895) and of the American Antiquarian Society (1884-1887). Like his brother, he was a leading Unitarian, and was president of its National Conference from 1894 to 1902. He died at Worcester, Massachusetts, on the 30th of September 1904. A memorial statue has been erected there.

See hisRecollections of Seventy Years(New York, 1903).

HOARE, SIR RICHARD COLT,Bart.(1758-1838), English antiquary, was the eldest son of Richard Hoare, who was created a baronet in 1786, and was born on the 9th of December 1758. He was descended from Sir Richard Hoare (1648-1718), lord mayor of London, the founder of the family banking business. An ample allowance from his grandfather, Henry Hoare, enabled him to pursue the archaeological studies for which he had already shown an inclination. In 1783 he married Hester, daughter of William Henry, Lord Lyttelton, and after her death in 1785 he paid a prolonged visit to France, Italy and Switzerland. He succeeded to the baronetcy in 1787, and in 1788 made a second continental tour, the record of his travels appearing in 1819 under the titleA Classical Tour through Italy and Sicily. A journey through Wales was followed by a translation of theItinerarium Cambriaeand of theDescriptio Cambriae ofGiraldus Cambrensis, Hoare adding notes and a life of Giraldus to the translation. This was first published in 1804, and has been revised by T. Wright (London, 1863). Sir Richard died at Stourhead, Wiltshire, on the 19th of May 1838, being succeeded in the baronetcy by his half-brother, Henry Hugh Hoare. Hoare’s most important work was hisAncient History of North and South Wiltshire(1812-1819); he also did some work on the largeHistory of Modern Wiltshire(1822-1844).

For notices of him and a list of his works, many of which were printed privately, see theGentleman’s Magazinefor July 1838, and theDict. Nat. Biog.vol. xxvii. (1891). See also E. Hoare,History of the Hoare Family(1883).

HOBART, GARRET AUGUSTUS(1844-1899), Vice-President of the United States 1897-1899, was born at Long Branch, N.J., on the 3rd of June 1844. He graduated at Rutgers College in 1863, was admitted to the bar in 1869, practised law at Paterson, N.J., and rose to prominence in the State. He was long conspicuous in the State Republican organization, was chairman of the New Jersey State Republican Committee from 1880 to 1890, became a member in 1884 of the Republican National Committee, and was the delegate-at-large from New Jersey to five successive Republican national nominating conventions. He served in the New Jersey Assembly in 1873-1874, and in the New Jersey Senate in 1877-1882, and was speaker of the Assembly in 1874 and president of the Senate in 1881 and 1882. He was also prominent and successful in business and accumulated a large fortune. He accepted the nomination as Vice-President in 1896, on the ticket with President McKinley, and was elected; but while still in office he died at Paterson, N.J., on the 21st of November 1899.

See theLife(New York, 1910) by David Magie.

HOBART, JOHN HENRY(1775-1830), American Protestant Episcopal bishop, was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the 14th of September 1775, being fifth in direct descent from Edmund Hobart, a founder of Hingham, Massachusetts. He was educated at the Philadelphia Latin School, the College of Philadelphia (now the University of Pennsylvania), and Princeton, where he graduated in 1793. After studying theology under Bishop William White at Philadelphia, he was ordained deacon in 1798, and priest two years later. He was elected assistant bishop of New York, with the right of succession, in 1811, and was acting diocesan from that date because of the ill-health of Bishop Benjamin Moore, whom he formally succeeded on the latter’s death in February 1816. He was one of the founders of the General Theological Seminary, became its professor of pastoral theology in 1821, and as bishop was its governor. In his zeal for the historic episcopacy he published in 1807An Apology for Apostolic Order and its Advocates, a series of letters to Rev. John M. Mason, who, inThe Christian’s Magazine, of which he was editor, had attacked the Episcopacy in general and in particular Hobart’sCollection of Essays on the Subject of Episcopacy(1806). Hobart’s zeal for the General Seminary and the General Convention led him to oppose the plan of Philander Chase, bishop of Ohio, for an Episcopal seminary in that diocese; but the Ohio seminary was made directly responsible to the House of Bishops, and Hobart approved the plan. His strong opposition to “dissenting churches” was nowhere so clearly shown as in a pamphlet published in 1816 to dissuade all Episcopalians from joining the American Bible Society, which he thought the Protestant Episcopal Church had not the numerical or the financial strength to control. In 1818, to counterbalance the influence of the Bible Society and especially of Scott’sCommentaries, he began to edit with selected notes theFamily Bibleof the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. He delivered episcopal charges to the clergy of Connecticut and New York entitledThe Churchman(1819) andThe High Churchman Vindicated(1826), in which he accepted the name “high churchman,” and stated and explained his principles “in distinction from the corruptions of the Church of Rome and from the Errors of Certain Protestant Sects.” He exerted himself greatly in building up his diocese, attempting to make an annual visit to every parish. His failing health led him to visit Europe in 1823-1825. Upon his return he preached a characteristic sermon entitledThe United States of America compared with some European Countries, particularly England(published 1826), in which, although there was some praise for the English church, he so boldly criticized the establishment, state patronage, cabinet appointment of bishops, lax discipline, and the low requirements of theological education, as to rouse much hostility in England, where he had been highly praised for two volumes ofSermons on the Principal Events and Truths of Redemption(1824). He died at Auburn, New York, on the 12th of September 1830. He was able, impetuous, frank, perfectly fearless in controversy, a speaker and preacher of much eloquence, a supporter of missions to the Oneida Indians in his diocese, and the compiler of the following devotional works:A Companion for the Altar(1804),Festivals and Fasts(1804),A Companion to the Book of Common Prayer(1805), andA Clergyman’s Companion(1805).

SeeMemorial of Bishop Hobart, containing aMemoir(New York, 1831); John McVickar,The Early Life and Professional Years of Bishop Hobart(New York, 1834), andThe Closing Years of Bishop Hobart(New York, 1836).

HOBART PASHA,Augustus Charles Hobart-Hampden(1822-1886), English naval captain and Turkish admiral, wasborn in Leicestershire on the 1st of April 1822, being the third son of the 6th Earl of Buckinghamshire. In 1835 he entered the Royal Navy and served as a midshipman on the coast of Brazil in the suppression of the slave trade, displaying much gallantry in the operations. In 1855 he took part, as captain of the “Driver,” in the Baltic Expedition, and was actively engaged at Bomarsund and Abo. In 1862 he retired from the navy with the rank of post-captain; but his love of adventure led him, during the American Civil War, to take the command of a blockade-runner. He had the good fortune to run the blockade eighteen times, conveying war material to Charleston and returning with a cargo of cotton. In 1867 Hobart entered the Turkish service, and was immediately nominated to the command of that fleet, with the rank of “Bahrie Limassi” (rear-admiral). In this capacity he performed splendid service in helping to suppress the insurrection in Crete, and was rewarded by the Sultan with the title of Pasha (1869). In 1874 Hobart, whose name had, on representations made by Greece, been removed from the British Navy List, was reinstated; his restoration did not, however, last long, for on the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish war he again entered Turkish service. In command of the Turkish squadron he completely dominated the Black Sea, blockading the ports of South Russia and the mouths of the Danube, and paralysing the action of the Russian fleet. On the conclusion of peace Hobart still remained in the Turkish service, and in 1881 was appointed Mushir, or marshal, being the first Christian to hold that high office. His achievements as a blockade-runner, his blockade of Crete, and his handling of the Turkish fleet against the torpedo-lined coasts of Russia, showed him to be a daring, resourceful, and skilful commander, worthy to be ranked among the illustrious names of British naval heroes. He died at Milan on the 19th of June 1886.

See hisSketches of My Life(1886), which must, however, be used with caution, since it contains many proved inaccuracies.

HOBART,the capital of Tasmania, in the county of Buckingham, on the southern coast of the island. It occupies a site of great beauty, standing on a series of low hills at the foot of Mount Wellington, a lofty peak (4166 ft.) which is snow-clad for many months in the year. The town fronts Sullivan’s Cove, a picturesque bay opening into the estuary of the river Derwent, and is nearly square in form, laid out with wide streets intersecting at right angles, the chief of which are served by electric tramways. It is the seat of the Anglican bishop of Tasmania, and of the Roman Catholic archbishop of Hobart. The Anglican cathedral of St David dates from 1873, though its foundations were laid as early as 1817. St Mary’s Roman Catholic cathedral is a beautiful building; but perhaps the most notable ecclesiastical building in Hobart is the great Baptist tabernacle in Upper Elizabeth Street. The most prominent public buildings are the Houses of Parliament, to which an excellent library is attached; the town hall, a beautiful building of brown and white Tasmanian freestone in Italian style; the museum and national art gallery, and the general post office (1904) with its lofty clock-tower. Government House, the residence of the governor of Tasmania, a handsome castellated building, stands in its domain on the banks of the Derwent, to the north of the town. The botanical gardens adjoin. Of the parks and public gardens, the most extensive is the Queen’s Domain, covering an area of about 700 acres, while the most central is Franklin Square, adorned with a statue of Sir John Franklin, the famous Arctic explorer, who was governor of Tasmania from 1837 to 1843. The university of Tasmania, established in 1890, and opened in 1893, has its headquarters at Hobart. The town is celebrated for its invigorating climate, and its annual regatta on the Derwent attracts numerous visitors. The harbour is easy of access, well sheltered and deep, with wharf accommodation for vessels of the largest tonnage. It is a regular port of call for several intercolonial lines from Sydney and Melbourne, and for lines from London to New Zealand. The exports, of an average value of £850,000 annually, consist mainly of fruit, hops, grain, timber and wool. The industries comprise brewing, saw-milling, iron-founding, flour-milling, tanning, and the manufacture of pottery and woollen goods. Hobart is the centre of a large fruit-growing district, the produce of which, for the most part, is exported to London and Sydney. The city was founded in 1804 and takes its name from Lord Hobart (seeBuckinghamshire, Earls of), then secretary of state for the colonies. It was created a municipality in 1853, and a city in 1857; and in 1881 its name was changed from Hobart Town to the present form. The chief suburbs are Newton, Sandy Bay, Wellington, Risdon, Glenorchy, Bellerive and Beltana. The population of the city proper in 1901 was 24,652, or including suburbs, 34,182.

HOBBEMA, MEYNDERT(c.1638-1709), the greatest landscape painter of the Dutch school after Ruysdael, lived at Amsterdam in the second half of the 17th century. The facts of his life are somewhat obscure. Nothing is more disappointing than to find that in Hobbema’s case chronology and signed pictures substantially contradict each other. According to the latter his practice lasted from 1650 to 1689; according to the former his birth occurred in 1638, his death as late as 1709. If the masterpiece formerly in the Bredel collection, called “A Wooded Stream,” honestly bears the date of 1650, or “The Cottages under Trees” of the Ford collection the date of 1652, the painter of these canvases cannot be Hobbema, whose birth took place in 1638, unless indeed we admit that Hobbema painted some of his finest works at the age of twelve or fourteen. For a considerable period it was profitable to pass Hobbemas as Ruysdaels, and the name of the lesser master was probably erased from several of his productions. When Hobbema’s talent was recognized, the contrary process was followed, and in this way the name, and perhaps fictitious dates, reappeared by fraud. An experienced eye will note the differences which occur in Hobbema’s signatures in such well-known examples as adorn the galleries of London and Rotterdam, or the Grosvenor and van der Hoop collections. Meanwhile, we must be content to know that, if the question of dates could be brought into accordance with records and chronology, the facts of Hobbema’s life would be as follows.

Meyndert Hobbema was married at the age of thirty to Eeltije Vinck of Gorcum, in the Oudekerk or old church at Amsterdam, on the 2nd of November 1668. Witnesses to the marriage were the bride’s brother Cornelius Vinck and Jacob Ruysdael. We might suppose from this that Hobbema and Ruysdael, the two great masters of landscape, were united at this time by ties of friendship, and accept the belief that the former was the pupil of the latter. Yet even this is denied to us, since records tell us that there were two Jacob Ruysdaels, cousins and contemporaries, at Amsterdam in the middle of the 17th century—one a framemaker, the son of Solomon, the other a painter, the son of Isaac Ruysdael. Of Hobbema’s marriage there came between 1668 and 1673 four children. In 1704 Eeltije died, and was buried in the pauper section of the Leiden cemetery at Amsterdam. Hobbema himself survived till December 1709, receiving burial on the 14th of that month in the pauper section of the Westerkerk cemetery at Amsterdam. Husband and wife had lived during their lifetime in the Rozengracht, at no great distance from Rembrandt, who also dwelt there in his later and impoverished days. Rembrandt, Hals, Jacob Ruysdael, and Hobbema were in one respect alike. They all died in misery, insufficiently rewarded perhaps for their toil, imprudent perhaps in the use of the means derived from their labours. Posterity has recognized that Hobbema and Ruysdael together represent the final development of landscape art in Holland. Their style is so related that we cannot suppose the first to have been unconnected with the second. Still their works differ in certain ways, and their character is generally so marked that we shall find little difficulty in distinguishing them, nor indeed shall we hesitate in separating those of Hobbema from the feebler productions of his imitators and predecessors—Isaac Ruysdael, Rontbouts, de Vries, Dekker, Looten, Verboom, du Bois, van Kessel, van der Hagen, even Philip de Koningk. In the exercise of his craft Hobbema was patient beyond all conception. It is doubtful whether any one ever so completelymastered as he did the still life of woods and hedges, or mills and pools. Nor can we believe that he obtained this mastery otherwise than by constantly dwelling in the same neighbourhood, say in Guelders or on the Dutch Westphalian border, where day after day he might study the branching and foliage of trees and underwood embowering cottages and mills, under every variety of light, in every shade of transparency, in all changes produced by the seasons. Though his landscapes are severely and moderately toned, generally in an olive key, and often attuned to a puritanical grey or russet, they surprise us, not only by the variety of their leafage, but by the finish of their detail as well as the boldness of their touch. With astonishing subtlety light is shown penetrating cloud, and illuminating, sometimes transiently, sometimes steadily, different portions of the ground, shining through leaves upon other leaves, and multiplying in an endless way the transparency of the picture. If the chance be given him he mirrors all these things in the still pool near a cottage, the reaches of a sluggish river, or the swirl of the stream that feeds a busy mill. The same spot will furnish him with several pictures. One mill gives him repeated opportunities of charming our eye; and this wonderful artist, who is only second to Ruysdael because he had not Ruysdael’s versatility and did not extend his study equally to downs and rocky eminences, or torrents and estuaries—this is the man who lived penuriously, died poor, and left no trace in the artistic annals of his country! It has been said that Hobbema did not paint his own figures, but transferred that duty to Adrian van de Velde, Lingelbach, Barendt Gael, and Abraham Storck. As to this much is conjecture.

Back to Index Next